this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
1429 points (99.9% liked)

196

16429 readers
2086 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Right : kill all minorities. Left : noooooooo Centrist : lets save half of them! Go figure.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

So what if someone doesn’t want to kill minorities but wants to buy guns and wants limited government involvement in the economy?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then they don't vote R.

I put the lives of people over my personal need for luxury items like guns.

Republicans are also the government that involves themselves the most in everything. "Small gov"-republicans are a farce unless you want a dictator.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

The point is you’re talking in extremes. And I will agree extreme liberals are better than extreme conservatives, the world isn’t that black and white, especially when you talk about voting for anyone besides President.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Limited government involvement in the economy means wanting to kill poor people, which means wanting to kill minorities.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That may be the way you see it, but I don’t.

I suppose this is where you call me a Nazi because I disagree with you?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're either a Nazi or a useful idiot for Nazis

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you go far enough left, you get your guns back. Libertarian socialism or Anarcho-communism might be your jam if you want to limit/abolishn the state

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

It actually is.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you have any actual policies that you agree with? Having guns and not killing minorities are not policies, that's just culture war shit.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With the left or the right?

A few things I side with: universal healthcare, reduced military spending, gay rights, legalization of marijuana, gun rights, reduced government spending in the business sector, reducing/overhauling the current farm bill, increased infrastructure spending.

Since you need to know? I said that because that’s how the person I was replying to put it, not me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hey, those are all left positions

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, didn’t I say I was neither left or right?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you're not a leftist, how come you agree with leftists on every political position you find important?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I said I wasn’t left or right, that’s it

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The point is the ones u end up supporting for buying guns will want to kill minorities with those guns ! And govt involvement in economy in the US might be the minimum except when it comes to rescue the rich !

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

So the only reason anyone buys a gun is to kill minorities?

And while the scope is small vs even smaller gov in the US, the difference is still there. To say it doesn’t matter is frankly ignorant.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Then it sounds like they're an anarcho-communist. Ancoms believe in an armed revolution to dismantle the government and protect minority rights. That fits all three of the things you described.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is a bad strawman argument.

"There are three types of people: reasonable people who agree with me, crazy self-identified fascists, and lily-livered wimps who can't pick a side!"

If someone says that they are "centrist" they are not telling you that they base all of their opinions on being in the middle of any two positions. That would be stupid and is an insane argument to put forth on your part.

They are telling you that they agree with neither major party on everything, and find that both parties have views that they don't agree with. It's pretty easy to come to that conclusion because the US two-party system packs in an almost incoherent mishmash of beliefs into exactly two sides.

There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days. There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting limits on them. There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services and universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets are effective. There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded.

The idea that there are only two (or maybe 2.5 depending on where you live) sides in politics is a strange delusion created by your two party system.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days. There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting limits on them. There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services and universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets are effective. There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded.

This is literally the definition of the Democratic party right now in the USA. So while I understand you're point, you're failing to see where people are coming from.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Those are examples. I'm speaking to a left wing audience and am using examples they understand. If I were speaking to a right wing audience, I would adjust accordingly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Haha le funny meme