1680
Enlightened Centrism (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
486 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (24 children)

When I think centrist I think not belonging to a team. When you align yourself to a team, you tend to overlook the bad shit your side is doing. It's fair to say both sides are the same in that both have some bullshit that they're participating in. The actual content matters. The far left isn't going into schools and shooting kids for example.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    But... what if your electoral system requires you to vote for 1 side, and one of those sides is seeking to remove the choice between sides?

    Really, it might be nice to think of yourself as not belonging to a team, but I think that's just a refusal to acknowledge the shitty state of US politics. Like if you don't want to be on a team then by default you're on the team that will allow you to choose.

    "Yeah my mum and dad want a divorce. Dads a violent abuser who's trying to kidnap me, but I don't want to choose sides you know"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's precisely that black and white framing that's the issue. Nobody's perfect. Maybe the mother developed a drinking habit because of the abuse and the father thinks they're doing the right thing abducting the child. Does that make the mother less of a victim? No. Would I still side with her? Yes. But acting like the mother has no issues will only let her get worse. Acting like the father is evil and not someone with their own issues that needs help is an injustice to him.

    Being centerist isn't about waffling, ignoring clear issues, and flipping a coin at the polls. It's about choosing the best choice with the information available, rather than because you identify with one side and call the other evil. That's a dangerously immature way to approach issues, which causes a lot of the problems we're facing today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -12 points 2 years ago (19 children)

    allow me to remind you that judging a group by its absolute worst members is the basis of most prejudice

    the far right isn't shooting anyone, it's an ideology. you're thinking of domestic terrorists. if you were to comment on the considerable overlap then that would be one thing, but I don't think your implication goes that deep.

    since I know the chance of this being lost on people is high, my entire point of playing devils advocate is to express that dehumanizing your political opponents is cognitive bias

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (17 children)

    The far-right, as an ideology, is violently upholding hierarchy. Violence is a part of the ideology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago (16 children)

    Members of the far left are also decidedly in favor of violence. Think about the cheering over slain police officers, countless facades of small businesses destroyed, etc.

    Again, I'm playing devil's advocate. I'm firmly on the left. I just think the level of cognitive bias in politics is mind boggling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    Yea, that's not what's happening. ACAB and police abolition are not about murdering police officers, it's about restructuring these systems entirely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    I have a pin that says "kill cops" in bold letters from one of the most prominent bookstores in my city. If you think there isn't cheering happening, if you think directly calling for violence isn't totally normalized on the far left, you are delusional.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Do you think it's a legitimate call to violence, or do you think it's an expression of hatred towards cops? Are left wingers actually murdering cops in significant numbers, to the point where it's "normalized," or is this an emotional expression?

    Similarly, do you think murdering cops is a leftist stance, or just a violent one? What about murdering cops makes it leftist, in your eyes?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, like pretty much everything in your comment. I think you're trying to paint my argument as something it really is not and you're taking it too far. What is a legitimate call to violence, exactly? Are you trying to deny the stochastic effect of this type of language? Is the stochastic effect not the entire purpose of rhetoric?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    My point is that killing cops isn't a leftist position. You're trying to twist it into one. Simple.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    You are so painfully wrong. I've already stated that I'm playing devil's advocate. I'm not trying to do anything other than help you exercise your critical thinking skills. It should be obvious.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Kinda hard to help others do what you struggle with, I guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Zing! Nice deflection, you can safely go another day without questioning your perspective in the slightest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    The origins of this convo were you saying that the far-right aren't shooting people based on far-right ideology, which is wrong, because being far-right is entrenched hierarchy and social violence. Leftism is compatible with pacifism, far-right is not.

    I question myself all the time, it's just that you had no coherent points to give.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    It is actually impossible for you to simply read my words and interpret them as they are written without injecting your own story, isn't it? You can't just put everyone you talk to into one of two boxes.

    I already stated that there is a considerable overlap between followers of right wing ideology and domestic terrorism. I am genuinely terrified that we are entering a world where reading comprehension and critical thinking are completely absent from political discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    "The far-right isn't shooting anyone. It's an ideology."

    Yes, it's an ideology that is inherently violent, unlike the far-left.

    What, exactly, did I misinterpret?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The problem isn't really that you're interpreting my words incorrectly, it's more about how you put words in my mouth and go batshit making wild assumptions about my conclusions. It's so hard to have a conversation with someone when the vast majority of it is spent walking back things I never even said.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I think it might be beneficial to state causation isn't correlation. Shooting up little kids and gay bars isnt the direct cause of being far right, but it is highly correlated to far right members that do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent