It’s amazing how much emotion can be conveyed with literally an empty black circle
I first noticed how great that was with this, one of my earliest XKCD experiences:
Bonus: Have some Awkward Zombie. I made that third panel my profile pic for a while.
How could you not share the original?
I have no idea what this is and I regret seeing it.
Fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu
It is truly wild that Katie Tiedrich has been keeping up on Awkward Zombie since her teens. Both of those webcomics are ancient at this point.
Unironically this. A few years ago I had people calling me alarmist when I pointed out the creeping fascism, and I said ‘if we wait until they’re waving Nazi flags and goose stepping in the streets, it will be too late’.
Well now we’ve got literal Nazis waving flags and goose stepping in the streets. Fuck everyone who called us alarmists. Many of them are still making excuses, and they’re the same sorts of people who were ‘utterly shocked’ to learn people were being gassed one town over during the Holocaust.
Maybe some of us will live to see them vomiting as they’re marched through the camps, crying and choking on human ash.
Fuck them all.
e: how about you cowards who are anonymously downvoting me leave a comment explaining why you disagree? I’d very much like to have a conversation with you where you could try to change my opinion. Don’t be a pussy, give me a response.
Boy you pissed off a few of the ignorant here, but you’re exactly right. I ran into the same thing over the years. This steady progression toward fascism has been a wild ride, and anyone who is remotely well-read understands what is going on.
Hi. Is there a larger number of nazis taking to the streets?
-person who does not watch the news
Yes, by orders of magnitude.
[Here are some in Tampa, Florida.
You can google ‘Nazi’ plus literally every state and find multiple articles.
e: removed an historical article that wasn’t relevant; I got this conversation mixed with a different conversation I was having, sorry.
Yeah. Started with the ‘Unite the Right’ rally in 2017, now there are swastikas in a… disturbing number of right-wing protests, marches, rallies, etc. CPAC in 2021 used a popular Nazi norse rune for their stage. Requests by mainstream right-wing organization are asking for specific books about the Holocaust to be removed from public schools and libraries. It’s…
ugly.
Yeah, but you see Nazis means national SOCIALIST so they’re really left wing.
Which is why, um…, you’ll only find them flocking Republican rallies.
Regardless, a racial supremacist doesn’t need to be waving a nazi flag especifically for you to have the right to call them nazi. They want the extermination of Ukrainians, rather than Jews? They want the supremacism of Russians, rather than Aryans? Big shit, they’re still nazis. The fact that these far right loons are literally waving nazi flags only help us to make the case more obvious, but what’s actually important is that they’ve been defending supremacism since a long time ago.
It seems that there is too much of a generalization here. Your given information about people calling you an alarmist is anecdotal. Where is the data that shows, from what the post is about, that all centralists act this way? I don’t see how being a centralist and being anti-facist can’t be true at the same time.
I fall into centralist territory, but I also believe that tyrrany comes from swinging too far to either side. Once you start moving so far in each direction you begin to have too much government overreach. Whether that comes in the form of dictating what car to drive, what is taught in school, who you can marry, or gender affirmation.
Too much control is too much control, period.
Nobody said it was all centrists, but there’s no such thing as benevolent neutrality when fascists are seizing power. There’s just not.
There’s also no leftist extremism in sufficient numbers to be a threat in the US. In fact, the vast majority of ‘the left’ in the US are actually traditional conservatives.
My anecdote may not be statistically relevant, but if you’ve spent time online in the last seven years, you’ll have encountered similar situations on a near daily basis. Pretty much every city has recently played host to openly Nazi rallies, and that’s because they’re comfortable coming out from under their rocks since one of the major parties accepts and supports them.
Currently in the US, the split is roughly 30% left of centre, 30% right, and 30% either centrist or not paying attention. That’s exactly the same breakdown of society as when the Nazis seized control in Germany. Centrism in the face of fascism helps the fascists succeed. We know this, and it’s part of why historians have been raising alarms.
“In fact, the vast majority of ‘the left’ in the US are actually traditional conservatives.”
There is a lot of truth in this. Years ago I abandoned the Republican party due to the ever growing bigotry towards POC. The caveat is that I cannot fully support the Democrat party with their own intolerance for, what I see as, personal liberties that they themselves are against.
The current political climate no longer allows room for moderate ideology and discourse. This comes from both left and right not being able to recognize their own extremist fringes.
“There’s also no leftist extremism in sufficient numbers to be a threat in the US.”
When COVID hit, the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, attempted to violate New Mexican civil rights with her proposed policies. She was adamant about restricting travel within the state along with out of state travel. This would have been a death blow for people, like myself, who live in rural areas. My nearest grocery store is in Arizona which would have meant a 2+ drive to a city in New Mexico to purchase goods. Luckily there was a fight put up to prevent this and to allow individualas living in rural area to travel out of state as necessary for goods and medical visits.
Just as Nazi extremists are creating turmoil, we cannot forget the riots that caused the burning of businesses and homes during the riots of 2020. Instead of condemning the riots what did many Liberal politicians do at that time? Were the emotions and voices calling for justice warranted? Absolutely. Was the destruction that ensued afterwards warranted? No.
Recognition and combating of the violence and control that extremists are attempting on the average person is necessary no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on.
I won’t disagree that the continued presence and surfacing of Nazi groups is alarming and needs to be addressed and resolved. What I can’t say is that this is the only political extreme that is surfacing in the United States.
See also: “wow are you suggesting this person doesn’t have the right to express themselves?? Sounds like you’re the real Nazi!”
Of course they have the right to express themself. That makes it easier to find the Nazis, duh
I want Nazis to be scared to share their ideas. I want Nazis to be so scared they don’t crawl out of the gutters they live in.
Make Nazis Dead Again
And not just to make Nazis lives less pleasant, but so they don’t have such a fucking easy time of finding each other and linking up. If you’re too scared to speak up about how you think the Jews are the problem, you don’t get those views reinforced by other assholes also speaking the same bigotry. The Nazis may have always been there, but it’s a lot worse when they can reinforce each others bigotry and decide that it’s time to actually do something.
That’s basically what the right wants for the left!
My guy, that’s because the right are clearly the aggressors. Do you tell domestic abuse victims they’re just as bad as ther abusers when they pick up a knife to defend themselves, or spike the soup?
Please tell me you aren’t both-sidesing Nazis. That’s gross.
Not really. The right tends to go a little bit harder in that direction:
Are you not white? Be scared. Jew? Be scared. Muslim? Be scared. Gay? Be scared. Socialist? Be scared. Woman? Be scared.
The left is a lot better in that regard, as they tend to limit the “bash their heads in” option toward literal Nazis. It seems to me that the right doesn’t feel a need to limit themselves in any way here.
Please describe how you imagine a “Nazi” wakes up and gets ready for their day. I’m curious what’s behind the label. Would you also use the words ‘toxic’ and ‘bigot’ to describe these people and if not what does a ‘toxic’ person and a ‘bigot’ do to start their days? (from your perspective, of course)
Please describe how you imagine a “Nazi” wakes up and gets ready for their day. I’m curious what’s behind the label.
What? Obviously a Nazi wakes up at 7:30 sharp, puts on their arm band then combs their dumb little brush mustache. Then they heil and finish getting ready. /s
What kind of question is that? There’s no one way nazis wakes up. That’s not what makes a Nazi a Nazi.
Would you also use the words ‘toxic’ and ‘bigot’ to describe these people and if not what does a ‘toxic’ person and a ‘bigot’ do to start their days? (from your perspective, of course)
Are you trying to imply Nazis aren’t bigots and dangerous/toxic to society, and if not - why did you even ask this? What is the purpose of that question if not to imply that?
I’m talking about Nazis. Nazi Nazis. The Nazis that keep popping up everywhere. This was news, big news at the time. Pretending like you didn’t see it isn’t an excuse now, because you’ve now been shown it.
Removed by mod
This is an AI response isn’t it?
I’ve used enough chatGPT to recognize it’s writing patterns. One of the things that stands out the most is saying you want to have a discussion, but not actually saying anything that needs to be commented on. That’s a telltale sign for an AI response.
Edit: Oh, and you’re a mod of an AI community? I’m certain it’s an AI response now.
The sub and the server is getting infiltrated by Nazis and/or bots. 🤔
My bet is either AI or someone sporting a fedora
Lol, nice “edit” interesting you didn’t put the first part of your edit after what you said was an edit?
It’s my response filtered through AI to avoid your manipulations and keep the conversation aimed at what I was asking about to begin with and not what you attempted to change the context to. :) Any other dodges?
Good lord. Are you a real human? If so, this is shameful.
Oh so shameful that I’m not brainwashed into removing the humanity from people and using identity politics to manipulate arguments and send the brigaide of idiots after people to pretend like my points are valid.
Ive been called a nazi for liking firearms.
Meanwhile, I openly support antifa.
So im not sure this is completely accurate.
I don’t know where this says “No one ever misuses Nazi”
I’m a supporter of firearms ownership myself
That’s probably a cultural thing, I would immediately suspect anyone really into guns in the UK as we don’t have a gun culture, and subsequently have far less kids murdered in schools.
It’s not a zero sum equation. You being called a nazi for liking fire arms doesn’t cancel out all the people using this argument to defend actual fascists.
Who called you a Nazi for liking firearms, and why did they do that?
People aren’t always rational. I’m anti-gun in general, but I’m also very pro-antifa and am fully aware that means shooting nazis when it comes to it.
I’m not against people owning weapons, I’m against the fetishisation of them and I believe they belong in secure storage or for hunting, not strapped to an idiot in Walmart, in people’s videos, or posed with proudly on Christmas cards like a damned Taliban photoshoot.
There’s a time and a place, and that’s not everywhere all the time, such that minor fistfights become shootouts at the corral.
I’m pretty left, but I’d never call a regular gun owner a nazi. Whoever said that is an idiot.
I think that’s just not the topic of this particular comic though.
The comic is not about someone “calling a person a Nazi for owning firearms”. It is about “calling a Nazi a Nazi”, and someone else ignoring some blatant and obvious facts in response.
Of course there is also the problem of people calling anyone they don’t like a Nazi. It’s a different problem. The comic doesn’t talk about that at all, and has nothing to do with it.
Why do you bring it up? Why do you think that’s related?
Everyone is a Nazi for tankies.
The increased danger of owning a firearm is one of those deliciously ironic things.
lol @ all of the “I got called a nazi for no reason” in the thread, followed by some nazi-like shit that they did.
I’ve only ever been called a grammar Nazi. I’m fine with that one.
I met a guy once who flew Nazi flags on his car. Figured I’d actually talk to him about it reasonably rather than reacting and calling him a Nazi. He basically explained he only did it because he had the right to because of freedom of speech and expression.
It was almost like he was just trying to bait people because he enjoyed the commotion?
Idk it was weird, but makes me wonder if that’s how most of these “nazi” people are
“I’m only being a Nazi ironically” is the attitude of either someone whose opinions should not be taken seriously in any circumstance, or a Nazi.
I once knew a guy who hung one in his bedroom “because I liked the colors.”
If it smells like bullshit…
Shoulda suggested he use the flag of Albania instead
I take everyone’s opinions seriously, or try to. We’re all just meat sacks in a rock hurtling through space. We all were raised in different circumstances. So who am I to say someone is wrong for their beliefs?
… so you wouldn’t say a Nazi is wrong for their beliefs
What difference does it actually make? That person is still performing Nazi-ism, even if they say they don’t believe it. That person is still showing support for Nazi-ism, and making minorities feel unsafe.
To be clear, there is a really good chance that they are full of crap, they do believe it, they’re just “joking” until the final punchline lands.
But one’s internal beliefs don’t actually mean much in comparison to their actions.
Isn’t the illegal part of Nazi-ism the actual fascism, violence, othering, couping, etc parts though and not its symbology?
Does overly assigning evil to a set of symbols give a path for similar evils with different symbols to come about? I’ve wondered about that and modern American Christian Fascism – I think it’s more invisible than it should be because people conflate fascism with the Nazis symbols directly instead of its ideals and methods.
I never know how to feel about the auditors and ‘law tester’ people – they sure seem assholish, but they do always make me think about interesting important questions about the law and society.
Flying a Nazi flag is itself, with no other acts, hurting people. This is like saying “the cross burning didn’t hurt anyone, the lynchings were the real problem”.
Sorry I meant to call that out more explicitly. The symbols do harm people because they’ve done damage, but the symbols themselves didn’t do the damage and I wondered if not being more clear about that is why people don’t see other modern fascist movements with different symbols for what they are.
Being a nazi ironically is still being a nazi
you seem to have as good of a grasp on irony as alanis morissette.
No… they used it correctly. One of the definitions of irony is a clash of expectations. The Nazi flag is a symbol of fascism, and fascism is a form of government that suppresses free speech. So a person embracing Nazi emblems for the sake of free speech would qualify.
Removed by mod
You can be a “free speech” advocate without having one iota of Nazi sympathies. I’m all for free speech, particularly people like Nazi sympathizers. It lets us know who they are, where they are, the people they associate with, and if needed, who needs severe ass beating. Having “free speech” doesn’t exclude you from the consequences of using “free speech.”
Removed by mod
Who are you talking to?
If he looks like a Nazi and he talks like a Nazi and he acts like a Nazi, then people will reasonably assume that he’s a f*cking Nazi and that’s how he should be treated until he gives us evidence to the contrary.
Case in point
If the driver is genuinely black, then I am genuinely confused 😱
Just because you are black doesn’t mean you can’t be a moronic asshole as well.
It’s the uncle ruckus syndrome lol
Is this Chester Stone?
Notice the couple idiots below finding sympathy for the QUITE LITERAL nazi in the comic.
Turns out human rights are the real Nazism.
FELLAS!!! Is it Nazi to be a Nazi?!
You know damn well thats not whats happening.
Oh? Then what’s happening when people respond to this comic with “ToLeRaNt LeFt”?
Because they see the left deciding half the country is a fascist, and rightfully realize that the left has gone insane.
Fuck you’re dumb. Calling someone holding a Nazi flag and shouting a Nazi shout a Nazi isn’t “the left going insane”. I’ve talked to smarter jars of mayonnaise than you.
You must be hallucinating, because half the country isn’t flying a Nazi flag.
edit: forgot the ‘be’ in between must and hallucinating
But the fucking stick figure in the comic that this entire post is about IS you absolute dipshit.
Also, which party is openly endorsed by actual Neo-Nazis, with Nazi flags openly being displayed at some of their rallies without being rightfully kicked out and shunned? I’ll tell you what, it ain’t the left one. How blind can someone be to call the left “insane” when the right makes no attempt to rid themselves of the Neo-Nazis plaguing the right?
Can I not say that there are real fascists on the right, that it’s a very serious issue, and that I don’t agree with some things the left strongly identifies with?
and that I don’t agree with some things the left strongly identifies with?
Why don’t you go ahead and name some of those things then?
Off the top of my head we’ve got progressive taxes, intersectionality (and general racism/sexism, rebranded daily), industrial welfare, the over-criminalization of social and economic conduct, arbitrary nationalization of resources and services, negative ROI public spending, unchecked support for labor unions, the subsidization of academia, and a general willingness to create unconstitutional law from any branch of government according to a broad, irrational, committee morality. Socialists take markets for granted and speak of privacy as though it’s part of the commons. In short, the left wing trends towards institutional collectivism at the cost of the individual liberties which are the foundation of collective action.
I am an economically centrist libertarian. I believe taxes should be based on resource use, not productivity, welfare should be unconditional, not coercive (and half liquid, not locked into the discretion of committee thinking), criminal law should be based on justice, not morality, and public spending should be productive, not performative.
For the record I have a separate laundry list of grievances with the right wing. I’ll zoom out since I’m facing left right now, but theocracy, monopoly, draconianism, the ignorance of systemic violations of natural rights, and support for the growth of industrial complexes (military, prison, healthcare, etc.) are among the issues. There’s a bipartisan willingness to replace justice with morality in the application of force; a viral acceptance of abuse followed by a question of flavor. What symbol would you like to be branded into the boot on your neck?
We are in this sensitive, polarized position because industry overwhelmed our agrarian notions of justice. That does not deprecate those notions. We should focus on the economic limitations that aggravate cultural issues and escalate us towards war.
Lmao imagine opening your fucking list with being against progressive taxation.
Edit: and you write an entire screed in your history about Georgism, and yet don’t realize it’s inherently progressive. Jesus dude c’mon.
“Progressive tax” refers to a tax rate which increases as taxable revenue increases. It doesn’t have anything to do with progressive cultural values. Georgism is based on a flat tax of a special resource, economic rent. Given how prone this forum is to willful misinterpretation, I should specify that I don’t support flat income tax, or any income tax for that matter.
If everyone doesn’t own land, Georgism is by definition progressive.
How do you not know this?
I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent.
──Henry George, Progress and PovertyYou seem to think I am unfamiliar with Henry George and I assure you that is quite untrue. I am all about LVTs, political dead-ends though they may be.
However, I am informed enough to know an LVT is inherently progressive.
Is this post sincere? This has to be trolling right? Or are you talking about some other country aside from the US?
That’s not an argument. I’m American, but none of these issues are exclusively American. There’s certainly lots of room for discussion of each of these issues, but the crux of my comment is that public policy is more complicated than @PoopingCough’s implication that there are no valid points outside the Everyone Vs. The Nazis false dichotomy.
And you claim this while making…shitty points that are not founded in any study of economics whatsoever.
Dude tees you up perfectly and you swing directly into the woods.
Not an argument.
Yeah that’s because here im just laughing at you
It’s hard to formulate arguments for childishly naive libertarians who have obviously never lived in the real world.
Removed by mod
Not an argument.
I am an economically centrist libertarian
Lmao
Not an argument.
🤣
I am against abortion. But someone else might be more libertarian (I am not a libertarian) yet view the Republican party as evil. Even if you think that person not a good person, calling them a nazi or a fascist doesn’t really make sense.
I am against abortion.
Pretty big yikes to start out with just a blanket statement like that, but you do you.
But someone else might be more libertarian (I am not a libertarian) yet view the Republican party as evil. Even if you think that person not a good person, calling them a nazi or a fascist doesn’t really make sense.
I’m not really sure what you mean by this part other than you just think the term fascist is being applied in scenarios where there’s just disagreement?
But it really isn’t difficult to see the modern Republican party very much represents the ideals of fascism. It isn’t even a stretch. Let’s go through the definition of fascism:
“a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition” - from Merriam Webster Online
so in order:
- Exalts nation and often race of above the individual? Check.
- stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader? Seeing as how they tried to install Trump with a coup in 2021 I’d say that’s a pretty easy check.
- severe economic and social regimentation? All you have to do is look at republican tax cuts to see that is a big fat CHECK.
- forcible suppression of opposition? Look at who supports the police force and what groups are typically on the receiving end of police brutality. Check.
As you can see it doesn’t take waving a nazi flag or sieg heiling all over the place to fit at least some of the requirements to be labeled a fascist, and if we go by these metrics there are a lot of people actively supporting fascism in our country right now. I don’t think the term is much overused to be honest.
Umberto Eco gives an excellent 14 points to identify fascism.
- The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
- The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
- The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
- Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
- Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
- Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
- The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
- The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
- Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
- Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
- Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
- Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
- Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
- Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Bro this applies a little too well to the left too
There are self-proclaimed leftist movements which fit ur-fascism as defined here. Which is unsurprising, considering that leftism is generally defined by opposition to capitalism, while fascism can be for or against capitalism.
Let’s examine that:
-
The cult of tradition: Apart from Maoists, Stalinists, and Leninists, (all of them very rare breeds nowadays) I see very little “traditionalist thinking” on the left. So, NO.
-
The rejection of modernism: Does the left see the Age of Reason as the beginning of depravity? No. Even the most ardent communists the pre modern times as riddled with the same problems as modernity. They tend to see modernity and the rise of the working class as part of the solution. NO.
-
Thinking is emasculation, and action without thinking is good: If anything, then the left has a tendency to be a bit too over intellectual. NO.
-
Disagreement is treason: I have never seen two people on the left agree with each other. NO.
-
Fear of difference: If there is anything the left embraces, it’s plurality. NO.
-
Appeal to social frustration: Lefty ideologies do not speak to a middle class which feels threatened from lower social groups. NO.
-
Obsession with a plot: Lefty ideologies tend to not buy into the whole “Jewish cabal” thinking. Though they tend to put “the billionaires” in their place recently. So this one gets a MAYBE.
-
The enemy is both strong and weak: Does the left see their enemy as scary and weak at the same time? Not really. The threat from the right tends to just be seen as scary and overwhelming. NO.
-
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy: Do lefties in general embrace war, struggle, and fight for survival, because fundamentally life is struggle? NO.
-
Contempt for the weak: NO.
-
Does the left embrace heroism? Quite the opposite. Lefty action is community action, where working together makes you strong. NO.
-
Distain for women, intolerance of non standard sexuality, and a love for weapons: Nope, the left is against all of that. NO.
-
Selective populism: That’s the first point where I would agree. The left sometimes does engage in populism. YES.
-
Does the left use elementary langauge in order to limit critical thinking and reasoning? Heck no. If anything, a lot of stuff from the left tends to be too complicated to be broadly accessible. NO.
So, to sum it up: There is one point among 14 which aligns. And one which somewhat aligns. While in 12 points current lefty thinking directly opposes UR fascism, as described here.
That’s why I think your opinion is very strange.
-
Pretty big yikes to start out with just a blanket statement like that, but you do you.
I think there are exceptions. I was trying to be brief.
I’m not really sure what you mean by this part other than you just think the term fascist is being applied in scenarios where there’s just disagreement?
Yes, basically. I think that is something that happens. A major issue with american politics at the moment is treating it like there are two camps, the far left and the fasicst far right.
But it really isn’t difficult to see the modern Republican party very much represents the ideals of fascism.
I basically agree. And we have to call that out.
But, there are many others who really aren’t liberal, who also aren’t republican. Like I said, there are more positions than the two most popularly described.
But, there are many others who really aren’t liberal, who also aren’t republican. Like I said, there are more positions than the two most popularly described.
Unfortunately, other positions aren’t really allowed to participate in our current system. Until there’s ranked choice or some other voting system in place that would break the walls down of the two party system, you kinda have to choose one or the other to have any kind of voice whatsoever.
And the reason that people on the left see “centrists” as mostly Republicans wearing masks is because people who identify as centrists tend to vote Republican. Who we already established are fascists. It’s like, yes I agree there is nuance in the world that must be addressed that cannot be addressed when you think of only red vs blue, but until we have the tools to actually do anything but that, we can’t just say “well I disagree with things on both sides” and leave it at that when one side is actively undermining the very foundations of our democracy.
Unfortunately, other positions aren’t really allowed to participate in our current system. Until there’s ranked choice or some other voting system in place that would break the walls down of the two party system, you kinda have to choose one or the other to have any kind of voice whatsoever.
Absolutely! When it comes to voting, that inevitably happens and it’s horrible. But that doesn’t mean an individual’s position is well characterized that way.
And the reason that people on the left see “centrists” as mostly Republicans wearing masks is because people who identify as centrists tend to vote Republican. Who we already established are fascists. It’s like, yes I agree there is nuance in the world that must be addressed that cannot be addressed when you think of only red vs blue, but until we have the tools to actually do anything but that, we can’t just say “well I disagree with things on both sides” and leave it at that when one side is actively undermining the very foundations of our democracy.
I think that makes sense in some cases. But I would call myself in many ways a centrist, but I voted all democrat for the last few elections. So, such broad strokes are a real problem.
deleted by creator
This might be the difference between online vs in person. If you had asked me 10 years ago what my political affiliations were I would have tried hard to say I didn’t align with either main party. But fuck if I haven’t voted straight dem in every election.
On the other hand people online often say they are centrists so they can excuse abhorrent Republican behavior with the ol’ “both sides are bad” bullshit. It often isn’t any real policy stance, it just serves to present a facade of non-bias so as to further shift the Overton window even further right.
But yea I totally get what you mean, I never wanted to be a Dem because of all the rampant neoliberal corpo dicksucking that continues to prevent all kinds of good progress, but if the alternative is fascism and those are the only real choices I have I’ll hold my nose and vote D every single damn time.
So the one thing you’re against is abortion? Then don’t get one. If someone is being a fascist they deserve to be called out on it.
If I think abortion should be illegal that makes me a fascist? Or are you saying something else?
I’ll say yes, that you thinking abortion should be illegal is holding a fascist viewpoint. Does that make you a full-blown fascist? No. Is it a stepping stone? Maybe.
Being pro or anti choice does not make someone a fascist.
I think anti-choice people are objectively incorrect but I also understand the meaning of the word fascism.
Not everyone you dislike is a fascist.
You mean like a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition?
So yeah, I fully believe that the belief that abortion should be illegal falls into those categories and is inherently pretty fucking fascist.
Also, I never called them a fascist, but I will call you an idiot.
I said we should call out nazism and fascism when we see it. I never said you were a fascist.
Okay, and I agree. And I think many are on the right are fascist.
You are for the government threatening women with violence, and forcing women of all ages, including children, into birthing a child that may have been conceived by the result of sexual abuse, or may be cause two deaths in labor, as a result of legislation based on religion.
Ya, you people are unacceptable.
No. I am not for those things. I think those things are despicable.
I think there are exceptions when abortion should be allowed, and I think the recent attempts to outlaw abortion are in bad faith and manipulative. I am not on their side.
And at the same time, I think abortion, should be generally illegal, with exceptions.
- who better aside from a doctor and a patient to decide something so critical? A government council created by religious legislation? Haha. Ok.
And
- if it’s murder to abort an embryo sometimes, how can it not be murder other times? That masked zero sense. The entire argument that it is murder falls apart once you allow exceptions.
I would allow exceptions for when the human would die. It is sad then, but more like taking a person off life support. Not allowing these exceptions would be absolutely horrible.
For exceptions like rape… I am much more conflicted but I am for allowing them. I do not know the right thing here and would be easily swayed. I would allow it not because I think it isn’t killing an innocent, but because I do not understand the trauma a person in that position has gone through and it’s really f’d up. I don’t know … Fortunately, these are very rare cases.
For something like the mother has cancer and the treatment would kill the child, that’s a tragedy, but I’m not going to blame someone for valuing their own life over someone they haven’t met.
For other exceptions, I would be half to discuss them.
I admit that I don’t like the idea of politicians parsing out what is and isn’t allowed. But, we do that already for murder and self defense and manslaughter. This is no different than that.
It’s possible to be against abortion for personal beliefs, and understand that your personal beliefs aren’t the arbiter of the personal health decisions of others, and the laws shouldn’t favor one particular religious idea of life beginning at conception. For most people, including in the works of science life doesn’t begin at conception.
Then don’t get an abortion. Why should your opinion apply to anyone else but you?
And let’s be clear about this, it is a wholly subjective opinion. You cannot prove where consciousness begins, your opinion on this matter is a whim.
Fascism has been studied and characterised extensively, it’s not about good and bad, it’s about a set of very clear signs the American right is heading towards fascism.
Abortion bans show that a nation is fixated of hierachal oppression, and the class stratification associated with further impoverishing those (minorities and the poor) unable to handle the burden of having a child or travelling to get an abortion.
Abortion bans, in vacuum, do not indicate that.
Imagine a country that is a theocratic communist nation. Private property is outlawed, and all wealth is redistributed so that none are poor. A literal Christian theocracy, founded upon Christ’s teachings about the eye of the needle.
This nation could (and likely would) ban abortion and contraceptives, even as they guarantee that anyone who has a child is well taken care of, whether they ever work or not.
Sure, theoretically. In reality that has never been the case. I doubt there is a single example of abortion bans not doing what I’ve said they do in human history.
If you want to advocate for a system like that your first step is to provide adequate childcare and welfare systems. The very last thing you would do is say you want abortion bans. Anyone advocating for abortion bans right now is at best putting the cart before the horse and at worst an evil person.
Fascism has been studied and characterised extensively, it’s not about good and bad, it’s about a set of very clear signs the American right is heading towards fascism.
I agree.
Abortion bans show that a nation is fixated of hierachal oppression, and the class stratification associated with further impoverishing those (minorities and the poor) unable to handle the burden of having a child or travelling to get an abortion.
It can be used that way. And in fact, I agree that it has been used that way in America. I think those who have done so are fascist. I think many of the ways in which the republican party has recently tried to enact these bans are not done in good faith but backhanded manipulation. I do not agree with them.
And at the same time, I think it is an evil thing akin to murder and thus should be illegal.
Honestly, I believe that is as unacceptable as criminalizing blood transfusions as evil (Jehovah’s Witnesses), or psychiatry as mind control (Scientologists); however, I do agree that your position is not fascist, and I’d like to say I appreciate you in these dark times for still being a believer in democracy.
If we can agree on that point, then I think progress is possible. I wish you well.
I’ve been called a fascist for pointing out the reality that the US left’s emphasis on social rather than economic issues is alienating to a lot of blue-collar Americans who should be natural allies. Meanwhile I am an active member of my trade union and work with and talk to blue-collar people every day and know WTF I’m talking about.
I am literally a card-carrying member of organized labor and I get called a fascist for speaking the truth. It’s not good. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in this thread.
the US left’s emphasis on social rather than economic issues
I don’t think it is the left that is emphasizing social issues. They are defending Americans in response to the right’s villainization of their next boogeymen to scare up more votes. The same right that then blames them for focusing on social issues. I implore those who are falling for this conservative ruse to start paying attention to what is going on rather than being taken by some of the dumbest tricks in the book.
100 percent agree.
That said, I speak only of how these things are perceived, not of how they ought to be perceived.
I am not, in any way, by pointing out this problem, claiming that it has anything like a moral or logical justification. I am simply stating that it’s there, and that we need to figure out how to address it.
I know for a fact that Bernie Sanders has been able to make that leap to appealing to blue-collar Americans, for example.
The rest of the Democratic party, not so much. Rightly or wrongly, blue-collar Americans feel that they are being talked down to by the Democratic party elites.
My point is now and always has been that we need to admit this and start thinking about ways to change the way we are perceived by my fellow blue-collar Americans.
And that change, whatever it may ultimately be, can never arise from blaming people for not somehow “getting” the message.
In the US the right has: Banned abortion (SCOTUS) Banned books. Made it okay to discriminate against gay people (303 creative) Banned drag shows. Is thinking about banning contraceptives.
There is no debate here. The right is banning things. The left has no equivalent bans on social issues.
3 of the last 4 GOP presidents proudly cut taxes for rich people. To distract you from that, the right is doing culture wars or wars on woke.
No doubt. I agree entirely. My point isn’t to argue what should be. My point is only that stating what is an objective fact has gotten me called a fascist apologist by idiots who can’t differentiate between between pointing out an aspect of reality vs actively advocating for it.
It’s basically a “kill the messenger” situation.
I wouldn’t say it’s fascist, but the idea that we have to stop fighting for social issues to address the concerns of blue-collar workers is both insulting to blue-collar workers and deeply dangerous to the people we fight for social issues for.
The reason the American left fights for social issues primarily is because half the American left are neoliberals with no interest in economic reform of any serious kind, not because there is some arbitrary limit of how many votes can go towards socially progressive bills and economically progressive bills.
While I agree with you, your point is kind of ancillary. It’s not now, nor has it ever been, my argument that the left is obliged to abandon social issues in order to court labor.
My point is that I made a simple observation of fact and was then called a fascist apologist for having done so.
I personally don’t know how we reconcile the social conservatism of blue-collar Americans with the labor progressivism that so many of them obviously want.
I just think that it has to be talked about and that ignoring it or calling union activists, like myself, fascists, is not productive in any way shape or form.
There has to be a solution, and pretending like the problem doesn’t exist and that people like myself are fascist-adjacent simply for having pointed it out, is complete bullshit.
I agree with that. There’s no need to create unnecessary hostility between people with compatible goals.
It’s insulting to blue-collar workers to push for social issues that they either disagree with or don’t care about?
It’s insulting to presume that blue-collar workers are incapable of agreeing with or caring about the position of treating their fellow man with basic human rights. I have no interest in playing the part of the Brothers Strasser, or of Ernst Rohm. If you think that’s the way to victory, you’re no ally of the oppressed. Just seeking different classes for oppressors.
They’re not a monolith but the majority, or at least a substantial portion, of blue-collar workers are proudly socially conservative.
And the answer to that is to work on ways to make them, as a demographic, less socially conservative; or as individuals, to communicate the importance of such issues. Not to abandon those issues for the sake of pandering to their votes.
Unfortunately you are right. I am a proud union blue collar worker, and I have seen the same thing. The problem I’ve noticed is that they tend to be socially conservative due to years of fear mongering by assholes who want to exploit us. They use that fear to keep is fighting amongst ourselves instead of recognizing the real problems.
This whole thing seems sus.
And while there’s no way to know how true or not your statement it, it seems to me like you’re one of these people that’s economically left, but is either anti-trans, anti-muslim/immigrant or anti-some other minority group or a combination of all of them and at some point your got called out for that.
I’m not anti-anyone, apart from religious extremists.
But go ahead and think what you want, that’s fine, I honestly have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
My life speaks for itself.
Your fan fiction about the internal motivations of those who disagree with you is not rational or empirical. You’re literally making stuff up right now.
If you say so dude. I’m sure you trust everything you read from random posts online and you never infer what the reality may be when someone quite obviously leaves info out or skirts around an issue?
99% of the time that’s about transphobia or some bizarre religious position, so yeah-- usually that’s gonna make leftists think you’re a bigot or a loon.
I think you can say whatever you want.
As long as you don’t engage in the behavior depicted in that comic, this comic doesn’t seem to be about you.
This is why I describe myself as “Left-Center”, I fucking hate tankies, and honestly I’m getting tired of… How to describe this without sounding like a dick?
I’m getting tired of people trying to be offended on behalf of groups who they feel should be offended by something, I’m getting tired of people who want to LARP that they’re making the world a better more tolerant place when really they’re just ruining media with pointless censorship.
Many of both groups are on the Left.
However I am fully lucid of the fact that pretty much every problem in my life is because Far Right Boomers hold way too much power, so if it ultimately comes down to Left or Right, (which it has, have you seen the world situation lately?) then it’s the Left for me.
Plus I don’t want to be mistaken for one of those bad faith “Bar Nazi” types. You know the kind: “Personally, I think the nation is too divided, lots of bad people on both sides… Now let me exclusively criticize the Left while dropping some blatant dogwhistles.”
I’m getting tired of people trying to be offended on behalf of groups who they feel should be offended by something,
That’s an important part of being inclusive, though. If you’re in a space that, for example, tolerates racist jokes, then there are going to be people who don’t feel welcome there. Confronting the person making the jokes is going to be uncomfortable, but by not confronting it, you’re prioritizing your comfort over others’.
I’m a Euro-American male, but I’m just repeating what people of color have been saying for years. Read what African-Americans write about race. How To Be An Anti-Racist wasn’t written by a white SJW. It was written by Ibram X Kendi, an actual African-American man. Read what people from these groups have written about their own experiences.
True, but what I’m talking about the instances where someone not from a group has arbitrarily decided is offensive to a group they don’t belong to, when the group doesn’t necessarily agree.
For example, we’ve had cases of white liberals getting offended at fictional characters wearing sombreros (Such as is the case with Mario Odyessy), whereas actual Hispanic groups saw that as being more endearing and inclusive… and well the whole “Latinx” debacle…
I’m white, but I’m also trans, so I definitely see a little bit of these myself resulting in dumbasses spouting “Cis is a slur!” (No, no it is not!)
The problem with this line of thinking is that the groups in question aren’t monoliths. Latinx wasn’t a term made by white people, it was made by Latinx/Latino non-binary people and then adopted more broadly because they advocated for it.
Some other people of the affected group thinking it’s silly doesn’t mean the term or sensitivity is just made up white savior SJWism. The are plenty of women who think a woman’s place is in the kitchen and following their husband’s lead, but that doesn’t mean feminism is junk. People have a tendency to latch on to some segment of the population that thinks the SJW term is silly not because their number one priority is respecting the population as a whole, but because it gives them a pass to not change their habits.
*sombreros
Oh thank you, I hadn’t even noticed I mispelled the word.
They’re trying to be allies, and sometimes they get it wrong, but I think that’s better than the alternative (which is simply staying silent in all cases).
In the case of “Latinx”, it seems like it was dreamed up by somebody who didn’t know anything about Spanish. Just put an X on it, now it’s inclusive! The problem is you can’t conjugate a noun with a fucking X on the end. The preferred term is now “Latine”, which has a gender-neutral ending that fits with the rest of the language and is being promoted by Latin(e!) civil rights groups.
Indeed, it still gets annoying though.
Sometimes uneducated or willfully ignorant allies can give one the feeling of “At this point I’m begging you to just call me a slur instead.”
That said you’re absolutely right, we should encourage people for trying to learn and help them to get it right. Instead of screaming at them over a faux pas they stepped in hard.
Still I will never get over the time a doctor I had bizarrely assumed that because I was trans, that I somehow knew Caitlyn Jenner personally and could “invite her to speak at the practice.” She did not remain my doctor long between this and “We are okay with you being trans but we aren’t sure it would be appropiate to prescribe you estradial even though you’ve been taking it for years with another doctor in another town… even though we specifically told you you could get transgender care here without going out of town if you made us your primary”
You can see why switching was a high priority
(For the record this was back when public acknowledgement of transpeople was just starting to get going and before it was commonly accepted that Jenner is a piece of shit. Thankfully more and more doctors in the area do endocrinology for trans patients who have already bene on it for sometime… don’t know if as many will start you off though but it is what it is)
Replace “tankies” with “woke” and this comment just becomes exactly the same comment a far right chud would say.
If you’re concerned about being “mistaken” for a bar nazi then perhaps you should not say things a bar nazi would say?
Criticizing other leftists doesn’t make you a “bar nazi”
Yes it does, shut the fuck up and open your eyes
For fuck’s sake open your fucking eyes
This is why I describe myself as “centrist”, I fucking hate the woke, and honestly I’m getting tired of…
I’m getting tired of people trying to be offended on behalf of groups who they feel should be offended by something, I’m getting tired of people who want to LARP that they’re making the world a better more tolerant place when really they’re just ruining media with pointless censorship.
As long as someone writes the word tankies in a comment you morons will agree with it even if the writer is practically goosestepping.
Honestly, who cares as long as he’s actively trying to help the targets of Nazis protect themselves from Nazis? Right now, the left needs all the help they can get, and according to real human rights organizations that study genocide – and the U.S. is at a hard stage 7 right now – moderates are the only ones that can stop the aggressors.
So let’s stop worrying about all that dumb shit and get rid of the Nazis, then we can fight over dumb petty political shit.
He’s not helping the targets of nazis by complaining about people being allies or “censorship”, which is just code for not being able to say transphobic and racist bollocks.
How is it so difficult for you to realise that “on behalf of groups” is just another way of saying “allies”. If I rephrase this using the language of the lgbt community instead of the carefully chosen language used to mask its intention it’s literally just saying “I don’t think people should be allies, I’m tired of it.”
🤔
This comment section is a dumpster fire full of dogshit and dried up cum… nice job op.
As a Canadian ACTUAL centrist, fuck Nazis.
I’m for less policing and more serving for Police. One should be happy, not angry to see the police, and right now in most places this cannot be with who the police are and serve.
I’m for less government control over what one can do on their plot of land. Minimum parking needs to go. People should be allowed to build appartment buildings on their properties, not just single family homes. The governments in North America are too involved in people’s lives.
I’m for freedom of choice of vehicle, whether it’s a car, a bicycle or public transit. My love for Public healthcare, mass transit and regulations on companies that destroy their environment and/or abuse their employees is literally the only thing leftist about me.
Those “centrist” are not centrist. They are just not as far far down into the right wing rabbit hole.
In my case, I consider right wing to be “less control from government, let corporations do what they will”, and the left wing to be “we pay taxes and get something out of it. The government has the mandate to assert control over people’s lives to attempt to make the whole better.”. I am somewhere in the middle of that.
Your views on zoning, transit development, labour regulation, ad health care all sound leftist. Those zoning laws are right wing, not left wing.
Removed by mod
Except leftists want to rezone low density housing into high density housing so we can actually have proper urban development and incentivize smarter infrastructure projects rather than suburban sprawl hell everywhere. In what way does it expand property rights from your perspective?
I have the same question. I’m sure there are ways to reform zoning laws that help fix the housing crisis without benefiting corporations and slum housing.
I wouldn’t be so quick to say leftists support rezoning. I used to be active in moderating r/canadahousing back before I switched almost fully to lemmy, and it was infested with left NIMBYs. The most common talking point I saw was that upzoning was a developer ploy to systematically gentrify all the lower-income folks. In practice, I think YIMBY/NIMBY might as well be its own dimension on the n-dimensional political compass.
In a similar vein, most supposedly small-government + property rights folks I see are also NIMBYs and against upzoning. Despite how obviously hypocritical and inconsistent that is.
At the end of the day, when it comes to changes in your own neighborhood that impact you personally, all ideology goes out the window for many folks, and it becomes purely about knee-jerk reactions disliking change.
Knee jerk reactions against change by definition are anti-progressive and reactionary. People’s views are more right wing when they are negatively affected personally. That doesn’t make it not a right wing view.
That’s exactly my point. The user I was responding to said this:
Except leftists want to rezone
My point was that many people who are ordinarily leftists on other issues do not support upzoning, and they argue against it with left-sounding arguments. I was trying to highlight that people, many leftists included, become hypocritical and inconsistent in their belief system when it comes to things like YIMBY vs NIMBY.
The fact there are so incredibly many leftists who hold NIMBY views suggests to me that it can’t be boiled down as simply as “leftists want to rezone”, at least without playing the “no true leftist” game.
I would however support the argument that leftists want to solve the housing crisis, but I wouldn’t at all say leftists all support the exact same policies to achieve that.
Wow, I finally found someone who more or less aligns with my views. Except I allo think workers should own the means of production instead of billionaires.
I don’t know how that would work, my knowledge is just lacking on the subject but I don’t think I’m against the concept, so long as people can decide to go in business without too much oversight.
You’re not a centrist, you’re a libertarian.
I thought libertarians were all about complete freedom without government intervention.
That would be minarchist/ancaps
They didn’t say they wanted to fuck children p
sounds like you’re a social libertarian, which is leftist politics.
A centrist makes up their mind based on the merits of the topic, not based on opinions from the left or the right. A centrist isn’t someone who says “both sides have a point.”
So I’m not sure what this comic has to do with centrists.
A centrist isn’t someone who says “both sides have a point.”
A centrist should say “both sides have a point”, but they should not stop there - they should critically review these points to decide which ones are stronger and more correct on a case-by-case basis.
I used to be a centrist and the right wing has very, very few points they’re genuinely right about. That’s just the honest truth
At this point I consider the Republican Party a Domestic Terrorist organization occupying Political Roles
I’ve long said Conservatism is a existential threat to society and should not be tolerated. Paradox of Tolerance and all that.
amen
This sounds like you’re for forcible suppression of opposition
“Self professed centrists”
Something tells me those that call themselves centrists, don’t always subscribe to the actual definition of centrism. But in praxis, centrists share a status quo mentality, which means they’re pro-capitalism, which means they side with the political right on most issues.
deleted by creator
“most of us do not subscribe to status quo”. But also “most of us agree with liberal goals”.
Can you expand on that contradiction? I’m pretty sure liberalism is the dominant ideology in the West. Wich means “most of us DO subrscribe to status quo” ? edit: I have no idea what the goals of liberalism are, maybe we actually agree on whatever goals you were talking about. Still, a lib is never against the status quo
“Status quo” means the way things are. Liberalism is, among other things, about pushing for change.
Your definition is very nice, me too i like change. But in practice i see most liberal governments doing 1 main thing: keeping the status quo (racial inequality, homophobia, poverty etc.).
I’m sure i’m missing something here
Yes. Don’t mistake an ideological group with those who exploit it for power.
Do you have any secret for pursuing real liberalism? Now i’m struggling to take you seriously.
If what you said is true, and considering every politician has exploited the ideology for power, that means true liberalism has never been tried? Cm’on we’ve had 200 years to do it right. Clearly the ideology is deeply flawed, unless you have anything to add.
Sweetie, that’s not centerists, that’s a typical liberal that gets nothing done.
ETA: also, don’t mistake this comment for a pro-conservative comment- I am leftist through and through, it is just that liberal parties have a history of lowering standards in the name of not stepping on toes and therefore not making a lot of progress, while spouting all these virtuous things they “believe in”.
It’s actually fucking amazing, having a moderate view and not falling for this culture war bullshit makes us the crazy ones
But yeah, happily crazy and non-conforming for forming my own beliefs based on what I see with my own eyes.
When I am talking about being centrist in a place that’s not America for a second. Which I and many people are.
Choosing a party that fits my belief more aligns with The Labour Party / Liberal Democrats and The Green Party. Which means actively recognising problems with each.
The Conservatives have a history of slimy corruption, for every 1 good conservative there are 10 others who will screw someone over at any chance they get.
Not to say Labour/Lib Dems and Green don’t have those problems. They very much do have corruption. Nobody is immune to bad actors. It’s important to recognise it.
Whenever I see shit in the US when it comes to politics. It’s still the same; lobbiests working with either party in the countries worst interests. If you want to side with team democrat. Call that shit out. It’s bad when your opposition does it, it’s bad when your supported party does it.
Lobbying is legal bribery, it happens everywhere and each time a law gets passed/brutalised by the powers in charge it’s bad. Doesn’t matter what team colour you support.
Same shit happens in England with the Conservatives. Though instead of just weakening laws, they make sure that any changes benefit them or their friends.
This thread is a dumpster fire, and it’s both sad and funny
Sweetie,
That kind of behavior is deeply patronizing, destructive to meaningful discussion and completely against the spirit of Lemmy. Please for the love of god, stop acting like this. Literally no one is going to listen to you if you do.
Also good job exposing yourself as a right-winger masquerading as a moderate.
I was trying to be patronizing. That was the point.
Also, I am very far left. I’m just tired of politics and the people involved claiming to be what it isn’t.
deleted by creator
Please stop being so patronizing. It’s not conducive for meaningful discussion or good for Lemmy. You create a toxic environment acting that way.
deleted by creator
I actually deconstructed the other guy’s post at least three times, by my count, but fair point. I don’t mean to single you out. Everybody acting that way in the thread needs to stop and act civilly. In no way were my words an attack on you personally.
Edit: Fixed, I called him out too.
Sweetie isn’t gendered though? Anyone can be called sweetie. It’s like saying “bless” when someone is being a bit of a dumbass.
Oh sweetie… You don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’m in the US so this is a US centric point but: what party was in power when roe was overturned? And I don’t mean tell me the technical rules about why that happened I mean in real terms, how have the liberals exercised political power to implement actual change
Why are you arguing about what party was in power? It was the supreme court who did it…
And how are liberals supposed to enact rm change when they don’t have enough of either house of Congress to do things by themselves and Republicans are determined to be obstructionist? Are they supposed to ignore the rules like Republicans did with Merrick Garland?
Because they’re trying to demonstrate to you that liberal democrats are completely ineffective at stopping the growing fascist right, and quite honestly, they’re right. The Democrats could have expanded the Supreme Court while Obama was in office, but they didn’t. They could have pushed back on every little dumb thing the Republicans have done in the past 22 years, but they didn’t, because they are legitimately just as terrible as they are.
You’re just responding with condescension and vitriol because you know your position is weak, and it shows.
If the rules can be ignored then they aren’t really rules are they
Self-professed “everything is black or white” fools think they’re always right and the other side is always wrong.
There’s no room for nuance or looking at laws/topics individually in a two party system. Instead two-siders usually think everyone and everything from a side that isn’t their own e.g. Centrists are all wrong.
Self-proclaimed centrists tend to believe that there are two sides and the best place to be is in the middle.
There are not two sides. There are many. There is no middle between them. Centrists are just advocating continuous compromise with one side. And curiously, it always seems to be compromise with the powerful seeking more power.
I’m a centrist who believes there are many sides. Middle is not necessarily the best place to be. Each issues requires careful consideration. I also don’t think compromise is necessary when one side is clearly wrong. For example, we don’t need to hear from climate change deniers or people who think other humans shouldn’t have body autonomy.
I dislike the two-party system in the United States and wish we had more parties. We need things like Ranked Choice and Star voting methods to combat the two-party bullshit that’s forced down our throats. It feels like we’re constantly having to choose the lesser evil with the two party system.
Serious question: how can you call yourself a centrist if the things you say you want are extreme left of the center?
Because I also have beliefs that are to the right of the center.
For example, I think the left takes “reverse racism” way too far and it results in racist policies e.g. Asian kids having a hard time getting into college. Perhaps we should be looking at more intelligent metrics like the wealth of the family rather than solely looking at someone’s skin color.
You just sound like a non-insane leftist. There’s still a few of us.
None of those policies are “left”
Which leftist policies do you align with?
Oh shut up. Fuck. Stop trying to gotcha someone. You sound like a turd that takes online political purity tests.
None of those are “extreme” left of center, at least today.
As a self proclaimed Centrist, no the problem is not being in the middle of things but that each side typically more nuance than most sides are willing to concede.
Promotion of a Nordic Model of Economy is still an embrace of Capitalism, Laissez-faire fundamentalisrs will decry the government oversight & taxation, and Socialists will decry the lack of workers/community owning the means of production. Meanwhile the nuance looks at the efficacy of capitalism while mitigating the worst consequences.
Leftists literally call my whole country Nazi, when we have a Jewish president. Then they go and justify an invasion by the empire we were ruled by as “anti-imperialism”
Nothing wrong with being a fact seeker. I consider myself a centrist with left leaning values. It’s not about fence sitting, it’s learning the facts of both arguments and coming to a conclusion based upon those facts.
I don’t conform to any single party because I fully know that they have their own issues and choose whoever aligns with my values the most at the time of voting.
Which annoys me, because I honestly believe that should be what politics is. Not about choosing Red Team or Blue Team 100% of the time and being against the opposition for the sake of being against them. Politics isn’t a team sport, I want a country with the best quality of life possible.
That said, I live in the UK where politics is different to US and where we don’t have to feel so forced to vote for the main 2 parties
And to comment on the meme. If it walks like a nazi, talks like a nazi. It’s a nazi. This isn’t a controversial take to say. It shouldn’t be, ever.
