I run into this on dating apps. “Centrist” and “apolitical” are both code for “conservative.”
I’ve heard that many men do this because they’ve realized, in some capacity, that outright admitting they’re right-wing limits their opportunities. In my circles, I’ve noticed this “I’m actually a centrist/apolitical” trend is also found among popular developers and tech influencers.
Saying you’re anti-woke gets you shunned and surrounded by horrible people, but saying you’re just apolitical gets you the blessing and protection of self-proclaimed centrists. When you, for example, marginalize LGBT folks and get called out, countless will gather to complain about people “dragging politics into tech.” Bryan Lunduke will come out of his cave and write a piece about how the trans fetish is trying to kill open source.
I’m talking about women, but I e heard the same things you have about men.
It’s not really a gendered thing to publicly distance yourself from personally held beliefs if those beliefs are unpopular.
“I believe women have the right. The right to be a trad wife.”
Right probably think apoliticals are secret leftist too no?
I don’t know many leftists who keep that secret. “Apolitical” is typically indicative that someone is more or less fine with the status quo, which is an inherently conservative position.
An older acronym for the same thing, BSABSVR
Both Sides Are Bad So Vote Republican.
Both Sides Are Bad So Vote Republican.
God, growing up, I heard the equivalent of that so often from the less-lead-poisoned of my conservative community.
“Well, you don’t really know what’s true, and both sides lie. Really, both parties are just out for themselves. There’s no difference between them.”
“So you aren’t voting?”
“Oh no, I’m definitely voting Republican.”
Oh yeah, “The Smaller Of Two Evils” - they said in 2016. A few years later I asked: “how did that work out for you?” - embarrassed silence. One of the best I-told-you-so-moments I ever had.
It will work in 2028, trust me, just keep rich Neoliberals in power please god please.
We found one!
asking Democrats to stop campaign like Bush-era neo-cons is now apparently a right wing position
> there being a vote in 2028
good one
That may be the worst acronym I’ve ever seen.
The late 90’s to early 2000s were a terrible time on the internet in many ways and yet in may others it was the best of times.
It was the worst of times, it was the L33t of times.
*holds up spork*
I prefer BEATSABERVR
deleted by creator
Representative democracy is a lie, but if they let you vote you can still use that vote to help choose your adversary. Better a genocidal ‘centrist’ than a genocidal fascist, at least until the left is strong enough that they could take the right in a fight credibly enough for the ‘centrists’ to pick the left.
deleted by creator
Same. There are some views that should disqualify one from holding public office, and supporting genocide is one of them.
While you are correct, voting for democrats is not because we love them and love everything they do. We vote democrat because we need to keep the batshit insane far right out of power.
If we don’t or if we vote far right, a lot MORE people will suffer and die. That does not mean we agree or like or approve that people suffer and die under democrat rule.
Under biden people were deported and put in camps. But under trump they are put in concentration camps in a foreign country where they will most likely not leave alive.
Either we get shot in the leg (democrats) and we fight and do everything we can to help others. or we get shot in the head (republican/far right) and we can’t do anything to help others because we are either dead or in a concentration camp in el salvador.
deleted by creator
Did you not read what i said? I literally explained they are shit and don’t give a fuck… fucking hell…
deleted by creator
Wise take. We live in this world, we have to make the better choice, even if it’s still a bad one. Maybe later you can move from genocidal ‘centrist’ to a non genocidal one, but this is a full on accelerated descent into amorality, hatred and love of ignorance for the US.
Yeah but you hate democracy if you say that!
“Both sides bad, bit aT leAsT tRuMp iS hOnEst aBoUt iT!”
The Honesty:
“You won’t have to vote anymore”
“Dictator on day one”no one said that
or maybe centrists in the USA be like
I have never met a “centrist” on social media who wasn’t. Same with the horseshoe theory.
Let’s take America: are you for democracy or against it? - “I can see both sides” - wtf? Fascist enabler, at best.
I prefer stethoscope theory.
They did a U-turn!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
This stethoscope diagram just reeks of a rebranding attempt similar to how Libertarians were adamant that they were not just Republicans yet somehow still only voted Republican and would support Republicans in all things even if it explicitly went against libertarian doctrine.
Horseshoe theory is more accurate. Hard left is tankies. Tankies are hard left.
Horseshoe theory completely ignores the actual origins of the terms Left and Right in order to push a false narrative that they’re somehow the same.
It’s very simple. The terms Left and Right come from a vote held in the French Assembly just before the Revolution.
The vote was, “should the King have an absolute veto over laws passed by the Assembly?” Those sitting to the Left of the Speaker’s podium said No, those to the Right said Yes.
Knowing the true origin of the terms makes defining them easy, if you are in favor of more power to the people, then you are on the left, if you think power should be concentrated to the few, you’re on the right.
This can apply to social issues as well. If you think minorities deserve protection and representation then you are on the left, if not you’re a horrible person.
The economy, if you think everyone should have a truly fair shake, you’re on the left, if you think money makes some people better than others, you’re on the right.
See how easy that is? Which is why the right wing invented Horseshoe theory. To confuse people.
That and some dictators flat out lied about what they were doing and claimed to be Communist.
Because Lenin betrayed the Revolution after losing the only free and fair election that Russia has ever had.
Some people just cannot wrap their head around the difference between totalitarianism and socialism.
But I will say this: viewing political opinion on a straight line never really made much sense. At the very least one should think of it as a field (2 dimensions instead of 1). And of course this does NOT mean that I approve of the horseshit theory.
Every time I try to come up with a different metric, it usually boils down to, “where does the ultimate power lie”.
In an ideal democracy, that power comes from the consent of the governed, i.e. the people and their direct vote. But that’s usually untenable on larger scales, so thus power is concentrated. The how of that concentration can lead to all sorts of axis on a chart, but in the end, the other side of the chart is usually some form of direct democracy, i.e. returning power to the people.
The meaning of words change over time, that’s the same for “left” and “right”
You’re framing the “right” to rewrite the current meaning with the historical meaning, which just doesn’t work.
It scares me that there are so many upvotes on this. Misinformation is on both sides, and you’re comment is proof of that.
What are the current meanings of left and right?
Complicated question. There is no fixed definition, and this is multi factorial.
To put it simply, I’ll say
Left: equality (economical, social, no discrimination), more state centered, ecology, at the price of private property (specifically private property of companies, factories, means of production) and less freedom (individual rights and economical).
Right: more freedom (specifically economical), stronger (traditional) culture, patriotism/nationalism, less state centered at the price of less equality (limited help if you don’t succeed).
Overall that’s not strict, and there are a few examples of that: non-conservative right (doesn’t seem to exist in the USA).
It’s also important to say that people often have ideas that are a bit of both sides: ex: more economical freedom (right), but no patriotism/nationalism (less right), but more equality in terms of identity (gender, ethnicity…), democracy (can apply to both left and right)
Let’s break down your idea of the “right” because it does need to be analyzed.
You say “more freedom”, but you never actually specify who gets more freedom except in a backhanded way of contrasting your idea of the left, who limit the freedoms of companies.
This is an important point. The Right gives companies and the rich, more freedoms, which in historical context has always meant more freedoms to exploit, or even kill their workers in the name of profit. This conversely means less freedoms for actual people who don’t want to die or be poisoned by some rich asshole who wants to make a buck.
You also say Traditional culture, which has always meant more rights to rich white men and fewer rights to minorities and women. Or maybe you want to couch it by saying a push for more religion, which then means less protections for the people who practice the wrong religion.
But you see how every single point goes back to more power for some people at the expense of everyone else.
This is not a bug, this is a feature. Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre both wrote about how this was the desired outcome, and how democracy was a threat to “traditional values” and how the idea of equality was, in their words, repugnant.
There is a direct through-line from those two bastards to every single conservative thought leader of today, and many of them use the exact same talking points.
So you go into a conversation about a modern topic where the modern definition of terms is a particular thing, and then you said “well ackshually the definition of this in 1780 was this so you’re wrong”.
I don’t think anyone cares what the definition of left and right are in 1780s France and it has no bearing on a modern discussion of these terms.
The point I’m making is that the trough line has always been, Right-wing concentrated power, Left-wing distributed power.
The fact that certain dictators have pretended to be left-wing, and right-wing jackasses have gone along with it, is where the deliberate confusion was introduced.
Communism as proposed by Marx is a true leftwing ideology, the Totalitarian dictatorship created by Lenin was communist in name only, it had more in common with Feudalism than communism. Mao was just as bad. An out of touch dictator who told farmers to plant their seeds several feet underground, and when that obviously failed, feasted while they starved.
That doesn’t seem anything like what Marx wrote about, or rather it was disturbingly similar to what Marx wrote about capitalism.
But again, right-wingers love to confuse the issue, because it turns out kings are not popular, so you have to lie to get people to bow before one.
The left is more than just socialism and communism.
And the right is more than just conservatism and facism
And all of it is utter shit.
The world is shit
Let’s burn it all! 🔥
We’ve learned by this point fascism is an inherently right wing ideology.
If you seriously think the Nazis were socialists or Stalin was a communist then you should just accept you like fascism.
That image isn’t saying that they aren’t hard right. It’s saying the standard spectrum of left right doesn’t account for how practically similar the two extremes actually are in how they operate.
Bear in mind that we are actually talking about extremes at those ends of the shoe. Genocidal dictators. Trump is not Hitler or Stalin. He’s not that far around the horseshoe, yet.
deleted by creator
I have never read a more nonsensical piece of logic in my life.
Ok Ms. Rand
😘
Anarchists are far left. Tankies are far right. Hope this helps.
This is why I fucking hate the political spectrum.
The left wing is for state managed finances, and putting the collective ahead of the individual. The right is for completely unrestricted economic freedom, and putting the individuals desires far ahead of any collective need. Meanwhile, we also tend to associate social freedom with the left, and conservative tradition with the right. So which of these systems defines anarchists?
It’s just a false dichotomy, and we need to stop simplifying everything to a binary. The 4-point grid is “better,” but it’s honestly just time we stop reducing complicated and nuanced ideologies into “this or that.”
You need at least two axes (plural of “axis”) to describe political ideologies.
We need a political tesseract with 4 axes
And my axes! (as in 2 “ax”, not plural of axis)
Trying to describe politicial idiologies on a graph is just a pointless endeavor.
I mean, its possible.
For example, fascism is described as 38.8974,-77.0374 (2025-01-20T12:00:00-05:00 — Present)
Tankies are far left. You can go wrong on both sides. You could also technically go far right without being a complete dictature
Left and right isn’t as simple as “good” and “bad”
How does making a false statement help?
So the diagram is saying Socialism and Conservatism are the same?
I’m guessing it was made by someone who identifies as a Liberal, seeing as according to the diagram it’s the only correct choice, as everything else is closer to Fascism.
Also note: while a diagram can help explain an argument, it is not an argument by itself, as there is no reason for someone to believe it is true by default.
I’m guessing it was made by someone who identifies as a Liberal, seeing as according to the diagram it’s the only correct choice, as everything else is closer to Fascism.
Yep. Some people really think lack of opinion is some form of enlightenment, that they stand above things because they say “I can see both sides” to everything.
That’s not what’s meant at all. The real thing is this one:
It just means that far left and far right are closer to each other than one can think, in the fact that they both lead to an authoritarian or totalitarian system.
It is obviously an over-simplification and inaccurate, but is mainly a way to criticize both extremes
I’m guessing it was made by someone who identifies as a Liberal, seeing as according to the diagram it’s the only correct choice
Probably. Being in the center doesn’t mean you’re correct, but yea, it seems pretty biased
Where do you consider anarchist philosophy to be on that graph? That is an idiology that is both far left (collectivist by nature) and libertarian (no central authority).
I don’t know enough about anarchism but it seems indeed that it doesn’t nicely fit into the “left, right” classification.
I’d argue it should be classed to the left
I would personally put it under the “far left” category, since anarchists strive for drastic, radical change, completely demolishing capitalism, whereas more moderate social democrats, for example, want to maintain our capitalist economic system, but with tweaks around the edges.
At the same time, anarchism is just about the furthest idiology from authoritarianism that exists in the context of modern society.
Liberalism is enlightenment?
Nah centrism is also bad. There’s really only one good small wedge of the horseshoe.
Congrats on becoming a parody of yourself. “Here’s a diagram made in MS paint that shows how stupid all this ideology stuff is. Anyway, only my tiny sliver of the graph is good and the rest of you are all doo doo brains. I’m so very smart and enlightened.” Please touch grass, I promise it will improve your mental health.
You sound like an idiot.
Removed by mod
Proponents of horseshoe theory argue that the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center. Seems like a theory a right-winger would create to save face.
I will say, some far leftists have ideas that seem more libertarian on a surface level, like dismantling the state, but it’s for different reasons, and generally far-lefts aren’t common. What Americans consider “far left” is just advocating for common decency
Thr horshoe no longer exists today in any meaningful way, but it did for a brief moment pre tea party. There used to be a group of people that believed in both universal health care and understood risk pools, and would not directly vote to restrict personal rights. Pretty small group now.
There used to be a group of people that believed in both universal health care and understood risk pools, and would not directly vote to restrict personal rights.
You mean social democrats (or just slightly left leaning Democrats for USians)? TIL they are a mixture of extreme right and extreme left.
Thr horshoe no longer exists today in any meaningful way
Never did. Because it’s a theory.
I can only tell from down votes that people are either young, or grew up on the coast.
What does any coast have to do with this topic? Is this some sort of US-defaultism?
Or age, for that matter?
I note that you did not address my argument btw.
Another one I noticed is they say shit like “well they’re saying two opposite things, so you cannot know the truth”. Mother fucker, if you dig a tiny bit the truth is out there, waiting for you, but they cannot accept one side is lying (it’s theirs)
Even if they’re not a right-winger and don’t claim to be a centrist, "both-sides"ing things is a waste of time, at best.
Like, when Jon Stewart came back to the Daily Show. I think it was his first show back, but it might have been his second… And his main talking point was about how both Biden and Trump were old. I know he’s just a comedian on a comedy show, but it still felt like a betrayal. At the very best, it was a waste of a chance to say something that could have actually made a difference.
He pointed out that they are the oldest candidates ever to run, beating the previous record of…the same two old white guys 4 years prior. Seemed pretty germane to mention that we have a serious lack of younger and diverse representation
I agree 100% with everything you said. Just like you said, it was a good point and definitely worth a mention. My problem is that it was the main segment of his first show back. Just like I said, a waste of time when there were much more important things to talk about.
I mean, they are both old, I don’t think that’s a perspective that should be discounted. That’s not a discussion on policy or who one should vote for as much as it is the understandable concern about whether either of them would still be alive for their entire second term.
I like Jon, but TDS has done more harm than good for the left.
-
It just normalized the Republican CRIMINAL behaviour by making fun of it and laughing, like it was no big deal
-
It made an entire generation complacent becuase people though watching TDS and jucking along was actually doing fuck all to actually fight Republicans or help Democrats.
-
And finally, like you said they’d frequently have both sides segments that the right loved to echo on their propaganda networks
-
Tbf, you shouldn’t take news from a comedian.
They are meant to entertain, not inform. If they side with one party too much, they lose viewers.
They need views from “both sides” which is the precise reason why they have to “both sides” everything.
Comedians and court jesters have always been some of the most honest and straight forward. They don’t bite their tongue or fret over access. You shouldn’t discount them. Entertainment is one of the best methods of informing. You will spend infinitely time more learning in an entertaining way. Then beating your head against a dry impenetrable text that you struggle to comprehend.
The comedian in question is Jon Stewart, though. Do you really think that Jon Stewart has to “both sides” everything so that he doesn’t alienate his conservative audience? I doubt that you’re saying that. I don’t think he has ever done that.
It doesn’t make sense to try to generalize how comedians act when we’re talking about how one specific comedian acts, and it’s already clear that he doesn’t act like the generalization presented.
I have no doubt that Jon Stewart simply did the segment because he thought it was funny, and he didn’t care about alienating people.
The reason I’m so sure is that he predictably alienated a lot of left leaning people with his “both sides are old” segment. I say “predictably” because there’s simply no way that somebody didn’t talk to him before air and say something like, “You know, this is going to irritate the people who like you the most.”
Funny how there’s a bunch of people in the comments essentially just unironically repeating the meme: “Well this must be wrong because I believe this and I’m actually a centrist!!!”
That’s the point, buddy. You’re the butt of the joke. The idea that the far-left and far-right are equally bad or warrant the same amount of scrutiny and criticism is a right-wing belief.
To make the point more obvious instead of using “left” and “right” look at specific political beliefs that the far-left and far-right have:
-
Equality across social and demographic groups vs. State-enforced racism, sexism and other kinds of bigotry
-
Abolishment of bourgeois property and money vs. Complete privatization, oligarchy and corruption
-
Globalization, peaceful relations and a right to live where you want vs. Complete isolationism and xenophobia
-
Right to self-governance and no government with a monopoly on violence vs. State sanctioned violence against those considered undesirable or traitors
Hopefully I don’t need to explain which one is obviously worse. To equate what the far-left and the far-right advocate for one must misrepresent the left, so both-sides-ism inherently has a right-wing slant.
the left general public: let’s alienate the people that might agree with us, but be shocked when the right wins.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Left : “Stop bombing civilians”
Centrists : “Let’s meet in the middle and bomb only some of the civilians.”
But common sense hur dur
I like to come into these comments because it gives me a fresh batch of new “centralists” to tag.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
What does right wing mean to you?
What does right wing mean to YOU?
Right now to me it means basically private control of the means of production. Because left has seemingly become a euphemism for collective control of the means of production.
Anyone who thinks any different than they do.
They are both bad in their own ways just one is the lesser of two evils.
But to me both sides suck
Don’t let the downvotes change your mind. Lemmy is clearly leftist and you must not be brainwashed into changing your political beliefs to follow the mass. Keep your critical thinking!
I won’t letting it change my beliefs. I love when people downvote instead of having a conversation they just do that. If I’m wrong with my belief I’ll admit it but you can’t learn without actually talking.
And wait till they find out I’m a democrat
True
In what world is, “Equality across social and demographic groups” seen as evil?
In the world where tankies are pretty much the only thing you see when you see people talking about far-left/communism, and where past examples of far-left countries aren’t really good for people (imo)
Communism and far-left is more than just “Equality across social and demographic groups”. It’s not as simple as a finger snap and everyone is equal. It often comes with important costs. Some people value more their freedom for example.
The road towards communism has been far more beneficial and prosperous than the capitalist road we’re currently treading. You claim that equality comes with important costs, but i will argue that the benefits far outweigh the “costs”, and wouldn’t be so much different than the current costs of maintaining the status quo.
Agree to disagree then 🤝
🤝
Pretty bold of you to assume I’m considering that evil
You said as much when you said communism is the lesser of two evils, “Equality across social and demographic groups” being it’s core tenet
Lmaoooo but I wasn’t referring to that 😂😂😂
Ok, maybe i misunderstood you then
-
There’s also:
“Leftist” insisting on “both sides”.
-mask pull-
Russian bot
Russian bot
So a right-wing fascist supporter.
Yup but they are not self-aware enough to realize that hard leftism is actually right-wing
that hard leftism is actually right-wing
What?
You read what I said.
“authoritarian” would probably be more helpful than “right-wing” in this context.
They are the same picture.
But they’re objectively not. They share similarities with authoritarianism, not necessarily right wing ideology. If you don’t care about that very real distinction that’s fine, but using incorrect language just makes it harder for people to take you seriously.
I will go back to not caring about this.
You think anarchism is the same as authoritarianism?
I would say hard leftism is often conflated with whatever the hell Tankies are doing, and I wouldn’t really consider them leftist. Most haven’t read any theory beyond Soviet/CPC praxis (if they’ve read any at all), which is pretty conservative/authoritarian by modern leftist standards.
On the other hand, the kneejerk of labeling every even remotely centrist viewpoint as inherently dishonest is pretty annoying. My own views lean SocDem and I’ve found voicing any opinion which is neither solidly left-wing or solidly right-wing, especially if it does not align with very American-centric views of the political spectrum, often elicits unpleasant reactions. Nuance is hard, I guess.
As an anarchist. The seething hate I’ve received for pointing out. That the genocide in Palestine is truly an appropriate both sides thing. That it wasn’t just Biden or just Harris. That it was our senators, our Congress people, and the executive branch.
That it was going to be a Republican or a Democrat that won the presidential election. And we all would definitely prefer it wasn’t for the Republican. Or that if Fox News covers you without wildly editorializing or smearing you. You done fucked up. You could be forgiven for thinking I had just strangled their grandmother’s from the reaction.
Could you give an example of a centrist viewpoint that you’ve voiced that would be labeled as inherently dishonest?
Being in favor of mixed economies, with stock markets, venture capital firms, but also universal healthcare and protection for unions. Being against American style basically unregulated firearm ownership (which seems quite popular on both the far left and far right, yet maybe not so much in the middle). And I feel free to criticize the actions of parties or politicians across the political spectrum, not just those on one side. I understand many people, especially the political left which I sympathize more with, are very angry these days. Justifiably. So am I. But being accused of being dishonest just for having a different point of view is annoying.
Then you are a far left Democrat, not a centrist. There’s nobody anywhere in the right 80% that believes in universal healthcare, e.g. higher taxes.
My own parents are lifelong Democrats and want lower taxes
Sorry man. You’re too intelligent and nuanced to be a “centrist”.
Thanks. I suppose I should add I’m not American. Perhaps the takeaway is no two-party political system, such as in the US, can have a “political center” because the respective “left” and “right” parties seem inevitably to become opposed to each other on every issue? Things are different in Europe, where multiple parties can support the same policies, but to different degrees or funded differently.
Plenty of EU political parties which are labelled center-right on Wikipedia aren’t completely dead-set on destroying the entire social safety in the same way the Republicans are in the US, for example. Although they simultaneously might call for reduced benefits and lower taxes.
Also, many EU countries have what I would consider actual left-wing parties in parliament. On some issues I would consider myself slightly right of Germany’s “Die Linke” for example.
Ah fascinating, thanks for sharing all that. Yes for sure you may be a centrist in Europe but here in the States you would be far left.
I genuinely appreciate that response thank you.
Both sides exclude me for holding my particular set of opinions. I’m on my side, fuck you!
That’s actually fair. Maybe more parties would be better?
Finally some common sense.
Yea, make your own opinions, and fuck everyone who criticizes a political category
What beliefs would exclude you from both sides?? I feel like you’re making this up just to seem “different” tbh
In America that’s dead easy. Try being pro-choice, an LGBT ally, for personal liberty, anti-corporate, pro-gun, and pro-environmentalism. You can salt and pepper that with whatever other opinions you choose.
Ain’t nobody in power catering to you. The Democrats are all kissing the asses of megacorporations and are anti-gun-ownership, because they’re all little tin pot authoritarians just like most professional politicians, and don’t want anyone being able to challenge their authority. And they’ve been demonstrably strongly against personal liberty in general since forever. Meanwhile the Republicans are simply insane, and I don’t think I need to delve into detail there considering the rest of the content in this thread.
So who does that leave anybody with?
The notion is, hold your nose and vote for the Democrats because they’ll screw you over more slowly. And by and large that’s what we do, because there is no other viable option.
Nuance is inconvenient to radicals and fundamentalists.
The US has little nuance. Your dominant parties are Fascist and Far-Right Neoliberals with some token LGBT rights.
I’m not American, luckily.
He’s a troll, don’t bother.
The word nuance doesn’t belong in a discussion involving genocide.
Or princess bride meme.
This is some crazy doublethink shit. It’s clear just looking at the inconsistent interpretation from all the top-level comments that ‘centrist’ is a blanket term that both describes ‘centrist’ positions and also ‘left/right radicals’. The only consistent is whether the subject is subjecting the in-group to criticism
The same user constantly harps on ‘far-left’ progressives complaining about democratic positions, and calls himself a centrist.
This is just standard ‘out-group’ gatekeeping. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” shit.
“Bothsides types are indistinguishable both in form and in end-result, regardless of whether they claim to be centrists or leftists”
“This is crazy doublethink shit!”
The same user constantly harps on ‘far-left’ progressives complaining about democratic positions, and calls himself a centrist.
what
Bothsides types are indistinguishable
… Yea, see there it is. “Bothsides types are indistinguishable [in the way they criticize my party]”
[in the way they criticize my party]
What
Don’t be dense. Define ‘bothsides type’ that includes all subsets of the group you’re talking about. I’d bet pretty penny it isn’t limited to people who use the phrase ‘both sides are exactly the same’.
I’m gonna guess this is pretty close: ‘someone who criticizes the democrats without clearly signaling their electoral support of them’
Or, put another way:
[in the way they criticize my party]
Don’t be dense. Define ‘bothsides type’ that includes all subsets of the group you’re talking about. I’d bet pretty penny it isn’t limited to people who use the phrase ‘both sides are exactly the same’.
Those who present of all major sides of an issue to be indistinguishable because they are both flawed, with the implicit or explicit exhortation to support neither, when there are obvious and important differences between the two with one being unambiguously preferable.
I’m gonna guess this is pretty close: ‘someone who criticizes the democrats without clearly signaling their electoral support of them’
I mean, harm reduction is not morally optional, but criticizing the Dems without signaling electoral support is not inherently a “BOTHSIDES” reaction, excepting, say, in the immediate lead-up to an election of unusual importance wherein the only realistic options are fascism or the Dems.
When there is an immediate crisis coming up, wherein messaging is extremely important, and you choose to amplify messages that help fascists without bothering to amplify messages that damage fascists, it’s difficult to see that as anything except service to fascism.
When there is an immediate crisis coming up, wherein messaging is extremely important, and you choose to amplify messages that help fascists without bothering to amplify messages that damage fascists, it’s difficult to see that as anything except service to fascism.
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us”
Democrats wanted everyone to shut up about how much was wrong that needed fixing so that they could win, and leftists wanted democrats to acknowledge how much was wrong that needed fixing so that they could win.
Throwing the leftists in with the right-wingers assumes that the rest of the country wasn’t already feeling the pain the democrats were trying to suppress.
Those who present of all major sides of an issue to be indistinguishable because they are both flawed, with the implicit or explicit exhortation to support neither, when there are obvious and important differences between the two with one being unambiguously preferable.
Lmao, here’s what this reads like:
A person who complicates a binary political choice at politically inexpedient moment by pointing out a flaw present in both binaries
No wonder American politics has regressed into pure symbols and signs.
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us”
That is literally what a FPTP election results in, yes. I see this is still taking time to sink in.
the “obvious and important differences” are obvious and important to you because you drink the left’s koolaid while the right drinks your milkshake.
the reality is that the Democratic party exhausts it’s voters’ emotional reserves, and consequently is ineffectual at winning hearts and minds, Then they blame the public for apathy.
That is a strategy that is basically guaranteed to put fascism in power. Who knew?
The centrists knew. And when we tried to engage you in conversation about it, you ridiculed and attempted to maneuver with rhetoric, instead of truly engaging.
the funny thing about this is - or sad, maybe, I’m not sure which - is that centrists often have the emotional wherewithal to handle extreme situations. We’ve been dealing with extremes all of our lives. We see how they feed into each other because we actually grapple with the things others would rather blame other people for. We see that what the left is doing is ineffectual. We see that what the right is doing is vile. We act on it - actually take action, not protest - in the ways we can, in our own lives.
So… …if the right wins, and it really goes poorly, it’ll be a fucking shit time for all of us. But it’ll be beyond that - it’ll be hell for you who have ridiculed others instead of growing, because not only will you have to face the physical reality, you’ll have to face the psychological and emotional realities you always refused to, in the middle of everything else going to shit.
Grow, or suffer. Grow, or repeat. That is the law you are bound by, and yet you don’t make a rational choice.
deleted by creator
you drink the left’s koolaid while the right drinks your milkshake.
Who knew?
The centrists knew.… What the fuck? Is this that ‘anti-woke’ bullshit I keep seeing spewed on late-night talkshows? There’s nobody left in the fucking center. I only partially agree with you - democrats think it sufficient to pound the drums of ranbow-capitalism, when it’s the capitalism part that voters are actually livid about. Apathy doesn’t happen when their ‘emotional reserves’ are run dry or whateverthefuck, it happens when they give up on the democratic party for making actual substantive changes. You think anyone gives a fuck about infrastructure spending when billionaires are running rampant, buying public platforms to manipulate public attention and building toy rockets so they can make-pretend that their astronauts? Fuck no. The fact that they instead spend their media time scaremongering about social issues is secondary to the fact that they’re doing that while the country becomes a playground for the egos of oligarchs. Yes, trans rights are under attack and we should protect them, but that’s not a substitute for addressing the systemic changes that are making everyone miserable.
We see that what the left is doing is ineffectual. We see that what the right is doing is vile. We act on it - actually take action, not protest - in the ways we can, in our own lives.
Lmao is this a parody? Take action in your own life… How? by mowing your fucking lawn? Imagine if the civil rights movement didn’t bother protesting and instead dedicated their time toward… what, emigrating out of their homes in the south? Boycotting the segregated cafes they weren’t allowed into? “Protesting is lame” says the centrist that definitely isn’t over-privileged prick
But it’ll be beyond that - it’ll be hell for you who have ridiculed others instead of growing
Grow into what?? What even is the centrist vision for the democrats? More child tax credits and free vaccination programs? That’s your big vision to defeat fascism? GTFO lmao
Removed by mod
Wait, are you talking about both sides as in the political parties, or both sides as in far left and ‘centrist’ secret nazi?
Still sick of this blaming apathetic voters for the clear failure of the Democratic Party. You had mentioned that harm mitigation trumps all moral consideration of choice. That’s short term thinking, one that has gotten us in this mess. If democrats want to play chicken putting ‘their’ progressive voting base against their neoconservative principles, that is a failure on them. Their actions after losing further prove their deficit. I warned you specifically during the election what the outcome would be because of how the democrats acted.
Still sick of this blaming apathetic voters for the clear failure of the Democratic Party.
Bruh, a third of the country sat at home and did nothing as fascism, openly stated, ran to claim all levers of power in the government. If you think voter apathy isn’t a serious contribution in this issue, I don’t know what the fuck to tell you.
You had mentioned that harm mitigation trumps all moral consideration of choice. That’s short term thinking, one that has gotten us in this mess.
Sorry, am I suppose to prioritize the feelies of people who abstained over the millions of marginalized people who are going to die because of this administration?
Sorry our lives aren’t pure enough to be worth your fucking vote.
If democrats want to play chicken putting ‘their’ progressive voting base against their neoconservative principles, that is a failure on them.
This was the most left-leaning Dem platform in fucking decades.
But hey, anything to avoid responsibility for voters ushering in fascism, right?
You mean the Democratic Party sat around and assumed they could further their own power grab because the American people had no choice but to vote for them. You mean the Democratic Party is currently sitting around doing nothing… wait, no—they are actively censuring their members who are talking truth to power. That’s much worse than if they did nothing at all.
If you’re going to blame someone, blame the ones responsible for fascism. Then blame the ones who gambled our future to further the agenda of their donors. The party knew they abandoned their progressive voter base. They miscalculated, and now they’ve doubled down. Fuck. Them.
I explicitly told you that the Democratic Party pushing neocon policies and pushing “vote blue no matter who” WOULD CAUSE VOTER APATHY. Voter apathy is a symptom, of direct democrat action. I told you I would vote for Harris—UNDER EXTREME DURESS.
What do you mean “the most left-leaning Dem platform in fucking decades”?
Fucking Bernie Sanders ran in 2016. Harris, against all reason and hope, stated directly that she would not change Democratic policy—the same policy that has ratcheted us to the right for decades. Biden, in his time as president, failed to achieve anything when he specifically had the windows to do it. So no. That is an outright lie.
absofuckinglutely.
Well you’re just wrong about most of this
We voted, alright. it’s called a vote of no confidence.
Removed by mod
I’d rather have a politician who does absolutely nothing than a fascist.
Yes, this is how the two-pronged strategy works to ensure the working class never improves its standing.
Fascism only improves the standing of those on top.
deleted by creator
But unfortunately not one that my fellow Americans seem to have appreciated.
They’re not political, they just wantt to see common sense policies on immigration (for brown people) and crime (for brown people).
Which is a shame because immigration can be one of the greatest boons to rural America.
Here “common sense” means incredibly harsh.
