- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Narrator: The left did not, in fact, get everyone’s basic needs met.
Both Democrats and Republicans have been moving steadily to the right for the last 40 years. So Democrats are now where Republicans were in the 1980s: friends of banks, insurance and pharmaceutical companies. And the right has moved all the way into an insane asylum.
Still waiting on that basic need.
Biden built entire wings onto for-profit hospitals during Covid, while ironically being against universal healthcare. Almost like his donors didn’t want it or something.
Dictatorships are dictatorships, regardless of the political ideology. Both sides did horrible things, like purging intellectuals and anyone seen as a potential threat, mass murder of entire social groups, maintaining informant networks to instil fear etc.
Meeting everyone’s basic needs isn’t even far left. This is how far the Overton window has shifted to the right. Meeting everyone’s basic needs is left-of-centre. Far left would be state owned and controlled everything, redistribution of wealth via any means necessary, all public services fully state funded and free for all at the point of use.
Far left would be state owned and controlled everything, redistribution of wealth via any means necessary, all public services fully state funded and free for all at the point of use.
“Socialism is when the government does stuff, and communism is when the government does all the stuff. What is a mode of production?”
God I fucking hate how the capitalist authoritarian states of the last century managed to gaslight everyone into believing this shit.
It’s from the USA perspective. People not dying of easily preventable diseases, or children not going hungry, are extreme left for them.
Lol that’s not the far left’s position get the fuck out of here. The first paragraph is describing center/center-left.
Centrism doesn’t mean that you can’t choose between democrats and republicans, it means that ideologically, you believe in a balance between capitalist ideas and socialist ideas. For example, you can believe in the Hayekian idea that the many interactions between individuals in the market is better at creating prosperity than a centralized government that distributes all goods and services. But you can also believe that the market can’t do everything on its own due to market failures like monopoly power, externalities, assymmetric information. There exists a compromise between the two that is negotiated through politics. A core necessity for this to happen is that democracy is maintained. Democracy is not maintained when elections are bought by companies.
What is happening in the US now is that politics has been taken over by the private market. No economist would have agreed with this (unless they were paid to). It is against everything that we know. This is not a left vs right stance. It’s a democracy vs autocracy stance. Autocracy can happen from both the right and left, and it doesn’t matter who.
The one thing I dislike about the idea of centrism is the idea that you can’t decide on everything because you remain agnostic about every issue. I think a much better idea to advocate for is pluralism: the idea that your opinion on specific issues is not dependent on your politcal stance. Every issue is unique and doesn’t automatically identify you with left or right. You can have different opinions on different issues.
The boss: steal most of the profit
The worker: hey stop stealing, i’m the one working
Idiotic centrists: hEy MayBe You CaN JusT LeT Him SteaL A LittLe BiT
You can advocate for wealth taxes, unions, and other welfare measures within a capitalist system. I’m from one of the most egalitarian countries in the world and we are capitalist too.
What you’re from norway or canadian or something?
It’s easier to be egalitarian when your loaded with oil money, isn’t it?
Nope, but I’m from scandinavia, no oil money.
Edit: also, I dont like categorical descriptions, because reality is more complicated. But what is happening in the US is more specifically referred to as “rentier capitalism”. In Scandinavia, we have something like “welfare capitalism”.
You live in a wood, you genocided the samyz and forced sterilisation was still a thing a couple of decades ago
I’m not saying we don’t have things to work on, but it’s not black or white. Social injustice gets reduced over time in a democracy. Name a country that is not capitalist that has never done bad things.
It’s funny because from my European perspective there’s no (visible) left in the USA. Democrats are centrist. Sanders could be social democrat. Otherwise I fully agree with you.
I think this has only happened because of manipulation of the masses.
The US political spectrum has shifted so far. What is right in the US is far right in the EU, and what is left in the EU is far left in the US.
Ugh, market socialism exists.
Not all socialism has planned economies. That’s communism. A specific subset of socialism.
Capitalism doesn’t have a monopoly on market economies. badumtssh
Right, but I see market socialism as an ideological compromise rather than inherent socialism. Im from scandinavia, and my country is a capitalist country with a strong welfare state.
You have “welfare capitalism” as they define it so that they get to still try to keep people tethered to capitalism. Capitalism is not just having money, it’s a system that prioritizes said money. Capitalism seeks to reduce regulation and separate the worker and owner class and basically by definition you don’t get to have a say if you don’t have money. Scandinavian countries are not finding a balance but are resisting capitalism while keeping its name and to make people not be afraid of not having it(for some fuckin’ reason people really want it I don’t get it).
If you have strong regulations, a government focused on taking care of people instead of relying on businesses to do it, and the people have fair power then you don’t have capitalism, just a system where private ownership exists but is not jerked-off at every turn like in the states. It was literally made up so the merchant class could keep all their money as monarchies were falling. It’s a not something you want to even associate with. Even the states hasn’t gone full capitalism because they know(knew) that it’s not a truly viable system.
I also want system with some level of private ownership, but I also don’t think private, for-profit power generation should be a thing and if a company under “capitalism” is too big to fail then at least a large part of it should be sold to the government, and at least have it’s executive board purged, not handed a bunch of money as they hold their employees’ jobs hostage.
Capitalism goes through different waves and has grown to accept government involvement insofar as to reduce market failures of which monopolies and externalities are some important ones. Unions are justified in capitalism by solving the market failure of asymmetric information.
Socialism is when the government does stuff. And it’s more socialism the more stuff it does. And if it does a real lot of stuff it’s communism.
Lately I’ve caught myself thinking differently. The left is progressive because they want to progress civil rights. The centerists are conservative because they just don’t want things to change. The right is regressive because they want to turn back the clock. Honestly I think we need to stop calling people on the right conservative and give them the new label regressives.
You have to see conservativism and “the conservatives” as separate things. One is a group that can hold many different views and another is a view point itself.
Conservatives want to go back to the days when mediocre white men were greatly rewarded just for being white.
As a mediocre white guy, I can confidently say that is today. Any white guy who is like “I never got any special treatment for being white” has gone though life and society with their eyes closed.
There’s still systematic racism with America. That being said, everyone’s quality of life other than the uber rich has gone down noticeably. That’s part of the reason populist lies from Trump work so well.
If americans could read, they would be very upset.
I consider myself Centrist because I would rather eat 10 pounds of fried bugs than align myself with either absolute clown show of a party.
I’m a free agent, and the haters can’t stand that they can’t have me.
That doesn’t make you a centrist. Ya’ll seriously have lost your ability to see anything objectively it’s wild. The Democrats aren’t left wing except for a few people I could probably count on one hand but nearly the entire country, and its inability to pay attention even across its northern border, believes that the Democrats must be left wing since the Republicans are right wing.
You may very well not be a centrist, or maybe you are, but basing that on anything that suggests that the Democrats are left, and left to a point where they balance the extremism of the GOP, renders he whole thing worthless.
We’ve been screaming at the US for years to get a fuckin’ clue PLEASE just become moderately politically literate we are begging you.
I spent 4 years going into debt for a degree in political literacy. And then more for a related Master’s. I appreciate the frustration, but I can assure you I know exactly what I’m taking about.
Relative to the 1D spectrum of D to R in the US, I’m certainly in the middle ground, beyond the border of what falls enough into the D realm. From a global perspective, sure, the Dems are already a mess that overlaps the center some, but thats a fuzzy edge and not as fully held by the Dems as most moderately informed Europeans like to imply.
And yes, the lack of appropriate labels makes me more of a “Centrist” than anything else, but its barely an accurate term, as is using a 1D left/right binary to define anything can be. I’m against many types of government spending, which only a decade or two ago used to be such a quaint way to identify oneself politically, then everyone dropped the mask and it’s just a full-on Kleptocracy out there now. On a Nolan Chart, I’m squarely in the Centrist square. On a quadrant evaluation, I fall into the same zone as Thomas Jefferson and…Marianne Williamson, oddly enough.
Plus, Lemmy needs to hear opinions from outside the tankie echo chamber.
I’d love to hear about that “many types of government spending” because that’s kinda important here.
Any dipshit can barely pass classes and get a degree. I’ve worked with engineers who can’t even fucking count pillars in a picture and argue when you politely ask for a recount so you’re gunna need to do a lot more than leave incredibly important context up in the air while flapping around your basically worthless-until-proven-otherwise degree.
Trump went to a good school. He’s bad at everything he supposedly learned there. Many republicans have law degrees and some days you wonder if they’re even able to read a children’s book with any level of competency.
Yes, well I also hate typing out my political beliefs on mobile, but you raise a fair point. Even though in sure you’ll hate everything I say out of principle. Apologies in advance for typos.
In general, the GAO does a good job of enumerating wasteful spending. For example, there’s 133 individual programs over 15 Federal agencies intending to expand broadband coverage. FFS, consolidate that. So there’s statutory reforms and some streamlining to be done strategically across government. Not to balance spoons on a fork better than one can look at a spreadsheet, like some people.
My family has spent their carers in education, and for me there’s no love lost with the Dept of Education being eliminated. Even if you reduce it to a small grantmaking entity that funds state level systems, that’s a function that can be easily done from within DOI.
There’s a large number of farm and oil subsidies that are so old as to be the goal of the industry to exploit. But oh no, don’t touch farmers because you might undermine Monsanto’s bottom line. These poor people are human shields.
Earmarks, while a pittance on paper at only $15B in 2024, are a cultural artifact of the endemic problem in budget making. While not all spending is Earmarked, there’s plenty beyond that scope which is a personal or lobbyist-initiated favor. Innumerable examples exist for this, and neither side is willing to get rid of theirs in order to get rid of the other side’s favorites. Everyone is the problem here. Sure, at some level this is a balancimg act with the cost of politics and playing to constituents. But the fact that most Reps see it as their right is the problem.
Military spending is crazy bananas and no one will touch it. Regardless of what idiots Musk and Hegseth say. The whole infrastructure is based on the Cold War+Post9/11 add on.
My career is in international development, and as an industry, it very often achieved remarkably little other than things like gainfully employing 10% of the PhDs in a small country in Sub-Saharan Africa to do office work. Some programs were awesome and saved lives and made a difference. They were the rare exceptions to the rule. However, simply strangling USAID like has happened is the stupidest, most expensive way to accomplish chaos with nothing to show for it. Many programs that engaged in short-term behavior change frequently showed how ineffectual they were in their own final reports, yet the same companies still thought they did a great job because they had simply not failed to complete the contract.
And don’t get me started on how many contractors there are that charge 50% above market rate just because they can. Doesn’t matter the industry, it’s literal collusion across every contractor. I’ve written the budgets, and learned how to be only a “tiny” part of the problem. The reliance on contractors is a strategic disadvantage. Because money can solve that problem, it goes away temporarily over and over. That was a low-information environment in the past, ordering copier toner from a paper catalog. We need a new round of procurement reforms.
I can go on and on. In large part, there’s no one simple solution here. It’s a lot of statutory reforms, hard work, strategic planning, and doing less with less that had to be adopted over years, as was done in the 90s. But at a much higher rate, and with more urgency. The US is in a genuine debt crisis, and the people who ran on crashing the system won in part because the Dems ran on ignoring this among other problems.
To be honest, I agree with most of that. I’d love to hear more about the department of education but I also don’t wanna waste too much of your time and am aware that in the States it’s not entirely what it may seem to be. Personally I think it should be expanded to be more of what people believe it to be; leaving education so fully up to states doesn’t seem to do much besides make it easier for republicans to turn their base into even bigger drooling morons.
But anyway thanks for clarifying, and in such depth, too. I’m glad to hear that “streamlining” doesn’t seem to mean the classic right-wing nonsense around making government small enough that it can be easily controlled by awful people. I’m also not sure how centrist these points are, especially if you’re aiming to, for example, not rely on private contractors. Left-wing policies aren’t “spend blindly”, that’s just a right-wing attack angle so they can defund things, so if you have ways for the government to be able to do things well then I mean of course I’m all for it.
The simple version is that there is no Constitutional mandate for the Federal government to do anything related to education, which is why education is a function of the states. Yet it’s also 4% of the Federal budget, so depending on how much of a strict constitutionalist you are, the root question is more about what does it really need to be doing, and why. I would argue that this far after the end of Jim Crowe, and the proliferation of for-profit universities, ED isn’t maintaining standards, and is moving too slow to not simply feed Univ of Phoenix publicly-backed loan and GI Bill funds at a net loss to both taxpayers and students.
At the state level, from what I hear second hand, ED does little more than manage overly complicated and tonedeaf grant mechanisms that flow down to state Education Departments, and then becomes this sort of Leviathan of distant micromanagement. Often with feckless management, confusing and unclear terms, and making the District/State/ED relationship unnecessarily odd and overly burdensome.
Carter carved a new Department out of the Proto-HHS, and it’s been a target of elimination since it was created. Its necessary functions can either get folded into DOI, or maybe back into HHS, or maybe even just a smaller independent agency, though that alone raises the specter of duplicitive administrative costs.
Reducing an individual to a single point on these charts is kinda a fool’s errand.
Far better to give yourself a series of points on stances you agree with and carve out a spread of your beliefs with an averaged point that represents you.
To say you are a centrist because your beliefs are purely in line with what society considers anodyne and ‘normal’ is far removed from a person that agrees with extreme positions on all sides of the compass.
This only makes sense if you insist on reducing complex multidimensional concepts to a single scalar value. Even intuitively it doesn’t make sense. You place yourself in the centre between two philosophies you disagree with? What?
It actually makes more sense when you don’t reduce it. Look up a Nolan Chart, or quadrant-based political stance diagram. I fall squarely into the center of the Nolan Chart.
You think that reducing to two dimensions is significantly different than reducing to one. I disagree.
Lol, a lot of political scientists disagree with you, too. I bet they’re all stupid, right?
Why do you think voting for a party aligns yourself with that party?
If two people want to attempt to unalive your mother with a 50% probability that they will succeed, and you have the chance to stop only one of them, reducing the chance to 25%. Does it mean that you align with whoever you do not choose?
Voting WITH a party is not the same thing as voting for a candidate that has openly identified as a member one party or the other because that is a barrier to entry or funding avenue for them.
I know it’s hard to accept, but the entire history of both parties hasn’t been “socialist utopia vs. Nazis.” For a century the Democrats didn’t eject all the Southern racists that declared they were Dems simply to be a counterpoint to Lincoln-to-MLK-era Republicans.
Even a cursory understanding of history should make anyone distrust all political parties forever.
But please tell me more about how the party that denied us a president Bernie Sanders (I) is worth my time.
Why not vote for Bernie then? Better than nothing. At least it may give a lot of people or the democrats faith that he could potentially win in the future.
I’m not saying that you need to give them your time, I’m just saying that voting for them doesn’t mean that you stand for what they believe. You can vote them and at the same time advocate for a different voting system.
Closed primaries. I never got a chance to vote for Bernie.
But please tell me more about how the party that denied us a president Bernie Sanders (I) is worth my time.
Like Bernie has said, it is the only realistic vehicle to carry someone like him into the White House. The way the US political system is structured your movement needs to take over an existing party instead of trying to establish its own new party from the ground up if it wants any hope of success.
Yes, that’s what “barrier to entry” meant in my comment. Happepend to Bernie, happened to a family member of mine at the county level.
Parties prevent YOU from being ABLE to vote for qualified candidates. That’s all they are for, to give unqualified rich or charismatic people a chance to sell the party to you. Nothing else.
agnostic are agnostic because there is no foolproof evidence basis.
with politics you can clearly see how some stances have been done and their effects. and other instances you also have a basis even in the most unclear case
just had an issue with the negative connotation implied here talking about agnosistics :D
I think we can all agree that adding religious parallels to anything is a waste of everyones time.
this
Yeah since people cannot be expected to have full knowledge of the evidence, you have to recognize you can be agnostic about some issues. It’s virtuous to seek evidence and knowledge, and you should make choices based on the best information you have.
I’m not advocating for independents btw. I think you should clearly pick a party to vote for, but the two party system is a horrible system for people who are pluralistic in their views.
Americans are so far to the right that minimum wage, affordable housing, free schools and healthcare is considered “far left”. These are given and common sense in the rest of the world 🤣
All American major parties are considered extreme right from an EU point of view.
In developed countries*
I’m not sure if the USA qualifies for that status
Even in developing countries, governments do their best to provide free services for those in dire poverty, especially those considered “poorest of the poor”.
The poorest of the poor cost society money but can never invest back into it. Bringing them to a level where they can pay taxes to invest in the services they are provided while also getting a better quality of life is such a basic concept that it’s just stupid that a modern society would oppose it!
The purpose of having extremely poor people is to act as a warning to everyone else; “Stay in line or you’ll end up like them!”
Good thing russia gained 50 oblasts, those magatards are getting their social programs once putin openly takes over us government.
Welfare policies are common even in developing countries. They simply don’t have the kind of capital accumulated by European welfare states because they don’t outsource their industrial manufacturing to poorer countries. Hence, the implementation is difficult and bureaucrats are often corrupt. Reagan won an election calling universal healthcare ‘communism’ and actually opposing something so obviously in favour of people – this would not have happened in most poor countries. At least in mine, people consistently vote in favour of better healthcare, public transport and free food regardless of ideology. Fear mongering about ‘commmunism’ has been tried in urban areas, where people have the luxury to care about something like that, and it backfired spectacularly. The phenomenon of voting against one’s self interests because gommunism and freedom seems to be a uniquely American thing.
Did you know theres even a subminimum wage in America? 2.13$ an hour.
Gotta love our “Tipping culture”. The more this country is going down I’m reminded of Mr. Pink’s quote “I don’t tip because society says I have to. All right, if someone deserves a tip, if they really put forth an effort, I’ll give them something a little something extra. But this tipping automatically, it’s for the birds.”
It’s gotten to the point where the US needs a real change and yet the 1% really don’t want that change and would rather die on their hills. Which, imo, maybe they should while others watch?
But alas, who am I to judge the wealthy when I’m just a measly common worker.
Getting everyone’s basic needs met is more of a centre-left ideology.
Many centre-right parties believe in things like public healthcare, because it has a net-benefit to the economy.Centrists don’t sit in the middle of every issue or make an exact 50/50 compromise on everything. That’s a really poor strawman argument from someone who clearly doesn’t understand global politics.
I guess you’re confused with people in the U.S who think having views somewhere in-between those of democrats and republicans makes you a centrist.
That U.S-specific ‘centrism’ is really just right wing politics.Maybe we should stop with left, right and centrist all together.
It’s a stupid way of defining politics. If you ask a random person what being left means it can vary from anything between hugging a tree or wanting good health care.
By calling yourself “green” or “social” you are immediately putting a label on yourself and a lot of people won’t vote for you because they’re too dumb or lazy to actually read into what a party is about. I saw an article here on lemmy that pointed out some moron that voted for Trump in hopes he would save his farm, if he would have read into politics he would have known that Trump was the worst possible choice but here we are…
I’m from Europe and I see the same shit happening here. Call yourself green or left and people will scoff at you.
If there is anything the current “left” parties absolutely suck at its marketing. Call yourself the freedom party or whatever but stop using idiotic terminology that people can’t relate to. Almosr no one will vote for the “environment party”.
I hate the extremist conservative parties here but i have to give them credit for being able to market their party in such a way that people are literally voting on them AGAINST their own best interests.
If there is anything the current “left” parties absolutely suck at its marketing.
You mean to tell me endless purity tests and screaming “you’re a literal nazi” at everyone who disagrees slightly with your position aren’t effective tactics to change someone’s mind? No waaaaaaay.
The biggest party in the Netherlands is called the freedom party, their mainly anti-immigrant and against the freedom of religion and the freedom of education. Totally agree they’re great at marketing (though it’s more about being loud and talking about social problems than it is about having ideas of how to solve them). They’re considered to be far-right populist, their leader (Geert Wilders) is aligned with Marine Le Pen and Georgia Meloni. The left has lost their working class-base traditional base to them because of them being more relatable (and less high-brow) than the labour party, the socialists and the greens.
Wait… checks news how the fuck did that happen. I knew we had plenty of racists here but I didn’t realize the vote swung that way.
The word you’re looking for is pluralism.
Centrists don’t sit in the middle of every issue or make an exact 50/50 compromise on everything.
I seriously don’t understand how fucking difficult this is to understand. It’s why I largely ignore political discussions on Reddit/Lemmy/all social media.
I don’t look at one person saying “Murdering 5 year olds is bad”, look at another person saying “Murdering 5 year olds is good!” and try to find a way where both are right.
Now do it with gazans
I don’t look at one person saying “Murdering 5 year olds is bad”, look at another person saying “Murdering 5 year olds is good!” and try to find a way where both are right.
This is literally what centrists all over the world (well, the parts that show up in English-language news anyway) think about Palestine, though.
And you missed the entire point. Centrism isn’t about trying to find a perfect middle ground to every individual subject.
Of course there will be centrists that support Israel carpet bombing everything. There are other centrists that don’t support them. There are some that will support them with conditions. I know someone who is broadly centrist who thinks Israel should be dissolved entirely.
It’s not a fucking hivemind.
It’s not a hive mind, but centrist parties almost invariably have pro-Israel/“it’s complicated” positions. There will always be individual variation, but the pattern is clear.
Centrists don’t sit in the middle of every issue or make an exact 50/50 compromise on everything.
In practice, they just capitulate every time.
You are right, that centrists don’t actually sit as a 50/50 middle. But that means that “centrists” always actually side with fascists and the far right when forced to take a position. If you aren’t fully willing to confront capitalism, it means that you will side with fascism before even mild socialism.
Fascism is not the same as capitalism. For capitalism to work properly, it is required that market power is minimized and that companies cannot influence politics. The fact that they have been able to do so is not capitalism.
Milton Friedman – In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), he argues that government intervention should be minimal and that businesses should focus on profit rather than lobbying for special advantages. While he doesn’t explicitly state that capitalism requires private companies to stay out of politics, he warns against corporate influence leading to cronyism.
Adam Smith – In The Wealth of Nations (1776), he warns against “the merchants and manufacturers” using their influence to gain monopolies and special privileges, which distort free competition. He emphasizes that capitalism works best when businesses do not manipulate laws in their favor.
James Buchanan (Public Choice Theory) – Buchanan and other public choice theorists (like Gordon Tullock) argue that when businesses influence politics, they engage in rent-seeking, which distorts market efficiency. They emphasize that government should limit corporate lobbying to prevent economic inefficiencies.
Luigi Zingales – A more recent economist, Zingales argues in A Capitalism for the People (2012) that corporate political influence undermines free markets and leads to a system of “crony capitalism,” where economic power translates into political power.
Am I understanding you right that you are saying that all centrists will side with fascism over socialism? Because I have some news for you in that case.
Actually, it sounds like I have news for you if you don’t think that’s the case.
That’s your opinion, not a fact.
And the issue with that is you’re only seeing it as two sides and a fence-sitter.
Centrists form their own views and positions, independent of the parties on either side.There’s no forcing them to take a position, they already have one.
And when they have to vote for/against legislation changes, they’ll side with whichever option aligns most closely with their views.US pseudo-centrism is right wing though, which might be what you’re confusing real centrism with.
far left and center left are relative to your own position anyway
Some issues are not relative or negotiable. Rape, murder, war crimes, pedophilia, etc. If you want to be soft on that stuff then you lose my vote, period. Now and in the future. If that means we collectively burn this place to the ground, well if thats what it takes, thats what it takes-- lets get it over with.
They are relative to global politics which most Americans know nothing about, it seems.
Republicans have always been pretty hard right and as of the Trump administrations they are pretty much extreme right. Democrats seem to randomly oscillate between centre right and right.
Pro-Oligarchy vs Fascists, IMHO.
The more… favorable right wing points I’ve heard are more along the lines of “I’ve busted my ass for what little I have! How dare you ask me to pay to subsidize the lives of people who aren’t trying to work?”
Completly ignoring the fact that better welfare programs should help them to not have to work so damn hard for so little in the first place. Or the fact that the welfare cliff and other various systemic problems make it that much harder to get out of that pit no matter how hard you’re trying.
It’s not even quite “fuck you, I got mine” because so many of them barely “got theirs” as is, which makes them even more protective. The ones that do have, have latched on to this idea of the entirely self made man, which ignores all the public welfare systems they used on their journey. Like schools, or roads. You can hardly exist in modern America without using multiple tax funded public works/welfare things every day.
Then you add in the hard spun rhetoric that taxes they already don’t want being taken from them might be paying for things they personally disagree with and things get extra firey.
Meanwhile the richest people on earth have spent more money than is comprehendable on convincing people that going after rich peoples’ money will just make everything more expensive for the normal folk.
But that would imply that they were currently leaving potential profits on the table. They’re already charging absolutely as much as they can, and constantly trying to shift it higher. I’m sure they’d still fuck us on the way down, but we’re never going to fix things unless we find some way to adequately tax the rich.
The “barely got mine and defending it” thing really sticks in other ways too.
When I wanted aid for school “sorry, we ran out. Should have gotten here earlier.”
When I wanted to get food stamps “sorry, you don’t meet the qualifications on a technicality.”
When I finally got Medicaid but couldn’t use it “not enough spots for you to be seen, sorry.”
Many times the administrators that gave me this news implied it was because too many people asked for it. Being young and stupid (and let’s face it, indoctrinated), it made me put the blame on the other people asking for aid. If there were less people that asked for aid, I wouldn’t be starving and sick. I thought that I was more worthy of the aid because some people are cheating the system and I deeply resented them.
Fortunately I grew the hell up and pulled my head out of my ass. It’s all a distraction we get fed from the news that other needy people are the reason why we suffer. It’s so hard to fathom how much the rich actually waste when all we see is our fellow working class folk.
To add a voice to the choir, I was raised like this too. We went the other direction of feeling guilty for needing aid though.
Like they weren’t completely wrong, you really should be able to raise a family off a single full time job, the problem is that said jobs don’t pay enough for that. But the broken system is good at defending itself, and politicians are quick to point out all the ways it does work, so you wind up with a ‘well, it works for them, guess I just have to try harder’ mindset. Like, I spent hours each week as a teenager helping mom do the extreme couponing and do stuff like take a cart through another line to get around limits on sale items.
I’ve been shit at math for my whole life, so maybe I’m just hoping I’m not alone in this, but I really think a lot of people are number illiterate. I’ve spent so much time learning to be grateful for my shoe-string budget, I have a hard enough time envisioning double my salary, and that’d just make me middle class. I literally don’t have a way of conceptualizing what 200x my salary would be like.
Party A… We want to kill 1.000.000 people
Party B … We want to kill 0 people.
Centrist… Lets just kill 500.000 people.
Sometimes there IS no centrist position
Look. I will vote Democrat against MAGA every single time, but “Vote for us because at least we aren’t killing people” isn’t the flex you think it is. That’s like someone bragging about never having been to prison and expecting others to be impressed by it.
Sorry, but “vote for us because at least we aren’t the other guys” has been the fallback message of Democrats for decades and that isn’t going to cut it any more. Right now there’s a real chance for the Democratic Party to change in to something better than it was, and I sincerely hope Democrats seize that opportunity instead of just expecting everyone to vote for them just because they happen to not be as awful as Republicans are.
The Democrats aren’t Party B here. At best, they’re the “centrists”.
who’s party b?
Well it doesn’t matter now, because Trump won and those Palestinians are all as good as dead because from the MAGA point of view they’re squatting on prime real estate that can be used for the Trump Casino/Resort Gaza.
the dems ARE killing people. It’s just that they aren’t americans so they don’t matter according to the genapos
the dems ARE killing people.
Oh pumpkin, you are so hilariously clueless. 😂 The Democrats aren’t even in power, and even if they were they wouldn’t have the spine to kill anyone.
Then again, I’m sure you also think Hillary Clinton is running a sex trafficking ring from a pizza shop basement and Bill Gates wants to 5G microchip everyone with vaccines, huh? 🤣
Bill gates is certainly a bitch who did awful shit, nobody needs conspiracy to hate this guy.
He made windows, for example, that’s evil enough already.
I really hope we hang your leaders and apply a massive denazification campain.
I really hope we hang your leaders and apply a massive denazification campain.
LMAO talk like that just makes you sound like terrorist supporting trash.
I hope that when Trump turns Gaza in to a gigantic hotel/casino/resort, you get the chance to visit some day.
In one occasion, the israeli blowed up 23 residential buildings just to kill a “hamas operative”. He was just a regular soldier.
You ARE the terrorist, you evil twat.
In one occasion, the israeli blowed up 23 residential buildings just to kill a “hamas operative”. He was just a regular soldier.
And you’d happily blow up 23 residential buildings in Israel just to kill a Jewish person.
Here’s a little tip, princess: You Palestidiots and the Israelis have been killing each other for thousands of years, long before America ever existed, and you will continue doing so long after America is gone.
Want someone to blame for those thousands of years of war between your two peoples? Look in the mirror, sweetheart.
Every arab is a terrorist wife beater for you? What a racist pos, you’re exactly like trump lmao.
Every arab is a terrorist wife beater for you?
You sound angry. Better go get your aggression out by beating one of your wives, since you don’t see them as human.
lmao you’re such a genociding pos. Average worldist shit innit?
Oh, my mistake for not respecting your preferred pronouns. Ahem:
“Was she a terrorist? If so, zero sympathy.”
There, I fixed it. Feel better now? 😂
Your americans scumbags sent the bombs that killed my friend in lebannon. The fact your retarded country’s “other side” is even worst doesn’t absolve you from the guilt of having voted for a genocider.
Look. I am a regular person, with a heart, flesh and blood.
I hate you and I wish I could repeatedly punch you in the face until your face is powdered.
Bitch
Your americans scumbags sent the bombs that killed my friend in lebannon.
Was he a scumbag terrorist? If so, zero sympathy.
The fact your retarded country’s “other side” is even worst doesn’t absolve you from the guilt of having voted for a genocider.
You are literally too stupid to know what genocide is… But Trump’s going to let Netanyahu off the leash and you will see what actual genocide looks like soon enough.
Look. I am a regular person, with a heart, flesh and blood.
Gee, that’s funny because you talk like a terrorist-supporting piece of trash.
I hate you and I wish I could repeatedly punch you in the face until your face is powdered.
LMAO you literally support terrorists who blow up schools for the “crime” of educating little girls, so I’m not surprised you go straight to violence to solve your problems.
Bitch
Is that what you call your wife right before you beat her? We all know how men in areas like Lebanon treat women after all, and you’ve already told me how much you love assaulting people… 🤔
LMAO you literally support terrorists who blow up schools for the “crime” of educating little girls, so I’m not surprised you go straight to violence to solve your problems.
your country marries girl at 14 you whorediot
your country marries girl at 14 you whorediot
Actually I agree with you there, people who marry children are trash.
By the way, your “prophet” literally married and r-ped a nine year old girl.
Oh and I’d never hit my wife you racist piece of shit. Never did, and if it ever happen I’d be gone for good. I love her.
Oh and I’d never hit my wife you racist piece of shit.
How many camels did you pay her father for her hand in marriage? Did you throw in a good herd of goats too? 😂
funny how the genapos like yourself just seems to disagree with amnesty and the UN. You suck dude, how do you sleep at night?
Also funny how your racist idiots seems to care a lot about women when it comes to shitting on arabs. You’re not better than a trumpist dude. Kill yourself
Also funny how your racist idiots seems to care a lot about women when it comes to shitting on arabs.
Quick reminder that your “prophet” literally married and r-ped a nine year old girl.
I do support terrorism. For exemple, 9/11 was great. All those dead yanks. You’re the perfect exemple that your kind are inherently suppremacist and thus deserve to throw themselves off their corpo building hoping the escape the heat.
I wish i had been there
I do support terrorism.
In that case, can I interest you in a brand new pager? 😂
For exemple, 9/11 was great … I wish i had been there
I wish you were there too! On one of the top floors of the WTC when it went down, that is.
See! Turns out, we actually agree on some things! 😂
Ahah
He was a she, asshole. Kill yourself. You are an evil heartless person who deserve to have his bitchy nail removed and then dipped in salt. You’re too stupid to realize you’re with the empire, cunt. Go end your shitty life and it will be a net positive for humanity
LMAO look at all them tears. Five posts full of you crying.
Keep 'em flowing like a river, princess! 😂
But Party B gets less than 1% of the vote.
Irrelevant. When its war crimes at stake you do the right thing anyway even when its hard or you know you will lose. We’re not exactly arguing over school vouchers here are we.
Americans with their white or black bullshit
Both sides are the same amirite?
I think people who call Republicans and Democrats the same are just in love with their own need to rant. When they’re elderly they’ll walk around shouting at trees.
That’s not even far on the left, that’s just some middle of the ground left. Real far left would be burning government buildings while having a heated discussion about the order of the colors for the flag to be raised over the rubble.
Thank you, I know lemmy is left leaning and so am I but let’s not lose our touch with reality here. People can downvote as much as they want but I’d say you’re objectively right. Or does anyone want to place some counter argument instead of downvoting? Because I can’t think of any
You’re right except that my (EU) view of Lemmy is that it’s not really left leaning.
The large amout of anti-Trump/Musk post doesn’t make it so.
A large part of it is US dems/libs making those posts. They are center-right at best.
And I should know since I point that out to them and see the reaction.
Massive downvotes and an avalanche of vicious comments.
To some degree, I agree, including the tendency for infighting among leftists. It’s why I’ve never liked this meme or its variations much. On the other hand, I’ve recently seen only one side actually mobilize to attack government buildings and harm people inside, and it wasn’t the left.
Anecdotally, this week at work, I heard a self-identified rightist argue for banning gay marriage. Others sitting around their table agreed. I’ve also had the privilege of hearing we should get rid of social programs, and too many jokes about killing people they don’t like. Last time I talked to a tankie and they defended oppressive policies saying the ends justify the means, folks around us made fun of them and moved on.
I think one of these groups might not be a real issue. At the very minimum, they’re definitely not as dangerous as the other one, right now. So, is the meme a bit silly? Sure. Does that matter? I don’t feel like it does.
Please don’t reply re: proper tankie political classification. It’s beside the point, I’m using them because it seems to be what most imagine when they think “far left.”
My point, simple and plainly put is that wishing for an egalitarian society (or whatever it is called) isn’t an extremist believe (as in far-x) and most people would usually agree with it.
I just think it is just how much mass media controls most people’s perception, and how is that the key factor antagonizing with finding common ground.
deleted by creator
The far left and far right are both bad. If in doubt, look at any country which has gone down either path.
