this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
994 points (93.4% liked)

Political Memes

8048 readers
1866 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 25 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (25 children)

Funny how there's a bunch of people in the comments essentially just unironically repeating the meme: "Well this must be wrong because I believe this and I'm actually a centrist!!!"

That's the point, buddy. You're the butt of the joke. The idea that the far-left and far-right are equally bad or warrant the same amount of scrutiny and criticism is a right-wing belief.

To make the point more obvious instead of using "left" and "right" look at specific political beliefs that the far-left and far-right have:

  1. Equality across social and demographic groups vs. State-enforced racism, sexism and other kinds of bigotry

  2. Abolishment of bourgeois property and money vs. Complete privatization, oligarchy and corruption

  3. Globalization, peaceful relations and a right to live where you want vs. Complete isolationism and xenophobia

  4. Right to self-governance and no government with a monopoly on violence vs. State sanctioned violence against those considered undesirable or traitors

Hopefully I don't need to explain which one is obviously worse. To equate what the far-left and the far-right advocate for one must misrepresent the left, so both-sides-ism inherently has a right-wing slant.

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

I like to come into these comments because it gives me a fresh batch of new "centralists" to tag.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is some crazy doublethink shit. It's clear just looking at the inconsistent interpretation from all the top-level comments that 'centrist' is a blanket term that both describes 'centrist' positions and also 'left/right radicals'. The only consistent is whether the subject is subjecting the in-group to criticism

The same user constantly harps on 'far-left' progressives complaining about democratic positions, and calls himself a centrist.

This is just standard 'out-group' gatekeeping. "If you're not with us, you're against us" shit.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (8 children)

"Bothsides types are indistinguishable both in form and in end-result, regardless of whether they claim to be centrists or leftists"

"This is crazy doublethink shit!"

The same user constantly harps on ‘far-left’ progressives complaining about democratic positions, and calls himself a centrist.

what

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Bothsides types are indistinguishable

... Yea, see there it is. "Bothsides types are indistinguishable [in the way they criticize my party]"

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

[in the way they criticize my party]

What

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

Don't be dense. Define 'bothsides type' that includes all subsets of the group you're talking about. I'd bet pretty penny it isn't limited to people who use the phrase 'both sides are exactly the same'.

I'm gonna guess this is pretty close: 'someone who criticizes the democrats without clearly signaling their electoral support of them'

Or, put another way:

[in the way they criticize my party]

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 days ago (11 children)

Don’t be dense. Define ‘bothsides type’ that includes all subsets of the group you’re talking about. I’d bet pretty penny it isn’t limited to people who use the phrase ‘both sides are exactly the same’.

Those who present 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.

I’m gonna guess this is pretty close: ‘someone who criticizes the democrats without clearly signaling their electoral support of them’

I mean, harm reduction is not morally optional, but criticizing the Dems without signaling electoral support is not inherently a "BOTHSIDES" reaction, excepting, say, in the immediate lead-up to an election of unusual importance wherein the only realistic options are fascism or the Dems.

When there is an immediate crisis coming up, wherein messaging is extremely important, and you choose to amplify messages that help fascists without bothering to amplify messages that damage fascists, it's difficult to see that as anything except service to fascism.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

When there is an immediate crisis coming up, wherein messaging is extremely important, and you choose to amplify messages that help fascists without bothering to amplify messages that damage fascists, it’s difficult to see that as anything except service to fascism.

"If you're not with us, you're against us"

Democrats wanted everyone to shut up about how much was wrong that needed fixing so that they could win, and leftists wanted democrats to acknowledge how much was wrong that needed fixing so that they could win.

Throwing the leftists in with the right-wingers assumes that the rest of the country wasn't already feeling the pain the democrats were trying to suppress.

Those who present 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.

Lmao, here's what this reads like:

A person who complicates a binary political choice at politically inexpedient moment by pointing out a flaw present in both binaries

No wonder American politics has regressed into pure symbols and signs.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

“If you’re not with us, you’re against us”

That is literally what a FPTP election results in, yes. I see this is still taking time to sink in.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If it had anything to do with electoralism you wouldn't be whinging about this 3 and a half years before the next election

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 days ago (5 children)

If it had anything to do with electoralism you wouldn’t be whinging about this 3 and a half years before the next election

...

First, there's no guarantee that the next election will matter at all.

Second, the issue is much deeper - namely, the exact kind of 'bothsides' bullshit that leads people to abstain from siding with the less-vile choice of two in an election will certainly lead people to abstain from siding with the less-vile choice in issues of action that require something greater than an hour of a single day of their life.

Third, why the fuck would you wait until the last minute to address an issue? If there is an outstanding issue that leftists seem to believe that losing and letting marginalized groups be murdered is preferable to picking the lesser evil, why should that not be addressed immediately instead of ten seconds before the next electoral circus?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Not necessarily. I also think that both sides extremes are absolutely awful.

The difference is that us "real" "both-siders" realize and agree that the fascist side is much more imminent and dangerous and therefore tend to ally with the left.

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

The difference is that us "real" "both-siders" realize and agree that the fascist side is much more imminent and dangerous and therefore tend to ally with the left.

Say more about this. Some news articles. Some journalists. Some academic papers. Something to validate your statement here.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›