- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
Tha’ts how it seems so from outside the US. Maybe if you weren’t such a bunch of self-absorbed cowards, the dems might considered the electoral implications of bombing civilians
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.
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.
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.
that they are actively working on it, but to say they aren’t trying to fix it is just a lie
Your own statement clearly demonstrates intent yo worsen the system lol
What? How?
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?
PugJesus have an history of being a genocide supporter
the meme is explicitly not talking about those people
Honestly I’m talking more about the people in the comments than the meme itself.
What if I’m a centrist insisting both sides are garbage?
Then you’ll be down-voted because people are stupid and don’t want to have an actual conversation about things. However, apparently trying to ask to have an actual conversation about things is now a Republican strategy, which is again exactly what the liberals are complaining about, and both of these idiotic stances (down-voting people when they’re just trying to talk and then refusing to talk about things and on the other side, making talking about things a sorda political issue) is terrible. The Liberals shall come and droves and downvote you. Except that comment that I just said is now going to be interpreted as a Republican leaning stance. Common sense has been completely abandoned by both sides, not in its totality, but just enough so that there is a kind of metaphorical street fight and that there is mud slinging and that the general population has no idea how to actually solve any of these real-world problems that we are facing. Donald Trump is probably not going to be ejected from office as I think he should be. And, frankly speaking, I don’t think that the Democrats have any reasonable candidate to run in the next election. On top of this, most of the Democrats are going to roll over an allow project 2025 to take hold because the Democrats don’t really care. I mean, truly, you get them down into a room and I’m betting you that they don’t really care. And the Republicans, they’ve all rolled over to Donald Trump’s stances and now all we have is a bunch of far-right yahoos and a bunch of leftists who aren’t really leftists (I.e. Give me more political donations, billion dollar corporations!!!)
But anyway, I’m sure that’s going to be a lot of people who misinterpret my comments because, frankly speaking, most people are idiots.
My entire on a bridged point is thus. 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.
As a centrist, I approve with this message. An actual centrist does not compromise with nazis.
Do they compromise with the controlled opposition to Nazis?
You are the masked guy, pigjizzus.
You only wanted a little genocide in Gaza, you know, as a compromise. And then you lost.
You don’t deserve empathy from either side lmao
Also don’t get me started at all these asshole whining under every Gaza post that “aT leAst we doNt haVe kaMala /s i am very smart”
Usually it ends with “palestinian deserved it”.
Dang, I wish I could’ve seen what this comment says instead of having someone else decide for me.
deleted by creator
Representative democracy is a lie, but if they let you vote you can still use that vote to help choose your adversary. Better a genocidal ‘centrist’ than a genocidal fascist, at least until the left is strong enough that they could take the right in a fight credibly enough for the ‘centrists’ to pick the left.
deleted by creator
While you are correct, voting for democrats is not because we love them and love everything they do. We vote democrat because we need to keep the batshit insane far right out of power.
If we don’t or if we vote far right, a lot MORE people will suffer and die. That does not mean we agree or like or approve that people suffer and die under democrat rule.
Under biden people were deported and put in camps. But under trump they are put in concentration camps in a foreign country where they will most likely not leave alive.
Either we get shot in the leg (democrats) and we fight and do everything we can to help others. or we get shot in the head (republican/far right) and we can’t do anything to help others because we are either dead or in a concentration camp in el salvador.
deleted by creator
Did you not read what i said? I literally explained they are shit and don’t give a fuck… fucking hell…
Same. There are some views that should disqualify one from holding public office, and supporting genocide is one of them.
Wise take. We live in this world, we have to make the better choice, even if it’s still a bad one. Maybe later you can move from genocidal ‘centrist’ to a non genocidal one, but this is a full on accelerated descent into amorality, hatred and love of ignorance for the US.
Yeah but you hate democracy if you say that!
There’s also:
“Leftist” insisting on “both sides”.
-mask pull-
Russian bot
Russian bot
So a right-wing fascist supporter.
Yup but they are not self-aware enough to realize that hard leftism is actually right-wing
that hard leftism is actually right-wing
What?
You read what I said.
I would say hard leftism is often conflated with whatever the hell Tankies are doing, and I wouldn’t really consider them leftist. Most haven’t read any theory beyond Soviet/CPC praxis (if they’ve read any at all), which is pretty conservative/authoritarian by modern leftist standards.
“authoritarian” would probably be more helpful than “right-wing” in this context.
They are the same picture.
You think anarchism is the same as authoritarianism?
But they’re objectively not. They share similarities with authoritarianism, not necessarily right wing ideology. If you don’t care about that very real distinction that’s fine, but using incorrect language just makes it harder for people to take you seriously.
I will go back to not caring about this.
On the other hand, the kneejerk of labeling every even remotely centrist viewpoint as inherently dishonest is pretty annoying. My own views lean SocDem and I’ve found voicing any opinion which is neither solidly left-wing or solidly right-wing, especially if it does not align with very American-centric views of the political spectrum, often elicits unpleasant reactions. Nuance is hard, I guess.
As an anarchist. The seething hate I’ve received for pointing out. That the genocide in Palestine is truly an appropriate both sides thing. That it wasn’t just Biden or just Harris. That it was our senators, our Congress people, and the executive branch.
That it was going to be a Republican or a Democrat that won the presidential election. And we all would definitely prefer it wasn’t for the Republican. Or that if Fox News covers you without wildly editorializing or smearing you. You done fucked up. You could be forgiven for thinking I had just strangled their grandmother’s from the reaction.
Could you give an example of a centrist viewpoint that you’ve voiced that would be labeled as inherently dishonest?
Being in favor of mixed economies, with stock markets, venture capital firms, but also universal healthcare and protection for unions. Being against American style basically unregulated firearm ownership (which seems quite popular on both the far left and far right, yet maybe not so much in the middle). And I feel free to criticize the actions of parties or politicians across the political spectrum, not just those on one side. I understand many people, especially the political left which I sympathize more with, are very angry these days. Justifiably. So am I. But being accused of being dishonest just for having a different point of view is annoying.
Then you are a far left Democrat, not a centrist. There’s nobody anywhere in the right 80% that believes in universal healthcare, e.g. higher taxes.
My own parents are lifelong Democrats and want lower taxes
Sorry man. You’re too intelligent and nuanced to be a “centrist”.
Thanks. I suppose I should add I’m not American. Perhaps the takeaway is no two-party political system, such as in the US, can have a “political center” because the respective “left” and “right” parties seem inevitably to become opposed to each other on every issue? Things are different in Europe, where multiple parties can support the same policies, but to different degrees or funded differently.
Plenty of EU political parties which are labelled center-right on Wikipedia aren’t completely dead-set on destroying the entire social safety in the same way the Republicans are in the US, for example. Although they simultaneously might call for reduced benefits and lower taxes.
Also, many EU countries have what I would consider actual left-wing parties in parliament. On some issues I would consider myself slightly right of Germany’s “Die Linke” for example.
Ah fascinating, thanks for sharing all that. Yes for sure you may be a centrist in Europe but here in the States you would be far left.
I genuinely appreciate that response thank you.
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 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
-
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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!
Bothsidists are right-wingers
3 posts later
No the horseshoe theory is real actually
Is this a psyop or are you dumb?
You’re in the meme idiot
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.
The left is more than just socialism and communism.
And the right is more than just conservatism and facism
And all of it is utter shit.
You are in the meme lmao
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.
I have never read a more nonsensical piece of logic in my life.
Ok Ms. Rand
😘
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.
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.
The meaning of words change over time, that’s the same for “left” and “right”
You’re framing the “right” to rewrite the current meaning with the historical meaning, which just doesn’t work.
It scares me that there are so many upvotes on this. Misinformation is on both sides, and you’re comment is proof of that.
What are the current meanings of left and right?
Complicated question. There is no fixed definition, and this is multi factorial.
To put it simply, I’ll say
Left: equality (economical, social, no discrimination), more state centered, ecology, at the price of private property (specifically private property of companies, factories, means of production) and less freedom (individual rights and economical).
Right: more freedom (specifically economical), stronger (traditional) culture, patriotism/nationalism, less state centered at the price of less equality (limited help if you don’t succeed).
Overall that’s not strict, and there are a few examples of that: non-conservative right (doesn’t seem to exist in the USA).
It’s also important to say that people often have ideas that are a bit of both sides: ex: more economical freedom (right), but no patriotism/nationalism (less right), but more equality in terms of identity (gender, ethnicity…), democracy (can apply to both left and right)
Let’s break down your idea of the “right” because it does need to be analyzed.
You say “more freedom”, but you never actually specify who gets more freedom except in a backhanded way of contrasting your idea of the left, who limit the freedoms of companies.
This is an important point. The Right gives companies and the rich, more freedoms, which in historical context has always meant more freedoms to exploit, or even kill their workers in the name of profit. This conversely means less freedoms for actual people who don’t want to die or be poisoned by some rich asshole who wants to make a buck.
You also say Traditional culture, which has always meant more rights to rich white men and fewer rights to minorities and women. Or maybe you want to couch it by saying a push for more religion, which then means less protections for the people who practice the wrong religion.
But you see how every single point goes back to more power for some people at the expense of everyone else.
This is not a bug, this is a feature. Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre both wrote about how this was the desired outcome, and how democracy was a threat to “traditional values” and how the idea of equality was, in their words, repugnant.
There is a direct through-line from those two bastards to every single conservative thought leader of today, and many of them use the exact same talking points.
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.
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.
That’s not what’s meant at all. The real thing is this one:
It just means that far left and far right are closer to each other than one can think, in the fact that they both lead to an authoritarian or totalitarian system.
It is obviously an over-simplification and inaccurate, but is mainly a way to criticize both extremes
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
Probably. Being in the center doesn’t mean you’re correct, but yea, it seems pretty biased
Where do you consider anarchist philosophy to be on that graph? That is an idiology that is both far left (collectivist by nature) and libertarian (no central authority).
I don’t know enough about anarchism but it seems indeed that it doesn’t nicely fit into the “left, right” classification.
I’d argue it should be classed to the left
I would personally put it under the “far left” category, since anarchists strive for drastic, radical change, completely demolishing capitalism, whereas more moderate social democrats, for example, want to maintain our capitalist economic system, but with tweaks around the edges.
At the same time, anarchism is just about the furthest idiology from authoritarianism that exists in the context of modern society.
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.
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.
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)
Trying to describe politicial idiologies on a graph is just a pointless endeavor.
I mean, its possible.
For example, fascism is described as 38.8974,-77.0374 (2025-01-20T12:00:00-05:00 — Present)
How does making a false statement help?
Tankies are far left. You can go wrong on both sides. You could also technically go far right without being a complete dictature
Left and right isn’t as simple as “good” and “bad”
I’d rather have a politician who does absolutely nothing than a fascist.
Underrated preference.
But unfortunately not one that my fellow Americans seem to have appreciated.
Yes, this is how the two-pronged strategy works to ensure the working class never improves its standing.
Fascism only improves the standing of those on top.
That’s what they said. You get given a choice between “drag things farther to the right” and “do nothing”, with a system designed to always collapse into two functional parties, knowing you’re too terrified of “drag things farther to the right” to meaningfully challenge “do nothing.”
It’s like a political ratchet.
this is very convenient this just means im always correct because everything else is just a right winger as if that’s argument.
Life would be better for everyone if right wingers would just shut the fuck up and keep their hands to themselves. But they just want to hurt everyone else, so their opinions are worth less than moose shit. When a right wing fuck is talking, there’s only lies to hear.
Fuck them all.
is this not a very progressive nice thing to say. maybe just maybe don’t be a fucking hypocrite. try being consistent in your values then just maybe someone would take you more seriously. advise from a centrist.
how much have you reposed this? this is only done by people with no good arguments.
I’m fully consistent in my values, so how about you try to practice what you preach for a change?
what should that be exactly? do tell very progressive person. im not the one pretending to be so fucking virtues that everybody else is an evil Nazi if they disagree with me. its just hiding behind the pretense of virtue and then acting like how a fucking Nazi would its hypocritical bullshit your no better than any right winger your so angry about. that’s what makes this so funny. you are what you hate.
Just another conservative troll, eh? Projection is so passe, get a new bit.
dude you are just confirming what i said nothing i have said shows my political leaning. you on the other hand smear that shit over everything. you do not know what a troll is. you just call people conservative when they disagree with you. you really like categories because that makes everything so much easier its a fucking joke. i find this hypocrisy very entertaining. the inconsistencies in your believes make you very funny.
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
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.
> there being a vote in 2028
good one
We found one!
asking Democrats to stop campaign like Bush-era neo-cons is now apparently a right wing position
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.”
More cope from the genocide voter.
Sorry your favorite genocider lost, asshole.
You guys whined under every gaza threat that trump was so much worst and that “at least we dont have kamala /s i’m very smart”. Then, a week later, i see the same user saying shit like “meh palestinians deserve to get killed”. Unmoderated of course.
See u/Dead_or_alive for example.
Summary: you are the centrist who compromised and only wanted a little genocide. You are in the meme
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.
Preferable?
BITCH IT’S YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY DOING IT. MY FRIEND DIED IN BEYRUTH LAST YEAR WHEN YOUR DEMOCRATS WAS IN POWER, AND FOR THAT YOU ASSHOLES ARE CALLING ME RUSSIAN TROLL. YOU’RE A FUCKING SCUMBAG WITH ZERO MORALE AND I HATE YOU
I HOPE YOU FUCKING DIE, YOU AND YOUR LOBBYING FOR THE FAKE DUALITY THAT IS THE US. YOU’RE A SHIT PERSON. GET CANCER
Both sides exclude me for holding my particular set of opinions. I’m on my side, fuck you!
Yea, make your own opinions, and fuck everyone who criticizes a political category
What beliefs would exclude you from both sides?? I feel like you’re making this up just to seem “different” tbh
In America that’s dead easy. Try being pro-choice, an LGBT ally, for personal liberty, anti-corporate, pro-gun, and pro-environmentalism. You can salt and pepper that with whatever other opinions you choose.
Ain’t nobody in power is catering to you. The Democrats are all kissing the asses of megacorporations and are anti-gun-ownership, because they’re all little tin pot authoritarians just most professional politicians and don’t want anyone being able to challenge their authority. And they’ve been demonstrably strongly against personal liberty in general since forever. Meanwhile the Republicans are simply insane, and I don’t think I need to delve into detail there considering the rest of the content in this thread.
So who does that leave anybody with?
The notion is, vote for the Democrats because they’ll screw you over more slowly. And by and large that’s what we do, because there is no other viable option.
That’s actually fair. Maybe more parties would be better?
Finally some common sense.
Oh my God, you found Emmanuel Macron!
