- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Both sides exclude me for holding my particular set of opinions. I’m on my side, fuck you!
Funny how there’s a bunch of people in the comments essentially just unironically repeating the meme: “Well this must be wrong because I believe this and I’m actually a centrist!!!”
That’s the point, buddy. You’re the butt of the joke. The idea that the far-left and far-right are equally bad or warrant the same amount of scrutiny and criticism is a right-wing belief.
To make the point more obvious instead of using “left” and “right” look at specific policy beliefs that the left right have:
-
Equality across social and demographic groups vs. State-enforced racism, sexism and other kinds of bigotry
-
Abolishment of bourgeois property and money vs. Complete privatization, oligarchy and corruption
-
Globalization, peaceful relations and a right to live where you want vs. Complete isolationism and xenophobia
-
Right to self-governance and no government with a monopoly on violence vs. State sanctioned violence against those considered undesirable or traitors
Hopefully I don’t need to explain which one is obviously worse.
What does right wing mean to you?
They are both bad in their own ways just one is the lesser of two evils.
But to me both sides suck
Removed by mod
I like to come into these comments because it gives me a fresh batch of new “centralists” to tag.
-
What if I’m a centrist insisting both sides are garbage?
You’re literally who the meme is about.
Oh it goes both ways then, cool. I’m okay with that.
Removed by mod
Sorry your favorite genocider lost, asshole.
Yeah, I’m sorry the less genocidal option lost. Sorry that you think that more genocide was preferable. You’ll get to enjoy more genocide, it’ll give you good feelies for your left-purism, I guess.
This is some crazy doublethink shit. It’s clear just looking at the inconsistent interpretation from all the top-level comments that ‘centrist’ is a blanket term that both describes ‘centrist’ positions and also ‘left/right radicals’. The only consistent is whether the subject is subjecting the in-group to criticism
The same user constantly harps on ‘far-left’ progressives complaining about democratic positions, and calls himself a centrist.
This is just standard ‘out-group’ gatekeeping. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” shit.
“Bothsides types are indistinguishable both in form and in end-result, regardless of whether they claim to be centrists or leftists”
“This is crazy doublethink shit!”
The same user constantly harps on ‘far-left’ progressives complaining about democratic positions, and calls himself a centrist.
what
Wait, are you talking about both sides as in the political parties, or both sides as in far left and ‘centrist’ secret nazi?
Still sick of this blaming apathetic voters for the clear failure of the Democratic Party. You had mentioned that harm mitigation trumps all moral consideration of choice. That’s short term thinking, one that has gotten us in this mess. If democrats want to play chicken putting ‘their’ progressive voting base against their neoconservative principles, that is a failure on them. Their actions after losing further prove their deficit. I warned you specifically during the election what the outcome would be because of how the democrats acted.
Still sick of this blaming apathetic voters for the clear failure of the Democratic Party.
Bruh, a third of the country sat at home and did nothing as fascism, openly stated, ran to claim all levers of power in the government. If you think voter apathy isn’t a serious contribution in this issue, I don’t know what the fuck to tell you.
You had mentioned that harm mitigation trumps all moral consideration of choice. That’s short term thinking, one that has gotten us in this mess.
Sorry, am I suppose to prioritize the feelies of people who abstained over the millions of marginalized people who are going to die because of this administration?
Sorry our lives aren’t pure enough to be worth your fucking vote.
If democrats want to play chicken putting ‘their’ progressive voting base against their neoconservative principles, that is a failure on them.
This was the most left-leaning Dem platform in fucking decades.
But hey, anything to avoid responsibility for voters ushering in fascism, right?
Bothsides types are indistinguishable
… Yea, see there it is. “Bothsides types are indistinguishable [in the way they criticize my party]”
[in the way they criticize my party]
What
Don’t be dense. Define ‘bothsides type’ that includes all subsets of the group you’re talking about. I’d bet pretty penny it isn’t limited to people who use the phrase ‘both sides are exactly the same’.
I’m gonna guess this is pretty close: ‘someone who criticizes the democrats without clearly signaling their electoral support of them’
Or, put another way:
[in the way they criticize my party]
Don’t be dense. Define ‘bothsides type’ that includes all subsets of the group you’re talking about. I’d bet pretty penny it isn’t limited to people who use the phrase ‘both sides are exactly the same’.
Those who present of all major sides of an issue to be indistinguishable because they are both flawed, with the implicit or explicit exhortation to support neither, when there are obvious and important differences between the two with one being unambiguously preferable.
I’m gonna guess this is pretty close: ‘someone who criticizes the democrats without clearly signaling their electoral support of them’
I mean, harm reduction is not morally optional, but criticizing the Dems without signaling electoral support is not inherently a “BOTHSIDES” reaction, excepting, say, in the immediate lead-up to an election of unusual importance wherein the only realistic options are fascism or the Dems.
When there is an immediate crisis coming up, wherein messaging is extremely important, and you choose to amplify messages that help fascists without bothering to amplify messages that damage fascists, it’s difficult to see that as anything except service to fascism.
When there is an immediate crisis coming up, wherein messaging is extremely important, and you choose to amplify messages that help fascists without bothering to amplify messages that damage fascists, it’s difficult to see that as anything except service to fascism.
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us”
Democrats wanted everyone to shut up about how much was wrong that needed fixing so that they could win, and leftists wanted democrats to acknowledge how much was wrong that needed fixing so that they could win.
Throwing the leftists in with the right-wingers assumes that the rest of the country wasn’t already feeling the pain the democrats were trying to suppress.
Those who present of all major sides of an issue to be indistinguishable because they are both flawed, with the implicit or explicit exhortation to support neither, when there are obvious and important differences between the two with one being unambiguously preferable.
Lmao, here’s what this reads like:
A person who complicates a binary political choice at politically inexpedient moment by pointing out a flaw present in both binaries
No wonder American politics has regressed into pure symbols and signs.
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us”
That is literally what a FPTP election results in, yes. I see this is still taking time to sink in.
As long as you’re amoral and self-serving, you can only be a “right winger”, whatever that means. It’s only when you dispel the myth of moral relativism and believe that, yeah, some things ARE wrong (and we should avoid and condemn them, of course), that you can start becoming a person worth existing and worth listening to. And if you’re not very smart nor very brave you might be a “non radical” “leftist” but hey, your heart is probably in the right place so I’m not gonna hate (too much).
It’s only when you dispel the myth of moral relativism and believe that, yeah, some things ARE wrong (and we should avoid and condemn them, of course)
You can be a moral relativist without equating someone else’s view of morality to your own. Or rather, while still only valuing your own.
The problem is those “Centrists” are the mainstream Democratic party. There is no left-wing in national politics. The left has no one to vote for.
Yeah but you hate democracy if you say that!
Not necessarily. I also think that both sides extremes are absolutely awful.
The difference is that us “real” “both-siders” realize and agree that the fascist side is much more imminent and dangerous and therefore tend to ally with the left.
The difference is that us “real” “both-siders” realize and agree that the fascist side is much more imminent and dangerous and therefore tend to ally with the left.
Say more about this. Some news articles. Some journalists. Some academic papers. Something to validate your statement here.
While their claim isn’t falsifiable, because someone who doesn’t isn’t a real both-sideser
Lemmy being black or white like always. You can be a leftist, vote for the left and still recognize the flaws in your own parties and the good ideologies in the other…
I swear, the left usually calls itself open-minded, but as soon as someone on the right comes around, instead of trying to convince them with arguments, they are being called straight up evil russian bots. So what do they do, they go back to truth social, where they are well treated, and keep voting conservative.
Lemmy being black or white like always. You can be a leftist, vote for the left and still recognize the flaws in your own parties and the good ideologies in the other…
That’s very different from asserting that both sides are the same.
Someone: “both parties share this specific commonality”
PugJesus: “oh rly?? Both sides are LITERALLY the same??”Don’t you dare suggest that my party has a common flaw with the other party and can be responsible for their own losses, you fascist.
Someone: “both parties share this specific commonality”
PugJesus: “oh rly?? Both sides are LITERALLY the same??”
Bruh, there are no end of people I can quote on here saying that both parties are exactly the same, that there’s no meaningful difference between them, that Trump is just business as usual, and that bourgeois democracy has been on an unceasing march becoming ever-more fascist since its inception.
Only someone with an agenda would take ‘exactly the same’ to mean ‘identical’ in this context. I don’t even care if you could source someone using the word ‘exactly’, which I would guess is far less common than you’re suggesting.
I think it’s malicious that you use ‘centrist’ in this way, because anyone pointing to similarities between the parties would likely be the furthest thing from ‘centrist’ on any commonly use political scale (as flawed as those are)
Only someone with an agenda would take ‘exactly the same’ to mean ‘identical’ in this context.
Jesus fucking Christ.
I’m not kidding. I don’t think you could explain the thing you’re taking issue with without projecting your ethical framework onto it.
We can have a conversation about effective/acceptable methods of activism without all this bullshit posturing. Just say the thing you mean and leave the agitprop to the activists.
I’m not kidding. I don’t think you could explain the thing you’re taking issue with
“I take issue with the presentation of all major sides of an issue to be indistinguishable because they are both flawed, with the implicit or explicit exhortation to support neither, when there are obvious and important differences between the two with one being unambiguously preferable, and choosing neutrality is siding with the oppressor”?
without projecting your ethical framework onto it.
What the ever-loving fuck would be describing a political issue without projecting an ethical framework onto it?
We can have a conversation about effective/acceptable methods of activism without all this bullshit posturing. Just say the thing you mean and leave the agitprop to the activists.
“‘Bothsides’ attitude is bullshit and, ultimately, right-wing bullshit”?
Both sides are similar in behavior, not in ideology. Right winger’s are treated just as bad here as leftists are treated on truth social. Both sides are somehow convinced their idea is the absolute truth and the other side is the devil itself.
the meme is explicitly not talking about those people
Honestly I’m talking more about the people in the comments than the meme itself.
The people in the comments are also not 🤔
Mr Jenkins!?
Nothing in the meme that directly names political parties.
Are you someone who calls yourself a centrist but can’t decide if kids should be shot in schools or Healthcare is a human right? Weird.
Removed by mod
No, I don’t think kids should be shot, and healthcare should be a thing. But here anyway, the current healthcare system is broken, and some of the conservative ideas are trying to fix it, while the left is fine leaving it half working. While I’m still a leftist, I do recognize their point and am not calling them evil for it…
some of the conservative ideas are trying to fix it,
No, they literally are not. You are making things up.
And so, instead of asking yourself questions, you straight up jump to the conclusion you want to hear. This is what I’m criticizing here, and you’re far from the only one acting that way.
Here’s a translated part of the local conservative party’s website:
spoiler
The Conservative Party of Quebec, for its part, supports improving care for vulnerable patients, but by offering solutions that do not come at the expense of other Quebecers:
Ensure that patients with serious illnesses who are waiting are given priority in getting a family doctor, without depriving other patients of their current services. Increase the number of doctors by raising admissions to medical programs and more quickly recognizing foreign diplomas. Decentralize hospital management by incorporating contributions from the private sector to tailor measures to the specific needs of each institution.Moreover, the Conservative Party is proposing a modernization of the healthcare system based on the experiences of the world’s most developed and high-performing countries, particularly Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Recently, the PCQ presented a study based on the experiences and results achieved by these European countries in healthcare, which confirms the importance of increasing the number of healthcare professionals and adding private services to the public hospital system.
Now I am by no means saying this is the best way to do it, or that they are actively working on it, but to say they aren’t trying to fix it is just a lie. You didn’t even bother researching it, you immediately assumed the answer you wanted to hear was the correct one.
Sure, buddy, we know you don’t believe everyone is entitled to Healthcare.
?? Why would I believe that, and why would I even lie about that?
I run into this on dating apps. “Centrist” and “apolitical” are both code for “conservative.”
“I believe women have the right. The right to be a trad wife.”
“Both sides bad, bit aT leAsT tRuMp iS hOnEst aBoUt iT!”
The Honesty:
“You won’t have to vote anymore”
“Dictator on day one”Another one I noticed is they say shit like “well they’re saying two opposite things, so you cannot know the truth”. Mother fucker, if you dig a tiny bit the truth is out there, waiting for you, but they cannot accept one side is lying (it’s theirs)
An older acronym for the same thing, BSABSVR
Both Sides Are Bad So Vote Republican.
That may be the worst acronym I’ve ever seen.
The late 90’s to early 2000s were a terrible time on the internet in many ways and yet in may others it was the best of times.
I prefer BEATSABERVR
Both Sides Are Bad So Vote Republican.
God, growing up, I heard the equivalent of that so often from the less-lead-poisoned of my conservative community.
“Well, you don’t really know what’s true, and both sides lie. Really, both parties are just out for themselves. There’s no difference between them.”
“So you aren’t voting?”
“Oh no, I’m definitely voting Republican.”
Oh yeah, “The Smaller Of Two Evils” - they said in 2016. A few years later I asked: “how did that work out for you?” - embarrassed silence. One of the best I-told-you-so-moments I ever had.
It will work in 2028, trust me, just keep rich Neoliberals in power please god please.
We found one!
asking Democrats to stop campaign like Bush-era neo-cons is now apparently a right wing position
I have never met a “centrist” on social media who wasn’t. Same with the horseshoe theory.
Let’s take America: are you for democracy or against it? - “I can see both sides” - wtf? Fascist enabler, at best.
Proponents of horseshoe theory argue that the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center. Seems like a theory a right-winger would create to save face.
I will say, some far leftists have ideas that seem more libertarian on a surface level, like dismantling the state, but it’s for different reasons, and generally far-lefts aren’t common. What Americans consider “far left” is just advocating for common decency
Thr horshoe no longer exists today in any meaningful way, but it did for a brief moment pre tea party. There used to be a group of people that believed in both universal health care and understood risk pools, and would not directly vote to restrict personal rights. Pretty small group now.
There used to be a group of people that believed in both universal health care and understood risk pools, and would not directly vote to restrict personal rights.
You mean social democrats (or just slightly left leaning Democrats for USians)? TIL they are a mixture of extreme right and extreme left.
Thr horshoe no longer exists today in any meaningful way
Never did. Because it’s a theory.
I can only tell from down votes that people are either young, or grew up on the coast.
What does any coast have to do with this topic? Is this some sort of US-defaultism?
Or age, for that matter?
I note that you did not address my argument btw.
I prefer stethoscope theory.
They did a U-turn!
This stethoscope diagram just reeks of a rebranding attempt similar to how Libertarians were adamant that they were not just Republicans yet somehow still only voted Republican and would support Republicans in all things even if it explicitly went against libertarian doctrine.
Horseshoe theory is more accurate. Hard left is tankies. Tankies are hard left.
So the diagram is saying Socialism and Conservatism are the same?
I’m guessing it was made by someone who identifies as a Liberal, seeing as according to the diagram it’s the only correct choice, as everything else is closer to Fascism.
Also note: while a diagram can help explain an argument, it is not an argument by itself, as there is no reason for someone to believe it is true by default.
I’m guessing it was made by someone who identifies as a Liberal, seeing as according to the diagram it’s the only correct choice, as everything else is closer to Fascism.
Yep. Some people really think lack of opinion is some form of enlightenment, that they stand above things because they say “I can see both sides” to everything.
Horseshoe theory completely ignores the actual origins of the terms Left and Right in order to push a false narrative that they’re somehow the same.
It’s very simple. The terms Left and Right come from a vote held in the French Assembly just before the Revolution.
The vote was, “should the King have an absolute veto over laws passed by the Assembly?” Those sitting to the Left of the Speaker’s podium said No, those to the Right said Yes.
Knowing the true origin of the terms makes defining them easy, if you are in favor of more power to the people, then you are on the left, if you think power should be concentrated to the few, you’re on the right.
This can apply to social issues as well. If you think minorities deserve protection and representation then you are on the left, if not you’re a horrible person.
The economy, if you think everyone should have a truly fair shake, you’re on the left, if you think money makes some people better than others, you’re on the right.
See how easy that is? Which is why the right wing invented Horseshoe theory. To confuse people.
That and some dictators flat out lied about what they were doing and claimed to be Communist.
Because Lenin betrayed the Revolution after losing the only free and fair election that Russia has ever had.
So you go into a conversation about a modern topic where the modern definition of terms is a particular thing, and then you said “well ackshually the definition of this in 1780 was this so you’re wrong”.
I don’t think anyone cares what the definition of left and right are in 1780s France and it has no bearing on a modern discussion of these terms.
The point I’m making is that the trough line has always been, Right-wing concentrated power, Left-wing distributed power.
The fact that certain dictators have pretended to be left-wing, and right-wing jackasses have gone along with it, is where the deliberate confusion was introduced.
Communism as proposed by Marx is a true leftwing ideology, the Totalitarian dictatorship created by Lenin was communist in name only, it had more in common with Feudalism than communism. Mao was just as bad. An out of touch dictator who told farmers to plant their seeds several feet underground, and when that obviously failed, feasted while they starved.
That doesn’t seem anything like what Marx wrote about, or rather it was disturbingly similar to what Marx wrote about capitalism.
But again, right-wingers love to confuse the issue, because it turns out kings are not popular, so you have to lie to get people to bow before one.
Some people just cannot wrap their head around the difference between totalitarianism and socialism.
But I will say this: viewing political opinion on a straight line never really made much sense. At the very least one should think of it as a field (2 dimensions instead of 1). And of course this does NOT mean that I approve of the horseshit theory.
Every time I try to come up with a different metric, it usually boils down to, “where does the ultimate power lie”.
In an ideal democracy, that power comes from the consent of the governed, i.e. the people and their direct vote. But that’s usually untenable on larger scales, so thus power is concentrated. The how of that concentration can lead to all sorts of axis on a chart, but in the end, the other side of the chart is usually some form of direct democracy, i.e. returning power to the people.
We’ve learned by this point fascism is an inherently right wing ideology.
If you seriously think the Nazis were socialists or Stalin was a communist then you should just accept you like fascism.
That image isn’t saying that they aren’t hard right. It’s saying the standard spectrum of left right doesn’t account for how practically similar the two extremes actually are in how they operate.
Bear in mind that we are actually talking about extremes at those ends of the shoe. Genocidal dictators. Trump is not Hitler or Stalin. He’s not that far around the horseshoe, yet.
deleted by creator
I have never read a more nonsensical piece of logic in my life.
Ok Ms. Rand
😘
The left is more than just socialism and communism.
Anarchists are far left. Tankies are far right. Hope this helps.
This is why I fucking hate the political spectrum.
The left wing is for state managed finances, and putting the collective ahead of the individual. The right is for completely unrestricted economic freedom, and putting the individuals desires far ahead of any collective need. Meanwhile, we also tend to associate social freedom with the left, and conservative tradition with the right. So which of these systems defines anarchists?
It’s just a false dichotomy, and we need to stop simplifying everything to a binary. The 4-point grid is “better,” but it’s honestly just time we stop reducing complicated and nuanced ideologies into “this or that.”
You need at least two axes (plural of “axis”) to describe political ideologies.
We need a political tesseract with 4 axes
And my axes! (as in 2 “ax”, not plural of axis)
How does making a false statement help?
Liberalism is enlightenment?
Nah centrism is also bad. There’s really only one good small wedge of the horseshoe.
Congrats on becoming a parody of yourself. “Here’s a diagram made in MS paint that shows how stupid all this ideology stuff is. Anyway, only my tiny sliver of the graph is good and the rest of you are all doo doo brains. I’m so very smart and enlightened.” Please touch grass, I promise it will improve your mental health.
Even if they’re not a right-winger and don’t claim to be a centrist, "both-sides"ing things is a waste of time, at best.
Like, when Jon Stewart came back to the Daily Show. I think it was his first show back, but it might have been his second… And his main talking point was about how both Biden and Trump were old. I know he’s just a comedian on a comedy show, but it still felt like a betrayal. At the very best, it was a waste of a chance to say something that could have actually made a difference.
He pointed out that they are the oldest candidates ever to run, beating the previous record of…the same two old white guys 4 years prior. Seemed pretty germane to mention that we have a serious lack of younger and diverse representation
I agree 100% with everything you said. Just like you said, it was a good point and definitely worth a mention. My problem is that it was the main segment of his first show back. Just like I said, a waste of time when there were much more important things to talk about.
I mean, they are both old, I don’t think that’s a perspective that should be discounted. That’s not a discussion on policy or who one should vote for as much as it is the understandable concern about whether either of them would still be alive for their entire second term.
I like Jon, but TDS has done more harm than good for the left.
-
It just normalized the Republican CRIMINAL behaviour by making fun of it and laughing, like it was no big deal
-
It made an entire generation complacent becuase people though watching TDS and jucking along was actually doing fuck all to actually fight Republicans or help Democrats.
-
And finally, like you said they’d frequently have both sides segments that the right loved to echo on their propaganda networks
-
Tbf, you shouldn’t take news from a comedian.
They are meant to entertain, not inform. If they side with one party too much, they lose viewers.
They need views from “both sides” which is the precise reason why they have to “both sides” everything.
Comedians and court jesters have always been some of the most honest and straight forward. They don’t bite their tongue or fret over access. You shouldn’t discount them. Entertainment is one of the best methods of informing. You will spend infinitely time more learning in an entertaining way. Then beating your head against a dry impenetrable text that you struggle to comprehend.
The comedian in question is Jon Stewart, though. Do you really think that Jon Stewart has to “both sides” everything so that he doesn’t alienate his conservative audience? I doubt that you’re saying that. I don’t think he has ever done that.
It doesn’t make sense to try to generalize how comedians act when we’re talking about how one specific comedian acts, and it’s already clear that he doesn’t act like the generalization presented.
I have no doubt that Jon Stewart simply did the segment because he thought it was funny, and he didn’t care about alienating people.
The reason I’m so sure is that he predictably alienated a lot of left leaning people with his “both sides are old” segment. I say “predictably” because there’s simply no way that somebody didn’t talk to him before air and say something like, “You know, this is going to irritate the people who like you the most.”
