Conservatives frequently refer to themselves as centrists or neither. In the U.S., it is obvious someone is a right wing asshat if they claim to be centrist or neither.
“bOtH sIdEz r EqUaLlY bAd!!!”
If they were really centrist they’d vote democrat anyway, as that’s the centrist party.
Many leftists also vote democrat. Lesser of two evils, a two party system, no ranked choice voting, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Well america does not have a real left tbh ! Many people think of socialism as left wing while it is the economic center , someone supporting social left policies like lgbt rights can be considered liberal , but they can still be against universal healthcare or other socialist polices and then votes dem , coz they are liberal!
Exactly
Depends on the centrist I want a smaller government more than anything which 9 out of 10 times forces me to go republican or libertarian. I like democrat ideas at times but hate their execution. Democrats fumble the ball every time they get it once the Pelosi’s and Bidens are out of the party I might give them another shot.
What do you think of the fact that the GOP is responsible for the vast majority of overspending the US does? They consistently drive up the national deficit every time they’re in a position to do so. They deregulate and remove the teeth from federal agencies, bitch about how ineffective the government is at dealing with things, deregulate more, cut taxes for the wealthy, drive up taxes for the poor and middle class, and then shovel our money into the Pentagon. If you were actually compelled by small government and less spending, you’d be voting democrat every time. They’re the only ones that actually reduce spending on a federal level
Well said. The right has used the “small government” nonsense line forever. It’s amazing how much they get away with by saying one thing and quietly doing basically the opposite. Gullible idiots all over the place.
I don’t even vote at the federal level zero chance Biden or Trump will se my vote in 24. At my local and state level I’m ok with the GOP they have consistently cut my taxes while balancing amenities in my community.
You’re a bot.
How are massive subsidies for businesses “smaller government”?
It isn’t I want them gone PPP loans the 08 bailouts never should have happened in my opinion.
PPP loans were Trump’s administration and Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was Bush’s, why do you still vote for them?
I don’t really vote at the federal level anyway I focus on state and local elections that have more impact on my life. As a christian I don’t feel confident in my ability to answer to god why I picked a certain candidate at that level which is another reason I favor more localized government so politicians are humans in the community again.
I asked a pretty simple question and I wasn’t looking for your life story.
The large-language model here has aptly synthesized the thoughts of just about every “centrist” I’ve ever encountered: Votes Republican based on policies the party allegedly supports but obviously doesn’t, won’t vote Democratic based on some vague complaint about style, yet perfectly content with all of the egregious things Republicans actually do.
How do you figure the GOP is the party of small government? Tax breaks for the rich? Christian Fascism for the rest?
The Republicans want to take away your right to an abortion. Big government has gone too far!
(Also they love spending on the military)
Claiming to want a smaller government and voting republican… They haven’t been small government for 30 years. They collect the same amount, often more, in taxes they just shift the tax burden onto the poor through sales tax (at state levels) instead of keeping progressive taxation. Then they use that money to subsidize rich people. Uneducated morons lap it up and think they are saving money because their state has a lower, or no, state income tax, without realizing they are actually paying more through a higher sales and property tax.
It’s crazy. I noticed this on dating sites. I live in a red area, but I ONLY would see “other” or “centrist” I think I could count on one hand how many people I saw actually say they were conservative.
Naturally they all had their identity set as “free thinkers…”
I use dating sites mainly for hookups and unless someone is explicity left I dont talk to them about their , centrist beliefs coz most of the times they left me offended !
So you just have sex with them?
the “enlightened centrist” lol. that’s my mom, who calls Trump the “lesser of two evils”
Same in Germany. To call yourself Right in Germany is, well, we had a very right wing government and we swore “never again”.
So the conservatives are center, the liberals are center, the social Democrats aren’t really left anymore and self identify as center and the same is with the green party. There is one party called The Left and they obviously identify as left but can’t agree on what that means. And the far right party (AfD) calls themselves Conservative.
Not just the US , that is a worldwide thing ! Although dems are not left either !
True. By all international standards, the U.S. Dems are a conservative party while the GOP is a fascism party. The Overton window in the U.S. is very far to the right. Conservatism has gone unchecked for so long it is running rampant. It needs to be extinguished. It’s a health and safety issue at this point.
With every election I feel that dems inch a little bit towards the right and the GOPs move towards fascism a little more , this needs to be checked too !!
I consider myself a centrist as far as the world stage goes. In America that means I’m a democrat.
I’m a centrist generally I believe in climate change want to expand immigration but also want to cut spending, scale back military involvement and focus more on state’s rights. I don’t really fit with either side.
How would one scale back government and focus on climate change and expanding immigration? And state’s rights to do what exactly?
I’d move the US to work more like the EU. Conservatives could move to conservative areas and liberals could move to liberal areas with more power to pass things they want to see in their area. Some states would be able to address climate change and handle immigration in any way they want. Others could focus on safety, firearms, low taxes and personal freedoms. Each state would be more responsible for balancing its own budget and planning for emergencies. Without FEMA etc if a hurricane strike Florida they best have had their emergency fund ready and or get help from trading partners otherwise your out of luck. It’s like a modern HOA living in one gets you better roads, amenities etc if they mismanaged it then taxes go up people leave and they redo their books to incentivize the next generation back. America would become more nomadic as people try to strike the best deal every few decades while some political die hards would stick to a state for certain reasons maybe abortion laws or being in an unregulated industry local to that specific state.
That’s absolutely wild, genuinely terrible, and intends something basically no different than what we already have. The biggest difference would be all of your conservative areas immediately collapsing without funding from liberal areas lol. I mean, your whole plan is basically just not having the United States anymore, and assuming that states will continue to play nicely with one another when they no longer have any higher authority to hold them to rules and regulations.
States already have different laws on abortion, gun ownership, taxes, and “personal freedoms”. People can already move. This is just such a strange political take, I almost don’t know what to say.
Yeah pretty much but it sounds pleasant to me though an economic cleansing in a sense if an area is economically uninhabitable it shouldn’t be supported by those that are some states will fail sure if there is economic value another state will utilize the space or form. I imagine the Dakota’s Carolina’s Virginias etc coming together to be more efficient smaller states like Rhode Island would also have to get creative or cease to exist. Those citizens would be allowed to move about the country and find jobs in areas that can support them working raising our economic output in the long run and ending crap like swimming pools in backyards in phoenix or Vegas.
I don’t really see how those things are related in any way, since the majority of the population haven’t really been economically dependent on the productivity of the land beneath them in quite some time. The reason why liberal states fund while conservative states are constantly struggling with their budgets is because of unsustainable economics favoring businesses while shuffling the burdens onto individuals instead of corporations. It has literally nothing to do with swimming pools in Vegas unless somebody passes a bill banning private swimming pools in Vegas, which seems counter to your desire for freedom. Also, why would states merge and shrink?
Honestly, if you want people to move away from economically uninhabitable areas like Phoenix is steadily becoming (primarily because surviving it will only get more expensive), you’re gonna need a large, well-funded federal government to foot the bill for getting millions of people to move away from the Phoenix area. That’s millions of units of housing that need to be built elsewhere, millions of tons of possessions that need to be moved, businesses that need to relocate, and employment and healthcare to be managed.
I genuinely don’t understand how you arrived at your political solution, especially when it sounds like the problems you want solved are fundamentally incompatible with the Republican party, and simply not perfectly catered to by the democratic. Which, makes sense because literally no party in the US is advocating for deleting the federal government and becoming a loose federation that California will inevitably conquer in a bizarre inversion of Manifest Destiny.
I’m baffled, but you’re also rather polite about your strange political dream, so I wish you the best.
States’ rights to do what?
Whatever they want basically with some fundamental rights such as allowing other citizens emigration and immigration within the US.
Yeah sure keep dog whistling bud
More immigration, less military, more independence to states? Buddy, you’re a democrat.
No what we have such polarized politics. Comments like this are insane.
I have a step grandfather who is super far right but insists he’s a democrat and that he’s the only true democrat in the family since he was elected as a democrat judge in a rather conservative area in Ohio in the 80s or 90s. He has also said the only thing he can do to save the country is to vote for crazy fascist republicans. Insists he knows how to run a government better than everyone in the family as well all because he was a judge.
One of my favorite thing to do with him is talk about something that impacts me and not tell him that it impacts me directly until after he’s been super shitty about it. Once I say it impacts me he then backtracks and tries to say that he still fully believes in the things he believes in but that he didn’t mean me, he meant the other ones. That my situation was different for no reason. He’s a piece of shit who my family expects me to respect, but I have many times purposefully been disrespectful because someone like him deserves negative respect.
To be fair, he may actually be a democrat, just a historic one. Their ‘roles’ were kind of reversed compared to today until somewhere in the last century if my outside knowledge of US political history serves right.
The flip came with Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act and then Goldwater and Nixon capitalizing on racists’ anger about it with the Southern Strategy.
Yeah that’s basically what he is. I’ve never talked to him about the party switch and it’d be an interesting and probably very frustrating situation.
That said, you mentioning that has given me an idea about what to say the next time he says he’s a democrat so thank you for that!
Ah, a Strom Thurmond Democrat.
People that claim themselves to be centrists in this economy, are either plain stupid or republicunts in disguise.
Yes, they are not mutually exclusive.
It’s this kind of rhetoric that prevents productive conversation. If we want anyone to change their minds the first step is to talk to them person to person, not boil someone down to black and white beliefs. People are more nuanced than that.
I can talk person to person with reasonable people. I do not find people reasonable that hate others for their skin color, their faith, or their identity, instead of hating them for their actions. I do not find people reasonable that want to exterminate those. I also do not find people reasonable that do not care about those being hated and death being wished upon them just because they are fiscally conservative .
My problem with “centrists” is that they’re using the word to avoid consequences for the hatred they spew online. Those “centrists” claim to be centrists but the only issues they ever talk about are right-wing issues, 99% of the time the culture war that they wage. Just say you’re republican and make it easy for me, I don’t care if we agree or disagree on other issues at the current time, if you think that exterminating different people is okay you cannot convince me of anything anymore.
It’s not even that black and white, because the term democrat and republican as far as political views mean much different things when it comes to different ages, backgrounds, area, etc.
For example, I tend to lean right when it comes to economics, however I do support things like public healthcare. Also, I lean pretty far left on social issues.
There are people all over the spectrum on all sorts of issues. I can see where it bothers people to be labeled one or the other because that’s not really who they are. I truly try to break candidates down by what their stances are and pick who most aligns with what I believe. I can honestly say every ballot I’ve ever cast I’ve voted for both Democrats and Republicans.
The only people I have a problem with is people that try to tell me I’m stupid because i didn’t vote all one way or the other.
There is a saying that if you have 9 people at a table and a nazi takes a seat you have ten nazis at a table. Inaction against damaging retoric is bad, but actively voting for it is worse. I know the whole nazi thing is very charged right now, but that isn’t the point.
If you vote for a republican than you are voting for another person in congress to push the party line. They may not agree with stopping bills that are good for the environment, but if they want to get reelected than they will vote how the party wants when it really matters.
Any vote for a republican is a vote for general public life to be worse for everyone. Your taxes will go up, trump made sure his tax hikes would all hit during the Biden administration, that isn’t an accident. And you will get less use out of your tax money with Republicans in charge. So what do you gain by voting for them?
The Nazi thing is extreme, but I get what you are saying.
I’m also not disagreeing with your overall message but it’s my opinion on why the current political scope in the US is the way it is.
A large issue with the US system is we have no left wing party. We have the Cia and fbi attacking leftist ideas across the world and domestic. And we have no option to vote for a party that says, “hey, we have enough, let’s make sure all of our citizens can eat” it shouldn’t be such a revolutionary thought.
I tend to lean right when it comes to economics
You’re in favour of bloated government spending, the rich owning politicians, tax breaks for billionaires, increased taxes for the working class, companies polluting for free, fossil fuel subsidies, and increased healthcare costs to both the government and the individual to subsidize insurance companies?
Not really, some of those things yes but others no.
Well those are all right wing economics. Maybe you could be more specific
I have some people here telling me I’m a leftist, and others right.
Guess that kind of proves my point I’m not really left or right
deleted by creator
You can’t talk to them person to person. That type of persuasion works in matters when the other person is operating in the cerebral realm of logic. The problem in politics is that we’re operating in the realm of identity, and you cannot reason somebody out of a matter of personal identity, because the brain treats threats to personal identity the same way as physical threats. Especially when it is a closed belief system that defines politics as tribal combat, veracity as irrelevant, any information that comes from outside the tribe as per se objectionable, and agreement as a failure of will.
Basically, the psychological research funds that you have to take them out of the Q/MAGA bubble, and surround them with people with diverse views. It can’t be done in online forums. I’ve tried. If you listen, you just get regurgitated talking points, and if you ask questions that start to make them think they abruptly disengage.
Especially when it is a closed belief system that defines politics as tribal combat
Is this not exactly what people are doing by making sweeping generalizations about others? I get you have had bad experiences, and I don’t doubt it in the slightest; however, saying that
You can’t talk to them person to person
seems very problematic. Yes, there are plenty of bad actors and people who will argue in bad faith, but there are also those who literally have never been exposed to different ways of thinking. There are those who have succumbed to the outrage machine. There are those who may just need a small nudge to challenge these beliefs they’ve been spoonfed their whole life.
The moment that you write off a whole group of people based on political beliefs, you write off any chance you have to change minds.
There’s a difference between prescriptive and descriptive, between saying what should be, and what is. I’m telling you the result of my empirical observations. You are welcome to try changing minds of people in the MAGA world. Don’t let me stop you. I’m just pointing out why it won’t work.
Sorry. I won’t stop calling a spade a spade.
Or enlightened democrats who understand there party is the actual center and that workers aren’t represented outside of Bernie and AOC
Do they understand that the greater evil must be vanquished first?
You’re talking about leftists. I was saying there maybe actual centrists. Who would vote democrat even if a real leftist was on the ticket and had a real chance of winning because they actually preferred the center over the left.
Just another few hundred years and we can finally kill that other party and make a new one again. Like back when we killed the Whig party and they became Republicans and fixed everything.
The greater evil is not just the party, but the awful ideology it represents. If only the party is vanquished, but people still believe in the ideology, then yeah, it’ll reassemble itself like the T-1000 and menace America all over again.
It’s possible to be left in one area, and right in another. Someone could be left economically, but not necessarily socially.
Left economically but right socially? Like, they’d want single payer healthcare but only for straight white people?
I got my parents to almost agree with free healthcare if only whites had it, but they caught on and doubled down on “waiting times”. Despite surviving on socialism Medicare.
That’s not far off what Strasserism was/is. Though ultimately being x left and y right always means your just a right winger as people drop the x left to preserve the y right.
That’s not what I meant, but sure, that’s a position someone could have.
Or someone could want single-payer healthcare for all but thinks abortion should be outlawed. Or hell, the opposite is possible too. Someone could want to remove all safety nets, but want marriage equality.
For example, a party like https://www.solidarity-party.org/platform is a combination of left and right positions. Their first two party positions are: 1. Sanctiy of Life (anti abortion) and 2. social justice. They explicitly support workers rights and economic security as well as care for the environment. At the same time, they have a pretty conservative view on family (and probably by extension homosexuality, though I haven’t seen that explicity mentioned).
- Sanctiy of Life (anti abortion) and 2. social justice
literally mutually exclusive.
Anyway, what you’re describing is liberalism and neo liberalism, and both serve the status quo and enable fascism, hence are garbage. You simply can’t claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of people while supporting the systems that need to destroy and exploit that welfare and wellbeing to exist.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9
That would be one possible position, but that is not what is espoused by the link I gave. " You simply can’t claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of people while supporting the systems that need to destroy and exploit that welfare and wellbeing to exist." They explicitly don’t want to do this but want to build those systems up.
They explicitly don’t want to do this but want to build those systems up.
My point exactly - they uphold and maintain the status quo that is oppressing and killing millions if not billions for the benefit of a few hundred people.
Anyone who not only supports those systems, but wants to make them stronger, cannot, sincerely anyway, claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of anyone but themselves and the oppressors whose boots they lick.Sorry, I misread what you wrong and thus was very unclear. My mistake.
They explicitly support “a universal healthcare system as well as an economy containing widespread distribution of productive property, in particular increased worker ownership and management of their production.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party
If you view that as supporting the status quo, then I don’t think I understand your position.
The disingenuous party’s platform isn’t really relevant. It’s not a real platform and their “solidarity” is a lie, they’re just republicans with a different label.
I mean, " It favors fiscally progressive policies[12][8][13] and a social market economy with a distributist character,[14][15] that seeks “widespread economic participation and ownership”[15] and providing a social safety net program." … “The American Solidarity Party supports a universal healthcare system as well as an economy containing widespread distribution of productive property, in particular increased worker ownership and management of their production.[25][26][27]” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party)
That doesn’t sound at all Republican to me. That sounds remarkably liberal.
Now, other parts do sound very Republican. For example, “The American Solidarity Party opposes abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment on the basis of the sanctity of human life. It views the traditional, heterosexual family as being central to society.[13]” With the exception of capital punishment, that sounds very republican.
But my main point was that a person or party can be left in some areas, and right in others, which those positions seem to be. Simply saying “that’s not what they really believe” seems like a cop out to me. How are you every supposed to have a discussion if that’s your response?
I’m not sure why you think quoting their platform has any meaning whatsoever as a reply to me.
While your point may be valid in general, this example is counter to it. Find a real example or don’t use one at all next time if you want to have a discussion.
I’m quoting Wikipedia which has sources for the claims I made.
But besides that, it seems like the most logical 2ay to talk about what a group believes is to look at what they say about what they believe. That is read their platform.
If you think they are describing their own platform I’m bad faith, I think it’s on you to demonstrate that.
I would be interested in you demonstrating that to me. It would certainly affect my opinion of them if you did so.
Why would people who believe in the sanctity of life focus on abortions instead of veganism? There are way more cows dying than fetuses.
They specify human life.
But, I would point out they also say
"We support strengthening the specific rights of animals against abuse and neglect at the hands of those meant to steward them, recognizing them as more than inanimate property. We seek to regulate more strictly animal research, especially pound seizures. We call for stricter regulation of factory farms and stockyards, and the repeal of food-disparagement laws and so-called “ag-gag” laws that prohibit free speech regarding animal agriculture. We support local and family-owned farms and farming cooperatives as essential to ethical, sustainable, and humane consumption. "
Oh, they support slavery and murder as long as it’s “ethical”. Mmmm, right. Very logic, much morals
Do you believe basically every politician supports slavery and murder then?
Lmaoooo
I think it’s more common that people claim to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Yeah that’s been my experience. It’s a stupid position that’s logically inconsistent, but those people definitely exist.
I will never understand people that claim to be “fiscally conservative” and vote R.
I’m fiscally conservative and I vote greens. I want there to still be an economy in 100 years!
(Also I’m australian and would really like to go back to the communist way of doing things. This capitalism fad is dangerous.)
Is it? That’s not been my experience, but I guess that would depend on the group of people you happen to interact with.
Some of them are rich enough or have assets that they are profiteering from the policies of the right !
Can’t tell when the last time was that the right actually cared about economy instead of wanting to put all non-white, non-straight, non-christian people into camps
They only care about the economy when the democrats are holding the purse strings, then suddenly it’s all they care about.
Just remember that “the economy” means “rich peoples’ yacht money”
More accurately, I would say these types react to someone criticizing the status quo, which is typically right wing. These types are usually sheltered white guys who have had very few problems with the status quo because, well, they’re white men.
You forgot rich, no matter colour as long as you are rich
I was poor as dirt and was like this for a long time.
It’s called “conservative” for a reason, you could say. Good point.
Idk, I’m just voting for the least shitty candidate out of the two and moving on. I don’t get why people care about parties at all and just focus on the issues that need to be solved and how they say they are going to solve it and what their character says about what they most likely are going to mess up.
I don’t take sides but I still want to see big changes that from my point of view would improve things for everyone, splitting giant companies and Foster competition, improving infrastructure to help create jobs, a deep focus on fixing root issues in healthcare instead of just slapping a bandage on it, better affordable internet accessibility for farmers and rural towns, as well as taking steps to preserve the environment for future generations, etc.
I don’t get the hate from all these people, I’m not even in the middle I just care about what I think needs to get done.
The meme isn’t about party, it’s about right and left. The things you want are left wing in the American context. In fact, your positions on healthcare, the environment, and splitting up companies is to the left of where both parties right now. Like most Americans with a lick of sense and decency, you want the world that the left strives for but think left and right means Democrat and Republican. The fact is, the Republicans are extremely far right and the Democrats do a shit job at delivering for the left because they are funded by wealthy interests. The meme is calling out right wingers that proclaim themselves centrists, not people who are to the left of the Democrats.
The issue is that right now one entire party has become an issue that needs to be solved.
To each its own, this picking sides and fighting thing is counter productive and draws focus from the real issues.
That’s just my stance, abolish all parties and let a man stand on his own merits proving that he will act on the promises he has made to his fellow man.
It’s not counterproductive when one side wants to do horrible things to people like me and my friends and the other doesn’t. When one side actively endangers people and takes their rights away and the other doesn’t. Those are very, very real issues to a lot of people, and acting like that doesn’t matter at this point is just willful ignorance. You don’t have to identify with one side to openly disagree with the other. You can prefer a system without parties or teams without refusing to stand up against a team that already exists, whether you like it or not, and has made their horrible views very well known.
and the most interesting part of the whole situation is that the other side most likely thinks the same
Except there’s no need to hypothesize about what the “the other side” wants. They have been perfectly vocal about what they think are issues that need to be “solved”:
- Accurate history lessons
- Transgender people
- Women’s ability to have deadly ectopic pregnancies removed
- “Urban” people
- The right to protest against the flag
- Gay people
If you have enough knowledge of history to know what a “final solution” looks like, you are justified in seeing “the other side” as the main problem.
Not really. Right wingers seem to like centrists.
But since these are mutually exclusive propositions, only one side can actually be correct. Do you really think it’s more likely to be the science-denying conspiracy-minded side? The side that elected a transparent con man and buffoon, and appears to want to elect him again?
I’ve literally never seen a republican candidate be the less shitty option
“I don’t like the Right or the Left!” only criticizes the Left
Saw an old lady nearly shit herself with rage when Biden came on the news. Who was she bitching about? Hunter
Hunter doesn’t have a position in our Government, so who cares what he does?
Fucking right?
The reason that you are running into situations like this is because you (the meme creator position) don’t witness the Centrist also vehemently argue with right-wing policies frequently.
You only see them argue with you and therefore have a skewed view of them and their politics. If you are left wing, and argue for left-wing policies in every case, that means you will also be argued with by somebody who believes political nuance and not just waving a party flag.
The right wing also shits on centrists because they think they are secretly left-wing since they argue with some of their stupider points as well.
These people are not secretly right-wing and just don’t have the balls to say it. That is a horrendous take no matter where you fall on the political spectrum the only serves to limit conversation.
I’ve participated often in a wide variety of conversations on a wide variety of platforms. The trick is, for some weird reason Centrists never vehemently argue with the right. I wonder why that is…
The truth is centrism is just a way to support the “convenient” part of conservatism while avoiding any blame for the “inconvenient” parts. It’s fence-sitting bullshit. Centrists simply equate to embarrassed conservatives.
One of many reasons for this could be your choice of topics, the location of the argument, and your perception. Any Centrists in the argument may be on your side of that particular issue and therefore are appearing left-leaning to you at the moment.
You not looking for them does not mean that they are not there. Them not coming out and identifying themselves continually does not mean they are not there.
Just like anything in science, your perception is not reality, especially when it seems that you are looking to enforce an opinion, not find the truth.
Most of the Centrists I’ve spoken to also tend to argue the issue, and not the side. They see sides and at-all-costs group membership as a form of lunacy.
I mean I only ever see the ones arguing with leftists actually admitting to being centrist, so if what you’re saying is true then maybe the centrist arguing with rightists should consider improving their PR by being more vocal about it. Because y’all only ever seem to bring up your political affiliation when arguing with one particular side, so no wonder you’ve developed a reputation based on that.
They don’t have PR. They’re not a cohesive unit. I don’t generally even like calling myself Centrist because I hate labels and don’t like the way they encourage group-think. There’s probably scads of Centrists I wouldn’t get along with as well.
Yet you clearly identify as a centrist based on your comments on this thread. They’re just as much a unit as the right or left based on how they behave and act on their political beliefs. Either you identify with centrists, in which case it’s up to you to be the change you want to see in their reputation, or you don’t, in which case their reputation shouldn’t reflect on you.
I don’t like people making baseless accusations. I defend people on all sides when people are wrong about their opposition. I hate it when people think they know what others think and project incorrect (and often evil) bullshit on each other. It’s important to be right with the right reasoning and conclusion, not just one or the other.
I care when Christians purposely mischaracterize Muslims, and I am neither of those groups. I hate people being wilfully wrong because their group fetishizes a certain angle of the truth instead of the boring reality of the situation.
Ideas are important and I don’t feel we can get out of the current shitty slump we’re in politically unless we clearly identify and discuss the world. Labels and group membership make that harder to do.
So no, I don’t really identify as a Centrist, but you may think I am. I don’t “identify” as anything. I am me and I’m more complex than a few easy labels for you to slap on. Labels make it easier to dismiss people and ignore their words.
If I took the label Centrist, then that means I take the baggage you hold for the word, and I abjectly refuse to do so.
But you’re not just defending centrists, you’re responding to claims people make about centrists by saying “but I’m not like that so obviously not all centrists are like that”. Your reply to pthaloblue elsewhere in the thread is an example of this. You clearly present yourself as a centrist there in direct response to someone talking about centrists. You seem to be arguing about this from the point of view of someone who feels like they’re being personally attacked even though based on the actual beliefs you’ve mentioned and your own dislike of labels by all accounts you’re not a centrist and thus not an example of what centrists are like.
Centrists lack gumption. They lack imagination. You propose anything that exists outside of the current capitalist hellhole that we live in, and they will be the first to argue “but what about jobs? What about the economy?”
This planet will be covered in arctic floodwater and the centrists will be too concerned about making sure we have a fair argument about it.
“Both sidesism” will be the death of us all.
You are casting a broad (and incorrect) net over a wide swath of people.
I would make none of those arguments you proposed.
I have a very strong environmental bent. I feel the world should be made uncomfortable now to avoid apocalypse. I would break apart mon- di- and even tri- opolies. I would overhaul the copyright system to enhance competition specifically because we’re in a period where small companies are not capable or competing in the arenas that megacorps do. I would remove loopholes from tax and legal laws.
I would enforce corporations cleaning up after their messes. If that cleanup is too expensive for them to bear, then they should not be making those messes to begin with.
I would also refuse immigration from countries with more population than can be supported. I would push for a more cyclical global economy instead of relying on inter-governmental debt spirals. I would implement UBI.
I meet none of the standards you have laid out.
Who are you to tell me what I am, other than confidently incorrect?
That ain’t centrism, that’s neoliberalism. Go forth and be the best neoliberal you can be, I guess. But when the chuds start calling you a socialist, for proposing what seems reasonable to you, don’t back down!
Maybe, but I wouldn’t use the label. I want them to fight the ideas, not dismiss the label. Makes for better conversation.
I’d vote for you.
I very much appreciate that. I hope to one day try.
You’ve said the same thing three different ways now. If you are trying to assume I only discuss important matters on anonymous social media instead of at PTA meetings, divided family dialogue, protests, etc you’re wrong. I uphold my value of caring for others in every location, about every topic.
Centrists have the habit of excusing the most vile parts of conservatism for the parts they benefit from. They’ll consider voting for Trump, a proven liar/cheat/hatemonger over a milquetoast, truly milquetoast middle of the road Biden. The amount of gape necessary to straddle that fence could almost fit Trump himself inside it.
The truth is that the Dems are centrist. They’re not perfect, but conservatism is NOWHERE near the middle. Anyone can justify conservative policy cannot be a centrist. Just an embarrassed conservative.
I made no assumption about where you discuss anything. It was one provable example given.
I excuse none of the most vile parts of conservatism. I am not your enemy. I am not happy with status quo.
However, I hate the political “adjustment” of language, no matter which side carries it out. I hate making words more vague to try and mask reality. I hate how easily and liberally Nazi is thrown around.
I do not like polarization. I do not like driving away people who disagree with me. I do not like “cancelling” people no matter which party carries it out. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
And I really, really fucking hate forcing people to believe what I do because their goddamn group membership word matches mine.
It’s easy not to like polarization when one specific side chooses hate as it’s platform. People bemoan the lack of polite discourse, empathy, and fact. I’m not going to normalize or treat as equal the viewpoints of hatred as a policy.
Conservatives haven’t had a real single idea aside from Outgroup of the Week since Reaganomics. And reagonmics is exactly what helped millionaires snowball into billionaires and create the very economic issues we are suffering now. There is no “fiscal conservative” anymore. It’s simply tax cuts for the rich.
So anyone that could even entertain the notion of voting for the political party that presented Trump as a president is not a centrist.
I’d believe someone from the US is centrist if they agreed with 87% of Biden’s extremely centrist policy.
You are speaking a lot about what a Centrist is to you. There is an irony to that and I implore you to recognize that. They are not a homogeneous group. You don’t like the image you have of them that is largely manufactured of old pictures of your enemies spun into straw.
I’m Canadian and voted Liberal in the federal election, but I do understand US politics to a degree. I thought Trump was an absolute fool, and fools do so love their own. I understand to some degree why he won, though I feel voter apathy played as large a part as well.
Regardless, if I took a stance that would be typically right-wing, would that be me defending them? No. You can arrive at the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons. You can also follow your heart and feel that you’ve been nothing but good, and royally fuck things up.
For example, I gave the example elsewhere in this thread, but I believe in much tighter immigration controls, if not outright eliminating most of it for now. You may look at that and call me a racist. You would be wrong. The race is irrelevant, and it’s an environmental and economic stance that led me there. Our current immigration policies allow pushing down the minimum wage, makes UBI more difficult (if not impossible) to implement, and allow countries that are outstripping their resources to simply place those people elsewhere instead of dealing with their population issues in a realistic way. This is one of many things that has also irreparably damaged the environment.
Something done for good reasons is having bad knock-on effects and we should adjust things before it gets worse. In my experience, a Centrist gets to say “right idea, horrible implementation, let’s fix it” instead of just clinging to an ideal.
You’re misunderstanding the economics of immigration. The economic risks are far worse without it than with it. Capitalisms core mechanisms demand growth to thrive, North Americans are not having birth fast enough to replace their own population. Immigration is absolutely mandatory if you want to retire someday. Immigrants often also create far more jobs than they “take”, if they open a restaurant that provides jobs, for example, there is a net positive to the economy there. There is a higher rate of entrepreneurship in immigrant populations (immigrants are about 80 percent more likely to found a firm, compared to U.S.-born citizens). The only thing that “allows” pushing down the minimum wage is voting for conservatives who believe you should starve for being born poor.
I consider myself fairly centrist within the Canadian political sphere and I spend much more time shitting on social conservatives.
I may disagree with leftists on particular economic policies, but generally view them as good people who may be at worst a little naive. Social conservatives are just hateful.
I would love to see a centrist argue against right wing policies. Once.
Not even to me just in general. Surely there is a library of video / audio / text examples out there that for some reason hasn’t crossed my path, and a whole lotta shit has in almost 30 years of internet.
Oh I gotcha. Right-leaning centrist here: fuck guns, don’t ban abortion.
It’s not that hard /shrug
Congrats. You are now a liberal going by USA terms.
That’s not an argument, that’s a conclusion. Conclusions are meant to go at the end of arguments.
To quote myself above:
One of many reasons for this could be your choice of topics, the location of the argument, and your perception. Any Centrists in the argument may be on your side of that particular issue and therefore are appearing left-leaning to you at the moment. See Penn jillette, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher and scads of psychologists authors for example of centrists who often appear to be one side or the other depending on the issue presented (and have been mislabeled as both sides by people not willing to understand nuance).
You not looking for them does not mean that they are not there. Them not coming out and identifying themselves continually does not mean they are not there.
Most of the Centrists I’ve spoken to also tend to argue the issue, and not the side. They see sides and at-all-costs group membership as a form of lunacy.
Just like anything in the world, your perception is not always reality, especially when it seems that you are looking to enforce an opinion, not find the truth.
It’s worse than them being secretly right wing and hiding it. They are right wing yet can’t admit it to themselves.
The reason that “the right” shits on “centrists,” at least in the American context, is because “the right” is about as far right as the Nazis and the “centrists” ignore this obvious fact because they agree with them on certain issues.
I think you’re under the impression that the Democrats are representative of the left, when that just isn’t the case. A good chunk of the Democratic voting base hates their party because the party doesn’t represent them that well. You make it seem like they are just supporting a team, when they are, in actuality, arguing for positions that are farther to the left than you can even comprehend.
The misunderstanding you have is that the Democrats are the left when they are actually fairly conservative.
This is exactly and obviously it.
This is the only correct take ITT.
I feel like the very idea of “centrist” is flawed. Sure you can choose not to identify with either party.
But for most of these issues you can’t reasonably pick a “center” option for most issues. Sure we can argue implementation but you’re either ok with abortion, gun control, gay rights, civil rights, or your not.
Is it really useful to have the “control guns” and “control guns only a little” groups fighting when there’s a “school kids are a worthy sacrifice for guns” party?
This internet version of centrism that everyone hates on is bizarre to me, for the reasons you say - the “only commit half a genocide” type of centrism. Are there people who really strike a middle ground on every issue on principle?
I always understood centrism as “I hold enough opinions from both parties that I don’t align with either one”, which honestly fits me pretty well. I still have strong opinions on individual issues though…
This internet version of centrism that everyone hates on is bizarre to me, for the reasons you say - the “only commit half a genocide” type of centrism. Are there people who really strike a middle ground on every issue on principle?
That’s not a principle, it’s just a rhetoric. Like when people demonstrated in Charlottesville : one side wanted to get rid of a slavers statue while the other side run a car through the crowd. Then Trump took a “centrist” position and said that there was some very fine people on both side, which was just a way to defend his side
That’s typically how it’s actually used, but then that makes any reference to being a centrist pointless when discussing issues.
This interpretation means there is no “centrist position”, so if an issue is divided by Democrat vs Rebuplican (which it usually is) then you’re picking a side for that discussion.
That means that in issue specific conversations or debate, bringing up the fact your centrist only serves to fracture yourself from the party your currently on the side of. (None of this applies for registering to vote, where being an Independent actually matters).
I just think the label at best fractures your impact and reach and at worst is an attempt to sound rationally superior.
All this to say, not identifying with a party or choosing opinions are all well and fine, but categorising yourself as a centrist just groups you with a bunch of people that don’t necessarily represent or agree with you.
I can see that, you make a fair point. Centrists are probably the least homogenous group by definition, so they don’t really stand for anything in particular and the label loses meaning.
However, I do think there is something to be said for using the centrist label to dodge around people trying to pigeonhole you into a specific viewpoint. For example, I’ve had great discussions with someone about UBI and socialized healthcare before, only for them to feel utterly betrayed and revolted by my stance on gun control (as they naturally assumed the rest of my views would align with theirs along their party lines).
Our political culture is so incredibly hateful and polarized at this point in time that I feel like ‘adopting the role of a D or an R’ for a single discussion is a recipe for disaster. If there’s anything people instinctively hate worse than an enemy, it’s a traitor.
I agree with this. I’m center overall as an average of my views, not that I’m cutting every view I have exactly between left and right. I kind of feel this way.
I’m not pro life nor pro choice I think everyone should be able to do what they want!
I’m not left or right! But I believe describes the left
I feel like my objections to anti-abortion laws are playing out just as I feared. I’m against abortion but I feel like easier access and less stigma around birth control is a big part of preventing abortions. My main objection was I knew right wingers would make no distinctions between any kind of abortions, even to save lives of women. And son of a gun, unfortunately I was right.
I think you missed the joke there!
Good Lord.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
In Spain, when someone says “I’m neither left or right”, that person is on the right, most of the time (if not always).
Yeah, same in America most of the time. Funny it’s often the right-wing that wants to pretend that they are “center” and/or are too afraid to say they are right-wing. It’s like they know…
Also centrists are just people who like the status quo which always benefits the people in power.
Everyone with at least 2 brain cells can guess that what they stand for is amongst the most inhumane shit one could stand for politically.
That’s why they pose as “centrists” because they know that they wish death on the people they hate which the general public doesn’t support.
I’m centrist but lean a little more left. I can say that I’m not a fair weathered centrist. I’ll call out the bullshit, no matter who’s in power. But as of late it seems the conservatives are pissing me off the most.
This is me too probably lean slightly to the right especially in economics but there’s zero chance I’d be welcomed at a GOP get together or democrat get together it’s lonely out there.
They know. They know their ideology is abhorrent. That’s why they’re trying to disguise it.
It’s the same everywhere and it is what the image is portraying.
Centrism is when you pretend that the screams of oppressed trans people mean exactly the same to you as the chants of the nazis prosecuting them, but deep down you know you’re actually a nazi too.
Idk i think most actual centrists lean left or right depending on the issue, its not usually that they try to take the exact middle ground on every issue.
I lean to the left on nearly every issue except when it comes to firearms.
For some reason I am called a nazi, bootlicking, qanon, magat, baby killer all because I believe we can have appropriate gun control measures while not outright banning every single firearm from those who do follow the laws, take more than necessary precautions to keep them safe and secure, while regularly training.
It seems so binary in the u s (presuming that’s where you’re from, apologies if I’m wrong). I’m glad it’s not quite so rigid where I’m from. A lot more people seem to have different leanings depending on the issue in ireland.
Granted, there are still a lot of people who are commited to their party pretty rigidly, and i see a lot of people basing their politics off of americans a lot due to social media. Its frustrating how much u.s politics gets discussed by some, mostly hard left or hard righters in my experience.
There are parts of the U.S. that are much more grounded to real issues that actually effect them and are not interested in the culture or political wars we commonly see on social media.
Glad to hear other parts of the world are still functioning socially but it is a shame that are politics are invading. Maybe its the new oil!
deleted by creator
They always seem to vote Republican.
The meme character is frustrated at “the the”, yes?
He has a stutter, thanks for pointing it out, jerk!
This comment section is a riot.
So if someone truly has values that fall on both sides of the aisle, and can tell you what they don’t agree with on both sides, and can admit fault to each side… that makes them Republican?
I’d rather take someone any day that will take a stance on individual issues over just agreeing with what a specific political party says.
Everyone saying in this comment section that you aren’t strictly a Democrat you’re wrong/the problem… are indeed themselves the problem and are kidding themselves.
Right : kill all minorities. Left : noooooooo Centrist : lets save half of them! Go figure.
So what if someone doesn’t want to kill minorities but wants to buy guns and wants limited government involvement in the economy?
Then they don’t vote R.
I put the lives of people over my personal need for luxury items like guns.
Republicans are also the government that involves themselves the most in everything. “Small gov”-republicans are a farce unless you want a dictator.
The point is you’re talking in extremes. And I will agree extreme liberals are better than extreme conservatives, the world isn’t that black and white, especially when you talk about voting for anyone besides President.
Limited government involvement in the economy means wanting to kill poor people, which means wanting to kill minorities.
That may be the way you see it, but I don’t.
I suppose this is where you call me a Nazi because I disagree with you?
You’re either a Nazi or a useful idiot for Nazis
No you
Do you have any actual policies that you agree with? Having guns and not killing minorities are not policies, that’s just culture war shit.
With the left or the right?
A few things I side with: universal healthcare, reduced military spending, gay rights, legalization of marijuana, gun rights, reduced government spending in the business sector, reducing/overhauling the current farm bill, increased infrastructure spending.
Since you need to know? I said that because that’s how the person I was replying to put it, not me.
Hey, those are all left positions
Well, didn’t I say I was neither left or right?
If you’re not a leftist, how come you agree with leftists on every political position you find important?
If you go far enough left, you get your guns back. Libertarian socialism or Anarcho-communism might be your jam if you want to limit/abolishn the state
It actually is.
The point is the ones u end up supporting for buying guns will want to kill minorities with those guns ! And govt involvement in economy in the US might be the minimum except when it comes to rescue the rich !
So the only reason anyone buys a gun is to kill minorities?
And while the scope is small vs even smaller gov in the US, the difference is still there. To say it doesn’t matter is frankly ignorant.
Then it sounds like they’re an anarcho-communist. Ancoms believe in an armed revolution to dismantle the government and protect minority rights. That fits all three of the things you described.
This is a bad strawman argument.
“There are three types of people: reasonable people who agree with me, crazy self-identified fascists, and lily-livered wimps who can’t pick a side!”
If someone says that they are “centrist” they are not telling you that they base all of their opinions on being in the middle of any two positions. That would be stupid and is an insane argument to put forth on your part.
They are telling you that they agree with neither major party on everything, and find that both parties have views that they don’t agree with. It’s pretty easy to come to that conclusion because the US two-party system packs in an almost incoherent mishmash of beliefs into exactly two sides.
There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days. There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting limits on them. There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services and universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets are effective. There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded.
The idea that there are only two (or maybe 2.5 depending on where you live) sides in politics is a strange delusion created by your two party system.
There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days. There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting limits on them. There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services and universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets are effective. There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded.
This is literally the definition of the Democratic party right now in the USA. So while I understand you’re point, you’re failing to see where people are coming from.
Those are examples. I’m speaking to a left wing audience and am using examples they understand. If I were speaking to a right wing audience, I would adjust accordingly.
Haha le funny meme
The left is misguided about certain issues.
The right is outright malicious about just about every issue, and is actively attempting to eliminate all other ideologies, using deception and violence.
That is why both sides are not the same.
Eh…
So while I do agree the extremism is much more dangerous on the right than it is the left… 99% of people don’t fall into these extreme groups anyway.
Maybe that’s just my world view but that’s how it is with people I know/have met in real life.
Both sides argue as if the entire other side is all extremists but the reality is most people fall somewhere in the middle, especially people younger than 50
I wasn’t talking about extremism. The mainstream right wing is as I described above.
Exhibit A: abortion bans. Exhibit B: election rigging. Exhibit C: crackdowns on LGBT+. Exhibit D: DeSantis literally advocating for slavery.
This isn’t stuff that fringe groups talk about. It’s stuff that mainstream right-wing politicians are actually doing as we speak, and they do it with the votes and approval of the people you know/have met in real life.
So are we talking politicians or are we talking regular citizens? Because there’s a big difference.
I read somewhere that over 80% of Americans were against the total abortion ban, for example. Another is an overwhelmingly majority of the country thinks career politicians are a bad idea, yet neither party does.
The problem is not the average American’s views. Very few are extreme. The problem is our politicians are progressively more extreme.
Most people vote Democrat or Republican and are biased one way or the other. If you want to commit career suicide as a politician, do anything that alienated the party you are closer aligned with. I hear people all the time, whether they voted Democrat or Republican, say aiming along the lines of “I don’t agree with a lot of things about (who they voted for) , but it’s better than the alternative!”
And that, in a nutshell, is why career politicians are killing the US.
So are we talking politicians or are we talking regular citizens? Because there’s a big difference.
No, there isn’t. Regular citizens demonstrate their leanings in who they vote for. If you knowingly vote for a progressive/fascist/communist/theocrat/whatever, then that makes you a progressive/fascist/communist/theocrat/whatever.
I read somewhere that over 80% of Americans were against the total abortion ban, for example.
Then why did they vote for candidates from a party that’s spent the last several decades promising to ban abortion?
Over 80% of Americans may not be willing to directly admit that they want a total abortion ban, but significantly fewer than 80% of Americans are actually opposed to it. That was firmly proven when they voted for the Republicans who passed said ban, and unless there is a blue wave next year, it will be proven once again.
I hear people all the time, whether they voted Democrat or Republican, say aiming along the lines of “I don’t agree with a lot of things about (who they voted for) , but it’s better than the alternative!”
The Republicans want to institute a dystopia of slavery and christofascism, and that’s somehow better than the alternative? No. No, it is not. That’s absurd.
And that, in a nutshell, is why career politicians are killing the US.
What’s killing the US is the extreme cruelty of a significant and growing fraction of its populace. Career politicians are merely doing what the populace wants.
Why, because most people vote for a party and side with a party, not issues.
I’m not saying that’s right, in fact I feel the exact opposite. That’s just my observation of the world we live in in why that disconnect exists.
That’s no excuse. When your side turns evil, you’re supposed to switch sides, not support evil.
I mean… They’re called Representatives right? Because they represent the people?
So, those politicians (Representatives) represent people, yes.
I’m not a Democrat. I’ll never be one. I’m liberal as fuck though and will NEVER vote Republican. I’ll gladly criticize the Democrats and won’t get mad if you shit on them.
I vote for certain stances in a candidate, and how they prioritize them as a rough guide on how I vote. It also depends on what office I’m voting for too, as well as what level of government.
deleted by creator
This is literally my flatmate , calls himself centrist , but would blame left wing media for showing the truth because the news hurt a RW sentiment !
You mean the centrist media? Because there’s really no main stream left wing media, not enough money in it.
Flatmate. Probably not the US.
Well I am talking of the twitter / youtube social media left wing figures ! When I even point out some bizzare statement a RW politico / influencer has made , he is like why do u bother ?
