You must log in or register to comment.
There’s like, two lines in that that are centrist.
The rest of it is what you might call not prejudiced in the more literal sense of things.
Just because someone believes in not judging by large swathes rather than by individual actions doesn’t mean they’re arguing for any given ideology. They’re arguing against building artificial walls.
Whether anyone agrees with that or not is irrelevant. Centrists aren’t the only ones that hold that married belief.
Until they got to the point of saying you are behaving like they said you would, that argument was neutral. At that point, it became centrist, though one could argue that they wouldn’t have to be to express that idea. I wouldn’t make that argument, but it could be made.
Here’s an ugly truth.
Unless you plan to kill every single Republican in the country, you’re going to have to work with at least some of them in order to counter any future issues. Being aware of that, and acting accordingly is a damn good idea because the alternative isn’t going to win many allies.
So, you know, if you wanna lump all Republicans together as bad, that’s fine. But don’t pretend that there’s enough will and manpower to solve the problem without eradicating them if that’s how things are going to be. And, tbh, there’s not enough people willing to do that in the first place. You got an army willing to put a bullet in millions of people? You gonna co-opt the army or national guard? None of the left wing militias have the numbers to do it, and not all of those are radical enough to begin with.
By you, I don’t necessarily mean you OP, more the people that think they can wave a magic wand and all the Republicans will disappear or convert to another ideology with protests and online arguments.
The centrists? The actual centrists that genuinely think that the current us problem can be solved by a balance of power and that things need to remain as the status quo was, where two parties in roughly equal power would find the right answers in the middle. They aren’t going to join a civil war to begin with. Even if the fight really was Republicans vs Democrats, they wouldn’t join a side. They sure as hell won’t join in against the rest of the U.S. that’s neither of those parties and against them both.
So, yeah, be prepared to find Republicans that are less bad than the rest if you don’t want to essentially slaughter every one of them
I appreciate the argument you are making, but I disagree with the main premise that “republican” is some inherent identity akin to someone’s religion, and that we need to be magnanimous in our messaging about being involved with that political party in a time like this. This type of political affiliation is a check mark on a form that can be changed at any time. The kind of argument you are presenting is reminiscent of “all lives matter” or “not all men” arguments. I think it is missing the point. It is not to say that literally everyone who is a registered republican is an irredeemable monster, but that supporting that party, being a part of it, is not some neutral thing that can be ignored (maybe that would be different if their base fundamentally opposed the party’s actions, but they are supportive).
There is no evidence to suggest that reaching across the aisle in that way has any net positive effect. History has shown that the opposite is true. We can embrace those people if they leave their ideology and come to us, but not the other way around. We will not be able to counteract billions of dollars’ worth of media and propaganda apparatus by being accepting. It is better to make it clear that the actions of that organization are unacceptable.
It’s not about reaching across the aisle in this context.
It’s about the reality of fixing what’s broken, and the entire system is.
It isn’t about being magnanimous, though as an ideology of its own, that has a place. It’s about the practical issue that you either kill them all, or work with some. If you’re going to pick working with some, then you have to accept that not all of your enemy are the same, no matter who your enemy is.
This ain’t about voting.
Ok well in this case, name any “good” actively serving elected Republican on the national level, so we can check their record. I bet you can’t. The ones that had a shed of decency already resigned.
You could try to name one on the state level. That’s still a tall order.
You could say your neighbor is a cool guy that’s Republican, but we don’t have any way to vet that.
OR, to just explore the concept, name a currently living good Nazi. At any level.
Its fair to blanket some groups. If Lincoln was alive after the civil war to make the South pay, maybe the South would’ve been in better shape than 150 years of Jim Crow.
Who said it was limited to elected officials?
Point is that, long term, you either accept that some Republicans are going to be part of any future, or they all have to be eliminated.
It is just like nazis post ww2. They had to have trials and vetting or they got removed from society in one way or another.
I said so, to get you to demonstrate a Republican that wasn’t bad. So we could check it with their record. Can’t do that with a random neighbor you think is cool.
The point is, we didn’t let Nazis rebuild Germany. The ones that could hide it did, but their views didn’t factor in anymore. They had to change their views and admit they were wrong. At gunpoint, often.
In the South, reconstruction was nerfed and all was forgiven, and they only had to get rid of slaves and play nice. So they did everything but have slaves i.e. Jim Crow, redlining, sundown laws, etc.
Saying we have to live with the current Republican party will never work because they will never work. Democratic party, they can be changed (since the politicians mostly suck) but as is won’t work afterwards.
Well, tbh, I’m not into playing with that side of things, sorry.
However, I never said we have to live with the current Republican party members. We don’t, and that’s actually part of the point.
If we assume two things, that Republicans are “bad”, and that allowing the current direction of the country to continue is unsustainable, then it comes down to “what do we do with them?”
There’s only a small number of options. The most extreme is getting rid of them entirely, just eradicating them. The least extreme would be imprisonment of all of them. They’re bad lock, stock and barrel. No redemption possible, no room for nuance, no room for mercy.
If that’s the argument you’re going for, great. The original screenshot was about two people arguing about whether or not applying the assumption of wrongness across the board is acceptable. It’s in this community, which indicates that OP believes that the argument against applying that assumption means anyone doing so is a centrist claiming to be enlightened vis a vis centrism being taken to it’s extreme form.
My argument was originally that saying “saying x group is bad isn’t a good idea” isn’t a centrist view. That it can be held by almost any political viewpoint. And it can. The more extremist the politics, the less likely it is, but that’s beside the point.
I’m not arguing about whether or not Republicans are bad as a group. IDGAF about that concept tbh. I’m arguing that if you take that belief as truth you limit not only the possible outcomes of a conflict involving the country as a whole, but any actions after that.
It’s a choice that has to be made at some point; who is the enemy, and what will be done with them?
So, like I started off with this comment, it’s okay that you want to play with the idea of whether or not there are non bad Republicans, you’re free to play with that idea all you want, and so can anyone else. I’m just not joining in. Just like you have the freedom to play with the idea that I’m talking about or not. No big deal if you don’t want to stay on that topic, I don’t doubt someone might come along to explore it with you.
I’m not sure I agree with blue but I really dislike green’s style of argument, especially the respond-then-reddit-block tactic
Only Sith deal in absolutes
Mildly penis.
