- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
them: “both sides bad” me: “republicans are bad indeed” them: 😠
I mean, a lot of them are tankies.
lovely flat comparison that only accepts this precise present moment as the only context.
Never mind that the Democrats today are the George W. Bush neo-cons of twenty years ago. Or that the precedent laid down by the Bush admin - and subsequently renewed and strengthened by the Obama admin - are the same legal standards Trump and ICE are now claiming cover under.
deleted by creator
Both sides exclude me for holding my particular set of opinions. I’m on my side, fuck you!
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.
Finally some common sense.
That’s actually fair. Maybe more parties would be better?
Ah yes, the classical “you’re either with us or against us”
This is false.
I feel like most people here are american, which would explain this point of view
Eh it happens here in the UK too, ‘centre’ always seems to be ‘give the right wing half of what they want and the left wing nothing.’ which is really just right wing but slower.
I’ll grant you that this is very much an American sentiment currently, but it’s not exactly a purely tribal take when the centrist opinion is that sometimes Nazis can have good ideas.
I mean, a broken clock is right twice a day. If hitler was the first to implement a hand washing before and after patient interaction policy, would that be a bad idea? Or would it be a rare good idea from a genocidal maniac?
Or to pick more immediately pertinent examples, RFK is a an idiot, but he supports banning some food additives that are already banned elsewhere for good reasons, Trump is an idiot, but he wants to end daylight savings time. Both are good ideas, despite support from terrible people and being supported by those terrible people doesn’t make them suddenly terrible ideas.
No.
This is just the case on (yes American, make your own sites that would be nice) every intended forum.
Shit even my in laws say they are centrist, they don’t hold a single view that’s centrist. They vote down ticket republican their whole lives. This is a thing republicans do.
Shit even my in laws say they are centrist, they don’t hold a single view that’s centrist. They vote down ticket republican their whole lives. This is a thing republicans do.
I voted a mixed ticket until 2016. Then straight blue until 2024, and only one exception in 2024 and she was was a city seat that I knew and could knock on her door and yell at in person if she did something I didn’t like.
this is a pretty typical actual centrist tendency. Most of the centrists I know have been voting blue (and loathing it). A decent number have, though, given up on that in favor of shtf.
The problem has been “vote mostly blue and hope they don’t alienate anyone too badly, because the right will take advantage of the alienated… oh, shit, they did it again.”
removed by mod
Doing nothing, whilst being very shitty, is definitely better than doing active evil.
This has been the rhetoric for 50 years.
The last 50 years have lead to where we are now.
It’s time for new rhetoric besides “well the best we can hope for is a steady decline instead of a drop!”
Nope. Isn’t happening, no matter how much you promise the devil.
Wtf does this even mean?
removed by mod
You’re somehow incapable of seeing that you just described your own political ideology.
Why am I not surprised that your response is, “NO YOU!!”
Yeah you projecting sure is pathetic
Also you had to erase your comment because it showed you were wrong lol
Hahahaha. You crying to your mommy and having a mod erase my comment isn’t the flex you think it is.
I didn’t report you
Sorry the janitors fucked up our interaction.
Well if you want fascists to keep winning you have to right attitude.
We have well over 50 years of evidence that attempts at top down change always backfire. If you don’t want weak willed beholden people being nominated for leadership roles. Focus on filling all the offices beneath them with people who aren’t.
Even had Sanders made it into office. He would have struggled continuously to accomplish anything with all the people underneath him.
It is a literal yet unfortunate fact that we must hold our noses and vote for anyone who stands a chance at beating a Republican in a national presidential election. Until such time as the parties have been taken over by people who wouldn’t nominate someone like that.
Here’s the hitch:
It is a literal yet unfortunate fact that we must hold our noses and vote for anyone who stands a chance at beating a Republican in a national presidential election. Until such time as the parties have been taken over by people who wouldn’t nominate someone like that.
This strategy guarantees that the parties will keep nominating someone like that. (After all, they keep winning.) There’s no mechanism for replacing the party leadership in it, nor any realistic scenario by which it would happen.
That’s nonsense. Literally improving the pool of candidates will improve those selected. Further once enough are replaced, they will be able to accomplish things regardless of who’s president.
There’s literally no point in replacing the president if the congress opposes them.
Okay, which version actually happened over the past 50 years—yours or mine?
Mine. We focused on the top and lost everything including the legislative base.
In the late seventies the unions didn’t feel that Democrats had done enough for them so they decided to punish carter. By not endorsing or supporting him. In the end we lost both Carter and the unions. If only They had focused on addressing the legislature that could have actually changed something. And not let Reagan get in power.
This isn’t an isolated example. In fact, of the three branches of US government. The presidency is one of the least useful ones to hold. It’s nice to hold. But if you want to actually pass laws Etc you need to legislature. And a court that isn’t beholden’s big business to instantly overturn it. With enough people in the legislature they can force the president to sign it with a veto-proof majority. The president can’t do any of that. At best they can make me transition Smoother by agreeing to sign the legislation. But that’s it. It’s basic civics I guess they don’t teach that in school anymore though.
That’s an interesting example, because the unions were correct. Reagan happened, but then when they did endorse the next Democrat for President, he fought hard to undo the damage, and didn’t promote something like, say, NAFTA, right? Or when they endorsed Biden, he didn’t break a strike, or anything?
Basically, when does this process of putting promoting better people in the party begin?
This already happened in 2016, why am i the only one who remembers?!?!
Supporting one side of the Duopoly keeps us in the Duopoly forever.
Get over the democratic party, many already have
I’m an anarchist, but can acknowledge reality. Stop spouting nonsense and get over yourself. The rest of us have.
Nah this time the Neoliberals can get with the program or get out of the way.
Or do you hate democracy?
How are you gonna save democracy unless you vote for the people I tell you to vote for?
Look into how democracy falls to fascism. One of the common traits is the far left and the center left fighting each other while a unified right takes control.
And you choose to contribute to it instead of letting leftists have a turn after 50 years of stagnation.
I’m done coddling the Neoliberals.
There are two choices here. Cooperate with Neoliberals, or be ruled by Fascists. There is no third option. Neither the left nor Neoliberals have the numbers to beat them alone.
Yeah we did that already in 2016 and 2024 and it failed miserably
It’s time for you to sit down shut up and vote with leftists this time.
No, a bunch of people voted third party or didn’t vote at all as a protest.
I voted for Obama, he was pretty good
I voted for Bernie, then grit my teeth and voted for Hillary when the DNC rigged their own primaries that they afterward admitted to.
Then I voted for biden
Then Kamala
This year is the first year I will 100% refuse to vote for another milquetoast Neoliberal that will ensure nothing will meaningfully change.
This year the neoliberals get to decide if we have democracy or facism.
Either help us end the Duopoly or get out of the way.
Letting fascists end democracy is certainly one way to end the duopoly I suppose.
deleted by creator
Social centrism ≠ traditional centrism
They aren’t that either.
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)
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.
I like to come into these comments because it gives me a fresh batch of new “centralists” to tag.
What does right wing mean to you?
Anyone who thinks any different than they do.
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.
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
the left general public: let’s alienate the people that might agree with us, but be shocked when the right wins.
-
I mean, I understand that this is like a very prevailing thing, but centrists exist. Especially in a modern political climate that is this polarized, being a centrist is unbelievably hard to explain to people. The left is convinced that they are very people first and very centrist and the right is convinced that they are very right and very populist.
I mean basically what I’m saying is that this actually emphasizes a problem and people just blindly agreeing with this is also a problem. I would venture to say that most people can’t recognize an actual centrist as opposed to just immediately assuming them to be a right winger. This has happened for over 10 years in my daily life. Before Donald Trump even started running for president, in 2013, I had people accusing me of being either left-wing or right-wing, when in reality, I am very much a centrist. If I use any political buzzwords to identify myself whatsoever, I will then be put into a category that which does not properly define me. I despise the Democrats, I despise the Republicans, and I despise Donald J. Trump. I don’t think anyone in the last 10 years in the entirety of this government has been worth even considering for my vote for president.
But who am I? I’m just one guy.
Please don’t hate me for saying this. I just, I see this meme and I see the comments and I just think, wow, this must be a bunch of people who have experienced like, you know, those weird people who liked Trump but no longer like Trump. My point is that like people continue to say that there’s no such thing as a centrist and I’m not saying that you people are saying that I’m saying that that is a prevailing idea and I’m sick and tired of it and this meme and your comments very much seem to perpetuate that.
Anyway, I’m done. I hate politics because it’s terrible. There’s nothing and no one to vote for. No cause to get behind that will ever truly fix it just by voting. Get active in your community, physically, and improve things on a city-wide level. And then if a ton of people do that, we’ll actually see change. That is if these tariffs don’t literally destroy our entire economy. #AmericaisrecessionproofsolongaswethreatentheFederalReserve
Disliking politics and all the current political parties doesn’t fit the technical definition of a centrist.
It’s not that centrism can’t exist, it’s that it’s commonly used as a thin pretense to cover actual partisan leanings, usually right-wing (by the general global metric, not just the US one).
Additionally, abstinence isn’t commonly a good approach by which to assert a legitimately central stance. A lot of the time a legitimately central stance doesn’t exist in a practical sense.
As stated by a commenter above “The middleground between racism and not racism is 50% racism”.
I personally think the concept of “centrism” isn’'t viable, not because nuance and context can’t exist but because the “center” often isn’t a useful target.
Okay, I actually agree with you on a lot of what you have to say.
Having certain dislikes of politics and to actually dislike facet of both political parties currently and having dislikes of both current political parties in order for them to be close to the center, which is again what a centrist is.
I completely agree. I think that people using the term centrist as a vague cover for what is usually fairly right wing politics is prevalent and a lot of people have seen this. YouTube personalities and posts on x / posts on blue sky / posts on freaking truth social they all claim to be centrist or they all claim to be a more “common sense voice” when they in fact aren’t and this is very prevailing and I’ve seen this myself.
My own political journey has been extreme frustration and an understanding that both sides of the political aisle in the United States specifically are so ungodly terrible that I cannot bring myself to actually cast my ballot for anyone. That is a bit of an aside because that is only my own political experience, my own political opinion. I’m not going to cast my ballot for somebody who is actively corrupt or actively making stupid choices. So that is an aside and kind of detracts from my point, to be honest.
I think likening racism to political centrism, which is, again, what you are agreeing with, is not an apt comparison. You’re agreeing with a commenter above that said “the middle ground between racism and not racism is 50% racism” Being a centrist in that agreeing with some stances of the conservatives and agreeing with some stances of the liberals is not the same thing as being 50% racist. Not at all. Being 50% racist could mean that you agreed with the South advocating for slavery as a way to keep the prices of cotton down in the United States but disagreed with slavery because it involves back-breaking labor without any payment to these poor people, you know, the slaves. The comment is honestly another thing that just shows the degradation of the political system in the United States down to two camps and two parties. It’s the idea that the entire right is effectively racist until they can prove it, and the entire left is somehow communist, and pedophiles. Then if you happen to be a centrist, if you happen to be in the middle, as I’ve met many centrists, they exist. And again, it is probably the most viable of all of the political ideologies, if not for corruption and political manipulation to herd the population into either Democrat or Republican sides.
Me saying that I believe that we should only spend money that much we can actually tax from the population, and that if we continue to spend money to an obscene degree, then we are going to have a very difficult time in the world economic stage. That is true economic conservatism. Many people who claim to be conservatives, many people who claim to be far right, many people who claim to be, you know, a middle ground right, they don’t believe in this form of conservatism. And most of them on the right don’t practice what they preach.
So I guess that’s one example of a stance that I take. And this idea that the middle ground is somehow, you know, partially siding with Donald Trump is extraordinarily stupid and just leads to people attacking each other for like no reason. Which is ultimately what I think Donald Trump stands for, which is just a bunch of people fighting in a metaphorical street fight. I agree that centrism generally isn’t viable because there really isn’t a political party that you can vote for and we only have a two-party system which again has fueled corruption in Washington and corruption in the States. I think that centrism only isn’t viable iIf you take into account the political corruption, if there was less political corruption in Washington, if third parties were viable, which again is a far shot off from the reality that we currently live in. But still, if third parties were viable, then political centrism would, I think, be in many ways, Where the vast majority of people’s political voting would land because I think the vast majority of people are actually just centrists forced to choose a side in a corrupt political system. Thanks for responding to my comment
i think we are mostly in agreement, though I’ll address a couple points of contention on my side.
I think likening racism to political centrism, which is, again, what you are agreeing with, is not an apt comparison. You’re agreeing with a commenter above that said “the middle ground between racism and not racism is 50% racism”
I wasn’t necessarily trying to equate racism with political centrism, i was using that comment as an example of how the idea of ‘centrism’ isn’t always a viable or practical one.
it could just as easily have been “The middle ground between wet and dry is 50% wet”.
Then if you happen to be a centrist, if you happen to be in the middle, as I’ve met many centrists, they exist. And again, it is probably the most viable of all of the political ideologies, if not for corruption and political manipulation to herd the population into either Democrat or Republican sides
But you can see that this reads " This would be the best option if it was possible, but it isn’t, currently " ?
I agree with the sentiment, though i disagree that the optimal location is the “centre” , as i said before.
And it seems you agree given the follow up about the partially siding with trump being ridiculous.
As i was saying before i don’t think centrism is a good label for what you are describing because it isn’t really the centre of anything, it’s some other thing on a whole spectrum of things.
I think that using the label “centrism” hurts any argument significantly more than it helps and coming up with some other , more accurate way of describing your position would greatly benefit any discussion around that area.
But labeling and categorising things is hard, especially in a concise and descriptive manner and as you say modern political conditioning tends towards thinking in rigid boxes.
As a complete aside (and a contrived , though i’d say accurate description):
In an effective two party system a vote that doesn’t correspond with either of the two sides is effectively a vote for the ultimate victor.
This isn’t a commentary on the politics of either side, i mean this as general statement on how voting would effectively work in that kind of system.
Assuming you agree with that point of view, how do you reconcile the potential ethical and moral outcomes of not voting at all ?
Genuine question, zero baiting.
In a nutshell, what this meme is about is all the people that we’ve run into who say, “both sides are bad,” because they believe the Republicans lies about Democrats, and the Republican talking points on issues. Actual centrists, in Republican lingo, are “the far left.”
I agree with this stance. It’s very hard to be a centrist, even though most people are. In today’s political climate, everyone has just decided that they must be Democrat and Republican because that benefits the Power elite, the people who are already in power, and those who use this power to try and solidify themselves as staying in power. To the Republicans, the centrists are far left, and the Democrats, the centrists are far right. It’s honestly extremely stupid that people are not really capable of seeing, you know, an actual stance, as being an actual stance, and instead just use a bunch of political buzzwords and repeat phrases that you hear all throughout the left and the right. This has led people to throwing metaphorical mud at each other in the streets and hating their neighbors, as opposed to talking it out. Just like in this thread, I mean, everyone’s down-voting my comment because they’re uneducated about what centrism means, at least that’s probably what I think they’re doing, and or they believe that they’re supporting the Democrats. (maybe they believe in my hate monger?) When in reality, political centrism is where most people’s stances lie, and that the political parties are basically saying, hey, choose a side guys, just choose the better poison of the two poisons on the table. Politics is terrible, as I said before.
Every god damn time
The middleground between racism and not racism is 50% racism. That being said, they probably mean centrist in different topics. Blame two party system not the people.
They’re not political, they just wantt to see common sense policies on immigration (for brown people) and crime (for brown people).
Here “common sense” means incredibly harsh.
Which is a shame because immigration can be one of the greatest boons to rural America.
“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