Every god damn time
If libs take the stance that you’re either fully on my team or you’re my enemy then it’s going to be a long time until you win some elections and have the ability to make real policy. Democracy is about compromise and appealing to as many voters as possible. Truth is whomever gets the independents wins the elections in the USA, everything else is just noise and excuses.
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 political beliefs that the far-left and far-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. To equate what the far-left and the far-right advocate for one must misrepresent the left, so both-sides-ism inherently has a right-wing slant.
the left general public: let’s alienate the people that might agree with us, but be shocked when the right wins.
I like to come into these comments because it gives me a fresh batch of new “centralists” to tag.
What does right wing mean to you?
What does right wing mean to YOU?
Anyone who thinks any different than they do.
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
-
Both sides exclude me for holding my particular set of opinions. I’m on my side, fuck you!
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
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.
the “obvious and important differences” are obvious and important to you because you drink the left’s koolaid while the right drinks your milkshake.
the reality is that the Democratic party exhausts it’s voters’ emotional reserves, and consequently is ineffectual at winning hearts and minds, Then they blame the public for apathy.
That is a strategy that is basically guaranteed to put fascism in power. Who knew?
The centrists knew. And when we tried to engage you in conversation about it, you ridiculed and attempted to maneuver with rhetoric, instead of truly engaging.
the funny thing about this is - or sad, maybe, I’m not sure which - is that centrists often have the emotional wherewithal to handle extreme situations. We’ve been dealing with extremes all of our lives. We see how they feed into each other because we actually grapple with the things others would rather blame other people for. We see that what the left is doing is ineffectual. We see that what the right is doing is vile. We act on it - actually take action, not protest - in the ways we can, in our own lives.
So… …if the right wins, and it really goes poorly, it’ll be a fucking shit time for all of us. But it’ll be beyond that - it’ll be hell for you who have ridiculed others instead of growing, because not only will you have to face the physical reality, you’ll have to face the psychological and emotional realities you always refused to, in the middle of everything else going to shit.
Grow, or suffer. Grow, or repeat. That is the law you are bound by, and yet you don’t make a rational choice.
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.
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?
We voted, alright. it’s called a vote of no confidence.
You mean the Democratic Party sat around and assumed they could further their own power grab because the American people had no choice but to vote for them. You mean the Democratic Party is currently sitting around doing nothing… wait, no—they are actively censuring their members who are talking truth to power. That’s much worse than if they did nothing at all.
If you’re going to blame someone, blame the ones responsible for fascism. Then blame the ones who gambled our future to further the agenda of their donors. The party knew they abandoned their progressive voter base. They miscalculated, and now they’ve doubled down. Fuck. Them.
I explicitly told you that the Democratic Party pushing neocon policies and pushing “vote blue no matter who” WOULD CAUSE VOTER APATHY. Voter apathy is a symptom, of direct democrat action. I told you I would vote for Harris—UNDER EXTREME DURESS.
What do you mean “the most left-leaning Dem platform in fucking decades”?
Fucking Bernie Sanders ran in 2016. Harris, against all reason and hope, stated directly that she would not change Democratic policy—the same policy that has ratcheted us to the right for decades. Biden, in his time as president, failed to achieve anything when he specifically had the windows to do it. So no. That is an outright lie.
absofuckinglutely.
Well you’re just wrong about most of this
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.
Subtle.
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.
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!
I run into this on dating apps. “Centrist” and “apolitical” are both code for “conservative.”
I’ve heard that many men do this because they’ve realized, in some capacity, that outright admitting they’re right-wing limits their opportunities. In my circles, I’ve noticed this “I’m actually a centrist/apolitical” trend is also found among popular developers and tech influencers.
Saying you’re anti-woke gets you shunned and surrounded by horrible people, but saying you’re just apolitical gets you the blessing and protection of self-proclaimed centrists. When you, for example, marginalize LGBT folks and get called out, countless will gather to complain about people “dragging politics into tech.” Bryan Lunduke will come out of his cave and write a piece about how the trans fetish is trying to kill open source.
I’m talking about women, but I e heard the same things you have about men.
“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.
It was the worst of times, it was the L33t 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
You sound like an idiot.
