Enlightened Centrism
Enlightened Centrism
488 comments
-
-
Maybe I’m the centrist in this scenario, but isn’t that just normal left? I’d expect far left to be like “we are going to exterminate all the rich then give their stuff to everyone else”
-
In the US at least, the entire country is so far right that the position above is actually far left in our political sphere.
-
Haha yeah US is so backwards. And I'm surprised the world hasn't built a massive wall around us because we literally use God as part of our laws, how many weapons we have stockpiled, how many citizens die from unnecessary violence, how little we care about the homeless.
And any sort of empathy about any of those problems, even pointing it out, isnt even a discussion point in politics because itll go nowhere fast.
-
In my country's political sphere it is right or center-right.
-
-
The 'far left' described in that tweet is the 'center right' in Norway. USA politics feels weird and alien to Europeans.
-
I mean it feels weird and alien to us too.
All of it makes a lot more sense when viewed through the lens of who has money and who wants that money.
-
Aha! I'm not alone! In Russia center-right too.
Norway is not ex-republic, so I guess it is same in entire Europe then.
-
-
Depends on what you mean by "far." If you mean believing in a radical restructuring of society along Communist lines, this can be done peacefully. Pacifism is an extremist position as well. Conflating "radicalism" with "violence" is just centrism at work.
On the same hand, there are extremely violent centrists. Kissinger murdered millions of people as a liberal, for example, which is a center-right ideology. Centrism isn't about non-violence.
-
Centrism is fear of change in the now vs conservatives which is a reaction against change before.
-
-
we are going to exterminate all the rich
Only edgy teens on social media genuinely think this is a logical political goal you should advocate for in the first world on this day and age
then give their stuff to everyone else
If you change this to: "concentration of private property in few hands is a poisonous hydra that will forever feed inequality", then yes, that's a milquetoast far left take, which often comes from the desire of actually "getting everyone's needs met" and the idea that capitalism naturally organizes the economy in a way that disincentives letting a portion of the working class being comfortably capable of getting all their needs met.
And honestly, given the positions of most politicians on actually doing something to make housing affordable, I honestly think "getting everyone's needs met" is becoming a far left position.
-
Centrists think "We all want the same thing, why are you so biased against the fox's ideas about how to build the henhouse?" They don't believe the far right wants to exterminate, so the far left is evil for being willing to fight them.
-
It's possible to be far left without being a psychopathic murderer.
-
“we are going to exterminate all the rich then give their stuff to everyone else”
This is so last century. we are going to exterminate all the rich by giving their stuff to everyone else.
-
Yes, this is just lazy circle jerk stuff.
-
-
USA: we don't have a left. Democrats are at best center.
-
USA has a left. They almost never win at the ballot box, though. You have to find them in the streets.
-
You don't have a right either though, at least not a right on the democratic spectrum.
All you've got are "unacceptable" and "fascism".
-
This. Republicans and Democrats have been moving steadily to the right for the last 40 years. So now, Democrats are where Republicans were in the 1980s: boring corporatists who are best friends of banks, insurance and pharmaceutical companies. We haven't had a real progressive president since Jimmy Carter and that was 50 years ago.
Meanwhile, the right has moved all the way into an insane asylum. Their best friends are Russian oligarchs, fascists, religious nutjobs and civil war re-enactors, who communicate on Twitter and "Truth Social" and call themselves "Republicans."
-
They are more right than russian right-wing politicians. Even in USSR second opposition party was right-wing Liberal-Democratic Party of Soviet Union.
-
-
-
The answer is always in the middle. Let's do a little basic needs but only for the rich and a little genocide but only in the middle east
-
This is actually the platform of the Democratic Party.
-
Okay, but if you say that then Donald Trump will win.
-
-
-
It says something, that securing people's basic needs is considered "far" left.
-
The joke is this is a meme made by the far left.
In reality they overspend till the government is soooo weak that their little friends can steal and rob in each and every part of the local government, central government ans government companies.
At least that's how it goes in every single country in south America
Viva noboa Milei and bukele! Fck trump
Vote left in developed countries
Vote right in undeveloped countries
Unfortunately this is the way.
-
-
That's not really the ideas of the left itself though but opportunists abusing the system for their own gains, perverting the very ideas that they swear to follow. Communism/socialism is a great idea that will always fail because of greedy, selfish people IMO.
-
Viva noboa Milei and bukele!
-
If you think there is such a thing as a "far" left it means you are the joke.
-
-
-
Tankies on Hexbear: Both fascists, you really shouldn't vote
-
Tankies and fascists get along well.
-
Neo-colonialism and anti-colonialism are just two sides of the same coin.
-
-
-
People who already have their needs accounted for always seem so convinced that things will turn out hunky dory if things escalate to violence, and yet so rarely pass thought on the folks who are already struggling enough without The Troubles Part II Red Cap Boogaloo coming to a car bombing near them.
-
"Well I don't think we can meet everybody's needs so I'm unfortunately gonna have to side with the other movement, sorry!"
-
Unfortunately too many groups suffer from if I can't get 100% of X, fuck it all. And it goes across all spectrums.
-
"Candidate A has a plan that'll help 85% of people have affordable healthcare, and Candidate B will make it unaffordable for everyone else -- I guess I'm choosing neither since there isn't an option for 100%!" - Tankies
-
-
-
my team: perfect angels
your team: evil monsters
it literally does not matter what two groups you are comparing, if you sound like this then a lot of people are not going to engage
-
When I think centrist I think not belonging to a team. When you align yourself to a team, you tend to overlook the bad shit your side is doing. It's fair to say both sides are the same in that both have some bullshit that they're participating in. The actual content matters. The far left isn't going into schools and shooting kids for example.
-
But... what if your electoral system requires you to vote for 1 side, and one of those sides is seeking to remove the choice between sides?
Really, it might be nice to think of yourself as not belonging to a team, but I think that's just a refusal to acknowledge the shitty state of US politics. Like if you don't want to be on a team then by default you're on the team that will allow you to choose.
"Yeah my mum and dad want a divorce. Dads a violent abuser who's trying to kidnap me, but I don't want to choose sides you know"
-
allow me to remind you that judging a group by its absolute worst members is the basis of most prejudice
the far right isn't shooting anyone, it's an ideology. you're thinking of domestic terrorists. if you were to comment on the considerable overlap then that would be one thing, but I don't think your implication goes that deep.
since I know the chance of this being lost on people is high, my entire point of playing devils advocate is to express that dehumanizing your political opponents is cognitive bias
-
-
your team: evil monsters
They're not monsters. They're a chronically persecuted freedom loving party of large jungle cats. And I may not agree with what they have to say, but I will die for their ri- AH MY FACE! THEY'RE EATING MY FACE!
-
-
why do people say these thing when they know its not true
-
It works. They know that banning abortions just drives abortion into back alleys, the point is they need that sort of autonomy in women to be effectively criminalized in order to regain the kind of control they had over women's bodies back when the boomers were still teenagers. They know abstinence-only teaching doesn't prevent unwanted pregnancy, they don't care and they want criminalizing abortion to be socially acceptable again.
They understand that the people demanding 'election integrity' are just using those words to make their real project- winning power despite having unpopular policy options on offer- seem respectable.
It doesn't matter that you're saying things too stupid for people to believe, the stupid ones will believe it anyways and the evil ones will use the stupid people to make civil politics uncivil
-
Tribalism. The other side are seen as sort of dumb animals and no rationale they have to think in that way can be valid.
-
-
-
Conservatives:
Liberals: "no nazis or bigots. We want fair pay and basic human rights"
Wow, it's so hard to see the difference.
-
Liberalism is solidly right of center, its Social Democracy that is slightly right of center. Conservativism is just fascism.
-
I'd say slightly center from right
-
-
Far centre: Would you guys just fuck already.
-
Leftists: never show up to vote
Also leftists: nothing ever gets done. Both parties must be the same
Edit:
More info from Pew 2022 election polls:
Age and the 2022 election Age continues to be strongly associated with voting preferences in U.S. elections. Nearly seven-in-ten voters under 30 (68%) supported Democratic candidates in 2022 – much higher than the shares of voters ages 30 to 49 (52%), 50 to 64 (44%) and 65 and older (42%) who did so. Compared with 2018, GOP candidates performed better among voters who turned out across age groups.
Also:
Older voters turned out more reliably in both elections – and continued to be largely loyal to Republican candidates.
-
Leftists absolutely do vote, lmao. Voting won't move America left though, because we have 2 right wing parties.
-
Leftists absolutely do vote
No they don't.
In 2022, younger voters made up a smaller share of the electorate than they did in 2018. In 2022, 36% of voters were under 50, compared with 40% of voters in 2018. Decreased turnout among these more reliably Democratic voters contributed to the GOP’s better performance in November.
Older voters turned out more reliably in both elections – and continued to be largely loyal to Republican candidates. For example, among adults ages 69 and older in 2022
Pew Research - 2020 election
If leftists understood how much power they have at local elections they would absolutely participate. Same goes for federal. But time and time again, they don't bother to be active politically because of attitudes like yours.
-
-
-
It's funny to see people that have swallowed anti communist peograganda hook line and sinker flounder in here trying to discredit the far left.
-
hehe peograganda
-
-
-
-
I talk to people in person and have discussions where I do just that. Online? So many fucking bullshit frauds pushing agendas that there is no point even attempting it. Online centrists are largely full of shit.
-
-
-
-
centrists are usually right wing wanting the votes/approval from left
-
Centrists are right wing afraid to call themselves right wing.
-
The right wing in the US is so fucking right wing that what is considered right wing elsewhere are called democrats
-
-
-
"I'm fiscally Republican and socially a Liberal" is another great line to hide behind.
-
As someone that's called a centrist a lot...
I think it's more "I'm tired just let me die."
-
No. Centrists: "We think absolutes turn into fucking problems. We should have a choice and not a choice between two things we ALL don't like."
-
Absolutes are not problems by themselves, you must evaluate each case.
As an example, the only correct stance is being absolutely against the KKK, and not give a shit if the KKK objects to that. You're saying that's a problem, and that the KKK should be heard out. Fuck that.
-
Absolutely. But they are a problem. The KKK is not supported and exactly what I was considering an absolute. So I stand by what I said. There should be more diversity in the voting structure and not so many flashy carnival rides.
-
This is a total strawman.
It's an nonsense response to a concept that should be considered reasonable.
Bringing up the KKK in the concept of general problem solving views is a distraction from consideration that reasonable people can solve problems. It exaggerates reasonable people with those who are not.
Nobody but KKK considers them reasonable.
-
But that anti-KKK stance is not as extreme as it could be. I'll give you an example of a more extreme stance: Every member should be tortured and executed, everyone who they were friends with should be imprisoned, everyone who mentions the name "KKK" should be imprisoned.
That is an extreme stance and it is ridicolous too. And in most (all?) cases, extremism also means authoritatian. Do you have an example for an extreme stance is any good?
-
-
But why do you not like meeting everyone's basic needs?
-
I do. I just don't buy the whole "that wasn't real communism, this time it'll be different, we totally won't trample all over human rights" crap. Especially not when those same people are praising the likes of Castro, Xi, Lenin, and assorted other dictators.
-
Because they are babies with no political literacy.
-
-
-
But isn't being forced to pay taxes a form of extermination?!
-
Extermination of inequalities
-
-
FAR LEFT IN SOUTH AMERICA : let's do deals with dictators and narco generals.
-
narco generals.
You mean the narco generals beloved by Ronald Reagan?
-
WHY O WHY DO MY COMMENTS GET DOWNVOTED BY 20+ TANKIES WHEN I SAY THIS IN OTHER THREADS?
THEY ARE AN ORGANIZED BUNCH OF EXTREME LEFTISH PEOPLE THAT WANT TO MAKE YOU THINK THAT BUKELE MILEI AND NOBOA ARE BAD GUYS.
But in reality all the leftish politicians in all of South America are literally helping the FARC SINALOA and Cuba and venezolano DICTATORS.
And here on lemmy the leftish people from Amsterdam and New York defend those ZURDOSDEMM while they never visited the continent and don't speak Spanish and have NOT been informed about the real life effects of a government spending more as they have an loaning from CHINA in USD @ 11.5% INTEREST. (not a car loan, government bonds...)
-
-
-
You can argue that this time we can make communism work guys and abolishing most private property would be considered far left. I don't think violence is implicit in the extreme left like it is with the far right its just the natural consequences of any authoritarian government regardless of orientation.
The other problem with comparing the two is that even though left and right—by American standards— are SOMEWHAT equally represented the far right is like 30% of the pop and the far left more like 1%. Electing the left caries no risk of the extreme folks running the show they barely have a voice. Electing the right implicitly means letting the extremists run the show they are the majority of the right.
-
I have been missing the nutty and nonsensical comments from Reddit. I’m so happy Lemmy has grown big enough that we now have our own weird bots to rewrite history for us. #Blessed 🥰
Edit: Oh, wow, getting downvoted by right wing bots; I’m home.
-
@FlyingSquid In my humble experience and understanding 'centrism' has been always an euphemism for 'far right' for the "politically correct" miserable cowards...
-
-
@FMT99 Agree, but I don't see this as a recent development. Dogmatic absolutism, or mere dogmatism, has been a very long and old issue -not just in the left, obviously.
Anyway, about police, the problem ain't single ones, but the social role that apparatus plays in the social regime. (Most police individuals usually came from the working class...)
-
-
Agreed.
-
That's quite a humble understanding imho. Centrists are technocratic. Evidence led, not ideological. Take good ideas from the centre right on regulating business and combine that with social policies from the left.
The Nordic model basically.
-
-
Undecided voters are the stupidest people on the face of the Earth.
-
If by centrists, you mean neo-liberal Democrats, you got it.
-
I would not mean those people because I would consider them to be on the right. I mean people to the left of them but not left enough to reject corporate influence and embrace ideas like socialized medicine and housing.
-
I guess I see neo-liberals (focusing on white liberalism as a political movement) as not seeing themselves on the right. They think of themselves as being on the left, but are effectively antagonistic towards leftist policies, a highlighted example of this being the tension between "mainstream" Democrats and the progressive caucus within the Democratic party. White liberalalist ideology is fundamentally Neo-liberal and anti-revolutionary. Bipartisanship, institutionalism, incrementalism, these are the hallmarks of white liberalism. They extend from the ideals of a class of people who benefit from the existing structures in society. They don't support racisim 'explcity' but they do benefit from it implicitly, and so support the institutions that build a racist society. In this way they can 'oppose' racism, but still benefit from it. They support 'change' but only want to pursue it in nickels and dimes, unwilling to commit to universal programs that benefit everyone (Obamacare is a perfect example of this). White-liberals have no problem making common cause with explicitly fascist or racist groups, because to them the politeness of society is more important than its outcomes. Not Nazis, but willing to caucus with them. See the recent border vote for an example of this.
Its easy and convenient to see right-wing fascist as the entirety of the problem, but those people would have no ability to drive their agenda forward if not for white liberals. White liberalism ineffectual approach to governing, disinterest in revolutionary or universal programs, and insistence on decorum and appearances is fundamental to why the right-wing has been so effective and capable in furthering their project and agenda. This is why everyone should be challenged by the blue-no-matter-who arguments. All you have to do is look at the previous 24 years of history to recognize that this is a fundamentally white-liberal argument (as in, a direct extension of white liberalism as a political philosophy). Its not working. It hasn't worked. It doesn't work. We shouldn't expect it to work in the future. IT results in the worst possible match ups to win elections. If you are a leftist, it leaves you strategically vulnerable at every possible turn and historically has generated only negative progress.
White-liberalism is the second partner in a dance with white-nationalism towards fashism. White nationalists simply would not have been able to progress their agenda this far without it. It wasn't just the Nazis that drove Germany into fascism. It was also the other parties who empowered, emboldened, and appeased the Nazis in their pursuit of power, which is precisely what we see 'moderate' Democrats doing today. If you want to deal with the rise of fascism in the US, you need to address white liberalisms control of the Democratic party first.
-
-
-
Humans are emotional and tribal creatures. Hopefully we'll merge soon.
-
nobody denies that it's hard, being incredibly stupid.
-
But if it stays hard, call a doctor.
-
-
Good lord... the comments on here proves that lemmy.world is flooded with politically incompetent libs that couldn't tell the difference between left and right if their lives depended on it.
If you believe that there is such a thing as an actual "left" in formal political establishments, this means you.
-
-
In an American point of view if I may
-
I can't tell them apart in the way they both seed discord to keep people united behind them. I can't tell them apart in the way they tear apart families with propaganda. In that sense, I'm a centrist.
You can argue one of them does less material damage all day, but they both rely on each other to exist in their current form. They are both predatory institutions that I will not be a part of.
-
Centrists get it from both ends.
-
Double penetration
-
-
That's not why we are centrists...it might have more to due with our two choices of geriatric patients who are in a steep mental decline.
-
You're centrist because the candidates representing two major political parties are old? So, if a young person showed up, you'd vote for them, regardless of their platform?
-
Possibly.
-
-
Nope, you're either with us completely, or you want genocide of everybody. There's no other nuisance here.
-
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Either way, this is definitely the message that's being broadcasted on loop in a lot of places, especially here. On the surface it seems to be trying to convince swing voters to lean left. If that's the case, it very much misses the mark. I'm not positive that this is a US specific message, but that is my perspective.
I had a much longer rant typed out, but it wasn't terribly constructive. The long and short of it is that we have a lot of problems that need to be addressed in this world that have yet to even be acknowledged (and thus no solutions proposed) because they are being drowned out by the handful of arguments that are the most emotionally charged and thus, least productive to debate. Every election has been a "race to the bottom" and every year it starts earlier, lasts longer, and gets stupider. That is to say, there is no intellectual consideration whatsoever. It is no longer a discussion about governance, it is a cheerleading mantra for a sports team. The arguments are all emotionally charged and feel more like propaganda than discussion - this is what "both sides" are guilty of. The candidates don't even bother to show up to debates anymore, and it doesn't seem to make a difference.
I have my opinion about who is the worst option, but that does nothing to convince someone looking for a reason to vote **for ** someone, not **against ** someone.
-
Lol...sure.
-
-
-
The left: we're gonna spy on everyone to make sure you're fine and doing well!
The right: dude nobody's looking who cares
Centrists: are either of you sure and aware of your statements?
-
The left is not saying this.
-
Kinda like the right doesn't say that. But here, points don't matter and we make up the rules as we go.
-
Depends on where you are. Where I am at the right cares more about privacy, the left more about security.
The left cares less about privacy, mostly because most of their supporters are younger.
We have a system that allows both sides, parted in different parties, to decide together on certain laws.
-
-
Doesn't the right want to check the genitals of children and police bathrooms so those lovely trans kids don't accidentally live a normal life?
-
Nah the right don't give a shit about that, that's the conservatives.
Political right means more individualism, and being able to live without government interference where it's not neccesary.
Political left means more involved government, both helping people and keeping an eye out for criminals/things people do that could be considered criminal.
People like to forget that the whole world is not Murica :)
-
-
-
-
This is, quite frankly, just wrong.
To be a centrist in the context of American Political Parties is to be a right-winger. America has 2 right wing political parties, and the only point of being a centrist in this context is to separate yourself from fascists.
To be a centrist in the actual meaning of left and right, ie Socialism vs Capitalism, is to be a Social Democrat.
Left does not necessarily want gun control as well.
Right wing does not have better foreign policy positions than the left wing, right wing foreign policy is basically "minorities evil."
All of what you called the "far left" is just straight up wrong. The far-left wants Socialism, and maybe even Communism or Anarchism. It isn't about banning books or whatever evil strawman you want it to be.
The far right is just fascism.
What you call "reality" is just a leftist stance, the centrists don't care about class conflict and right wingers side with the bourgeoisie.
-
Let's also talk about the way "left" and "right" are represented.
Essentially, the terms come from the placement of seats in British parliament back in the day, it has nothing to do with some "poles" or "extremes".
Yet here we are, representing it as two extremes - something it has never been. You know what extremes actually are? Total oppression of majority by the minority (edge case - one person owning everyone else as slaves) and total oppression of the minority by the majority (edge case - entire world bullying one person). You know what's in the middle? Total equality, where nobody oppresses anyone. That's the center, the neutral state, where no oppression takes place.
You might call it some mental construct, but we've actually seen a lot of examples during socialist/communist revolutions, with minority of previously rich and powerful being systematically oppressed, sent to camps etc. This is "lefter" than the far left, however, as it makes it detrimental to have any sort of power, this state of things usually doesn't last long, which is why this is often ignored as a consideration. But it doesn't deny the fact such "actually left" exists.
-
I think you're encountering an issue of taxonomic framework.
There are two general models I encounter when asking people to visualize the idea of political left and right. There is a sort of ring model where people veiw things as left with fascism on the far right and communism on the far left... But that facism and communism are also side by side creating a seemless loop. This sliding scale model is the most common and easiest for people to grasp quickly but has problems when seeming contradictory things occur that are not easily sortable.
The issue with this system is that it treats things like communism as a logical evolution of socialism.. Which is actually not particularly sensible because there are many things between those two systems that are fully diametrically opposed. (Also - side note I think we need more words other than Socialism for socialism because there are completely different formats of socialism existing under that umbrella term and the "that's not REAL socialism" sometimes gets hung up between two entirely valid forms both termed SOCIALISM)
The other model of left vs right which is gaining more traction turns to a more basic it continuum. It describes the relative distance between ideologies by a sort of triangulation method. The main factor of this model is how much does an ideology scatter power and influence laterally (left) vs how much does it reinforce powers into a heirachy or preserve hierarchies that already exist (right) . In this way it also allows you to navigate based on when and where you are and what power structures are in place.
For instance in this model libralism, often considered sort of center right for being quite pro-capitalist and concerning itself with individual property rights - would be actually center left IF the power incumbent is an autocracy like a monarchy. Since the fixed point is anchored in two basic poles it creates a navigation system when discussing the left and right with decent historical continuity and treats social ideologies as landmarks in relation to each other.
It also solves for some particular contradictory stances normally considered "left" or "right". Take the issue of gun control. From a leftist perspective gun rights and gun control are both potential ways to scatter power.-
- On the one hand giving people a chance to self millitarize means you have the potential force to resist the demands of a heirachy imposed upon you. Hence you scatter power to resist violence.
- On the other gun control can scatter power by creating a measure of public safety from a gun owning class. You scatter the power by valuing the freedoms of people who don't want to own guns and thus scatter power between those two groups.
Hence both are effectively in line with different spheres of leftist thinking. Gun control could also be a feature of the right to seize power to make citizenship more vulnerable to state violence and gun rights could be approached from a right wing perspective when veiwed as an factor that allows existing power hierarchies to be maintained if one is uncritical about how guns interface with issues of violence against vulnerable people.
-
-
Far left here.
Aside from the fact left and right are intentionally super fucked in American politics and do not represent what you make it out to be, even if we talk of true left and right, there's a lot of issues with the way you describe it.
Far left does not advocate for "banning books" or "killing police" - moreover, if you think about it for more than a second, those two are incompatible since banning books would require a solid police force. It's entirely a strawman argument, just as "letting criminals roam free" (please find that in any program of the Left) or "fucking heritage of white males" (please find Marx or someone saying that).
As per helping others at the expense of poor dying Americans - there are two points to note: first, left expects to move money not from "poor Americans", but from actually rich people that won't die on the streets even if we take 90% of their wealth; and second, you consider it central to your idea that Americans are more valuable than anyone else in the world, that helping one American is more right than helping two Ethiopians, for example, which is super fucked if you ask me. People are people, and they all suffer equally. Ignoring greater harm reduction is actively making the world a worse place.
-
just as “letting criminals roam free” (please find that in any program of the Left)
Don't look at programs, look at the effects of programs named "do good stuff for some people"
-
-
Every depiction of "the left" and even "the far left" I see from """centrists""" is so laughably off base from actual people on the left in the real world.
Just say you want to demonize the left cause your "centrism" lies between mid right dems and far right Republicans. Save us all some time.
-
This nation needs to end the left/right party bull shit
George Washington explicitly opposed the existence of political parties iirc.
-
Can you link some left-organized suppression of books or book burnings in the US? I'm going to say within the past ten years. Because I know I can link plenty of examples coming from the right.
And I guess I'm not far left enough because I've never met someone who expressed a desire to kill police, and can't actually remember seeing that online from anyone except the occasional edgelord.
let violent criminals roam free because they have ‘mental ailments’
That's a claim I see from the right a lot, but not a belief I've seen espoused. Personally I don't like that Reagan dismantled our national mental heath resources and that Republicans keep voting down attempts to expend resources in that area, while also sidestepping our gun problem as a mental health issue.
if you’re a white male - fuck you and your entire heritage.
As long as you don't think the most critical part of your heritage is a traitorous nation that existed within our borders for less time than I've owned the underwear wrapping my ass as I type this, and don't try to pretend racism ended with the emancipation proclamation or even the civil rights act, I think you're good. I'm about as white as you can get, and I'm even old and look like I should have a maga cap on, and somehow I haven't run into the problem you are describing there.
Left, better for social and universal needs of the people. Get a lot of the automatic guns off the streets. Make a heath system that does not put people into years of debt, or outright denied service because “sorry this specialist doctor for your hyperspecifc issue is not in your insurance network.”
All these positions are painted as far left by Republicans, and are not taken seriously as a result.
-
I generally agree. All the loudest people are on the edges.
I see so many people take the stance that because there are extreme opinions on the other side, the entire other side is evil.
I feel people take an extreme stance because of other people's extreme stances. It's a cycle someone has to break.
I would love to see parties disappear or more show up. I'm sure there's pros/cons to each.
Edit, I also see politicians on each edge that have millions of dollars. Some didn't start out as rich as they are, but boy are they rich now. Johnny Harris illustrated this pretty well in a video he did.
-
-
ALL Leftists according to rightists: "all I want is basic needs met, obviously anyone who doesn't grant a toddler universal basic income, and free on demand sex change surgery and accompanying hormones is obviously a nazi. Also, fuck white people, fuck men, fuck anyone in an incumbent demographic category. Simply by being male and white you should immediately pay reparations for daring to exist. Anyone who even asks about any of these subjects is committing a crime and should never be allowed to speak again. Also it's illegal to not be attracted to fat people"
ALL Rightists according to leftists: "Anyone who I'm too stupid to understand shouldn't exist. There is no middle ground or grey area on anything, it's my way or the highway. All minorities shouldn't exist at all, no one should exist who doesn't conform to my specific set of arbitrary values. Anyone who says otherwise is a communist and hates themselves. Literally everyone must die. The police never make mistakes and any form of authority must be taken as 100% true at face value"
Centrists: "you both seem extremely closed-minded and I'm struggling to come to any conclusion other than being extreme is bad, and that these are complex subjects. I will try to focus on not being extreme."
Yeah anyone can write literally anything you fucking idiots
Edit: how you know you were right - butthurt downvotes without accompanying replies
-
The right is focused on enforcing and upholding hierarchy, and oppression of minority groups. The left is focused on combating entrenched hierarchy and oppression. Simple enough.
-
Are you really so single minded that you cannot see the negatives you are glossing over? Hierarchy is an accepted part of society, human nature, and is the main mechanism by which resentment is kept at bay.
If you have ever dismissed someone as "stupid" you are bought into that. You accept/assert that some people don't have the same cognitive ability as you, and this is a bad thing, and what they have to say is LESS VALUABLE than what you have to say.
As a generally progressive and intelligent species, we can no doubt find a place for that person in society based on their other merits, but don't get it fucked up.
-
Thats your biased opinion.
-
-
-
I can tell them apart, but the result of the two is the same because once you centralize power (to get more leftist stuff done faster), those with power realize that the far-right offers dictators more. See Russia, for starters. Look at lists of what countries have the smallest percentage of poor people - it's all social-ish democracies like Iceland, Japan, and France.
-
I think most leftists are against power centralization. Most leftist want a more powerful democracy.
-
-
Centrist here. I don't think the point of horseshoe theory is that the far-left and far-right are the same. The point is simply that they have similarities. Like both wanting to use violence to achieve their aims.
-
Further note that of the vaguely possible candidates, the far left just isn't in play in the US. The far right is somewhat represented in the Republican side.
That's the difference currently, that both the far right and far left are dangerous in theory, but currently only the far right is a threat in practice today in the US
-
All politics is violence
-
Well, if we're talking about actual physical violence against people, I don't think advocating for that is a great idea. Especially since, if you try to use violence against people you don't like, they will probably try to use violence against you.
-
-
-
The left:
The right: we’re gonna do genocide
The right:
Uh, what? Can you provide any evidence of this whatsoever? Like, a shred perhaps?
The left:
You’re racist!
-
While transgender people in the United States have historically struggled to live freely, deliberate calls for eradication of transgender people arose with particular force in the 2020s.[citation needed] At CPAC in 2023, Daily Wire host Michael Knowles gave a speech where he said, "Transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level." In response to people who said that he was calling for genocide, Knowles stated that "nobody [was] calling to exterminate anybody".[25] As part of his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump vowed to stop gender-affirming care for minors, calling it "child mutilation."[26] Project 2025, a document outlining intended conservative policies, called "purveyors" of "transgender ideology[. . .]child predators and misogynistic exploiters of children."[27] Project 2025 conflates transgender people with pornography, and calls for pornography to be outlawed, for teachers and librarians who talk about transgender people to be imprisoned, and all telecommunications that allows transgender people to talk on it to be shuttered.[28]
...
Sue E. Spivey and Christine Robinson have argued that the ex-gay movement, which encourages transgender as well as other LGBT people to renounce their identities, advocates social death and therefore could meet some legal definitions of genocide.[32]: 68–70 Spivey and Robinson argued that "by waging a culture war using hate propaganda and misusing scientific research to gain public legitimacy, the movement seeks to deploy state powers and the medical profession to perpetrate genocidal acts on its behalf."[32]: 83
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_genocide#United_States
-
Trail of Tears, American Slavery, the actual Holocaust, what's going on in Palestine right now, and many more.
-
-
Pretending that you don't favour certain groups over others is exactly why sane people don't take you seriously, regardless of what group you associate yourself with in an attempt to siphon off some legitimacy from others you don't actually have any real relation with.
-
I really wish people in a meme community would take me seriously. It's why I post here.
-
-
And then there are people like vivian, who are dumb enough to actually believe this bullshit.
-
-
Centrist isn’t “both sides”
It’s like people on lemmy or B Sanders
-
-
At this point I'm ok with exterminating the label people. Keep your labels to yourself and try really hard to solve a problem without them.
-
You want to exterminate everyone who assigns a label to themselves? You realize that's pretty much every person?
-
No. Everyone who puts labels on others for easy handling.
-
-
-
i just try my best to think logically and realistically idc abt left or right opinions
-
Can you give us a logical and realistic right-wing opinion?
-
The Republican Party of today does a massive disservice to any shred of the concept of a logical and realistic right-wing opinion.
And even then, the ideals depend heavily on the system functioning properly. Honestly a properly functioning right-wing state could be as good or better for individual freedom and security than a properly-functioning true socialist state.
However, I think it takes a hell of a lot of faith in the right-wing system to even get close to something fair and functional in the real world.
-
Right wing or far right?
When you get to "far", well by definition you have extremists. Things are distorted know because the far right has power and the far left essentially doesn't exist in our political system. So it's hard to ignore the extremism.
Also, though we like a spectrum, it doesn't cut in one dimension. One flavor of "right wing" says government stays out of stuff, especially religious stuff, but another flavor wants a theocracy. The latter flavor is at the wheel in the Republican party now, which is dangerous.
In terms of a realistic theoretical right position I'd say favoring reducing spend over raising taxes is a defensible position. Now problem again being the Republicans tossed this and spend at least as much as the Democrats, but are less responsible about tax revenue as they do it.
I'm wary of the dangers of partisan driven politics (your "team" becomes your ultimate loyalty), but in the current climate I side with the Democrats because the Republicans have just been getting more and more nuts. I still want to watch the nuance and vote for candidates rather than blindly for a party, because complacency can be a dangerous position.
-
"private property is necessary for a functioning society."
or is that liberals? I get them confused all the time
-
-
Thinking logically and realistically, without checking if left or right, inevitably leads to a leftist slant. There's nothing logical or realistic about right wing thought, that's why they usually suppress the scientific community and educational systems.
-
-
Brilliant example of a logical fallacy called false dichotomy.
-
See, it would have to be false to be a false dichotomy. This is just a regular dichotomy.
-
-
When your only idea to solve problems is violence you don't care for having people's needs met, you just want to dominate others and still claim to be the good guy. I see that on the side of "the left" and you can distance yourself from that without becoming right wing or conservative.
-
Is that really 'far' left, though? Far left is, "let a handful of governors control everything, on behalf of communal ownership, and they will make sure everyone's needs are met fairly."
-
I think the use of "far left" in this meme is based on the labels that right wing media is pushing on the 'normal' left.
-
That's not the far left, that's Capitalism. The Far Left is for democratic control of Production and working towards a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society via Worker Ownership, whether that be through a state or via Anarchism.
-
I don't think far left implies statelessness. I know communist governments are not taken as an ideal picture of far left, but I thought far left politics still has state governorship over public ownership?
You say Worker Ownership, but I thought the thing about 'left' versus 'right' is a collective ownership (requiring presumably some manner of management) versus individual ownership (that permits capitalism if people have full freedom to trade).
-
-
-
Also far left: "we're gonna vote a clear centrist into office because surely that will create progress and not backfire"
-
Far right: give me absolute power so I can make the country strong!
Far left: give me absolute power so I can make everyone in the country equal!
Centrist: Both of these groups are made up of grifters and the rubes that fall for the scam that is ideology. We know from history the problems with ideologies, and only those ignorant of history (whether deliberately or not) fall for bullshit "ideologies" whether they be "left" or "right".
In fact the "political spectrum" is just a construct that's only useful as a shorthand to quickly distinguish between moderate political parties. The complexities of functioning society can't be reduced to a one dimensional line FFS. People who are tricked into thinking this way are ill-equipped to govern a functioning society. History has shown that the one dimensional political thinkers have failed at governing every time they've been given the opportunity to do so.
-
Oh god. Could you be more edgelord 14 yr old Ayn Rand pls. Goddam this is peak cringe
-
Thanks for providing an example of one dimensional political thinking. Something you disagree with has to be from the opposite end of a made up political spectrum in you mind.
When in actual fact I want higher taxes on the wealthy, I want trust busting on corporate oligopolies, Keynesian economic policy, more regulation on the private sector, especially in regards to the environment. I come to these preferred policies by actually thinking of the issues, and I have read a history book and know that a violent overthrow of the government is only going to result in some asshole (whether "far left" or "far right") gaining authoritarian power.
Only angsty youths think there's "one simple trick" that'll solve all problems. Feeds into that need to have angst I suppose.
-
-
-
Far left: we're going to dress in all black and burn buildings down to protest racism of which many of the shops will be locally owned by people of color.
Far right: we're going to ravage the civil liberties of every group of people that aren't white religious old rich people and convince poor white people it's the patriotic thing to do.
Centrists: You're both fucked but one of you is less fucked I guess.
-
You’re both fucked but one of you is less fucked I guess.
Which one is that? Because moderates are outright refusing to compromise with leftists and progressives. Seems like they prefer fascists.
-
That's because those "moderates" are actually right-wingers masquerading as moderates. If somebody tells you "I support X, Y, and Z", but don't take any positions that support X, Y, or Z, then they are lying to you.
-
Left is in a pretty clear lead but you won't find me handing out fliers to spread the word. I'm just watching in paralyzed horror.
-
-
Plot twist: first two are far right in some(probably most) European countries. Also first one can be French.
-
Left and right, the status quo is fucked, the evidence is everywhere
Centrist, yes but I had plans this afternoon, nothing can happen that makes me feel inconvenienced or bad.
-
-
It's the means of how they do so that the centrists see as the same
-
What would those means be? Because I don't remember the far left trying to stage a coup so that they could begin their genocidal dictatorship. And they're still planning that genocidal dictatorship.
-
You gotta add more context bc without any context this comment looks stupid AF. Hence the downvote storm.
Edit: and referencing tankies doesn't make any sense either so let's dial it in.
-
And they're wrong for that.
-
-
Well, far left is anarchism. I haven't heard how they're going to make my basic needs met. But then I haven't ever heard how they're going to get their basic needs met. Or any needs met, for that matter.
-
Anarchism isn't the only leftist philosophy, it's just the most utopian.
-
They also talk quite a fuckin lot about how to meet everyone's needs.
-
-
That's not really true, you can get to anarchy from the left or the right. In fact, anarcho-capitalism is pretty much what American libertarians have been pushing for decades. There is an anarcho-communism, which involves abolishing all hierarchies and monetary systems are relying entirely on mutual aid, but I think most of the, "far-left," in America is just marxist, usually socialist but sometimes communist.
-
I think it's similar to communism in the sense that they fantasize about perfect citizens who would always think about the group before themselves without any other incitation (such as having to earn money to live).
-
-
Ah, the weekly "far left is the best and everyone else is wrong" post.
-
Heck I would be happy with even so much as “left of center” which we don’t really have in the United States. Biden is right of center. Bernie sanders for example is only slightly left of center.
-
I apologize for not being right wing enough for you.
-
You should apologize for not being able to take criticism(wether good or bad faith), as someone is criticizing your message for a left wing cost, and your super mature response is "Hurr, durr no you're right wing". You're on Lemmy where most of the users are leaning left and the commentar might be as well, but that's not good enough for you.
-
Oh, not at all. I am not right wing neither, I just don't have a superiority complex
-
-
“waa the party of hate is being picked in for being hateful! waaaaa”
ftfy
-
Lol
-
Have you ever seen far left in your life? What you call far left barely gets center-right in sane countries, usually it's called just right there.
-
OMG, with this being the millionth your version of left/right isn't mine, can we pick a new scale?
There has got to be a better way to frame ideology that's more consistent or universal.
-
Well but why the holier than thou attitude in this thread against everything non far left? I live in moderately right wing country in EU, and every basic need is met. Not everybody lives in the US
-
-
How in fuck's name is wanting to get everyone's basic needs met supposed to be far left..!?
Are basic human decency and common sense far left now too..?
-
-
I can answer your question. Having a disability is frustrating because meaningful discussion of disability issues is, in part, hampered by people who use disability as a joke. Often these jokes come from people who are ostensibly progressive (or at the very least, attacking those who aren't progressive).
So yeah, I rather would like you to make more efforts to accept disabled people like me on social media, starting with not making jokes like these.
-
You know... I didn't particularly like what the person above said to me... but I also live with a disability and what you said is far more insulting even though it wasn't directed at me personally.
I would also suggest that mocking disability is a right-wing position. Accepting people for who they can't help but be is what is ethical.
You can change your political beliefs. That's on you. You can't regrow a leg or make seizures that medication won't help with magically disappear.
-
Are you saying disabled people are naturally anti leftist, are you making fun of this person by accusing them of having a disability.
This is a legit disgusting comment and you should delete it.
-
Good one, mate
-
-
488 comments
The centrists has their basic needs met and isn't part of a social group that is threatened so they see both as a waste of tax spending.
"If we just improve the education system, racism will go away." - My centrist friend
Bro, no. Also, who the fuck do you think is trying to fund education? Assuming we even accept your premise.
Education does help, or the right wouldn't be trying to gut it so hard. But it's not all we need
Education system is broad enough term for your friend to be correct
Your friend is sort of correct. Improving education across the board would do leaps and bounds to help solve the problem.
As if whole branches of science hadn't been proved to be racist both bottom up and top down
Implied by this: centrists see all this mainly as a financial matter.
Centrists are unwilling to accept change or inconvenience. This differs from conservatives who think things should go back to some sort of old way.
"If this were a real problem then Bill Gates would have fixed it but now."
You're right, of course, but a key trait of sociopaths is viewing people through the lens of what they can do for them.
Are you saying centrists are sociopaths?
Balance is required to see things clearly. Just because both sides suck equally in their own 'special' way doesn't change the fact they are their own worst enemy.
I wanted to say how I have my basic needs met, isn't part of social group that is threatened and don't see left as waste of tax spending, but then I remembered about good Uncle Voencom that happily sends to die for Putin's yacth, so I don't count as not part of social group that is threatened.