I am shocked, I say. Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
I am shocked, I say. Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
304 comments
-
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.
-
If it had anything to do with electoralism you wouldn't be whinging about this 3 and a half years before the next election
-
If it had anything to do with electoralism you wouldn’t be whinging about this 3 and a half years before the next election
...
First, there's no guarantee that the next election will matter at all.
Second, the issue is much deeper - namely, the exact kind of 'bothsides' bullshit that leads people to abstain from siding with the less-vile choice of two in an election will certainly lead people to abstain from siding with the less-vile choice in issues of action that require something greater than an hour of a single day of their life.
Third, why the fuck would you wait until the last minute to address an issue? If there is an outstanding issue that leftists seem to believe that losing and letting marginalized groups be murdered is preferable to picking the lesser evil, why should that not be addressed immediately instead of ten seconds before the next electoral circus?
-
the exact kind of ‘bothsides’ bullshit that leads people to abstain from siding with the less-vile choice of two in an election will certainly lead people to abstain from siding with the less-vile choice in issues of action that require something greater than an hour of a single day of their life.
LMFAO, get the fuck out of here with that white moderate bullshit. Are you serious?? Lol I can't get over this. It's like if you took MLK's 'the Negro's great stumbling block' quote and just removed the part about white moderates. Even he knew that the movement's greatest hurtle wasn't the actual-fucking KKK, but the democrats who continuously told them that 'now is not the time'. Lmao. Yes, both sides are bad, that's why we're fucking pointing it out so we can fix it. What an absolute dipshit revisionist you are.
why the fuck would you wait until the last minute to address an issue?
Oh, did you just not understand what I was talking about? I'm pointing to your complaints about 'bothsiders' pointing to glaring issues within the democratic party. Yea, of-fucking-course now is the time to address these issues. That's why it's fucking crazy that you picked now to meme about 'bothsiders' drumming up inter-party tension well away from any of our next elections. This is when the tension needs to happen.
Fucking make up your mind lmao, is it good or bad to drum up tension about the bad shit in the democratic party, and is it good or bad right now? Do we have your permission? Is now a good time?
-
LMFAO, get the fuck out of here with that white moderate bullshit. Are you serious?? Lol I can’t get over this. It’s like if you took MLK’s ‘the Negro’s great stumbling block’ quote and just removed the part about white moderates.
... because I point out that people who purity test themselves out of cooperating with potential allies over when minimal effort is required on their part will do the same thing when major effort is required on their part?
Fucking what?
Even he knew that the movement’s greatest hurtle wasn’t the actual-fucking KKK, but the democrats who continuously told them that ‘now is not the time’. Lmao.
Which is why he made sure to oppose LBJ, right?
Yes, both sides are bad, that’s why we’re fucking pointing it out so we can fix it.
But with zero interest in doing anything productive to fix it, of course.
What an absolute dipshit revisionist you are.
Ironic, considering that MLK, a socialist, worked with LBJ, despite the Dems being much more gruesome and despicable then.
Guess he was just too much of a shitlib to understand politics on the enlightened level you do.
Oh, did you just not understand what I was talking about? I’m pointing to your complaints about ‘bothsiders’ pointing to glaring issues within the democratic party.
Already pointed out that criticism of the Dems isn't what's being criticized here, but whatever you need to confirm the paranoia that I'm a Fed or a warhawk or whatever it is that you've got going on.
-
… because I point out that people who purity test themselves out of cooperating with potential allies over when minimal effort is required on their part will do the same thing when major effort is required on their part?
No, because binary categories themselves are what stop insufficiently-motivated liberals like yourself from doing the right thing at all. You're the one trying to shove activists into a box and calling them right-wingers. The only one advocating for a purity test is you LMFAO. The lack of self-awareness is fucking incredible.
Which is why he made sure to oppose LBJ, right?
Only because he was already amicable to his cause. You think the democrats deserve the same charitability when they've roundly rejected ours? Besides, if they deserved any leeway previously when they were in power, they sure as fuck don't deserve it now
Ironic, considering that MLK, a socialist, worked with LBJ, despite the Dems being much more gruesome and despicable then.
He worked with people who were willing to work with him - democrats are far less willing to negotiate than LBJ ever was. Maybe the next lot will be more sensible.
Already pointed out that criticism of the Dems isn’t what’s being criticized here, but whatever you need to confirm the paranoia that I’m a Fed or a warhawk or whatever it is that you’ve got going on.
I don't think you are a fed, just that you're the most thumb-sounding self-described 'leftist' I've ever seen on lemmy. And no, not 'criticism of dems', just criticism directed at the dems that also apply to republicans, because that's apparently not very fair to your feelings.
-
He worked with people who were willing to work with him - democrats are far less willing to negotiate than LBJ ever was.
lol
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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.
-
-
you drink the left’s koolaid while the right drinks your milkshake.
Who knew?
The centrists knew.... What the fuck? Is this that 'anti-woke' bullshit I keep seeing spewed on late-night talkshows? There's nobody left in the fucking center. I only partially agree with you - democrats think it sufficient to pound the drums of ranbow-capitalism, when it's the capitalism part that voters are actually livid about. Apathy doesn't happen when their 'emotional reserves' are run dry or whateverthefuck, it happens when they give up on the democratic party for making actual substantive changes. You think anyone gives a fuck about infrastructure spending when billionaires are running rampant, buying public platforms to manipulate public attention and building toy rockets so they can make-pretend that their astronauts? Fuck no. The fact that they instead spend their media time scaremongering about social issues is secondary to the fact that they're doing that while the country becomes a playground for the egos of oligarchs. Yes, trans rights are under attack and we should protect them, but that's not a substitute for addressing the systemic changes that are making everyone miserable.
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.
Lmao is this a parody? Take action in your own life.... How? by mowing your fucking lawn? Imagine if the civil rights movement didn't bother protesting and instead dedicated their time toward... what, emigrating out of their homes in the south? Boycotting the segregated cafes they weren't allowed into? "Protesting is lame" says the centrist that definitely isn't over-privileged prick
But it’ll be beyond that - it’ll be hell for you who have ridiculed others instead of growing
Grow into what?? What even is the centrist vision for the democrats? More child tax credits and free vaccination programs? That's your big vision to defeat fascism? GTFO lmao
-
boycotting can be effective. But protesting, when not an issue of actually taking action, is largely ineffectual when appealing to a public that already knows and doesn't generally know what to do, and a government that simply doesn't care, and has it's own myriad issues without caring about what the protestors are saying.
The civil rights movement was largely appealing to a moral, uninformed public - not a public that had been inundated with every micro-issue that anyone can come up with, and manipulated to be completely blind to what's in front of their faces, while both parties lie or get away with grevious wrongs.
You really didn't bother to find out how much we agree on. If this were war, you would be shooting allies and neutral parties. Aside from that, you put a hell of a lot arguments in my mouth that didn't come from me, and i'm not really going to bother with them. It's classical zealotry and bigotry, and you are incapable of seeing it, because you are being it.
It doesn't matter that you're technically right about some of what you say. I can come to those conclusions on my own, and act on them, without virtue signaling to you. But the world you would create, if people bought into your way of thinking, is an absolute wreck, because what you have inside is an absolute wreck.
And you want tp play at not knowing what growth is? It doesn't matter what centrist views are - your growth is your own. You either reach for it, and grow, or pretend you can't.
gtfo, yourself.
-
I only had to put issues in your mouth because you've only spoken in vague generalities and empty platitudes. Go ahead and tell me you support trans and women's rights and I'd consider listening to whatever actual policies you advocate for.
But if I had to put money to it I would bet you're a capital-L liberal.
virtue signaling
Ya know, I came out the gate pretty hostile to the OP but I'm seeing what he means now.
-
I support equal rights all around. That means people can do whatever the fuck they want tp do with their own bodies and their own lives, and it doesn't matter one whit to me what a person's gender, sex, religion, or whatnot is. Trans people and women should have the same rights as any other fucking human. Not more, and not less.
The person's actions and attitude towards the world are their biggest impact, and the metric by which I judge which associations to keep in my life. .. not their gender or any other category. Demanding extra rights because you're male, female, white, black, cis, trans, gay, straight, etc will fall on deaf ears for me. Asking to be heard because you're hurt won't.
But if you use your pain as an excuse to assume the worst about others, while trying to come off as being a good person, I'll continue to say this:
Grow. Or repeat. It's the law.
-
Demanding extra rights
Uhhh oh. Gee I wonder that those might be
-
like, if some ethnic or other group of people thought they were better than others, and wanted to rig government policy to adversely affect other ethnic or other groups, and tell them what they can and can't do with their own bodies?
but.. maybe I'm being unrealistic, and that would never happen.
..or maybe.. ..just maybe.. you're caught in a viscous loop of which you are a primary contributing party - where you are hurt by the world, so you lash out at people who aren't a part of the problem, and see enemies everywhere - thereby relegating yourself to an unmanageable situation that is only partially (but still significantly) of your own making.
maybe.. ..just maybe.. you have to take responsibility for your own situation, even though it's not your fault, but just you being caught up in the larger evolutionary sweep of life.
Are other people also a part of the problem? sure. But you can't address it if you're off-balance.
-
rig government policy to adversely affect other ethnic or other groups
You have any examples of this being done?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
304 comments