If the message is clearly coming from a mean spirited place you shouldn’t need to listen to that person.
Except centrists say we should. All the time. As long as bigotry is dressed up in "civil" language, centrists will say that it's fair game.
I am constantly told, by centrists, that my right to exist in society is open for debate. Whether or not I can get my healthcare, or if it is criminalised, is an open question. And that's not rare, I see it almost every day, from people who think of themselves as "center".
From what I’ve seen, bigotry often gets defined as literally any deviation from the exact list of opinions one must hold to be considered left wing.
No. That's just right-wing rubbish.
There are a tiny handful of opinions deemed bigoted. It's just that the right-wing is utterly obsessed with them, and wants to talk about them all the time.
People can hold conservative and right-wing opinions about taxation or spending or foreign policy without being called bigoted. Progressives would probably disagree vehemently with them. But it's not bigotry.
The people attacking “centrism” seem to think half the population is irredeemably evil and has nothing good to contribute to a conversation.
That is you strawmanning people, if that is what you think.
“Centrists” to me are people from a wide range of views who decide not to be at each other’s throats and actually talk things out.
Talk what out? Be specific. It matters.
Again, many topics are perfectly open for debate.
People's inclusion in society as equals, is not.
To me the people who are willing to be civil (with those who are also civil and genuine about their views) are the ones making real progress instead of essentially hoping for civil wars to break out
Civil tone does not a civil idea make, is all I'd add to that.
I mean. Both of those things seem like pretty reasonable positions to discuss. They way you write that seems to imply that rent and work are simply facts of life, but they don't have to be. Or at the very least, they could look a lot different to how they do now.
Rent is an economic concept that doesn't have to exist. In fact it's not hard to make the economic argument that it should not exist. Rent-seeking is generally considered a bad thing, because it removes value from a system.
Work is harder to get away from. But there's no reason work has to look like how employment does today. And there's a productive discussion around how much work is reasonable, especially as automation continues to advance.
I think you pretty fundamentally misunderstand what people mean when they say "enlightened centrist". Because it's not actually demonising having an open mind. It's referring to people who adopt a smarter-than-thou attitude while insisting that listening to bigotry is of vital importance.
I’m not trying to find someone to blame - I’ve already found them.
... Please consider being a serious person.
And it’s interesting that “people who actually want to affect change” wouldn’t want to try to tackle the actual problems.
Wagging your finger at individuals is never, ever going to solve the problem.
Identifying systemic changes, and advocating for them politically, will.
I guess it’s easier to point to single-target big bad entities rather than a more vague entity like…everyone.
Again. You are focusing on blame and pointing fingers. Nobody cares who you want to blame.
Also it is easier to pretend people don’t have agency, isn’t it?
Nowhere has I said that people don't have agency. I said that people's behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under, which is a trivially true observation.
So if we want to effect change on a scale large enough to actually make a difference, we will focus on systemic changes.
Whenever I see conversations like this, I have to wonder, what is your goal? Are you trying to solve the problem? Or are you trying to find someone to blame?
Because if it's the latter, then go ahead blame individuals all you like. It's overly simplistic and ignores the fact that people's behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under. It's also completely and utterly useless at actually solving the problem. But by all means, you can waste your time as much as you like, just don't expect people who actually want to affect change to waste their time humouring such stupidity.
Liking cars is one thing, but we should not be designing our lives around cars. The more we cater for cars, the worse our living conditions get. The more we treat cars as the primary and required method of transport, the worse our society becomes.
And 4. Individual action alone is simply just ineffective at solving the problems. Focusing on individuals rather than systemic change is the same as doing nothing. If we want to change behaviour, we have to change incentives.
Your previous comment said that education funding should match workforce demands. That is what I responded to and disagree with. Education has value beyond just placing people into the workforce.
Yes it should. It isn’t a discussion (well, it is heavily implied though) that they shouldn’t exist, only that the state shouldn’t fund it. States job is to get a return on their investment, and funding what is needed is a good way to start - especially in the context of a brain drain from the state.
Educated people still benefit the state, even they are educated in things that wealthy people don't think they can monetise.
Agreed. This argument is one of the more dystopian aspects of late stage capitalism. Not content with controlling basically every aspect of our lives, the mega-wealthy want to shape our education, our knowledge as well. Anything that they cannot profit from is considered worthless.
Education is one of the best investments a country can make. It pays for itself many times over. Anybody complaining about education expenditure from a fiscal perspective is an idiot.
An educated populace is also key for a healthy democracy. Oh, maybe that's why conservatives don't like it...
darq @ darq @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 513Joined 2 yr. ago
I don't see how one could really conclude that.