“Anyone to the right of my extreme left position is the enemy” is a great recruiting motto.
Being a centrist doesn’t mean that you have to compromise on everything or you are a conservative in disguise. In fact, I consider myself a centrist and I have very strong lines I won’t cross.
In my case it means that you are not torn into extremes, and that you prefer a way that respects most people rights without sacrificing basic rights or certain ethic values.
And the image there is quite low effort. It’s trying to convey a message that either you are pro civil rights, or you want to kill black people. I don’t think there’s even a middle ground there, or a fair comparison.
There isn’t a middle ground in a lot of discussions. It’s just that the correct and just course of action is intentionally hidden behind fear and prejudice. Have you ever wondered why nobody ever talks about policies as class interests (discuss who would benefit and why these policies are pushed) in mainstream media, as if it’s taboo?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H4D1wI6wGjU
So if you call yourself a centralist, then sorry to say, but you are either intentionally or unintentionally ignorant.
So I’ll add the video to my list of TODOs. But I must admit that this discussion seems to be very USA centric. Here in Spain at least, lots of politicians and media do talk about which classes are affected by each policy and why. The same used to happen when I lived in Argentina.
Of course there are a lot of places where there is no middle ground. But there are a lot of places where there is. Do we abolish private property? I don’t think there’s a middle ground there. Do we privatize the education system completely? Lots of middle ground.
It’s as naive (and dangerous I might add) to think that there is no middle ground anywhere as to think there is a middle ground everywhere. Because again, both postures are extremes, and extremes are never good nor right.
It would be an extreme position in most of the United States history to completely honor the treaties with the American Indian tribes and not ethnically clense the population, but in my humble optinion that extreme position would have been a better outcome.
It was an extreme position for John Brown to do what he saw was right for the society he was in, but he was certainly right to liberate the slaves.
Can there be positions where compromise is necessary? Sure when material limitations show up.
Compromising with entities that can’t justify their existence like the bourgeoisie are decisions where one of the more “extreme” options is the right one.
Every position has two sides. Not all of them are equal but what you’re disregarding is perspective and the lives people live to get those perspectives. To you, climate change might be the most important issue in your life. You fight for it, campaign for it, it’s unthinkable how anyone could support fossil fuels. But the rural coal miner stranded in a small town with no jobs, no outside money coming in, they rely on coal jobs and if they lose them, they starve.
Understanding how people get to the wrong conclusion from your perspective opens you up to being more persuasive in your ideals. Yes, we should still get rid of coal but in the back of your mind you need to remember all the people who will suffer as a result and account for it. If a coal miner won’t literally starve with their family at the loss of their job, they might be more open to leaving it.
Class warfare is a whole other thing.
And so you choose to perpetuate the capitalist system and keep the coal miner and their descendants trapped in the company town? Sooner or later, the mine will be depleted, the coal miner will be left destitute, the environment is destroyed, and the mine owner is swimming in capital.
Human history is defined by class struggle, and class struggle is the overarching contradiction. It’s not some other thing. It’s the main thing.
Uncritical support to comrade Cyber Ghost, for making posts that draw out the liberals so we can ban them.
Compromise is overrated in the political arena.
Honey where are we going to eat tonight? Compromise away!
Should women have bodily autonomy? There is no compromise to be had here.
Politics is inherently a battle of ideas, it is supposed to be conflict where better ideas win, and compromise almost never works.
In most cases it just waters down a good idea, it rarely improves a shitty one.
Compromise has historically been used by the right to retard progress, from slavery, to women’s rights to vote, to civil rights, we’ve always had to compromise and then eventually we’ve gotten rid of the compromise and done the correct thing, we should have done in the first place.
I had a former co-worker pull this “compromise” card when I was talking about how maybe minimum wages should be a living wage. He said “both sides should just come to a middle ground”. Like bruh, you know that “compromise” would be literally not a living wage, right? You get that, right?
The right has dragged the discussion so far right that we’re arguing for the LEAST BASIC necessities and have to compromise away from them.
We’re not arguing, like we should, should new mothers get 1 year maternity leave or 1.5 years?
No… We’re arguing should they get ANY leave, or nothing???
It’s like this for a million issues, that affect 99% of us, but unfortunately 50% of our population is so stupid and lacks empathy that they are arguing against their own interest.
Billionaires should be fighting 99% of us, instead they have 50 % of the morons fighting the other 50 %.
There’s already a middle ground, it’s the federal minimum wage (I assume US) that hasn’t moved for 20+ years
like the right doesn’t want there to be a minimum wage. They have a whole body of theory for why the minimum wage should be abolished. They want there to be 0 minimum wage.
There is a ridiculous amount of examples of abortion centrists who ultimately argue that abortion should be a legal compromise while saying that they don’t support either side. They’re just chronically unable to take any stand.
