You're viewing a single thread.
No. Centrists: "We think absolutes turn into fucking problems. We should have a choice and not a choice between two things we ALL don't like."
Absolutes are not problems by themselves, you must evaluate each case.
As an example, the only correct stance is being absolutely against the KKK, and not give a shit if the KKK objects to that. You're saying that's a problem, and that the KKK should be heard out. Fuck that.
Absolutely. But they are a problem. The KKK is not supported and exactly what I was considering an absolute. So I stand by what I said. There should be more diversity in the voting structure and not so many flashy carnival rides.
The KKK is an absolute, and you've advocated for taking the middle of the road approach for everything. Are you walking back your statement that absolutes are bad inherently, and taking the common-sense position that everything must be judged individually?
No. I'm saying that absolutes suck and they are an absolute. But you can keep trying to tell me what I am saying like I don't understand it. It didn't come from my mind or anything.
Or you are hell bent on proving an exception to centerists which is 80 percent of the country. At least it was a couple of years ago. And can't accept that all of us are in the same boat wanting more options.
It's not a strawman. The KKK is an absolutist stance, and to stand against the KKK is absolutist.
80% of America is right wing, more than that I'd say. Centrists are the Social Democrats, which rallied around Bernie.
Yes the KKK represents an absolute viewpoint. So does saying "You should never, ever support the KKK" which you claim to agree with.
Other guy is just trying to point out to you that your opening statement is logically inconsistent, since you DO support at least one absolute position. (That the KKK are unreasonable and not to be supported.)
Most likely, there are other absolute positions you also support - that one was picked because it was an easy one that for sure you would agree with. Uncovering others would take more discussion.
You also are not seeing the forrest for the trees. It's not a boolean loop. Saying an absolute is a fucking problem is a statement that is echoed by the centerists. You can diminish a point all you want. But then all we are going to discuss now nothing is nothing. There is no logic to saying that absolutes are a problem. It's a statement of fact.
Saying an absolute is a fucking problem is a statement that is echoed by the centerists.
Are you under the impression that I'm a centrist? Because I was under the impression you were.
Maybe I should just make this statement instead of trying to reply to this several layers deep context.
If a person says "Absolutes are a problem" but also says "except this Absolute, right here, this one is OK" - then that person doesn't actually think absolutes are a problem. That person thinks absolutes they disagree with are a problem.
Personally, I would not say absolutes are absolutely a problem. If we could agree on a few absolutes (such as "The KKK is bad" or "White supremacy should be rooted out and not tolerated" or "You can't call and threaten or beg people to take illegal action when you don't like the results of an election") I think maybe we'd have a bit more unity in the country.
At this point I guess I've lost the plot of whether I agree with you or not, but I think I don't, and my position is as outlined above. I also agree with the meme that is OP.
You are just rambling and I'm not listening.
Sorry for the off-topic reply, thought you were a different thread. But also, LOL, OK.
This is a total strawman.
It's an nonsense response to a concept that should be considered reasonable.
Bringing up the KKK in the concept of general problem solving views is a distraction from consideration that reasonable people can solve problems. It exaggerates reasonable people with those who are not.
Nobody but KKK considers them reasonable.
It's not a Strawman.
By claiming that absolutes are bad inherently, they are stating that taking an absolute stance against racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Is also bad. The KKK is a great example, they were defended by White Moderates during the Civil Rights Movement.
You don't feel like its not a reasonable example if we are talking modern day American politics in the same conversation with unions and minimum wage?
I do agree there are some absolutes that cannot be tolerated. But, it gets difficult to articulate that because some people have such strong opinions about a particular topic, they consider it an absolute. Like murdering a child should never be tolerated would be an example of an absolute I think all of mumanity would support, but it was done during China's one child policy. So some didn't subscribe to that.
I find political discussions with certain people hard because they believe their thing should be absolute, rather than up for negotiation, hopefully so both group kinda win instead of everyone loses.
Murdering children wasn't a part of the One Child Policy, but an unintended outcome from it. It was obviously a terrible policy because of its results, but it wasn't done to murder children. That's not a great example.
I was not suggesting it was policy. I was suggesting it was an absolute viewpoint or a personal value.
Second though, I don't know that I consider KKK supporters moderate. Maybe historically unfortunately, but not now. I've never met someone I thought was a middle ground or more center person who supports racism. Especially hard/blatant racism. I'd take ignorance, they might not understand cultural differences.
Center ground in America is definitely pro-racism, considering how far-right America is in general.
I disagree. Not a single person I consider center is even close to a racist.
I work with a bunch of conservative or American Republican voters. None support or are racist.
None of the barely Democrat voters I know are racist. Since there's assertion that even American Democrats are right, same applies.
Are there groups of shitty people who are, sure. I don't think they represent the whole of the country. I don't know why middle ground is interpreted as racism ok. That's not middle.
I work with a bunch of conservative or American Republican voters. None support or are racist.
Anyone who votes Republican supports their racist policies. Ergo, such a voter might be "one of the good ones" (yeah, I know what I said), but they are OK supporting and increasing the power of a party that is decidedly racist. (and sexist, and homophobic, and transphobic, and, and, and...)
Democrats aren't perfect by any means, but anyone finding them hard to distinguish from Republicans in those areas should probably feel a bit called out by OP.
Have you considered that you may not realize they are racist because you're at work, and/or are white as well? I've known many conservatives that I didn't think were racist until I found out later.
You truly don't know any conservative that posted #AllLivesMatter?
Maybe everyone has different opinions on what racism is?
The dictionaries definition of racism centers around a belief or ideology that one's race is somehow superior or better than another.
I have high confidence that the particular people I'm asserting would consider themselves middle of the road politically do not in any way believe that their race is somehow superior or better than another. They don't believe they're better than African, Latin, Asian, etc, as do I.
I work with a couple of trumpers. Father forgive them for they know not what they do. 😉
From what I can tell, it seems you're mostly conveying a guilty by association assertion? I think you're saying if someone votes American republican, because some American publicans are shitty or have racist tendencies, than anyone that votes for them is equally guilty of such.
Wouldn't this ideology equally apply to biden? Because biden's administration has supported the war that people claim genocide, does anyone who votes for an American Democrat also comparable for genocide? So how should we vote in that scenario? One is a racist, one supports genocide?
Voting for racists makes you racist, yes. Republican politics are anti-minority, whether thay be sex, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or otherwise.
It's really that simple.
Again, what should Americans do?
Then vote for administration supporting genocide?
I brought this up because the conversation was taking about absolutes. I would think then voting for genocide supporters makes you a genocide supporter, right?
But that anti-KKK stance is not as extreme as it could be. I'll give you an example of a more extreme stance: Every member should be tortured and executed, everyone who they were friends with should be imprisoned, everyone who mentions the name "KKK" should be imprisoned.
That is an extreme stance and it is ridicolous too. And in most (all?) cases, extremism also means authoritatian. Do you have an example for an extreme stance is any good?
That's not a more extreme stance, that's just a more violent stance. Extremism doesn't mean violence.
But why do you not like meeting everyone's basic needs?
I do. I just don't buy the whole "that wasn't real communism, this time it'll be different, we totally won't trample all over human rights" crap. Especially not when those same people are praising the likes of Castro, Xi, Lenin, and assorted other dictators.
What people are advocating for is generally not communism and I would say communists are generally pretty rare on the left. Finding an actual Marxist who engages with the solution theory side of his work and not just his pointing at a social structure side is like finding a unicorn. Recognizing that there is an owner class is Marxist sure but it's also leaving 75 percent of his political theory on the table.
People will definitely joke about being communist but that is a dig at McCarthist witchhunt logic which flattened and branded anything left of enthusiastic neo libralism as a potential threat. There's also people who will respond to the virulent rejection of communism by arguing for it based on the fact that it never has been pulled off as written but that's a knee jerk reaction to being called a communist since breaking down why you aren't a communist at all requires more knowledge that a lot of people don't have at hand. When you brand everyone with nebulous left facing ideals a communist you functionally create "communists" who need to defend themselves. Results vary.
But break open the left at a philosophical level and you find much sharper distinctions... Many variations of which have represented stable democratic government systems with historical precedent of being resistant to power consolidation.
Communism or the Communist systems resulting from attempts to make the idea of Communism work, relies on a relocation of personal property with the state as an intermediary based on need for all citizens in the system. It is highly invasive in its management of distribution while solidifying a fairly rigid government control with autocratic power weilded through offices that are not elected positions ... Doing things like creating universal government services like Universal Health care or looking at affordable housing as a basic right aren't nessisarily Communist. Those things are still subject to democratic control of elected groups. It's a feature of multiple leftist structures.
Out of the systems frequently discussed seriously Socialism is the most common but the subheading is more of a spectrum that represents a wide band of different ideologies about how to manage resources to create specific reserves for the public good outside of capitalist profit driven structures leaving the domain of personal property allocation basically alone. Critically, under Socialism you still have rich and poor people there's just limita on how wide a band the top is from the bottom. Maybe the rich man doesn't evade being taxed and has regulated limits of how much they can benefit from mutually held public common like the environment and the poor man isn't dying on the street. At it's shallowist end Socialism is potentially as gentle as just having more protections to ensure people's labour is protected from exploitative practice.
What most modern leftist ideologies particularly depend on these days is a highly democratic framework. Making elections more representive, enforcement of term limits and peaceable changeovers of power and re-establishing the idea of community held property by empowering local government bodies meaning a very beaurcratic decentralized power. There are lots of countries running variations of this framework so no, the left in a general sense is not interested in bringing Communism back. When you equate the left as a whole to Communism you are basically falling for decades old propaganda that preys on the habit people have of oversimplifying something that is deep and difficult to understand into a flat, easily dismissable token. An oversimplification designed by detractors whose interest is in giving you tools so you stop thinking and exploring further than benefits them.
Because they are babies with no political literacy.