This meme is made by a leftist, and that community does have an issue with the same "if you don't explicitly agree with everything we say, you are other and therefore evil" attitude that the MAGA crowd has.
Thank God a brave centrist was willing to come here to criticize the left and defend the right to protect us from evil socialist extremism.
Please, oh holy enlightened central one, tell us the errors of our thinking. Is it our sins of universal healthcare, anti-genocide, and equal rights for all?
Please, oh please, do sermon us on the benefits of the right like unregulated capitalism, environmental destruction, and thought policing
I'm really not sure how to dumb it down more to make it make sense to you, given that the sarcasm and hyperbole dumbed it down quite a bit intentionally for effect. I guess read slower?
Is a shitty attitude a defining point of being a leftist? Because that's the only thing I'm criticizing here. Everything else is just you making up things to be mad about.
So when you get rightfully criticized, your response is to cry that all of your criticisms are made up and that everyone besides you is wrong and has a bad attitude
If everyone you meet is an asshole, maybe you're the asshole instead. But having that epiphany would involve you dropping that iconic "better than you" smugness that centrists love so much and giving a fuck about other people instead
What part of your comment was "legit criticism"? All you did was assume I'm a centrist and go off with a bunch of sarcasm based on that.
If you were trying to say that the the way some leftists attack everyone for everything is justified or necessary in some way, you should have tried making that point without adding in assumptions and sarcasm.
We're assuming you're a centrist because you're very clearly trying to hold the exact position that the OP meme is mocking. My sarcasm is on point here because such a position is foolish and worthy of ridicule, and the hyperbole does an excellent job of pointing out the blatant falsehood of the entire political spectrum being equal.
I have no obligation to entertain right-wing viewpoints, give them a platform, or respect anyone who thinks they are worth consideration. In fact, I have an obligation to the do the exact opposite in defense of the victims of those viewpoints coming to fruition.
My advice would be to get off the fence and grow a thicker skin. No one likes centrists, especially whiny ones who think they're above reproach or consequence.
You truly are proving the point I was making. Go back and look at the first comment I made that started this whole thread.
What if I rephrase to leave out mentioning MAGA, and simply say "the way some leftists choose to communicate is counterproductive". What part of that statement says anything about actual leftist policy?
The knee-jerk reactions of people in this thread is exactly what I am taking issue with. Based on a single sentence, criticizing not leftist ideals, but criticizing the choice of how some people communicate, now you assume you know my position on all topics, based on your idea of what a "centrist" is (a term the is quickly becoming as useless as the term "woke").
Whoops, I forgot that I singularly control the equality settings for every nation on the planet, including Canada. Let me just pop over to the control panel.
I never claimed Gladue, Canada has utopian equality, actually. I couldn't even point it out on a map. As another user pointed out, leftism ADVOCATES and works towards those ideals, which very clearly was what I was saying in context. If you had a functional frontal lobe, this might be an easier conversation for you. Maybe iron out the dent in your brain before trying to tackle big conversations, lil fella
You can have clean water when you stop tearing apart the water treatment plants for the resale value of the previous water treatment plant.
or , here's an idea, enter the 21st centruy and collect taxes to pay for it yourself, like the rest of the country's municipalities?
Or, maybe the chiefs can forgo new trucks every year and actually build infrastructure for their people?
It's hard to keep the sympathy when all I can see on the res is complete corruption.
if the tribes are "their own nation" then maybe start collecting taxes like every other nation on earth?
Leftists barely agree with each other, let alone anybody elsewhere on the political spectrum. You aren't entirely wrong, though - there is a tendency to say that anything good is leftist and anything bad is right-wing, but right-wingers also do the same (see how anything they don't like is either woke or communist, or both)
Yeah there is a massive range of disagreement under the umbrella term "leftists". Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Maoist, Communization theory, Anarcho-communist, Eco-anarchist, Christian anarchist, etc. etc.
These are all largely arguments over organizing a working class majority in control of it's own lands and capital. None in these groups objects to the central thesis of worker self-government.
By contrast, centrist/right groups favor narrow hierarchies of elite oligarchs, them bicker over exactly which one of their kingpins should get the big chair.
but right wingers are mostly homogeneous in thier beliefs, with the hefty help of the propaganda MSMs and financial backing. left doesnt have a propaganda machine promoting "left", thats why there isnt any unified belief amongst all left leaning people.
Yes, a lot of self-proclaimed centrists are rather right-wing but like to picture themselevs as occupying the middle of the bell curve. See also their use of the term "common sense" when they want to feel like their view is the majority one despite that not being supported by statistics.
Mamdani is a pretty good example of the left doing things right; get the right guy nominated at the party level, then worry about the election. In a two party system, election day is too late to fix anything, it's purely damage control at that point.
Mamdani is a pretty good example of the left doing things right
He ran at the right time, the stars aligned and gave him some truly wretched losers for opposition, and national media tripped over a dozen billionaire's dicks trying to insert itself into municipal politics.
But I don't think Mamdani would have been successful against a Guliani, a Bloomberg, or a DeBlasio. And if a Republican had won over a fractured Liberal/Left field, I suspect we'd be getting an earful about how Radical Islamists cost the Democratic Party the election.
There's thousands of Mamdani's in modern American politics. You can find them in every DSA chapter in America. He's not simply the product of The Left Doing Things Right. He's a product of the liberals and conservatives finally running out of gas, then tangling themselves in a knot trying to block an alternative.
Based on what? The fact that I don't fall over myself to agree with whatever the leftist opinion-du-jour is? Comments like yours are specifically why the leftist movement is doomed to failure. It's a shame, since most the ideas are good, just too many self-righteous assholes are the vocal face of it.
Wordy and self-aggrandizing but basically yeah, you even admit the ideas are good and that the only reason you pretend otherwise is because you don't like the people telling you them, get the fuck over yourself and start being correct about things
Can you even read? I said the left has an attitude problem, just like the right does. That says absolutely fuck-all about how I feel about the actual ideas behind leftism.
The fact that I don’t fall over myself to agree with whatever the leftist opinion-du-jour is?
Getting strong Know-Nothing vibes of this whole thread. No real ideological thesis or central position. Just a bunch of hollow "I'm a free thinker because I hate you" reactionary slop.
Reminds me of the old joke about the conservative being whatever the opposite of a liberal is, updated daily.
I'm very purposely trying to keep my opinions about policy points out of it, because that's not what I was ever taking issue with, and it would only serve to completely derail the conversation.
All I've ever been taking issue with is the discourse itself. The US has a two party system, which is inherently going to encourage a very "us vs them" mentality. When people immediately jump to name calling, ridicule, and general verbal abuse at the first hint of disagreement, it's only making things worse.
I view libertarianism similarly to how I view communism (the actual philosophies not the co-opted bullshit Libertarianism or the red scare version of communism); they are systems that seem like they could work if you somehow got everyone on the same page, but I don't believe that they are robust enough to withstand the people who would exploit the system.
I feel like half the problem with politics right now is that everyone feels like they have to pick a label to call themselves. So they pick whichever is closest to what they believe at the time, then (consciously or unconsciously) mold themselves to conform with that chosen group. Suddenly, everyone who disagrees is personally attacking them, since they went and made their political affiliation part of their identity, rather than just a choice they make.
The US doesn’t really have a far left. It barely has a left. What MAGA calls left tends to be rather center, like the position that people should be able to afford healthcare.
What if I informed you that there are more than two options, and they don't have to be extremities? And what if I followed up by informing you that what we have in the US, for a political spectrum, is not the norm elsewhere in the world?
My reply was more aimed at the title of the post and its sentiment. "Pick a side"
I'm not a believer that there are only two political options for the US, long term, and would love to see a true political multi-party representation in the US government. I believe that something not completely (EU) far left will prevail in the US. And absolutely not the (US) far right. (Perhaps I'm just being a wishful fool, and the US will crash and burn in the next 1-5 years. Hopefully, we can make it out of this mess without doing so. But if it has to happen, so be it.)
US has always been right wing, never even went center left once. thats why the far right of western countries flee to the us, so they can grift there. US is more closer to russia than they are to EU politically spekaing.
Democrats will hurt you for money, but Republicans will pay for the privilege. Both parties subservient to capital but there are still meaningful distinctions. Change must come from the bottom.
Counterargument: Centrists are actually a diverse group with many very different positions, that just have in common the fact they don't agree with either of the currently dominant political factions.
Aggressive reposte: what you just did (political stereotyping, where you label everyone who disagrees with you as basically being the same cartoon villain) is, in my experience, an example the left-wing bigotry that drives centrists away from your political faction. Disagreeing with your doesn't mean that I agree with the hateful morons on the right, it just means I also see and won't tolerate your bigotry.
So hating a hateful ideology and people who hold that ideology is bigotry. Damn, you need to see a chiropractor, you just twisted yourself in knots for that poor argument.
No, the bigotry is lumping all centrists, who have a diversity of views, in with the hateful ideology, despite having zero information about what they actually believe.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice. - Martin Luther King Jr.
Most centrists I have interacted with have the same thought, I don't care as long as I'm not affected by it. As long as the sense of order is maintained they will let babies starve, houses burn, and deforest our planet to maintain that stability. So you must excuse those of us on the left who have interacted with people more conservative to us for so long. We're tired of the bullshit and we're not going to let you live it down anymore. I have heard people talk about how centrists/moderates, whatever term you use to describe them, are the swing voters. From my personal experience in the USA with the moderate, the moderate fucking sucks.
If the moderate is who truly votes in presidents then they have failed us multiple times now with Trump. Thoroughly, absolutely. I don't know how you can live a life seeing the horrors perpetuated for money and power to still think our system okay. If you're not swayed by the plight of the fact we can feed everyone on the Earth, we just cannot satisfy the gluttony of the wealthy to do so. Of maintaining order while a group of people who had no choice in their birth are subjugated, beaten, rounded up and jailed just for existing, and lynched for existing. If you look at everything wrong in this world and aren't galvanized away from moderation and right wing politics, then you're lost.
Sorry for the delay in reply, I've been off of social media lately. Thanks for the cogent reply, I appreciate the time you put into it.
I think you make a solid case, except for one central fallacy. I am galvanised away from the right by the atrocities you list. However, you smuggle in the assumption that pushing away from the selfish, parochial right must push me towards the contemporary political left---both the formal political parties, and the informal zeitgeist of leftist culture/ideology. I can (and I believe morally should) reject that too.
The space of alternatives is much larger, and varies on many more dimensions, than the current political dichotomy. I believe that insistence on that dichotomy, that you must pick between left and right, does far more long term harm than even right wing bigotry does. I'd even go as far as to let the selfish right wing bullies win, whatever the immediate costs, if I believed it would eventually bring about a system that is fair and just for future generations, to escape this historical trap of perpetually short-sighted left-right swings. My views are more nuanced than this, but that's beyond the scope here.
This position makes me a centrist, because I support neither contemporary political party and oppose both. However, I find that zealots from both sides insist that it means I must be on the side of their enemies. You're with us or you're against us, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem, blank and white, no alternatives. It's that kind of thinking that keeps the pendulum swinging, prevents conversations about long-term, global solutions and dooms future generations to more vicious bickering about which bathroom 0.1% of the population should use while the world around them burns.
Counter-counterargument: Centrists are actually a diverse group with many very different positions, but they all end up supporting fascism by staying inactive. I don't think you're evil for not picking a side, I think you're short-sighted for assuming "staying out of it" is possible and preferable to fighting for change. Winner-take-all, first-past-the-post elections will always result in a two-party system, if you want to change that without literally burning it all to the ground, you have to do it from within the system. You can still be a centrist, just try to take the context of the whole political structure into consideration when you vote. You can say you don't tolerate bigotry, but your actions (or rather, lack of actions) make you a liar.
These "Leftist good, right bad, central dumb dumb I see no difference" meme's are to Lemmy what the Big Mac is to McDonalds. This place is littered with the same, tired, fucking false fallacy. Dear lord, leading up to Dementia Donny winning his second term, 3/4ths the post on Lemmy were just that. Wasn't accurate, original, or funny the first 50 fucking times, not sure it's going to be any other time.
People thinking the Dems are left. They're left of the GQP, they're not left of the spectrum, far from it. The neoliberal is as much not your friend as the fascist is.
From a Canadian instance, really? This shit is so frustrating to see. The whole two party nonsense that this bullshit pushes is exactly why the usa is in the mess they are in now.
No, people don't have to "pick a side" the ones who think in terms of teams are our enemy.
The reason it is like that is that over many years the us system pushed the teamification of politics and enshrined only two parties in law. This was inevitable with only two parties, and should be a lesson to all other nations on the dangers of two party systems. The "us vs them" tricks of control are very easy when there is only two parties. It is poison to any democracy as no one is represented by ether "side" but everyone is sorted into a side and convinced the only way to fix anything is by having your side win (but of course there is no insensitive for ether party to actually fix anything, often the opposite).
The us has been trained (and sadly a lot of the world) that coalition rule is bad, even when its the only real way to have any sort of representation or guard rails in government. And you are right no one is represented now due to years and years of only two options that both know they are built into the systems of government so deep that their removal would require a new nation. After all this time there is no longer meaningful representation, but there is convenient scapegoats and excuses in pointing at the other side, so people in the us still think they live in a democratic system.
Oh it looks that way on purpose, there are barely two parties and its used to control the people. When you see "everyone else" that is the trick, the other party that is not in power does nothing but gets to be seen the one that is "representing" that mass.
How about we stop pretending that the left doesn't have its own share of emotionally damaged asshats and try to pick leadership that solves problems instead of pandering to one side or the other?
That's because the political compass is two-dimensional, but everyone insists on thinking of it as a one-dimensional thing.
You've got left wing and then you've got right wing, and then in the vertical direction you've got authoritarianism and libertarianism. When people say far right and far left what they really mean is that the extreme edges horizontally and right at the top vertically. Think Castro, and not Gandhi. Both were left wing but are nowhere near each other in political phasespace
Even the 2 dimensional compass is a simplification, though orders of magnitude better than the binary "left or right" simplification, and also better than the 2 dimensional gradient as well.
Far [insert preferred political allegiance] simply means extremist, usually unwilling to compromise. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your personal political opinions, but generally speaking an inability to reach a compromise is not a desirable trait regardless of your political leanings.
As a saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good. We don't want people refusing to embrace more libertarian policies simply because they don't get everything that they want. Progress is achieved by steadily grinding away at the norm, not by having a big explosive change all at once. That's what communists want.
Well, if youre a "centrist" like me, then you used that designation to try to get out of talking about politics with ass holes on both sides. And also i hate getting "prejudged" -everyone does- because i might like or dislike a certain politician. I am a centrist, truly, but I dont need to prove that to any of you. And this is what I mean when I say "both sides are the same" I mean you assholes harras, insult, degrade, tease, berate, and nearly threaten about how your side is "the good side" and the "otherside" equals the destruction of America. Yeah, well, both sides do that annoying shit. You want to tell me "there's no such thing as a centrist anymore" and that i am actually on the _________ side. Well f you, you dont get to tell me what side im on.
Maybe you just feel that since im not with you, that I must be against you? If that overly simple reasoning is where you are at, I dont think we should be friends anyway.
I dont want to be identified as red or blue, dem or repub. Honestly, im pretty conflict avoidant in general, and politics gets to be such nasty topic and can ruin family and friends. I see it happen more in the past few years than ever. Its really sad! And you know it too!
Can everyone please just put a sock in it for at least the rest of December? Can we all look for common ground and the things that we can share? Dont look at family through red or blue tinted glasses, but through the lens of love. Let's put our pride aside for a while and produce good times and love this holiday season.
"Centrists" are those that oppose authoritarianism in all forms. The far left and and far right make rationalizations about why their preferred flavour of authoritarianism is good (it just gets a bad rap!) while pretending to vehemently oppose the other side's flavour of authoritarianism.
But in the end, those who rationalize in favour of any kind of authoritarianism could easily be manipulated into supporting any other kind of authoritarianism. There's a reason the Nazis called themselves the Nationalist Socialist party, just a small amount branding can get a good number "leftists" to support fascism. Because few people actually think in ideological terms, they just go along with the group and repeat whatever ideological bullshit they've heard to conform with the group. It's easier to turn a socialist into a fascist (and vice versa) since it's mostly just about branding.
Socialists and Fascists love the concept of political spectrum they can put themselves on opposite ends of, but that's all an artificial construct to allow for fear of the other to rationalize the need for a strongman to protect them from the other side that supposedly has completely different values than them. But the "far right" and "far left" have both been conned into being willing to give up their rights in fear of the other. Fascism is a convenient rationalization for communism and communism is a convenient rationalization for fascism. These "ideologies" has a symbiotic relationship with each other.
Those who fall for these grifts believe the verbal diarrhea of demagogues that use a lot of words and say little other than give a vague feeling of "trust me, give me power, I will make you stronger / more equal". The stupid see someone using a lot of words and don't notice there isn't any real explanation of how the demagogue will deliver on their vague promises. They just need to hate the same people their audience hates and use a lot of words, and the stupid will eat whatever bullshit is thrown at them.
Internet podcasting has allowed people to have an endless selection of small time demagogues to choose from. The flavour of authoritarianism the stupid will fall prey to is entirely dependent on which content an algorithm selects for them. And that is based on content they may consumed before puberty. These grifters need to get them while they're young, someone with more life experience will be more likely to say "yeah sure that's a lot of fancy words, but how does any of that help me right now?" which they don't have an answer for.
Right now we live in a dictatorship of the wealthy. The capitalists control productive forces, decide how the majority of us spend our time, and lobby governments in their own interests. On the other hand, the workers, the people that labored to create everything we need, are given a fraction of the value of what they produce in the form of wages. In other words, every person that survives on their wages is exploited by necessity. We are institutionally coerced to sell our labor (i.e., make money for the capitalist) or fall into abject destitution.
Centrists obviously don't see the dictatorship. We live in a time where the rule of the wealthy is as normal as the divine right of kings once was. Accordingly, centrists may be sensible enough to see the following trends as problems, but they tend to think of them as entirely disconnected:
Stagnating wages (despite rising productivity)
The wealth gap
Corporate offshoring
Periodic recessions
Perpetual aggressive wars
Millions around the globe living in abject poverty
Literal slavery abroad to produce cheaper consumer goods
Literal slavery domestically in prisons
Skyrocketing cost of living (food, shelter, gas, education, healthcare, childcare, etc)
Climate change (despite decades of warning from scientists)
Marxist theory can explain all of these problems, and in many cases predicted them before they happened. But if the billionaires can convince people like you that a better economic system is synonymous with authoritarianism, and that continuing capitalist wealth extraction is the reasonable "center" position, then they can prevent the workers from banding together against the ruling class.
Makes more sense when you realize a lot of so called "enlightened centrists" are just Republicans who don't want to be lumped in with them but love their hateful policies.
The current political climate is galvanizing and honestly I don't see it as a problem. We cannot survive as a society much less species with how things are now. Some people are only concerned with how they're viewed, so they lie about what they believe in order to look not terrible. Truthfully, nuance is dead, and playing both sides means the one that takes away will always win.
Reading 19th-20th century theory on the internal contradictions and inherent exploitation of capitalism offers a very convincing framework for understanding our current reality. To paint such analyses as naivete ironically reveals a lack of familiarity with the subject matter.
Those who have been critiquing, reading critiques, and debating about it for a long time are naive for not blindly buying Carl's Jr's Big Bucket of Fries!
EDIT: after thinking about it for a couple of hours, my take was really bad, and i'm gonna clarify:
There is significant difference between the republicans and the non-republicans in the US, which is that the republicans are extremely racist. And that's not just a "little bit of racist", but a "fucking huge bit of racist", on top of that. So there's a clear distinction.
As a side fact, i'd still like to point out that "fascism" as a term is surprisingly difficult to define. Everybody likes to be "against" fascism, but it's an emotional catch-phrase without a cut-and-dry definition. That's why i tend to avoid it in discussion, or if i do use it, i give it the following meaning: "Fascism is an illegal way of seizing power in order to do something that you want." Note that illegal does not inherently imply immoral. There can be moral causes for why somebody does something illegal, such as with slave uprisings as happened around 1800 in northern america. That, according to my definition, is illegal (in the sense that the law said it's illegal), but not immoral, but since the definition of "fascism", according to me, concerns whether it's illegal to do something, not immoral, it would have been fascist too, by that definition. That's to show that fascism is not inherently good or evil, but it depends on what you do with it.
the original comment is below for historical purposes
I used to think that "left" and "right" were diametrically opposed terms, but i don't see it that way anymore:
imperialism: Imperialism means to conquer other countries for the sake of imposing your own norms and values on them. That's actually what the northern states of the US did to the southern states of the US before they became the US. sure, lots of people argue that the values were worthwhile (being against slavery), but it's still imposing your values on somebody else.
fascism: at this point, i'm not sure what "fascism" even means anymore. isn't it just to do something illegal to get what you want? isn't every change in human history illegal, before it becomes the new norm? wasn't it illegal for gay people to stand for their rights in the 20th century?
because it's a recent topic, i'd like to give another neat example: liberals from the coastline will loudly proclaim that the conservative "child marriage" (starting at age 14) laws are a monstrosity (because that's, idk, child abuse or sth), but at the same time, you will find in many schools in the coastside a subject called "sex education" where people learn to use condoms and such. such classes are typically held at about age 13 or sth (well, it was for me). guess why they do it? because they recognize that teenagers do in fact have desires to experiment with sexuality, and offering the courses is simply recognizing that and making the best out of it. [EDIT - ok nvm this point, i don't actually know exactly what the "child marriage" laws say precisely, and i'm not aware how they're actually interpreted in practice, so i guess this point is void.]
used to think that "left" and "right" were diametrically opposed terms, but i don't see it that way anymore:
I mean.... It depends on the definition you are utilizing. The term originated from the seating arrangement from the French National Assembly prior/during the french revolution. With advocates for a republic on the left, and monarchist on the right.
The most common modern geopolitical definition is now the left supporting socialism and the right supporting capitalism. Two economic systems which are fairly diametrically opposed in an economic sense.
imperialism: Imperialism means to conquer other countries for the sake of imposing your own norms and values on them.
Again, it depends on your definition. But imperialism is generally a policy of a powerful nation who extends it's rule over another country through direct or indirect means. This can be for economic, strategic, or even political gain, most usually to exploit the resources or labour of another nation.
That's actually what the northern states of the US did to the southern states of the US before they became the US.
No...just no. You can really do an imperialism on yourself, that's just definitionally incorrect.
isn't it just to do something illegal to get what you want? isn't every change in human history illegal, before it becomes the new norm? wasn't it illegal for gay people to stand for their rights in the 20th century?
What?
Fascism is purposely hard to define as it's a reactionary response to the democratic process and thus depends on vagueness to grow within a democracy.
However, fascism can be recognized by its extremely hierarchical structure of governance, its goals as a political body, and how it organizes capitalism to serve its own goals.
liberals from the coastline will loudly proclaim that the conservative "child marriage" (starting at age 14) laws are a monstrosity (because that's, idk, child abuse or sth), but at the same time, you will find in many schools in the coastside a subject called "sex education" where people learn to use condoms and such. such classes are typically held at about age 13 or sth (well, it was for me). guess why they do it? because they recognize that teenagers do in fact have desires to experiment with sexuality, and offering the courses is simply recognizing that and making the best out of it.
Child marriage laws are bad because it gives a legal avenue for adults to prey upon children...... Not because people want to prevent teens from sexual exploration. What is wrong with you?
Opposing fascism isn’t far left. That’s just being a decent person.
Opposing fascism is illegal, and centrists have a fetish for Law And Order. That shoves a lot of people leftward by default.
This meme is made by a leftist, and that community does have an issue with the same "if you don't explicitly agree with everything we say, you are other and therefore evil" attitude that the MAGA crowd has.
Thank God a brave centrist was willing to come here to criticize the left and defend the right to protect us from evil socialist extremism.
Please, oh holy enlightened central one, tell us the errors of our thinking. Is it our sins of universal healthcare, anti-genocide, and equal rights for all?
Please, oh please, do sermon us on the benefits of the right like unregulated capitalism, environmental destruction, and thought policing
I'm really not sure how to dumb it down more to make it make sense to you, given that the sarcasm and hyperbole dumbed it down quite a bit intentionally for effect. I guess read slower?
Is a shitty attitude a defining point of being a leftist? Because that's the only thing I'm criticizing here. Everything else is just you making up things to be mad about.
So when you get rightfully criticized, your response is to cry that all of your criticisms are made up and that everyone besides you is wrong and has a bad attitude
If everyone you meet is an asshole, maybe you're the asshole instead. But having that epiphany would involve you dropping that iconic "better than you" smugness that centrists love so much and giving a fuck about other people instead
What part of your comment was "legit criticism"? All you did was assume I'm a centrist and go off with a bunch of sarcasm based on that.
If you were trying to say that the the way some leftists attack everyone for everything is justified or necessary in some way, you should have tried making that point without adding in assumptions and sarcasm.
We're assuming you're a centrist because you're very clearly trying to hold the exact position that the OP meme is mocking. My sarcasm is on point here because such a position is foolish and worthy of ridicule, and the hyperbole does an excellent job of pointing out the blatant falsehood of the entire political spectrum being equal.
I have no obligation to entertain right-wing viewpoints, give them a platform, or respect anyone who thinks they are worth consideration. In fact, I have an obligation to the do the exact opposite in defense of the victims of those viewpoints coming to fruition.
My advice would be to get off the fence and grow a thicker skin. No one likes centrists, especially whiny ones who think they're above reproach or consequence.
You truly are proving the point I was making. Go back and look at the first comment I made that started this whole thread.
What if I rephrase to leave out mentioning MAGA, and simply say "the way some leftists choose to communicate is counterproductive". What part of that statement says anything about actual leftist policy?
The knee-jerk reactions of people in this thread is exactly what I am taking issue with. Based on a single sentence, criticizing not leftist ideals, but criticizing the choice of how some people communicate, now you assume you know my position on all topics, based on your idea of what a "centrist" is (a term the is quickly becoming as useless as the term "woke").
Some one did not read the Canadian Constitution or the bill of rights.
Tell us, oh, wise one, about the 'equal rights' in Gladue?
Whoops, I forgot that I singularly control the equality settings for every nation on the planet, including Canada. Let me just pop over to the control panel.
That was very not cool to forget that bro
I'm so sorry bro, I should've paid better attention to the training material when I became The Leftist™️
No one said you 'control it' But you are the one who seems to think we have it.
maybe do your homework before spouting lies and bullshit??
I never claimed Gladue, Canada has utopian equality, actually. I couldn't even point it out on a map. As another user pointed out, leftism ADVOCATES and works towards those ideals, which very clearly was what I was saying in context. If you had a functional frontal lobe, this might be an easier conversation for you. Maybe iron out the dent in your brain before trying to tackle big conversations, lil fella
Where did they say it's what we have, because to me it reads that those are what we're fighting for.
This includes indigenous peoples.
indigenous peoples in Canada already have more rights than actual Canadians.
What the hell are you on about?
How about the right to clean water?
You can have clean water when you stop tearing apart the water treatment plants for the resale value of the previous water treatment plant.
or , here's an idea, enter the 21st centruy and collect taxes to pay for it yourself, like the rest of the country's municipalities?
Or, maybe the chiefs can forgo new trucks every year and actually build infrastructure for their people?
It's hard to keep the sympathy when all I can see on the res is complete corruption.
if the tribes are "their own nation" then maybe start collecting taxes like every other nation on earth?
Anything's possible when you make shit up kiddo
Leftists barely agree with each other, let alone anybody elsewhere on the political spectrum. You aren't entirely wrong, though - there is a tendency to say that anything good is leftist and anything bad is right-wing, but right-wingers also do the same (see how anything they don't like is either woke or communist, or both)
Yeah there is a massive range of disagreement under the umbrella term "leftists". Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Maoist, Communization theory, Anarcho-communist, Eco-anarchist, Christian anarchist, etc. etc.
These are all largely arguments over organizing a working class majority in control of it's own lands and capital. None in these groups objects to the central thesis of worker self-government.
By contrast, centrist/right groups favor narrow hierarchies of elite oligarchs, them bicker over exactly which one of their kingpins should get the big chair.
So, most people make generalizations based on personal biases? And its human nature tendency to have "in-groups" and "out-groups"? That simple though?
but right wingers are mostly homogeneous in thier beliefs, with the hefty help of the propaganda MSMs and financial backing. left doesnt have a propaganda machine promoting "left", thats why there isnt any unified belief amongst all left leaning people.
And anything that doesn't involve a fencepost tickling their prostate is a sin to centrists.
Their g-spot is pretty far to the right though.
Yes, a lot of self-proclaimed centrists are rather right-wing but like to picture themselevs as occupying the middle of the bell curve. See also their use of the term "common sense" when they want to feel like their view is the majority one despite that not being supported by statistics.
"Vote Blue No Matter Who"
(Except Mamdani)
Mamdani is a pretty good example of the left doing things right; get the right guy nominated at the party level, then worry about the election. In a two party system, election day is too late to fix anything, it's purely damage control at that point.
He ran at the right time, the stars aligned and gave him some truly wretched losers for opposition, and national media tripped over a dozen billionaire's dicks trying to insert itself into municipal politics.
But I don't think Mamdani would have been successful against a Guliani, a Bloomberg, or a DeBlasio. And if a Republican had won over a fractured Liberal/Left field, I suspect we'd be getting an earful about how Radical Islamists cost the Democratic Party the election.
There's thousands of Mamdani's in modern American politics. You can find them in every DSA chapter in America. He's not simply the product of The Left Doing Things Right. He's a product of the liberals and conservatives finally running out of gas, then tangling themselves in a knot trying to block an alternative.
Democrats Win: We didn't need the left's help with this!
Democrats Lose: It's all the left's fault, here's endless articles why.
bOtH sIdEs
Hey look, someone trying to prove my point.
They're right, you're a moron and a coward
Based on what? The fact that I don't fall over myself to agree with whatever the leftist opinion-du-jour is? Comments like yours are specifically why the leftist movement is doomed to failure. It's a shame, since most the ideas are good, just too many self-righteous assholes are the vocal face of it.
Wordy and self-aggrandizing but basically yeah, you even admit the ideas are good and that the only reason you pretend otherwise is because you don't like the people telling you them, get the fuck over yourself and start being correct about things
Can you even read? I said the left has an attitude problem, just like the right does. That says absolutely fuck-all about how I feel about the actual ideas behind leftism.
Getting strong Know-Nothing vibes of this whole thread. No real ideological thesis or central position. Just a bunch of hollow "I'm a free thinker because I hate you" reactionary slop.
Reminds me of the old joke about the conservative being whatever the opposite of a liberal is, updated daily.
I'm very purposely trying to keep my opinions about policy points out of it, because that's not what I was ever taking issue with, and it would only serve to completely derail the conversation.
All I've ever been taking issue with is the discourse itself. The US has a two party system, which is inherently going to encourage a very "us vs them" mentality. When people immediately jump to name calling, ridicule, and general verbal abuse at the first hint of disagreement, it's only making things worse.
You sound like a Libertarian.
I view libertarianism similarly to how I view communism (the actual philosophies not the co-opted bullshit Libertarianism or the red scare version of communism); they are systems that seem like they could work if you somehow got everyone on the same page, but I don't believe that they are robust enough to withstand the people who would exploit the system.
I feel like half the problem with politics right now is that everyone feels like they have to pick a label to call themselves. So they pick whichever is closest to what they believe at the time, then (consciously or unconsciously) mold themselves to conform with that chosen group. Suddenly, everyone who disagrees is personally attacking them, since they went and made their political affiliation part of their identity, rather than just a choice they make.
The US doesn’t really have a far left. It barely has a left. What MAGA calls left tends to be rather center, like the position that people should be able to afford healthcare.
"Radical left Joe Biden" will never not be funny.
also "left media" never has a foothold in the MSMs too.
Advanced strawman. Opposing fascism isn't far left. It's just not-right.
The wall of lies and whataboutism goes below.
What if I informed you that there are more than two options, and they don't have to be extremities? And what if I followed up by informing you that what we have in the US, for a political spectrum, is not the norm elsewhere in the world?
The political spectrum in the U.S. omits leftists entirely. Both Republicans and Democrats are pro-capitalism and pro-U.S. imperialism.
And what if that not only changed nothing, but didn’t refute the post?
My reply was more aimed at the title of the post and its sentiment. "Pick a side"
I'm not a believer that there are only two political options for the US, long term, and would love to see a true political multi-party representation in the US government. I believe that something not completely (EU) far left will prevail in the US. And absolutely not the (US) far right. (Perhaps I'm just being a wishful fool, and the US will crash and burn in the next 1-5 years. Hopefully, we can make it out of this mess without doing so. But if it has to happen, so be it.)
The EU is only "far left" in comparison to the US.
But that's because the US has moved so far to the right that they can't see any other political position from where they stand.
US has always been right wing, never even went center left once. thats why the far right of western countries flee to the us, so they can grift there. US is more closer to russia than they are to EU politically spekaing.
To be fair, I am bad at picking titles. So there's that
I'd respond by saying you're too stupid to safely walk and chew at the same time and advise you to stop talking
Too bad there isn't a political party representing "The Left"
I wish Americans had leftist politicians half as cool as the right likes to pretend they are.
Centrists are actually with maga, they just don't wear the hat. See Fetterman, Schumer, Jeffries, etc
I'll summarize something I said before:
Democrats will hurt you for money, but Republicans will pay for the privilege. Both parties subservient to capital but there are still meaningful distinctions. Change must come from the bottom.
Counterargument: Centrists are actually a diverse group with many very different positions, that just have in common the fact they don't agree with either of the currently dominant political factions.
Aggressive reposte: what you just did (political stereotyping, where you label everyone who disagrees with you as basically being the same cartoon villain) is, in my experience, an example the left-wing bigotry that drives centrists away from your political faction. Disagreeing with your doesn't mean that I agree with the hateful morons on the right, it just means I also see and won't tolerate your bigotry.
So hating a hateful ideology and people who hold that ideology is bigotry. Damn, you need to see a chiropractor, you just twisted yourself in knots for that poor argument.
No, the bigotry is lumping all centrists, who have a diversity of views, in with the hateful ideology, despite having zero information about what they actually believe.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice. - Martin Luther King Jr.
Most centrists I have interacted with have the same thought, I don't care as long as I'm not affected by it. As long as the sense of order is maintained they will let babies starve, houses burn, and deforest our planet to maintain that stability. So you must excuse those of us on the left who have interacted with people more conservative to us for so long. We're tired of the bullshit and we're not going to let you live it down anymore. I have heard people talk about how centrists/moderates, whatever term you use to describe them, are the swing voters. From my personal experience in the USA with the moderate, the moderate fucking sucks.
If the moderate is who truly votes in presidents then they have failed us multiple times now with Trump. Thoroughly, absolutely. I don't know how you can live a life seeing the horrors perpetuated for money and power to still think our system okay. If you're not swayed by the plight of the fact we can feed everyone on the Earth, we just cannot satisfy the gluttony of the wealthy to do so. Of maintaining order while a group of people who had no choice in their birth are subjugated, beaten, rounded up and jailed just for existing, and lynched for existing. If you look at everything wrong in this world and aren't galvanized away from moderation and right wing politics, then you're lost.
Sorry for the delay in reply, I've been off of social media lately. Thanks for the cogent reply, I appreciate the time you put into it.
I think you make a solid case, except for one central fallacy. I am galvanised away from the right by the atrocities you list. However, you smuggle in the assumption that pushing away from the selfish, parochial right must push me towards the contemporary political left---both the formal political parties, and the informal zeitgeist of leftist culture/ideology. I can (and I believe morally should) reject that too.
The space of alternatives is much larger, and varies on many more dimensions, than the current political dichotomy. I believe that insistence on that dichotomy, that you must pick between left and right, does far more long term harm than even right wing bigotry does. I'd even go as far as to let the selfish right wing bullies win, whatever the immediate costs, if I believed it would eventually bring about a system that is fair and just for future generations, to escape this historical trap of perpetually short-sighted left-right swings. My views are more nuanced than this, but that's beyond the scope here.
This position makes me a centrist, because I support neither contemporary political party and oppose both. However, I find that zealots from both sides insist that it means I must be on the side of their enemies. You're with us or you're against us, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem, blank and white, no alternatives. It's that kind of thinking that keeps the pendulum swinging, prevents conversations about long-term, global solutions and dooms future generations to more vicious bickering about which bathroom 0.1% of the population should use while the world around them burns.
Counter-counterargument: Centrists are actually a diverse group with many very different positions, but they all end up supporting fascism by staying inactive. I don't think you're evil for not picking a side, I think you're short-sighted for assuming "staying out of it" is possible and preferable to fighting for change. Winner-take-all, first-past-the-post elections will always result in a two-party system, if you want to change that without literally burning it all to the ground, you have to do it from within the system. You can still be a centrist, just try to take the context of the whole political structure into consideration when you vote. You can say you don't tolerate bigotry, but your actions (or rather, lack of actions) make you a liar.
Ok buddy. Enjoy slurping Trump.
Not an American
Okay but the Far Left is antisemitic because they don't support Israeli
genocidefreedom and democracy. So they're even worse than MAGA.Yet another poorly made fallacy meme. Is there a bot just crapping out this same template every few days?
Yes, believing centrism to be a valid political position, due to it being the centre, is a fallacy.
what
8 days ago https://lemmy.world/post/39694498
These "Leftist good, right bad, central dumb dumb I see no difference" meme's are to Lemmy what the Big Mac is to McDonalds. This place is littered with the same, tired, fucking false fallacy. Dear lord, leading up to Dementia Donny winning his second term, 3/4ths the post on Lemmy were just that. Wasn't accurate, original, or funny the first 50 fucking times, not sure it's going to be any other time.
Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Lemmy post (FUNNY!!!!!)
Memes must be logically sound at all times
Far left citizens may oppose fascism but their leaders aren't doing a good job of it. America needs a better left wing party.
your right because there is none
People thinking the Dems are left. They're left of the GQP, they're not left of the spectrum, far from it. The neoliberal is as much not your friend as the fascist is.
Lmao.
Why does the left have to keep being represented as long hair, man bun hippy types?
Yeah, I'm a balding hippy type
I mean..... I'm not in a position to disagree with it.
still better than the other two in this meme 🤭
Fair, dude probably cares about his hair.
I'm a step away from a high and tight, and with my thining hair, close to just needing clippers.
We hate centrists. Everyone hates centrists
Yeah, both are too loud and impeding the centrist ability to go back to Brunch lmao
Brunch: May or may not include stuffing their own pockets
From a Canadian instance, really? This shit is so frustrating to see. The whole two party nonsense that this bullshit pushes is exactly why the usa is in the mess they are in now.
No, people don't have to "pick a side" the ones who think in terms of teams are our enemy.
The problem is not there are two sides. The problem is that there is only one side with 2 parties with the rest left unrepresented.
The reason it is like that is that over many years the us system pushed the teamification of politics and enshrined only two parties in law. This was inevitable with only two parties, and should be a lesson to all other nations on the dangers of two party systems. The "us vs them" tricks of control are very easy when there is only two parties. It is poison to any democracy as no one is represented by ether "side" but everyone is sorted into a side and convinced the only way to fix anything is by having your side win (but of course there is no insensitive for ether party to actually fix anything, often the opposite).
The us has been trained (and sadly a lot of the world) that coalition rule is bad, even when its the only real way to have any sort of representation or guard rails in government. And you are right no one is represented now due to years and years of only two options that both know they are built into the systems of government so deep that their removal would require a new nation. After all this time there is no longer meaningful representation, but there is convenient scapegoats and excuses in pointing at the other side, so people in the us still think they live in a democratic system.
From my foreigner POV, it's not even two sides. It seems like it's MAGA vs everyone else.
Oh it looks that way on purpose, there are barely two parties and its used to control the people. When you see "everyone else" that is the trick, the other party that is not in power does nothing but gets to be seen the one that is "representing" that mass.
the strawman further polarizes me away from your perspective. if i didn't know better I would say you're trying to make things worse.
How about we stop pretending that the left doesn't have its own share of emotionally damaged asshats and try to pick leadership that solves problems instead of pandering to one side or the other?
tankies are probably the worst presentation of the "left"
Who's pretending ?
i think the "current far left" supports authoritarianism, so not the opposite, just different flavor of the same side.
That's because the political compass is two-dimensional, but everyone insists on thinking of it as a one-dimensional thing.
You've got left wing and then you've got right wing, and then in the vertical direction you've got authoritarianism and libertarianism. When people say far right and far left what they really mean is that the extreme edges horizontally and right at the top vertically. Think Castro, and not Gandhi. Both were left wing but are nowhere near each other in political phasespace
Even the 2 dimensional compass is a simplification, though orders of magnitude better than the binary "left or right" simplification, and also better than the 2 dimensional gradient as well.
Far [insert preferred political allegiance] simply means extremist, usually unwilling to compromise. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your personal political opinions, but generally speaking an inability to reach a compromise is not a desirable trait regardless of your political leanings.
As a saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good. We don't want people refusing to embrace more libertarian policies simply because they don't get everything that they want. Progress is achieved by steadily grinding away at the norm, not by having a big explosive change all at once. That's what communists want.
Social democrats are what centrists actually are and they're generally on board.
"Centrists" tho
Well, if youre a "centrist" like me, then you used that designation to try to get out of talking about politics with ass holes on both sides. And also i hate getting "prejudged" -everyone does- because i might like or dislike a certain politician. I am a centrist, truly, but I dont need to prove that to any of you. And this is what I mean when I say "both sides are the same" I mean you assholes harras, insult, degrade, tease, berate, and nearly threaten about how your side is "the good side" and the "otherside" equals the destruction of America. Yeah, well, both sides do that annoying shit. You want to tell me "there's no such thing as a centrist anymore" and that i am actually on the _________ side. Well f you, you dont get to tell me what side im on.
Maybe you just feel that since im not with you, that I must be against you? If that overly simple reasoning is where you are at, I dont think we should be friends anyway.
I dont want to be identified as red or blue, dem or repub. Honestly, im pretty conflict avoidant in general, and politics gets to be such nasty topic and can ruin family and friends. I see it happen more in the past few years than ever. Its really sad! And you know it too!
Can everyone please just put a sock in it for at least the rest of December? Can we all look for common ground and the things that we can share? Dont look at family through red or blue tinted glasses, but through the lens of love. Let's put our pride aside for a while and produce good times and love this holiday season.
Done :).
The only thing I gather from these posts.
The right: We prefer a two party system.
The left: a vote for a third option weakens us in the battle against the right.
Centrists: I just want a third option that isn't democrats or republicans...
Isn't it just left & right ?
Because both make money.
"Centrists" are those that oppose authoritarianism in all forms. The far left and and far right make rationalizations about why their preferred flavour of authoritarianism is good (it just gets a bad rap!) while pretending to vehemently oppose the other side's flavour of authoritarianism.
But in the end, those who rationalize in favour of any kind of authoritarianism could easily be manipulated into supporting any other kind of authoritarianism. There's a reason the Nazis called themselves the Nationalist Socialist party, just a small amount branding can get a good number "leftists" to support fascism. Because few people actually think in ideological terms, they just go along with the group and repeat whatever ideological bullshit they've heard to conform with the group. It's easier to turn a socialist into a fascist (and vice versa) since it's mostly just about branding.
Socialists and Fascists love the concept of political spectrum they can put themselves on opposite ends of, but that's all an artificial construct to allow for fear of the other to rationalize the need for a strongman to protect them from the other side that supposedly has completely different values than them. But the "far right" and "far left" have both been conned into being willing to give up their rights in fear of the other. Fascism is a convenient rationalization for communism and communism is a convenient rationalization for fascism. These "ideologies" has a symbiotic relationship with each other.
Those who fall for these grifts believe the verbal diarrhea of demagogues that use a lot of words and say little other than give a vague feeling of "trust me, give me power, I will make you stronger / more equal". The stupid see someone using a lot of words and don't notice there isn't any real explanation of how the demagogue will deliver on their vague promises. They just need to hate the same people their audience hates and use a lot of words, and the stupid will eat whatever bullshit is thrown at them.
Internet podcasting has allowed people to have an endless selection of small time demagogues to choose from. The flavour of authoritarianism the stupid will fall prey to is entirely dependent on which content an algorithm selects for them. And that is based on content they may consumed before puberty. These grifters need to get them while they're young, someone with more life experience will be more likely to say "yeah sure that's a lot of fancy words, but how does any of that help me right now?" which they don't have an answer for.
Right now we live in a dictatorship of the wealthy. The capitalists control productive forces, decide how the majority of us spend our time, and lobby governments in their own interests. On the other hand, the workers, the people that labored to create everything we need, are given a fraction of the value of what they produce in the form of wages. In other words, every person that survives on their wages is exploited by necessity. We are institutionally coerced to sell our labor (i.e., make money for the capitalist) or fall into abject destitution.
Centrists obviously don't see the dictatorship. We live in a time where the rule of the wealthy is as normal as the divine right of kings once was. Accordingly, centrists may be sensible enough to see the following trends as problems, but they tend to think of them as entirely disconnected:
Marxist theory can explain all of these problems, and in many cases predicted them before they happened. But if the billionaires can convince people like you that a better economic system is synonymous with authoritarianism, and that continuing capitalist wealth extraction is the reasonable "center" position, then they can prevent the workers from banding together against the ruling class.
WTF happened to centrism, instead of measured response to right and left it has just turned into the place where cowards hide
Always was
Makes more sense when you realize a lot of so called "enlightened centrists" are just Republicans who don't want to be lumped in with them but love their hateful policies.
It didn't used to be that way, not entirely sure what happened to change that
The current political climate is galvanizing and honestly I don't see it as a problem. We cannot survive as a society much less species with how things are now. Some people are only concerned with how they're viewed, so they lie about what they believe in order to look not terrible. Truthfully, nuance is dead, and playing both sides means the one that takes away will always win.
If you can only paint 'your side' as the hero, then you are a naive child with 0 life experience.
Reading 19th-20th century theory on the internal contradictions and inherent exploitation of capitalism offers a very convincing framework for understanding our current reality. To paint such analyses as naivete ironically reveals a lack of familiarity with the subject matter.
Those who have been critiquing, reading critiques, and debating about it for a long time are naive for not blindly buying Carl's Jr's Big Bucket of Fries!
Pure projection
EDIT: after thinking about it for a couple of hours, my take was really bad, and i'm gonna clarify:
There is significant difference between the republicans and the non-republicans in the US, which is that the republicans are extremely racist. And that's not just a "little bit of racist", but a "fucking huge bit of racist", on top of that. So there's a clear distinction.
As a side fact, i'd still like to point out that "fascism" as a term is surprisingly difficult to define. Everybody likes to be "against" fascism, but it's an emotional catch-phrase without a cut-and-dry definition. That's why i tend to avoid it in discussion, or if i do use it, i give it the following meaning: "Fascism is an illegal way of seizing power in order to do something that you want." Note that illegal does not inherently imply immoral. There can be moral causes for why somebody does something illegal, such as with slave uprisings as happened around 1800 in northern america. That, according to my definition, is illegal (in the sense that the law said it's illegal), but not immoral, but since the definition of "fascism", according to me, concerns whether it's illegal to do something, not immoral, it would have been fascist too, by that definition. That's to show that fascism is not inherently good or evil, but it depends on what you do with it.
the original comment is below for historical purposes
I used to think that "left" and "right" were diametrically opposed terms, but i don't see it that way anymore:
I don't even know where to start with how wrong you are.
Seriously. Is this what a degree from Prager U looks like?
I mean.... It depends on the definition you are utilizing. The term originated from the seating arrangement from the French National Assembly prior/during the french revolution. With advocates for a republic on the left, and monarchist on the right.
The most common modern geopolitical definition is now the left supporting socialism and the right supporting capitalism. Two economic systems which are fairly diametrically opposed in an economic sense.
Again, it depends on your definition. But imperialism is generally a policy of a powerful nation who extends it's rule over another country through direct or indirect means. This can be for economic, strategic, or even political gain, most usually to exploit the resources or labour of another nation.
No...just no. You can really do an imperialism on yourself, that's just definitionally incorrect.
What?
Fascism is purposely hard to define as it's a reactionary response to the democratic process and thus depends on vagueness to grow within a democracy.
However, fascism can be recognized by its extremely hierarchical structure of governance, its goals as a political body, and how it organizes capitalism to serve its own goals.
Child marriage laws are bad because it gives a legal avenue for adults to prey upon children...... Not because people want to prevent teens from sexual exploration. What is wrong with you?
... wanting equality for gay people is fascism? Okay. Okay. Going to go vomit.
edit oh and a pedophilia fan too wow.