• masquenox
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is such a thing as a “non-extremist” right-winger?

      • masquenox
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        He looked pretty extremist to me when he helped the Bush regime lie their way into Iraq. And the guy literally chose a pig to be his running mate.

        Doesn’t get more extreme than that - him pretending to be “nicer” than the more overt right-wingers doesn’t change that.

    • Razp@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      The probability of encountering a “non-extremist” right-winger is exactly the same as of encountering a “non-extremist” left-winger and is quite small. The vast majority of people are moderates, either left or right leaning.

      Also, from the European perspective, the American left aka Democrats are quite right leaning :)

      • masquenox
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh look… an “enlightened centrist” has shown up to run interference for the right-wingers.

        • Razp@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh look, a person that cannot distinguish center from right. I wonder how you drive if you can’t into directions.

          • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “Centrist” is such nonsense without further context.

            If youre a centrist between the democrats and Republicans, you’re basically a fascist.

            If you’re a centrist between an anarchist and a marxist leninist then you’re left wing.

            • Razp@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hey look, a fascist word! Actually that’s quite offensive to hear, for an European, who’s family suffered from literal fascism. And the Americans now just throwing the word left and right and label people they disagree with. Sad.

              Also I view both US Democrats and US Republicans as right wingers.

              To give you more context: I support individual liberty, equal rights, welfare state in form of social healthcare and education; I oppose authoritarian ideologies; I believe in free market with some regulation to prevent exploiting and guarantee positive liberties, such as health; I support direct democracy, decentralization and non-interventionist policy.

              I would characterize my political alignment as in between social democrat and social libertarian.

          • masquenox
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh look, a person that cannot distinguish politics from vehicular activity. I wonder how you manage to drive anywhere without ever turning left.

      • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Left extremism: everyone should be treated with dignity and we should live in an actual democracy or concensus based society(as opposed to bourgeois democracy which is empirically an oligarchy), and we shouldn’t be unwilling to use violence toward those goals(except some are radical pacifists)

        Right Extremists: women should be forced to sleep with me and minorities should be gassed or used for slave labor. Also I should be exploited by my boss harder.

        Enlightened centrist: I cannot tell the difference between these two things

        Honestly tells us more about “centrists” than anything else.

      • masquenox
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Both words, “extremist” and “right-wing”, have no real hard definitions.

        No, right-wing ideology has a very hard and clear-cut definition - all politics that protects power and privilege. It really doesn’t get any simpler than that.

        Is being socially conservative right wing?

        It’s not supposed to be… but the only people self-applying the term in the US are fascists.

        Is supporting capitalism right wing?

        Yes. Period.

        anti-racist and pro-trans left wing?

        That’s not progressive - that’s radicalism.

        Is socialism left wing? Is only communism left wing?

        Yes.

        Is someone an extremist if they condone violence?

        No.

        Is someone an extremist if they seek to change the system fundamentally?

        No, that’s radicalism.

        Is someone an extremist if their political beliefs are very strongly held, no matter what they might be?

        No.

          • masquenox
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is no common ground on these definitions.

            Yes, they’ve spent trillions on propaganda machines to make sure no clear meaning can be ascribed to rather simple political concepts. That doesn’t stop us from discovering their actual meanings at all.

            We both know that different people use these terms differently.

            Yes. See above.

            The German political education ministry for example defines extremism

            Sooo… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?

            On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream

            So, again… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?

            Meanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to “British values”,

            And… more of the same?

            fact is that they do not have clear definitions

            That’s because “definitions” are utterly useless. What isn’t useless is the meaning without which these political concepts cease to serve any purpose - and no amount of “muddying the water” will be able to rob them of that.

              • masquenox
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                But you don’t have the authority over words.

                I have said nothing about authority. You, on the other hand…

                their meaning is defined by usage

                …ascribe those with the deepest pockets and vilest agendas the power to “define” the meaning of terms for you. Fox News gets to “define” the usage of the term socialism as “gubment doing stuff” (or whatever white supremacist nazi crack-pipe logic they are peddling these days) - but that doesn’t rob the term socialism of it’s actual meaning in any way or shape whatsoever. Fox News doesn’t get to wipe away hundreds of years of socialist theory - that’s why their ilk are resorting to burning books. They have failed to strip meaning from ideas despite all the trillions they have spent on their propaganda - so now they are resorting to the age-old tactic of simply attampting to prevent people from coming into contact with said meaning in the first place.

                The exact same goes for what is “left” or “right,” or that which is “radical” or “reactionary” - usage does not dictate meaning. The distance between the usage and the actual meaning of a term merely demonstrates the intelectual integrity (or lack thereof) and/or understanding (or lack therof) of the user.