• kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you’re still trying to pull “both sides” to defend a country murdering and abducting children, you have no footing to stand on.

    • SchizoDenji@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am a centrist, when I say both sides are bad, it doesn’t mean both sides are bad in every single conflict but that both sides have their issues. For example, Ukraine has a problem with Nazism, but that doesn’t mean they should be invaded by Russia.

      The reason why this strawman meme like OP posted, gains traction is because most centrists don’t really bother wasting time and effort arguing online.

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ukraine has a problem with Nazism, but that doesn’t mean they should be invaded by Russia.

        This tells me that you both think that Putin invaded Ukraine because of the nazism (he didn’t) and that you shouldn’t invade a country for being full of nazis (you absolutely should) Congratulations, the average liberal once again managed to support the worst of both sides.

      • Nevoic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Centrism isn’t a political position. It’s an attitude. It means you have a tendency to view dichotomies as false, and further that the truth, as you understand it, exists somewhere between two presented (false) dichotomies.

        Centrism means different things depending on political context. It could mean you’re a socialist, a capitalist, a fascist, a bolshevik. It doesn’t present a political view in and of itself, and as such it’s usually an incredibly unprincipled stance.

        Do you look at class through a socialist lens or a fascist one? As in, do you believe the classes are opposed in their interests or aligned?

        Do you support the state’s monopoly on violence and subsequent declaration of private property rights?

        Do you view allowing the interests of capital to steer the global economy via institutions like the IMF as a grave injustice or the invisible hand of the market doing what’s best for humanity?

        The answer to these questions, if you look into things, will often align in a coherent way. It’s unlikely, for example, that you’ll take a socialist lens on classes in viewing them as conflicted while also supporting the declaration of property rights in direct opposition to the interests of the worker.

        If you’re in the U.S and you’re a self-described centrist, you’re likely a capitalist who’s simply undecided on some social issues. If you were brought up religious but went to secular public school, that would cause some dissonance in analyzing social issues. However, this inability to form a coherent view shouldn’t be the main feature of your self-described political stance.

        It’s better to just say you haven’t done enough research to come to any reasonable political position. It’s much better to accept that humans don’t know everything and know where your own knowledge falls short.

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t care. It’s meant to muddy the waters, confuse people who only pay attention to world affairs on the surface level. Repeat it, and people remember it. Doesn’t matter who responds to you. Doesn’t matter what they say to refute it. All that matters is getting the material out there, making it pop, making it catchy. Then all you have to do is rely on spotty human memory to do the rest.

      It’s even better when you get third parties passing along your propaganda too, and all the implications it drags with it.