Centralists
Don’t ban abortion but support families with children more If you really want less abortion and more children…
-
Sex education
-
freely dispersed contraceptives
No kid wants to be pregnant.
-
You vote left because you want the best for the general good of society, you vote right because you want what’s best for yourself, in particular.
Plenty of people also vote right based on hate and fear. They’ll vote against there own best interests because of hate and fear.
The sad thing is, that’s not even true.
Most poor world be better off under left wing ideals, yet they vote right wing anyway because they’re scared that brown people will steal their crumbs.
(But actually that guy in the middle doesn’t just have this plate full of cookies. He owns a huge vessel full of cookies)
There’s a twisted sort of logic to this. Let’s put ourselves in the position of that worker with one cookie for a second.
Two things are true in America:
- the rich don’t pay taxes
- benefits cost money
If the worker feels caught between those two things, he has to ask which he can change more easily. And clearly, denying benefits to the poor is easier than taxing the rich. In today’s climate, there is a “deny benefits to the poor” party that is very well mobilized and has delivered numerous victories. And where is the “tax the rich” option? Nowhere.
If this had a next image it would be the old rich guy stealing that last cookie while the other two fight.
There is a version going in this direction
But rich white men stealing their crumbs is fine because they aren’t brown
Better than than Jose over there, a hard working fine gentleman, getting his needs met
The funny bit is that sometimes José too is a conservative, which is how you see plenty of immigrants doing the whole “pull the ladder up once you’re in” and voting rightwing.
Good bars man
But rich white men stealing their crumbs is fine because they don’t realize it’s happening
ftfy
It is true for the general disposition. Do you vote in your own interests vs do you vote in the general best interest. Your motivations may be malicious or incompetent, a two party system doesn’t discern.
You vote right because you want the people you don’t like to suffer.
I don’t believe this. People may have multiple agendas. They may hate foreigners or cultures, but people’s allegiances are always first and foremost to their own, to keep living in the most comfortable way they can with the lowest possible eftort. It’s kind of game theoretical in some sense.
Game theory occupies itself with the adversary roles of generosity (a moral principle) and calculation (a purely rational one), and in some way you could say that in a system which only allows one of two outcomes, a lot of assumptions are subsumed under those two separate outcomes.
What if Candidate A is for lower taxes, higher immigration and Candidate B is for higher taxes and lower immigration?
What if both candidates agree on lower taxes and lower immigration, but one of them also proposes reinstating slavery, and the other one wants none of it but instead mandatory abortions?
In a two party state you don’t get enough fine grained resolution to deal with problems that require any complexity beyond perfectly white and perfectly black.
I guess you missed the “He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting” thing the other year.
They’re not nice people. They will vote for the leopard and act surprised when it comes for them.
Maybe I’m overthinking it. Maybe they just dumb.
they are systemically undereducated and inundated with propaganda telling them that their problems stem not from the class war but from the culture war, which has long been a dogwhistle for the race war
They vote right because cable news told them it’s best for themselves. It’s not.
And then never realise that you voted against what is best for you because you just believe propaganda rather than think logically…
You also vote far right if you’re willing to sacrifice something yourself to make sure no one ever gets it without having to make heavy sacrifices to do so. Life is pain, princess. Anyone who says differently is selling something! /s
It’s because we lefties say completely justified mean things about so-called ‘centrists’, and criticizing the literal record of centrism is tantamount to insulting a centrist’s identity.
The centrists made up the term so they wouldn’t have to face the fact that they’re conservatives.
That’s right, the centrists are conservatives and the so-called “conservatives” are really regressives at best, plenty of them fascists.
We don’t just call everyone we don’t like fascists. But uh, them folks are fascists.
Many of the greatest political advancements in the history of humanity were achieved by people you’d call “centrists”.
Such as?
The post-WW2 transition to liberal democracy in Germany, Italy (Adenauer and De Gasperi), and in general European integration; ending apartheid in South Africa; 1991 economic reforms in India; Deng Xiaoping’s socialist market economy in China which lifted millions from destitution; Chile’s transition to democracy; the labor-capital compromise in Scandinavia which allows them to have very free markets and very strong welfare systems at the same time.
I could go on.
HA! Sure, buddy, sure, we’ll let you call that centrism. Do you need help finding your way back to the children’s table?
Point out which of these don’t have elements of “centrism” plz
Point out where they do.
At the time of those political advancements, it was progressive ideology. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been advancements, it would have been conserving the norm, dumbass.
Not really, I provided some examples to some other user where they were clearly “centrists”. There were people who leaned more on both sides and the advancement was achieved by someone who was more moderate.
Of course it was, because people resist change. The left has to settle for small wins everyday. You are only arguing with yourself the more you explain your point here.
The “left” wanted very different things in most of these cases. For instance, in post-war Italy, it wanted a revolution and to join the Warsaw pact.
Plz explain to me how the examples I brought up aren’t “centrist” examples but examples of left victories.
Centrist wins’ don’t exist. There’s only progress or stagnation—and ‘centrism’ is just conservatism with better PR. The left’s job isn’t to ‘win’ elections—it’s to make sure the baseline keeps moving left, even if it’s inch by inch. In Italy, the PCI didn’t get revolution, but its demands forced the right to adopt welfare, labor rights, and anti-fascism just to stay in power. That’s not centrism. That’s the left setting the terms of the fight.
The right doesn’t ‘win’ by preserving the status quo—they just delay the inevitable. Every policy shift, no matter how small, is a left victory because it proves the goalposts can move. The alternative? Stagnation. And stagnation isn’t a win for anyone—it’s surrender.
None of those advances were made with a minority of support in society. Is the argument that the populace has since become more conservative?
I think what’s more likely is that people you’d consider “centrist” backed those changes. You’re dead set on characterizing this “centrist” entity that you have only vaguely defined to create an enemy that doesn’t exist.
I’m not sure what enemy I’ve created by pointing out progressive policies as… progressive. Even if it’s not as progressive as perhaps some would like at that time. It’s not so much of an “argument” when stating facts.
Perhaps clarify what point you’re attempting to make.
Don’t be dishonest, you did more than that. The enemy you’re creating is the “evil centrist”. Your own example does not support that simplistic view.
Achievements like Civil Rights didn’t come about because just a small part of the “left” pushed for it. It came about because the majority of the left stood for it. So no, you don’t get to take all the credit and YES, you’re splitting the party for no discernable reason.
All I’m saying is the left is the party of progress, period. It’s literally what we stand for. So if you feel like a villain choosing something in the middle of progress and whatever the conservatives are trying to, well, conserve, then perhaps that’s a you issue to work out.
You’ve made a lot of random clams that makes me think you’re confusing comments, so I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to make anymore, it seems you are infuriating yourself.
From Disco Elysium:
Your “far-left” is the centric, your “centric” are fascist accepting far-right, and your “far-right” is right extreme fascists…
Thank you for the fix.
holy cap gng 💔🥀😭
Even the left normalized the false narrative of “far left”. America does not have any “far left” party
They’re just people who are too weak and dumb to have real opinions and they just want to be in the in crowd
It must take such bravery to not be in the center, sir. How can I become this brave.
It’s called executive disfunction
Can we be better than twitter with these bullshit fallacy arguments.
Too bad the left has never had power in the US
Neoliberals don’t want or allow things to improve
far ming: we’re gonna need a couple cows
Libertarians: ME!!!
deleted by creator
Let’s not confuse centrists with idgit voters.
Did the Putin Bots finally invade Lemmy?
These bullshit Twitter takes are getting old. This is a more realistic interpretation.
Far left: We’re going to exterminate entire groups for the sake of “equality”
Far right: We’re going to exterminate entire groups for the sake of “purity”
End result = A bunch of people get murdered
Centrists: These both look pretty bad, we just want people’s needs to be met
End result = pragmatic governance
If you’re someone who hates centrists because they’re not as extreme as you then YOU are a part of the problem.
TBH, I’m not seeing where the American far Left is advocating exterminating entire groups of people.
The far left always claims to be the ideology of peace, but somehow far left regimes around the globe guided by far left ideologies hold THE highest death tolls in human history.
