Gabe BellI tried. It was exhausting. I'm better now.
darth_tiktaalikLiterally arguing for a middle ground between correct and incorrect because they reflexively have to make themselves look like the reasonable center whenever the left/right dynamic comes up on the internet.
No thought into the response it’s just Pavlovian centrist drooling.
MaalusThe “others” think they are correct too. It’s simple tribal politics.
I think the point is that if one side is correct and the other side is incorrect (regardless of which side that is) then someone with that point of view cannot possibly be centralist.
To be centralist you would have to conceive the both sides have a point. Centralists like to claim that they listen to both sides and then make an opinion on who to support, but they don’t, they just stick around in the middle. They never actually commit to one side or the other, because if they did that they wouldn’t be centralist anymore and they wouldn’t be able to be on their high horse.
Except life isn’t black and white and rarely is one side “wrong” and the other side “right”.
Committing to “the truth” is simplifying a grey universe which contains millions of those truths. You can’t be certain which is right and which is wrong.
Sure, nobody can be certain, but we make the best decisions we can based on the available data. Predicating your political identity on the idea that the truth always lies in the middle of the Overton Window is what people ridicule about self-identifying centrists. Because the right’s discourse is essentially a fabric of lies, and centrists are always convinced that they must have some good points. That they invariably have the gall to claim to be the adults in the room is just the icing on the stupid cake.
Again, lots of words to say “right bad left gud centrist wrong” in a very grey world. It’s not how it works. Every decision has its consequences, even ones you might think are “obviously best” at the moment.
No shit. Having political opinions doesn’t mean “I don’t think about things, I just do what my team says.” Claiming to be politically unaligned doesn’t mean you’re considering things more seriously or carefully than anyone else. Rather the opposite.
And yet a lot of the people are simply talking about “right” vs “left” and “false” versus “true”. Sounds an awful lot like “I don’t think about things, I just do what my team says” to me.
Being convinced of the validity of your position, or the invalidity of another, is not necessarily a marker of ignorance.
No it doesn’t it means you don’t bother actually considering anything you are literally claiming to be superior by being uninformed. You are claiming ignorance as a virtue.
“Climate change is an existential threat to humanity” this is the truth, anything that goes against that would be false, yet every right wing group will try and tell you otherwise.
Okay, sure. But at what level does it stop being a threat? Do we need to revert to a pre-industrial society? Do we need to ban trade shipping? Do we need to get rid of every plane? What alternative sources of energy do we go for? Do they have drawbacks that are acceptable?
There is nuance to everything. You can’t just shout slogans and say “this is the objective truth!”
You seem to have missed my point. What other truth is there than climate change being an existential threat to humanity? I’m not arguing solutions, I’m talking about just acknowledging the existence of a problem. There is no centrist stance here because it either is, or isn’t. Which opinion do you hold? Congrats on finding out your fence sitting has a level of impotence not seen since Henry VIII
You’re avoiding answering the question because you can’t figure out how to answer it without taking a real stance.
The question was “Is climate change an existential threat?”. The right says no. The left says yes. By nature of the question it either is or it isn’t. This is a real issue so stop being a fence sitter and take a real stance for once in your life instead of trying to figure a way to avoid having a real opinion.
TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)Okay, sure. But at what level does it stop being a threat?
First, the Right Wing would have to admit that Climate Change even exists. Hell, here in Canada our Conservative party voted to not admit it exists.
WirrvogelCommitting to “the truth” is simplifying a grey universe which contains millions of those truths. You can’t be certain which is right and which is wrong.
There are a lot of grey areas, but racism and fashism is just wrong, there is nothing grey about it. Trump either won the election or he didn’t, one is a truth and the other is a lie, there cannot be two truths. You are either pregnant or not. You are alive or dead. Just because there are grey areas does not mean that every area is grey. If you have to construct grey areas to avoid committing to the truth, then you are on the side of the lie.
And if you know exactly where the truth is, and you still vote for the lie, then you are in bed with the liar and getting his flies.
Sometime the ‘others’ are Russian trolls/bots infiltrating these posts on Lemmy and other sites where leftists hang. Oligarchs hate it when you talk about taxing their excessive lifestyles.
Yeah, imagine that those guys praise themselves for agreeing only to half of a genocide instead of a full one, that’s how their “middle ground” works.
As for listening to both the arguments, if done only for the middle ground instead of truth seeking and actual critical thinking, you get this kind of shit. I listen to both arguments and they still get me to the left side just because the right side ones cancel themselves as lies, deception or just dumbthinking.