Why are millennials killing genocide?
Nobody wants to 'cide anymore
People are just so pc nowadays
Has the woke agenda gone too far?
Because of avocado toast
The only thing I’m proud of when looking at gen Z is that they are completely unwilling to go to war for the military complex and giving their life fighting a battle where they have nothing to gain but everything to lose. That’s way smarter than my generation or the baby boomers ever were.
Which centrists actually support any amount of genocide?
Removed by mod
Plenty of centrist liberals support Israel’s “war against Hamas”. US president Joe Biden and the Democratic party for example.
that has nothing to do with the ideology of centrism itself and would be ridiculous to even pretend so.
it has to do with the complexity of the situation, and more specifically for everyone supporting Israel, having to do with maintaining country relations moreso than the edit: humanist ideals unfortunately.
Centrist is picking and choosing from each side, not doing a little of everything.
the dogshit stupid takes i see in this community are just proving that nobody here has actually ever encountered a centrist
please do tell me about your mythical centrist
This comment does not inspire confidence in your willingness to actually read it.
I’m also picking and choosing from each side, which is why I’m a leftist. Does that make me a centrist?
If it’s not from the Genocide region of France then it’s only sparkling mass murder.
Interesting how everyone seems to think this tweet from 2018 seems to refer to th situation in Gaza in 2023.
To be fair, the situation in Gaza isn’t new and was probably the same in 2018
Centrists - making the world a friendlier place for fascism since forever.
Quality post.
Muricans be like: let’s make centrists look bad by using strawman arguments.
Also muricans: yeah only voting for shit or shit lite® definitively isn’t a problem and voting 3rd party is throwing away my vote
Extremists be like “You’re either with me or against me!”
I’m an extremist when the issue is “should we do a genocide”.
On the “no” side, to be clear. I will indeed not accept any answer other than that one.
Is that such a wrong position to have when the questions are as starkly “respect human rights or don’t respect human rights” as most issues are in today’s conversation? This isn’t a discussion on the minutia of how much money should be allocated to transit subsidy, this is “should the queers be allowed to exist?” and “should women have rights?” and “do parents have the right to ruin their child’s life just because they’re the parent?”
If you really think there’s a middle ground there, either you’re a fucking idiot, or you actually don’t and you’re just trying to pretend you do because you know your actual answer is morally indefensible unless you ascribe to a world view that has no business being respected in a democratic rights respecting society.
Enlightening comment section. Very revealing discussions on our current political discourse.
Just a little casual genocide, nothing major, some dead LGBT folk here, some dead minorities there… normal stuff. Just wanna grill.
I love the smell of minority&meek soap in the morning. Then I remember I’m a right wing catholic white man with privileges and I use them by shooting some jets of fire with my pocket flamethrower from the fully open window of my monster truck while on the way to the usual grill with the boys, as my god intended ;)
Edit: Obviously satire
You people make up such fantasies in your head. This is far from the common trail of thought.
Echo chambers and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
Surprisingly, simply saying “EcHo ChAmBeR!!1!” without counter arguments has not fixed the problem.
I’m as shocked as you are.
Bro/Sis this is what is happening in the debate about refugees in Germany right now so no, actually you are wrong
Well, back when Steinmeier was our foreign minister and toured poor countries to advertise Germany as the land of opportunity and wealth because corporations wanted slaves they don’t have to pay properly, I was called a Nazi by many for saying that they won’t find any opportunity or wealth in Germany. Our government never had the well-being of immigrants in mind, they just stuffed them into dilapidated “refugee camps”, told them their education is insufficient and left them to rot. I am not surprised.
Any relevant links? I tried to google it, but it seems to me that the debate is about funding them - not about killing them.
I can’t speak to Germany, but in the UK the government had to be forced to use the lifeguard to save drowning people because they wanted to let refugees die, and had to be forced to stop sending people to Rwanda (even if they’re not from Rwanda) just to get rid of them.
Both stories are easily googlable.
That’s not a genocide. There is a big difference between refusing to expend resources to save peoples life and actively expending resources to destroy lives.
I dont particularly care about defining what is and isn’t a genocide, I care about not killing people.
And the Nobel Peace Prize you get for that will be mailed to you. Until it arrives, let’s do discuss about definitions, nuances, and all these other annoying details that set a principled debate apart from blind virtue signalling.
I, for one, really care about the distinction between initiating something evil and merely not doing enough™ to stop it. The UK did not made them refugees. Sure, the old British empire caused trouble all around the globe, but modern refugees are mostly escaping from regional wars and totalitarian governments. One could say that it’s still their fault because that’s the aftermath of them leaving, but that would imply that the UK should have kept occupying these countries, so you probably don’t want to go there.
So they did not cause them to be refugees. Both the refusal to save them from drowning and the deportation are an expression not of a deliberate attempt to kill them, but of a refusal to help them. The UK government does not want these refugees to be in the UK.
If we take this issue and place in the OP template, it’d look something like this:
Right: Let’s not let refugees in.
Left: Let’s let all the refugees in.
Center: Guys, you’re gonna have to compromise, let’s just let /some/ of the refugees in.
…One should notice that:
- Unlike the original post, this is not a strawman. You don’t have to go very far to the right to find plenty of people who want to let no refugee in, and you don’t have to go very far to the left to find plenty of people who want to let them all in.
- Once the strawman is removed - the centrist position does not seem that absurd anymore.
- If you keep insisting that “not accepting refugees” equals “genocide” - people will stop taking your claims about genocide so seriously. Because you don’t care about definitions, so it could mean anything.
Removed by mod
That’s not what centrism means. It’s not an immediate compromise between the two. It’s acknowledging that not every single stance held by a political party is the correct one.
I can support background checks and other limitations on firearm purchases, and also not want open borders. We should be doing something about the excess of gun violence, and we should be doing something about the thousands of immigrants jumping our border.
Right: These people who don’t share my opinion need to be genocided!
Left: No! THESE people who don’t share MY opinion need to be genocided!
Centre: Could… Could we, like… Not have a crisis on our hands FOR FIVE FUCKING SECONDS!?
I really want to know where you get the idea that the left wants genocide, especially over a difference of opinion. It’s so antithetical to my values that it’s downright funny.
i hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of leftists that are very comfortable with genocide.
I don’t see tankies/red-browns are leftists. Ultimately they overwhelmingly support authoritarian dictatorships, and that just doesn’t feel very lefty for me
Well left/right isn’t authoritarian/libertarian, it’s collectivist economics/individualist economics.
Authoritarians with collectivist ideals are authoritarian leftists, i.e tankies,
Libertarians with collectivist ideals are libertarian leftists i.e anarchocommunists,
Authoritarians with individualist ideals are authoritarian right, i.e monarchism,
Libertarians with individualist ideals are libertarian right, i.e anarchocapitalism.
Of course there are more examples of ideologies for each quadrant with varying levels of “auth-lib” or “left-right,” but just to give you some idea of the differences. There’s also auth-lib centers, like National Socialists on the auth side and agorists or anarchoprimativists on the lib side.
Of course judge all of the above groups to your own accord, but it isn’t as simple as “left means libertarian” unless you think anarchocapitalism is a leftist ideal, which it by definition isn’t.
Left = Egalitarian flat power structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Right = Hierarchical power structure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
The collectivist/individualist framework you describe is propaganda to appeal to supporters.
Authoritarianism is the sole perview of the right. What makes it confusing is that right wing people claim to support leftist ideals.
Well shit I guess ancaps are leftists then, my mistake.
Removed by mod
