Ensign_Crab @ Ensign_Crab @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

9,927

Joined

2 yr. ago

People who don't want to change their positions to appeal to the electorate.

I’m curious as to why you think you have the kind of authority in anyone’s life to tell them they have to decide between two dipshit choices you present them.

Choosing both is logically inconsistent. I get that you hate progress and anyone who opposes genocide and want to ignore them so you can move to the right and have your genocide. That's disgusting, but fine, if you want to choose that, it's all centrists do. But if you do it on the grounds that the people you hate for not being republican-adjacent enough for your liking aren't a big enough group to matter, you don't get to act like they matter after the fact just so you don't have to stop moving to the right.

The problem is that my country gets as far as taking away the bench.

They (you) get the benefit of not having to look at poor people. Remember, they're complaining about the homeless.

They don't use the benches, but lord do they complain if they encounter a homeless person.

Yeah. the problem of posh people being confronted with the icky poors.

And the great thing is, even if that's the full extent of their promises, democrats don't keep their promises.

That’s impossible with people sitting out elections (especially primaries)

democrats successfully argued in court that they don't need to run honest primaries. They didn't even have them last year.

So hostile architecture is unnecessary.

Go to the Southern hemisphere.

That was always a lie. But they are among the least reliable voters.

I mean, you can't ignore people or treat them with undisguised contempt if you want them to be reliable voters.

You forgot racist. Everything you don’t like is racist.

I did not. Though now I suspect you hear it a lot.

Keep raging at the people trying to solve the problem while you do nothing.

hostile architecture is not a solution.

conservatives don't like being reminded that people to their left exist.

until they lose an election and need someone other than themselves to blame.

That's the assumption whenever someone contradicts centrist orthodoxy.

It's wrong, but centrists never let that stop them.

The price of ignorant bliss is suffering, and I refuse to pander to privileged electorates that think they can afford to play with peoples lives.

As opposed to a party that is taking advantage of a situation that lets them move as far to the right as they want without accountability.

This isn’t centrism, it’s giving up.

six of one, half dozen of the other.

Are they to blame, or are they small enough to ignore?

Which one? I get that you want both. But you only get one.

Centrism manifest. You would rather destroy than listen to the voters you hate.

You have the electorate you have. Appeal to them for the first fucking time or keep losing.

I live in a country where if you don’t have a job the government will pay for your rent and utilities, indefinitely.

Well, good for you. I live in a country that doesn't. I live in a country where your perspective is classist and callous.

I would prefer shelter and no anti-homeless architecture. But I get that you prefer anti-homeless architecture and no shelter, since we're being uncharitable.