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
deleted by creator
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.
It’s really impossible to know what you mean here, because conservative should mean to keep doing what works: They should be social democrats (what worked to build the US e.g. Nixon lol). So we shouldn’t use that word any more. True conservatism would be more left wing than democrats today.
The GOP has become a reactionary or “paleo-conservative” which is really a misnomer too. What they really are now is a theocratic fascist party. But really they have no values at all except power and hate and inequality.
There are no real centrists, there is no center here. They are really corporatists who are willing to play politics in order to please the big capitalists or plutocracy. They love trump because they can keep cutting of left wing politics and not have a platform. In foreign policy they are fascist as well (american exceptionalism, a belief in inequality based on identity).
The gop are not the reactionary part, the DNC is. They are also centrists between the gop and a ghost of policies to the left.
I think we’re speaking different languages.
We gotta stop callin them conservatives. These shits are trying to roll things back, not keep it as-is. They’re the opposite of progressive: they’re regressive.
That would be reactioners, not conservatives. You guys also have problem of reactioners taking name of conservatives.
American Centrist are reactionaries, American conservatives are not reactionaries. That is my point.
“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?
I’m saying anyone who views other people this way has sociopathic tendencies. They just mentioned centrists.
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.
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.
yeah but we have money and lots of it
we literally use God as part of our laws
Really? I thought USSA at least claimed to be secular state.
The ruling that just banned IVF in Alabama mentioned God over 20 times.
That just insane
And the justice is apparently a q-anon shill. Appeared on a talk.
Claimed being the operative word…
And our Constitution says so too. Unfortunately, judges don’t seem to give a shit.
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.
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
Nah, I’m not a teen. Chippity choppity! LFG!
You mean chippity choppity to their wealth, right? Right…?
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.
Yes, this is just lazy circle jerk stuff.
“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.
I also believe I am center… To me it’s more like
Right: let’s go exterminate races. Left: ACAB, all cops are pieces of shit and deserve life sentences.
I mean, they aren’t totally equal, but there are better examples.
All cops are bastards though.
Until you need one.
I’m more likely to be assaulted by a cop than helped by one. Or randomly killed while they do triple the speed limit with no siren.
I hope someday your feelings of law enforcement can be repaired by them. This is a tragic relationship between people and those that are supposed to protect them.
I hope law enforcement keeps correcting this, which they should have done themselves but instead it took enormous pressure and numerous occasions of crimes by law enforcement.
Maybe one day, you won’t have to fell that way.
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.
Nowadays the right-left-continuum is already broken inside a single political region, I am pretty sure getting the USSR into the boat doesn’t make it easier.
And by the way, who was the “second opposition party” in the One-Party-System of the Soviet Union?
And by the way, who was the “second opposition party” in the One-Party-System of the Soviet Union?
I already mentioned LDPSU. Fist one was Democratic Union, right wing, but no longer exists. One-party-system was abolished in 1990
Does Russia have a living opposition party?
Putin: “Who are you going to vote for, me or the corpse?”
Also Putin: “The answer is me. Or else.”
It’s the SP party. It stands for sock puppet and are just for show to give everything a veneer of democracy
There was Yabloko, but I wouldn’t call it living party. Same for CPRF, another dead party on federal level. LDPR only pretends to be opposition on TV, you already can guess they are not. New People is sock puppet like LDPR.
On municipal level and in some regions things are slightly different:
LDPR had some popularity until Furgal’s arrest and subsequent idiot acting governor. Members of Habarovsk Krai’s LDPR either moved to UR(incumbent’s party) or remained in opposition and moved to CPRF. Furgal was arrested because he was more popular than Putin in Habarovsk.
CPRF: extensive regional network, comparable to what Navalny had. While in some regions they are puppets for UR, in most of regions they are opposition to UR, actively register observers(Putin hates observers, they ruin his falsifications), can register you as candidate from federal party and usually are supported by Smart Voting(Navalny and his supporters). Have string teams in many regions.
Navalny’s HQ(Shtab)/Russia of the Future: had extensive regional network that existed until his poisoning. Now it doesn’t.
Yabloko: sometimes registers observers, usually doesn’t, but sometimes does register good candidates, has strong team in Moscow and SpB, had strong team in Pskov. Sometimes supported by SV.
LDPR: shit in Moscow, had a lot of seats in east regions. It seems like they disappeared.
New People: Sock Puppet Party, but can randomly register humanoid candidate and sometimes this candidate wins.
On municipal elections even sock puppets has sometimes good candidates, but most municipal elections are FPTP.
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
It says something, that securing people’s basic needs is considered “far” left.
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
Tankies on Hexbear: Both fascists, you really shouldn’t vote
Removed by mod
“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
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.”
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.
What people are advocating for is generally not communism and I would say communists are generally pretty rare on the left. Finding an actual Marxist who engages with the solution theory side of his work and not just his pointing at a social structure side is like finding a unicorn. Recognizing that there is an owner class is Marxist sure but it’s also leaving 75 percent of his political theory on the table.
People will definitely joke about being communist but that is a dig at McCarthist witchhunt logic which flattened and branded anything left of enthusiastic neo libralism as a potential threat. There’s also people who will respond to the virulent rejection of communism by arguing for it based on the fact that it never has been pulled off as written but that’s a knee jerk reaction to being called a communist since breaking down why you aren’t a communist at all requires more knowledge that a lot of people don’t have at hand. When you brand everyone with nebulous left facing ideals a communist you functionally create “communists” who need to defend themselves. Results vary.
But break open the left at a philosophical level and you find much sharper distinctions… Many variations of which have represented stable democratic government systems with historical precedent of being resistant to power consolidation.
Communism or the Communist systems resulting from attempts to make the idea of Communism work, relies on a relocation of personal property with the state as an intermediary based on need for all citizens in the system. It is highly invasive in its management of distribution while solidifying a fairly rigid government control with autocratic power weilded through offices that are not elected positions … Doing things like creating universal government services like Universal Health care or looking at affordable housing as a basic right aren’t nessisarily Communist. Those things are still subject to democratic control of elected groups. It’s a feature of multiple leftist structures.
Out of the systems frequently discussed seriously Socialism is the most common but the subheading is more of a spectrum that represents a wide band of different ideologies about how to manage resources to create specific reserves for the public good outside of capitalist profit driven structures leaving the domain of personal property allocation basically alone. Critically, under Socialism you still have rich and poor people there’s just limita on how wide a band the top is from the bottom. Maybe the rich man doesn’t evade being taxed and has regulated limits of how much they can benefit from mutually held public common like the environment and the poor man isn’t dying on the street. At it’s shallowist end Socialism is potentially as gentle as just having more protections to ensure people’s labour is protected from exploitative practice.
What most modern leftist ideologies particularly depend on these days is a highly democratic framework. Making elections more representive, enforcement of term limits and peaceable changeovers of power and re-establishing the idea of community held property by empowering local government bodies meaning a very beaurcratic decentralized power. There are lots of countries running variations of this framework so no, the left in a general sense is not interested in bringing Communism back. When you equate the left as a whole to Communism you are basically falling for decades old propaganda that preys on the habit people have of oversimplifying something that is deep and difficult to understand into a flat, easily dismissable token. An oversimplification designed by detractors whose interest is in giving you tools so you stop thinking and exploring further than benefits them.
Because they are babies with no political literacy.
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.
The KKK is an absolute, and you’ve advocated for taking the middle of the road approach for everything. Are you walking back your statement that absolutes are bad inherently, and taking the common-sense position that everything must be judged individually?
No. I’m saying that absolutes suck and they are an absolute. But you can keep trying to tell me what I am saying like I don’t understand it. It didn’t come from my mind or anything.
Or you are hell bent on proving an exception to centerists which is 80 percent of the country. At least it was a couple of years ago. And can’t accept that all of us are in the same boat wanting more options.
It’s not a strawman. The KKK is an absolutist stance, and to stand against the KKK is absolutist.
80% of America is right wing, more than that I’d say. Centrists are the Social Democrats, which rallied around Bernie.
Yes the KKK represents an absolute viewpoint. So does saying “You should never, ever support the KKK” which you claim to agree with.
Other guy is just trying to point out to you that your opening statement is logically inconsistent, since you DO support at least one absolute position. (That the KKK are unreasonable and not to be supported.)
Most likely, there are other absolute positions you also support - that one was picked because it was an easy one that for sure you would agree with. Uncovering others would take more discussion.
You also are not seeing the forrest for the trees. It’s not a boolean loop. Saying an absolute is a fucking problem is a statement that is echoed by the centerists. You can diminish a point all you want. But then all we are going to discuss now nothing is nothing. There is no logic to saying that absolutes are a problem. It’s a statement of fact.
Saying an absolute is a fucking problem is a statement that is echoed by the centerists.
Are you under the impression that I’m a centrist? Because I was under the impression you were.
Maybe I should just make this statement instead of trying to reply to this several layers deep context.
If a person says “Absolutes are a problem” but also says “except this Absolute, right here, this one is OK” - then that person doesn’t actually think absolutes are a problem. That person thinks absolutes they disagree with are a problem.
Personally, I would not say absolutes are absolutely a problem. If we could agree on a few absolutes (such as “The KKK is bad” or “White supremacy should be rooted out and not tolerated” or “You can’t call and threaten or beg people to take illegal action when you don’t like the results of an election”) I think maybe we’d have a bit more unity in the country.
At this point I guess I’ve lost the plot of whether I agree with you or not, but I think I don’t, and my position is as outlined above. I also agree with the meme that is OP.
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.
It’s not a Strawman.
By claiming that absolutes are bad inherently, they are stating that taking an absolute stance against racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Is also bad. The KKK is a great example, they were defended by White Moderates during the Civil Rights Movement.
You don’t feel like its not a reasonable example if we are talking modern day American politics in the same conversation with unions and minimum wage?
I do agree there are some absolutes that cannot be tolerated. But, it gets difficult to articulate that because some people have such strong opinions about a particular topic, they consider it an absolute. Like murdering a child should never be tolerated would be an example of an absolute I think all of mumanity would support, but it was done during China’s one child policy. So some didn’t subscribe to that.
I find political discussions with certain people hard because they believe their thing should be absolute, rather than up for negotiation, hopefully so both group kinda win instead of everyone loses.
Murdering children wasn’t a part of the One Child Policy, but an unintended outcome from it. It was obviously a terrible policy because of its results, but it wasn’t done to murder children. That’s not a great example.
I was not suggesting it was policy. I was suggesting it was an absolute viewpoint or a personal value.
Second though, I don’t know that I consider KKK supporters moderate. Maybe historically unfortunately, but not now. I’ve never met someone I thought was a middle ground or more center person who supports racism. Especially hard/blatant racism. I’d take ignorance, they might not understand cultural differences.
Center ground in America is definitely pro-racism, considering how far-right America is in general.
I disagree. Not a single person I consider center is even close to a racist.
I work with a bunch of conservative or American Republican voters. None support or are racist.
None of the barely Democrat voters I know are racist. Since there’s assertion that even American Democrats are right, same applies.
Are there groups of shitty people who are, sure. I don’t think they represent the whole of the country. I don’t know why middle ground is interpreted as racism ok. That’s not middle.
I work with a bunch of conservative or American Republican voters. None support or are racist.
Anyone who votes Republican supports their racist policies. Ergo, such a voter might be “one of the good ones” (yeah, I know what I said), but they are OK supporting and increasing the power of a party that is decidedly racist. (and sexist, and homophobic, and transphobic, and, and, and…)
Democrats aren’t perfect by any means, but anyone finding them hard to distinguish from Republicans in those areas should probably feel a bit called out by OP.
Have you considered that you may not realize they are racist because you’re at work, and/or are white as well? I’ve known many conservatives that I didn’t think were racist until I found out later.
You truly don’t know any conservative that posted #AllLivesMatter?
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?
That’s not a more extreme stance, that’s just a more violent stance. Extremism doesn’t mean violence.
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.
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.
why do people say these thing when they know its not true
centrists are usually right wing wanting the votes/approval from left
