Lemmy being black or white like always. You can be a leftist, vote for the left and still recognize the flaws in your own parties and the good ideologies in the other…
I swear, the left usually calls itself open-minded, but as soon as someone on the right comes around, instead of trying to convince them with arguments, they are being called straight up evil russian bots. So what do they do, they go back to truth social, where they are well treated, and keep voting conservative.
No, I don’t think kids should be shot, and healthcare should be a thing.
But here anyway, the current healthcare system is broken, and some of the conservative ideas are trying to fix it, while the left is fine leaving it half working. While I’m still a leftist, I do recognize their point and am not calling them evil for it…
And so, instead of asking yourself questions, you straight up jump to the conclusion you want to hear. This is what I’m criticizing here, and you’re far from the only one acting that way.
Here’s a translated part of the local conservative party’s website:
spoiler
The Conservative Party of Quebec, for its part, supports improving care for vulnerable patients, but by offering solutions that do not come at the expense of other Quebecers:
Ensure that patients with serious illnesses who are waiting are given priority in getting a family doctor, without depriving other patients of their current services.
Increase the number of doctors by raising admissions to medical programs and more quickly recognizing foreign diplomas.
Decentralize hospital management by incorporating contributions from the private sector to tailor measures to the specific needs of each institution.
Moreover, the Conservative Party is proposing a modernization of the healthcare system based on the experiences of the world’s most developed and high-performing countries, particularly Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Recently, the PCQ presented a study based on the experiences and results achieved by these European countries in healthcare, which confirms the importance of increasing the number of healthcare professionals and adding private services to the public hospital system.
Now I am by no means saying this is the best way to do it, or that they are actively working on it, but to say they aren’t trying to fix it is just a lie. You didn’t even bother researching it, you immediately assumed the answer you wanted to hear was the correct one.
Lemmy being black or white like always. You can be a leftist, vote for the left and still recognize the flaws in your own parties and the good ideologies in the other…
That’s very different from asserting that both sides are the same.
Someone: “both parties share this specific commonality”
PugJesus: “oh rly?? Both sides are LITERALLY the same??”
Bruh, there are no end of people I can quote on here saying that both parties are exactly the same, that there’s no meaningful difference between them, that Trump is just business as usual, and that bourgeois democracy has been on an unceasing march becoming ever-more fascist since its inception.
Only someone with an agenda would take ‘exactly the same’ to mean ‘identical’ in this context. I don’t even care if you could source someone using the word ‘exactly’, which I would guess is far less common than you’re suggesting.
I think it’s malicious that you use ‘centrist’ in this way, because anyone pointing to similarities between the parties would likely be the furthest thing from ‘centrist’ on any commonly use political scale (as flawed as those are)
I’m not kidding. I don’t think you could explain the thing you’re taking issue with without projecting your ethical framework onto it.
We can have a conversation about effective/acceptable methods of activism without all this bullshit posturing. Just say the thing you mean and leave the agitprop to the activists.
I’m not kidding. I don’t think you could explain the thing you’re taking issue with
“I take issue with the presentation of all major sides of an issue to be indistinguishable because they are both flawed, with the implicit or explicit exhortation to support neither, when there are obvious and important differences between the two with one being unambiguously preferable, and choosing neutrality is siding with the oppressor”?
without projecting your ethical framework onto it.
What the ever-loving fuck would be describing a political issue without projecting an ethical framework onto it?
We can have a conversation about effective/acceptable methods of activism without all this bullshit posturing. Just say the thing you mean and leave the agitprop to the activists.
“‘Bothsides’ attitude is bullshit and, ultimately, right-wing bullshit”?
“I take issue with the presentation of all major sides of an issue to be indistinguishable because they are both flawed, with the *implicit or explicit exhortation to support neither, when there are obvious and important differences between the two with one being unambiguously preferable, and choosing neutrality is siding with the oppressor”?
Criticism of your party doesn’t ‘implicitly exhort’ support for neither, dipshit. It’s exactly this inference that’s the problem with your categorization scheme. Democracy can’t work when any and all dissent is filed under the same category as ‘openly fascist’.
Both parties sharing a huge, glaring problem is a pretty valid reason to engage in dissenting speech.
What the ever-loving fuck would be describing a political issue without projecting an ethical framework onto it?
That’s the fucking point. Having the disagreement is politics, but framing that disagreement as ‘opposition’ is willfully malicious and you know it.
“‘Bothsides’ attitude is bullshit and, ultimately, right-wing bullshit”?
Nah, man. I know full well you’ve read MLK, don’t be the patronizing white-moderate. Both sides are shit, we should be arguing for changing that not just signing blank checks for the less objectionable one.
Both sides are similar in behavior, not in ideology. Right winger’s are treated just as bad here as leftists are treated on truth social. Both sides are somehow convinced their idea is the absolute truth and the other side is the devil itself.
Lemmy being black or white like always. You can be a leftist, vote for the left and still recognize the flaws in your own parties and the good ideologies in the other…
I swear, the left usually calls itself open-minded, but as soon as someone on the right comes around, instead of trying to convince them with arguments, they are being called straight up evil russian bots. So what do they do, they go back to truth social, where they are well treated, and keep voting conservative.
Nothing in the meme that directly names political parties.
Are you someone who calls yourself a centrist but can’t decide if kids should be shot in schools or Healthcare is a human right? Weird.
No, I don’t think kids should be shot, and healthcare should be a thing. But here anyway, the current healthcare system is broken, and some of the conservative ideas are trying to fix it, while the left is fine leaving it half working. While I’m still a leftist, I do recognize their point and am not calling them evil for it…
Sure, buddy, we know you don’t believe everyone is entitled to Healthcare.
?? Why would I believe that, and why would I even lie about that?
No, they literally are not. You are making things up.
And so, instead of asking yourself questions, you straight up jump to the conclusion you want to hear. This is what I’m criticizing here, and you’re far from the only one acting that way.
Here’s a translated part of the local conservative party’s website:
spoiler
The Conservative Party of Quebec, for its part, supports improving care for vulnerable patients, but by offering solutions that do not come at the expense of other Quebecers:
Moreover, the Conservative Party is proposing a modernization of the healthcare system based on the experiences of the world’s most developed and high-performing countries, particularly Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Recently, the PCQ presented a study based on the experiences and results achieved by these European countries in healthcare, which confirms the importance of increasing the number of healthcare professionals and adding private services to the public hospital system.
Now I am by no means saying this is the best way to do it, or that they are actively working on it, but to say they aren’t trying to fix it is just a lie. You didn’t even bother researching it, you immediately assumed the answer you wanted to hear was the correct one.
the meme is explicitly not talking about those people
Honestly I’m talking more about the people in the comments than the meme itself.
That’s very different from asserting that both sides are the same.
Someone: “both parties share this specific commonality”
PugJesus: “oh rly?? Both sides are LITERALLY the same??”
Don’t you dare suggest that my party has a common flaw with the other party and can be responsible for their own losses, you fascist.
Bruh, there are no end of people I can quote on here saying that both parties are exactly the same, that there’s no meaningful difference between them, that Trump is just business as usual, and that bourgeois democracy has been on an unceasing march becoming ever-more fascist since its inception.
Only someone with an agenda would take ‘exactly the same’ to mean ‘identical’ in this context. I don’t even care if you could source someone using the word ‘exactly’, which I would guess is far less common than you’re suggesting.
I think it’s malicious that you use ‘centrist’ in this way, because anyone pointing to similarities between the parties would likely be the furthest thing from ‘centrist’ on any commonly use political scale (as flawed as those are)
Jesus fucking Christ.
I’m not kidding. I don’t think you could explain the thing you’re taking issue with without projecting your ethical framework onto it.
We can have a conversation about effective/acceptable methods of activism without all this bullshit posturing. Just say the thing you mean and leave the agitprop to the activists.
“I take issue with the presentation of all major sides of an issue to be indistinguishable because they are both flawed, with the implicit or explicit exhortation to support neither, when there are obvious and important differences between the two with one being unambiguously preferable, and choosing neutrality is siding with the oppressor”?
What the ever-loving fuck would be describing a political issue without projecting an ethical framework onto it?
“‘Bothsides’ attitude is bullshit and, ultimately, right-wing bullshit”?
Criticism of your party doesn’t ‘implicitly exhort’ support for neither, dipshit. It’s exactly this inference that’s the problem with your categorization scheme. Democracy can’t work when any and all dissent is filed under the same category as ‘openly fascist’.
Both parties sharing a huge, glaring problem is a pretty valid reason to engage in dissenting speech.
That’s the fucking point. Having the disagreement is politics, but framing that disagreement as ‘opposition’ is willfully malicious and you know it.
Nah, man. I know full well you’ve read MLK, don’t be the patronizing white-moderate. Both sides are shit, we should be arguing for changing that not just signing blank checks for the less objectionable one.
Both sides are similar in behavior, not in ideology. Right winger’s are treated just as bad here as leftists are treated on truth social. Both sides are somehow convinced their idea is the absolute truth and the other side is the devil itself.