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.
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”
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.
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
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.
Adding violence to the mix doesn’t make it further left, it’s a difference in strategy and implementation. Centrists also love violence, may I remind you about Henry Kissinger?
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.
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?
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?
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.
They’re not monsters. They’re a chronically persecuted freedom loving party of large jungle cats. And I may not agree with what they have to say, but I will die for their ri- AH MY FACE! THEY’RE EATING MY FACE!
my team: perfect angels
your team: evil monsters
it literally does not matter what two groups you are comparing, if you sound like this then a lot of people are not going to engage
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.
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”
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.
Removed by mod
Not being on a team doesn’t preclude you from voting for one that you think would be best, given the current circumstance.
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
The far-right, as an ideology, is violently upholding hierarchy. Violence is a part of the ideology.
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.
Yea, that’s not what’s happening. ACAB and police abolition are not about murdering police officers, it’s about restructuring these systems entirely.
They’re talking further left than that
Adding violence to the mix doesn’t make it further left, it’s a difference in strategy and implementation. Centrists also love violence, may I remind you about Henry Kissinger?
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.
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?
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?
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.
They’re not monsters. They’re a chronically persecuted freedom loving party of large jungle cats. And I may not agree with what they have to say, but I will die for their ri- AH MY FACE! THEY’RE EATING MY FACE!