2246
I tried. It was exhausting. I'm better now.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
2246 points (94.2% liked)
tumblr
3414 readers
628 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think their point is that you can get more done with compromise than with strict adherence to your principles. Being right doesn't mean much of shit if nothing gets done about it.
Meet me in the middle, says the dishonest man. They take a step back. Meet me in the middle he says again.
This counts as wisdom to you?
It's very clearly an analogy.
It's also a myopic view of political centrism/compatibilism.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Recognizing that both sides of the political spectrum represent real concerns from real people who are demographically, geographically, and culturally different, and seeking to find practical, possible compromises between them to benefit the greatest number of people is hardly the same thing as selfish negotiation for personal gain. Both the left and the right would benefit from ignoring distracting wedge issues and cultural politics so they could solve some more important upstream structural and economic issues. The right needs to become more socialist and spend money on great public works and bureaucratic administration, and the left needs to recognize that industry and commerce have enough intrinsic social benefit so as to justify less bureaucratic quagmire. The right needs to pay teachers and IRS auditors, the left needs to pay cops and soldiers. The right needs to reform it's draconian view of the corrections system, and the left needs to recognize the failures of deinstitutionalization. The right could use less tyranny of the majority,, the left could use less tyranny of the minority. Etc etc etc. It's just the nature of a dialectic to constantly be in negotiation.
Most centrist arguments are about assigning priority and engaging in triage. It isn't a moral failure to focus on campaign finance reform rather than the age of puberty blockers, it's recognizing greater harm and limited political opportunity. The modern sentiment that there's no reasonable center comes predominantly from young people who have never lived in a culture where differing political parties could get along. That's a consequence of the radicalization of media, not a truism or innate property of politics.
One side, I just want to kill all LGBTQ, the other side Let's get kids food at school! BoTh SiDeS
Yeah this kind of response makes me think you're in a troll farm, it's so extremely silly. there's no legitimate right wing political faction that is advocating for the death of all queer people. there might be some angry, misspelled rants on a poster at a neo-Nazi rally. Tweets don't count, That's not legitimate discussion or discourse. that's just graffiti on a bathroom wall.
I'm not saying that there isn't more of a political problem on the right in America than there is on the left. Conservatives are often on the wrong side of history. But the left has some insane notions as well that they hold with as much religious fervor as the right.
Again. Whatever helps you sleep at night. P.s. I honestly don't care about your opinion on the matter, if that's not clear.
Why do you speak in internet cliches and talking points?
What does it matter?
"The boat is sinking", says the captain. The crew try to fix the boat the best they can. The captain stops them. "Let's wait until we can fix it completely."
The boat is sinking! Says the captain. The captain starts to fix it, but the crew stop him and say well what about the sail. E- removed an autocorrect error.
Problem being the compromise usually means accepting the worst bits of the deal. So instead of a race to the bottom its just a light jog.
Sometimes you need to draw out the 'inevitable end' for a better solution to be made apparent. Grab a bucket and start throwing water overboard, we might yet make it to port.
The problem is that the other guys are the ones busy kicking holes in the boat, while the centrists share their sincere concerns that buckets are woke, and that stopping people kicking holes and repairing them can't be done because it's never been done.
There's no satisfaction knowing you're right as you start inhaling lungfulls of water - the morally correct thing to do is save everyone by throwing that motherfucker overboard if they won't stop kicking holes abnd let you sell their hole-kicking boots to pay for a repair kit.
But the problem is it isn't one or two people kicking holes, it's half the damn ship. Morally correct is, again, useless when you can do nothing with it. It's more complicated than just patching up a hole or two, it's trying to convince a force as strong as yourself that you've come to the correct conclusion while they were incapable of doing the same.
The core problem is a small group of people with disproportionate wealth and political power, which they're using to exploit the gullible masses. Both are a problem, but if you solve for one, the other solves itself. You also create the opportunity to solve... most of society's problems.
Compromise only works if both sides are acting in good faith and acutally are trying to get shit done. If one side is actively trying to tear the whole democratic system down then it will just result in a slow decline if the other side compromises.
Yes, Neville Chamberlain was famously correct in compromising with Germany.
(Do I need an /s? I'll keep that one just in case.)
Oh no, compromises can be bad so we should just retire the concept entirely.
Without compromise, we wouldn't have an American Constitution.
If you're going to use historical examples as a weapon, you'd do well to be better versed in it.
That's funny, I don't have the American Constitution.
I also never said not to compromise, as others here have pointed out, compromise isn't always possible.
Unless you have some sort of alternate history where compromising with the Nazis worked?
I said we, which can exclude you, while including me.
Clearly we don't have a supermajority in order to circumvent the democratic systems in place to avoid the need to compromise, so if compromise isn't possible, what is?
The Nazis only lost after several countries unified to defeat them. What would you have Poland do? France? When your only options are to lose or lose faster, compromise is the only possibility.
I said Neville Chamberlain, not the leaders of Poland. Poland had no recourse after being invaded by both Germany and Russia; and it didn't exactly help them, did it? Had the nations of the world stood up to Germany, it's likely they would have had to back down entirely. You're starting at the end. Germany didn't start off invading Poland; they invaded Austria*, then Czechoslovakia. Check out the Munich Agreement for an insight into how well appeasement works with the far right.
"At a Cabinet meeting on 8 September 1937, Chamberlain indicated that he saw "the lessening of the tension between this country and Italy as a very valuable contribution toward the pacification and appeasement of Europe" which would "weaken the Rome–Berlin axis.""
That turned out well too, didn't it?