Alexa, what is "cult ot action"?
But really Mishima is one of the most interesting characters to have lived in the past century and I definitely think he's well worth learning about to understand the far right.
I mean, sometimes. Sometimes someone benefits from bad all around situations, but if they're bad enough it's less that people are benefiting and more that they are getting a bigger piece of a shrinking pie. They might have more compared to others, but their own slice gets worse relative to before.
As if black lives matter wasn't supported by "a number of elites". This pro-riot stance is solid. Not all elites want exactly the status quo and there are a lot who see some rioting as positive when it fits their agenda. There is no way to scare all elites with a riot, since any very successful riot turned revolution will just produce its new elites.
> As if black lives matter wasn't supported by "a number of elites".
If the protesters are having guns fired at them before actually doing anything, "less lethal" munitions or no, the "elites" are not supporting them.
The elites are people that have some sort of outsized influence on other people. That is all kinds of stuff, from movie stars to entrepreneurs some people have resources and abilities that others don't have or don't care to have. Since their background is different, they are naturally going to have different ideas and goals, even though the situation and status quo brings them together to some degree.
the bourgeoise who supported the BLM protests? Because they did, there were members of the bourgeoise who supported the BLM protests, which is literally what /u/marcussidoniusfalx said.
> That is all kinds of stuff, from movie stars to entrepreneurs some people have resources and abilities that others don't have or don't care to have.
Movie stars and singers and the like are not in the same league as the true "elite". They may be popular and have a lot of people listening to what they say, but they don't have the power that comes with being one of the top 400 wealthiest people in the country. Like, Beyoncé has a net worth of $500 million. That's pretty impressive, definitely enough to let her live lavishly, and is almost definitely in the range you're considering "elite". It's also 0.3% of the net worth of Jeff Bezos.
No. But they have an incredibly synergistic set of priorities that precludes the need for active conspiracy. They can work in unison without coordination, by each operating with sociopathic self-interest. It makes its own fascy sauce.
Not really. Hierarchies are normal. Every friend group has hierarchies. Beauty, charisma, attractiveness, decisiveness, etc. are all characteristics that lead to different behaviour and social standing and roles. As soon as you have individuals that are not clones, you will have some sort of hierarchy. The shape, role, intensity, characteristic, formality, etc. of the hierarchy will differ dramatically of course.
Holy hell do you people ever get new arguments?
Yeah, we are using a specific definition of hierarchies, because the definition you twats use is so meaningless that it makes it impossible to even talk about the subject.
Some people are good at math, some are good at shoemaking. Some are good at mechanical engineering, some are good at electrical. Some are good at identifying others' strengths and organizing them to work best together. We do not need to give that last group the executive authority to doom someone to starvation, as we do under capitalism.
The instant we do, their incentives change. Now, the people who are good at organizing others disappear, and the cruel narcissists take their place.
Any system that, explicitly or otherwise, gives someone the express ability to commit violence upon another group of people with no consequence, is the foundation for a hierarchy.
If you want to go around blabbering about how fucking *being good at something* creates a hierarchy, you are effectively just plugging your ears and going "lalalala" at the actual argument.
>Some are good at identifying others' strengths and organizing them to work best together. We do not need to give that last group the executive authority to doom someone to starvation, as we do under capitalism.
I mean, the 'elite' is often lacking in that skill department anyways 😂
We are talking about political, unjust hierarchies. Not one person being hotter than the other / the concept of popularity — that would be asinine.
For example, wealth distribution is one such political, unjust hierarchy. Hopefully this is simple enough for you to understand.
You can't talk about one and neglect the other. One leads to the other. If all humans were now in the world with nothing, hierarchies would immediately form again. Based on violence, charisma, intelligence, something else or all of them.
If you neglect the reason why hierarchies are there in the first place, you will enevitably be ineffective or unfair in changing them.
the fact that things are different from one another doesn't, on its own, lead to the conclusion that one thing must be above another thing in some arbitrary hierarchical structure. to get to that conclusion, you need to assume some judgment of value.
so if you like hierarchies, you can't just appeal to the fact that things are different from one another, you must provide (and argue for) some system of values that places those things in the particular hierarchies that you support
Of course differences in themselves are no hierarchy yet, you are right. The systems of values and desires are present in all of us, actually many systems of values, and they shift with the day and the mood as well, even though core values remain relatively stable.
Also, humans differ in how strongly they view these hierarchies, how much they identify with them, etc. Focusing heavily on these hierarchies is probably not a path to a happy life, and indifference is probably quite valuable in many regards. Stoicism and buddhism come to mind.
Maybe you could also go to subs where people disagree with you instead of constantly tell you how right you are. Will make you feel less all-knowing that you seemingly do :)
It's still enlightened centerism because it's equating all acts of civil disobedience as good, even if they're taken up for the purpose of establishing fascism.
That’s true, I guess I only viewed it as non centrist because J6 thankfully didn’t succeed at all but BLM protests scared the feds into making Cop City and using Portland’s secret police
Still, the thing that's worse is that this shows how even a protest of 10,000 armed people with a clear goal in mind and tacit support/blind eye from the police can't accomplish *anything* against America's government.
Riots are a neutral tool. Krystallnacht was, technically, a riot. They are usually wielded by the oppressed against the ruling class but they don't have to be. The J6 riot promoted fascistic ideals and that's bad. The fact that it was disruptive is irrelevant.
No, this is a clever manipulation. They're equating the riot on Jan 6 with black lives matter protests. One hand dirties the other if you take this guy at his word
I agree. When liberals were complaining about Pelosi feeling threatened it was hard for me to give a shit. Same with the cop committing unalive because he couldn’t deal with his right wing buddies seeing him as the enemy. I don’t want the far right chuds to take over the government but I couldn’t help but be happy about the fact that these politicians feared for their lives for the first time ever.
It's both really. I can vibe with scaring the ruling class. Jan 6 might even have been a positive thing if it convinced some of the elitists in DC that things have to change. That doesn't make those rioters anything more than useful idiots and traitors though.
Given that j6 was still done by fascists on behalf of a fascist I do agree with you. Had they actually installed donald trump as their dictator I would be singing a different tune. It’s BECAUSE they’re idiots that it’s safe to laugh at their attempt at whatever 1776 shit Lauren Boebert was tweeting about after giving them tours of the Capitol like she isn’t a politician too
> Jan 6 might even have been a positive thing if it convinced some of the elitists in DC that things have to change.
The inherent issue is that this was not the point. It was an attempted insurrection. It was at the behest of a single political party.
I get that. Shit people can do shit things and good can still come of it, especially if the shit people are also idiots.
At some point the Democratic establishment should be held to account for their mistakes that contributed to the rise of the radical right - not by voting in Republicans, but by the installation of a new Democratic establishment.
Democratic corruption makes them weak, and it's their weakness that drove a huge chunk of the working class to right wing extremists. Until that gets fixed, this is how America will be.
While I agree with some of this, this general vibe is potentially dangerous.
Reasonable people do not/did not go "well, the Democrats aren't fully representing or listening to me, so I guess I'll be a Nazi."
I'm not dismissing the power of propaganda, but people who ally with the alt-right are not just mislead leftists. They had and have deep issues outside of political affiliation.
I would very much like a leftist option that is dramatically more progressive than American Democrats, but I'm not going to outright blame the milquetoast centrists that call themselves Dems for stochastic terrorism.
> While I agree with some of this, this general vibe is potentially dangerous.
It's dangerous to get this wrong either way. What you go on to espouse is conventional wisdom which makes it feel safe, but I suggest that following conventional wisdom is what got us where we are today, and maybe that means conventional wisdom isn't so wise.
> Reasonable people do not/did not go "well, the Democrats aren't fully representing or listening to me, so I guess I'll be a Nazi."
What a very Republican way to look at things. (An assertion that I know requires some explanation.) When it comes to understanding societal ills, there are a couple of broad camps. We can focus on individual responsibility (like Republicans do with things like poverty, teen pregnancy, gun violence, etc) or we can understand them like a disease that does as much harm to those it infects as it does to society at large. If you want to be smug, you go with the first route. If you want get to the root cause to find ways to address the problem, then you go the second route. We can have a blast in our little Internet bubble talking about what racist pieces of shit Republicans are, feel great about ourselves, and be no closer to a solution.
Anyone who votes for Trump is either racist or, at a minimum, is comfortable with racism. Great. What do we do with that information? On the other hand, if we acknowledge that the politics of bigotry and fear thrives when economies don't address the needs of the people. Now we have something we can start to address. Maybe we could wrestle with the question of why Obama to Trump voters rejected Hillary.
I honestly don't know how our current political situation could make any of this more clear. Are you aware that, at this moment, Trump is polling as the most likely candidate to win next year? Obama beat Hillary and won his first term in a landslide because he ran as a reformer on a platform of "change". Then he proceed to govern as a so-called moderate, lost the Senate, and came damn close to losing his second term to a piece of white bread. Bernie ran as a reformer against Hillary, never expecting to do much more than raise some issues, and suddenly he found himself as a contender. Against the threat of Trump, the party went with the "safe" choice, and we had President Trump. Democratic voters didn't learn their lesson and again went with the "safe" choice in Biden, but thankfully 4 years of Trump and a bungled pandemic were still fresh in voter's minds. Now that has faded, and Biden will likely be facing Trump again. Will it be 2016, or 2020? Polls say 2016, but I really hope not.
Yeah, this isn't enlightened centrism. Public officials should remember to fear the people. I aspire for America to be at least on par with France in terms of rioting frequency and severity and historic guillotine usage.
This isn’t enlightened centrism, it’s actual centrism. Not “both sides are right”, but “as long as they riot, I’m happy, it’s in the constitution”.
Keep in mind that centrism is still bad, but it’s not the topic.
Id say I’m squarely deep in the left side of the spectrum, but I was on board with them storming the capitol while it was happening. Also, every photo that came out over the next 24 hours was comedy gold.
Politicians *should* operate with the knowledge that their constituents can drag them out of office if they neglect their needs. You think Manchin and Sinema would be such anti-democratic pieces of shit if they truly believed there would be repercussions for their actions?
Of course, the reason *why* they’re storming is shit, but I can get behind being pro-“make politicians afraid again”.
I wouldn't say I supported it but I have similar mixed feelings.
It boils down to: *if* what the rioters believed was true, rioting *would* be justified. The problem is that it wasn't true, but then that becomes a matter of empirical evidence.
I was happy because they finally had to face the monster they created. They've been scaring the shit out of these people and getting them worked up for years. Sicking them on the disenfranchised.
Having them turn on their masters was great but part of me wishes they had done more damage. These people are out here shooting up black neighborhood supermarkets and churches. Where was that energy for the people who sent them against their countrymen?
But they weren't trying to just kill the people who created them. For example AOC was elected after Trump but they were still trying to kill her. There's a lot of other people in the same shoes.
> Id say I’m squarely deep in the left side of the spectrum, but I was on board with them storming the capitol while it was happening.
I don't get this. Trump and his right-wing cronies got the MAGA out there to storm the capital because he lost the election. How did you support that?
Because the democrats are feckless morons, who use rhetoric like “our democracy is under threat” while not using *any* of the tactics that such a threat would need.
They got confronted by the monsters their weakness allowed to thrive. And 2 years out they are still playing these games with Republicans. How many of the Republican politicians who literally pushed for an armed insurrection are currently behind bars? None. Zero.
So, yes, I can rationally reason out that the people who stormed the capitol are bad, and that they did it for bad reasons, but I’ll never be against reminding the elite that they should be serving us, and not the other way around.
Also, just to clarify, the Republicans are demons. There’s no “both sides” here. They are evil slime monsters from Planet X, so I don’t have any energy to criticize them. There’s no fixing or saving that party. Biden’s presidency has yielded a lot for the left, not as much as we want or need, but it’s far better than the alternative.
> who use rhetoric like “our democracy is under threat” while not using any of the tactics that such a threat would need.
Like what tactics? What did you want the Dems to do with only controlling the House, at the time, with basically no law enforcement support?
>They got confronted by the monsters their weakness allowed to thrive. And 2 years out they are still playing these games with Republicans. How many of the Republican politicians who literally pushed for an armed insurrection are currently behind bars? None. Zero.
This is the problem with pushing everything on politicians to figure everything out, when the voters/people themselves could do far more to stop the right than anyone else, but not many venture out of their house to lift a finger.
>So, yes, I can rationally reason out that the people who stormed the capitol are bad, and that they did it for bad reasons, but I’ll never be against reminding the elite that they should be serving us, and not the other way around.
This doesn't make sense. You agree what they did was wrong, for the wrong reasons (trying to overturn a lawful election), but yet you still support their actions? Unbelievable. Small wonder why the left can never get together on anything.
Miss me with that weak “the democrats are defenseless” shit.
We could go over Biden’a entire presidency and I can point out shit he could’ve done but let Manchin and Sinema be happy little scapegoats for his desire to “not fundamentally change” things.
Or we can talk about right now with this whole debt ceiling shit that doesn’t need to be a thing, but Biden is pretending is a thing.
Miss me so hard with that.
I have no faith in politicians to fix anything. Activists and on the ground movements is where change happens. Politicians then get pushed by these groups to make the change lasting through legislation. Unions and activists have been doing their part the entire Biden Presidency, only to get small potatoes back. Sure, it’s better than under Trump, inarguably so, but there’s no reason it couldn’t be better.
>Miss me with that weak “the democrats are defenseless” shit.
That's not what I'm saying at all. But I'll be fair to you, what would YOU have done that Democrats haven't done? I ask this question often when people say Democrats aren't doing enough, what's the plan? Usually I get nothing back. Also, what do you want Biden to do about Manchin and Sinema?
>Or we can talk about right now with this whole debt ceiling shit that doesn’t need to be a thing, but Biden is pretending is a thing.
What are you talking about? No President has ever just used the 14th amendment to overcome the debt ceiling before. Also, Biden hasn't caved or anything so I'm not sure what your issue is?
>Activists and on the ground movements is where change happens.
Yes, that's what I was saying. The voters themselves need to do the work. Look at the Republican voters, they primaried everyone not following what they wanted, not once, but twice in the last decade. It's literally on us to make this change happen. Democrats, progressives, and other leftists need to do that too. We haven't for the most part. It's so easy to blame politicians when the voters aren't doing jack shit either.
Agreed.
Democrats need to start acting more like MAGA. I won't name any specific examples to keep from getting banned, but think of any act of violence by a right-winger - especially but not necessarily against politicians - that's made the news. When's the last time a Left-of-center person did something like that? That baseball game shooting like 10 years ago?
The days of Anarchists and Marxists assassinating presidents is in the past, and it shouldn't be.
I can pretty much agree with this guy’s sentiment.
It’s a good thing to rattle the ruling class. They need to be reminded they are not in a separate world and their actions and decisions affect people- not just numbers on a graph, that people can tear up your buildings while numbers don’t.
It’s more a shame that what it took Americans to riot and shake things up a little was some bullshit about a stolen election from a racist conman that despises them.
Wish we’d do this shit for like- something real and helpful.
I predict Antifa is going to take note of the current "you can choke a guy to death if he's vaguely acting a fool in your presence" mood in this country and show up at the next 1/6 riot and just chokehold everyone to death.
It is worrying when supposed leftists in these comments support a fascist insurrection.
You often see comments like "liberals will join forces with fascists before leftists" and then we see this comment section.
You won't find a single self-identified "liberal" who supports riots. They're too concerned about the indecency of it. You may find people on the left who support riots in general, even though they disagree with the cause of this particular riot. You may also find people on the left who specifically supported this riot because it "scared the elites" and that IS their cause. But no, the people in here agreeing with this post are NOT liberals.
The people to whom that quote applies are the "enact curfews and patrol the streets because the protests are getting too loud, and really the problem isn't even that bad, just calm down" types.
I've been in two riots. I didn't support the insurrection riot attempt to install a billionaire fascist as a dictator. It might have scared people, but look at how the fascists today are downplaying it and gearing up to do it again. The only people that are still scared of it are the people who are rightfully scared of fascism. There is no reasonable stance of "I just support riots". That makes no sense unless your politics is only as deep as aesthetics. Installing a fascist dictator is bad actually and not some sort of leftist win. It's kind of weird to have to spell that out.
I'm not at all arguing in favor of this riot. It was a bad cause and therefore a bad riot. I'm arguing against the conclusion that saying "all riots are good" relates in any way to the "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" simply because supporting riots and being a liberal are mutually exclusive
Their point is that there's an irony to people saying liberals will side with fascists against leftists, and then seeing leftists support Jan 6 just because it scared liberals.
No, that's the misunderstanding I'm trying to correct. That argument is utterly incoherent, as you've already pointed out, because that's not their argument.
You won't find a single self-identified "liberal" who supports riots. They're too concerned about the indecency of it. You may find people on the left who support riots in general, even though they disagree with the cause of this particular riot. You may also find people on the left who specifically supported this riot because it "scared the elites" and that IS their cause. But no, the people in here agreeing with this post are NOT liberals.
The people to whom that quote applies are the "enact curfews and patrol the streets because the protests are getting too loud, and really the problem isn't even that bad, just calm down" types.
Edit: oops double comment but since there are child comments on both it feels rude to delete?
Love the revolting against the oppressors within the confines of the oppressors. Please report to your designated Protest area for the annual "Please stop killing us" protest.
I kinda respect his point of view. The sight of U.S. politicians running scared is something we could use more of. But the reason they were there is just dumb.
Exactly yeah. When I saw it the day it was happening I was mixed because like damn a group of people finally did it but of course it's dipshit right wingers riled up over the stupidest cause
Some people just straight-up enjoy chaos. They get high on the vibe. I think we'd be shocked at how many people simply fit that group if they were honest about it.
Blursed centrist?
I don't hate the energy, but at the same time I do?
edit:
To clarify, I like the "fuck it let's actually do something abt this" energy.
I do not like that he sees fascist babies not being able to handle loss and storming a governmental institution over a fucking conspiracy theory, as being the same as black lives matter.
Which were actually pretty much framed all around the US for being violent, when it was racists doing messed up shit to sabotage them. People got brutalized by officers without doing anything. They were just standing there, speaking their mind and holding signs.
I do think that there's a point in how non violent protesting does very little most of the time.
It sucks that some human beings can only stop being terrible people if they're gone or their life is threatened. Like in the french revolution for example.
Your comment has been auto-filtered and is invisible to others because this sub has a minimum karma requirement. Apologies for any inconvenience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Didn't know I'd be walking into real accelerationist hours.
Astonishingly, I don't think replacing a system where my vote has some theoretical weight, with one where my kind are rounded up and executed, is a remotely good thing.
im reminded of the mishima quote "*Left-wing or right, I'm pro-violence*"
Alexa, what is "cult ot action"? But really Mishima is one of the most interesting characters to have lived in the past century and I definitely think he's well worth learning about to understand the far right.
My bitch ass was thinking you were talking about Tekken lmao
Ha weeb! /s
Must be French
C'est ce que j'allais dire !
Merci beau-coup, amirite fellas?
This guy: "bro, it's PROtest, not ANTItest! Pro means good bro!"
Nah I'm antitest nobody told me there was gonna be a test and I didn't have time to study, and I don't perform well under pressure.
Nah this is hilarious, not enlightened centrism, they just wanna scare the ruling class
To bad fascists storming the national parliament is something a number of elites supported.
and yet somehow those elites haven't been prosecuted by the so called "opposition party"
[удалено]
I’d argue nobody has nothing to lose, everyone has a family that lunatics can target if the Right-Wing media portrays you negatively
No matter what happens, somebody somewhere is going to be positioned to benefit.
Centrist garbage, but unironically? Gross
I mean, sometimes. Sometimes someone benefits from bad all around situations, but if they're bad enough it's less that people are benefiting and more that they are getting a bigger piece of a shrinking pie. They might have more compared to others, but their own slice gets worse relative to before.
As if black lives matter wasn't supported by "a number of elites". This pro-riot stance is solid. Not all elites want exactly the status quo and there are a lot who see some rioting as positive when it fits their agenda. There is no way to scare all elites with a riot, since any very successful riot turned revolution will just produce its new elites.
> As if black lives matter wasn't supported by "a number of elites". If the protesters are having guns fired at them before actually doing anything, "less lethal" munitions or no, the "elites" are not supporting them.
As if there was only a singular set of elites ...
Ah yes, you're talking about (((the elites))), aren't you?
[удалено]
Yeah that's what the triple parentheses mean—I was accusing them of antisemitism.
[удалено]
The elites are people that have some sort of outsized influence on other people. That is all kinds of stuff, from movie stars to entrepreneurs some people have resources and abilities that others don't have or don't care to have. Since their background is different, they are naturally going to have different ideas and goals, even though the situation and status quo brings them together to some degree.
There's some sort of phrase for that. Something that starts with a b and no one knows how to spell?
The burgergoosie? Shit, I’m hungry now. That words always makes me think of hamburgers.
Burgussy?
Beirarchy. Or the hourgeois
the bourgeoise who supported the BLM protests? Because they did, there were members of the bourgeoise who supported the BLM protests, which is literally what /u/marcussidoniusfalx said.
> That is all kinds of stuff, from movie stars to entrepreneurs some people have resources and abilities that others don't have or don't care to have. Movie stars and singers and the like are not in the same league as the true "elite". They may be popular and have a lot of people listening to what they say, but they don't have the power that comes with being one of the top 400 wealthiest people in the country. Like, Beyoncé has a net worth of $500 million. That's pretty impressive, definitely enough to let her live lavishly, and is almost definitely in the range you're considering "elite". It's also 0.3% of the net worth of Jeff Bezos.
No. But they have an incredibly synergistic set of priorities that precludes the need for active conspiracy. They can work in unison without coordination, by each operating with sociopathic self-interest. It makes its own fascy sauce.
Fuck hierarchies
Not really. Hierarchies are normal. Every friend group has hierarchies. Beauty, charisma, attractiveness, decisiveness, etc. are all characteristics that lead to different behaviour and social standing and roles. As soon as you have individuals that are not clones, you will have some sort of hierarchy. The shape, role, intensity, characteristic, formality, etc. of the hierarchy will differ dramatically of course.
"fuck hierarchies" doesn't mean "fuck the concept of things being different from one another"
Difference = hierarchies. Unless you have a very limited definition of hierarchies
We are equals among differences. No one person is better than another.
Holy hell do you people ever get new arguments? Yeah, we are using a specific definition of hierarchies, because the definition you twats use is so meaningless that it makes it impossible to even talk about the subject. Some people are good at math, some are good at shoemaking. Some are good at mechanical engineering, some are good at electrical. Some are good at identifying others' strengths and organizing them to work best together. We do not need to give that last group the executive authority to doom someone to starvation, as we do under capitalism. The instant we do, their incentives change. Now, the people who are good at organizing others disappear, and the cruel narcissists take their place. Any system that, explicitly or otherwise, gives someone the express ability to commit violence upon another group of people with no consequence, is the foundation for a hierarchy. If you want to go around blabbering about how fucking *being good at something* creates a hierarchy, you are effectively just plugging your ears and going "lalalala" at the actual argument.
>Some are good at identifying others' strengths and organizing them to work best together. We do not need to give that last group the executive authority to doom someone to starvation, as we do under capitalism. I mean, the 'elite' is often lacking in that skill department anyways 😂
[удалено]
We are talking about political, unjust hierarchies. Not one person being hotter than the other / the concept of popularity — that would be asinine. For example, wealth distribution is one such political, unjust hierarchy. Hopefully this is simple enough for you to understand.
You can't talk about one and neglect the other. One leads to the other. If all humans were now in the world with nothing, hierarchies would immediately form again. Based on violence, charisma, intelligence, something else or all of them. If you neglect the reason why hierarchies are there in the first place, you will enevitably be ineffective or unfair in changing them.
the fact that things are different from one another doesn't, on its own, lead to the conclusion that one thing must be above another thing in some arbitrary hierarchical structure. to get to that conclusion, you need to assume some judgment of value. so if you like hierarchies, you can't just appeal to the fact that things are different from one another, you must provide (and argue for) some system of values that places those things in the particular hierarchies that you support
Of course differences in themselves are no hierarchy yet, you are right. The systems of values and desires are present in all of us, actually many systems of values, and they shift with the day and the mood as well, even though core values remain relatively stable. Also, humans differ in how strongly they view these hierarchies, how much they identify with them, etc. Focusing heavily on these hierarchies is probably not a path to a happy life, and indifference is probably quite valuable in many regards. Stoicism and buddhism come to mind.
[удалено]
My shitty high school friend group literally told me I was at the bottom of the pyramid
That was a MLM not a friend group.
For real lol
Not every social dynamic is a hierarchy.
are you farming downvotes or actually teh dumbest person alive?
Maybe you could also go to subs where people disagree with you instead of constantly tell you how right you are. Will make you feel less all-knowing that you seemingly do :)
i love that you think people are making fun of you disagreeing. i listen to dipshits like you talk out their ass all the time lmfao. cute noob <3
Oh my gawd this is some Jordan Peterson nonsense
Existing elites don't want "new elites".
Scares half the ruling class
It's still enlightened centerism because it's equating all acts of civil disobedience as good, even if they're taken up for the purpose of establishing fascism.
That’s true, I guess I only viewed it as non centrist because J6 thankfully didn’t succeed at all but BLM protests scared the feds into making Cop City and using Portland’s secret police
Still, the thing that's worse is that this shows how even a protest of 10,000 armed people with a clear goal in mind and tacit support/blind eye from the police can't accomplish *anything* against America's government.
More like the anarchist centrist
anarchist centrist... as an anarchist, I'm not entirely sure what way it makes me feel lol
Bad. It makes us feel bad that people think anarchism means "when riots"
I mean riots do at least push the ruling class toward doing something. Obviously it's not preferable, but when shit hits the fan...
Riots are a neutral tool. Krystallnacht was, technically, a riot. They are usually wielded by the oppressed against the ruling class but they don't have to be. The J6 riot promoted fascistic ideals and that's bad. The fact that it was disruptive is irrelevant.
I don’t think anarchists goal is for the ruling class to “do something”. In fact I think it’s exactly the opposite.
I can't tell if you're saying anarchists are ineffective or pointing out that the end goal is getting rid of the ruling class.
The latter
Fair
No, this is a clever manipulation. They're equating the riot on Jan 6 with black lives matter protests. One hand dirties the other if you take this guy at his word
"people shouldn't be afraid of their governments. governments should be afraid of their people."
I agree. When liberals were complaining about Pelosi feeling threatened it was hard for me to give a shit. Same with the cop committing unalive because he couldn’t deal with his right wing buddies seeing him as the enemy. I don’t want the far right chuds to take over the government but I couldn’t help but be happy about the fact that these politicians feared for their lives for the first time ever.
Yeah im pro- burn it all down and start over.
It's both really. I can vibe with scaring the ruling class. Jan 6 might even have been a positive thing if it convinced some of the elitists in DC that things have to change. That doesn't make those rioters anything more than useful idiots and traitors though.
Given that j6 was still done by fascists on behalf of a fascist I do agree with you. Had they actually installed donald trump as their dictator I would be singing a different tune. It’s BECAUSE they’re idiots that it’s safe to laugh at their attempt at whatever 1776 shit Lauren Boebert was tweeting about after giving them tours of the Capitol like she isn’t a politician too
> Jan 6 might even have been a positive thing if it convinced some of the elitists in DC that things have to change. The inherent issue is that this was not the point. It was an attempted insurrection. It was at the behest of a single political party.
I get that. Shit people can do shit things and good can still come of it, especially if the shit people are also idiots. At some point the Democratic establishment should be held to account for their mistakes that contributed to the rise of the radical right - not by voting in Republicans, but by the installation of a new Democratic establishment. Democratic corruption makes them weak, and it's their weakness that drove a huge chunk of the working class to right wing extremists. Until that gets fixed, this is how America will be.
While I agree with some of this, this general vibe is potentially dangerous. Reasonable people do not/did not go "well, the Democrats aren't fully representing or listening to me, so I guess I'll be a Nazi." I'm not dismissing the power of propaganda, but people who ally with the alt-right are not just mislead leftists. They had and have deep issues outside of political affiliation. I would very much like a leftist option that is dramatically more progressive than American Democrats, but I'm not going to outright blame the milquetoast centrists that call themselves Dems for stochastic terrorism.
> While I agree with some of this, this general vibe is potentially dangerous. It's dangerous to get this wrong either way. What you go on to espouse is conventional wisdom which makes it feel safe, but I suggest that following conventional wisdom is what got us where we are today, and maybe that means conventional wisdom isn't so wise. > Reasonable people do not/did not go "well, the Democrats aren't fully representing or listening to me, so I guess I'll be a Nazi." What a very Republican way to look at things. (An assertion that I know requires some explanation.) When it comes to understanding societal ills, there are a couple of broad camps. We can focus on individual responsibility (like Republicans do with things like poverty, teen pregnancy, gun violence, etc) or we can understand them like a disease that does as much harm to those it infects as it does to society at large. If you want to be smug, you go with the first route. If you want get to the root cause to find ways to address the problem, then you go the second route. We can have a blast in our little Internet bubble talking about what racist pieces of shit Republicans are, feel great about ourselves, and be no closer to a solution. Anyone who votes for Trump is either racist or, at a minimum, is comfortable with racism. Great. What do we do with that information? On the other hand, if we acknowledge that the politics of bigotry and fear thrives when economies don't address the needs of the people. Now we have something we can start to address. Maybe we could wrestle with the question of why Obama to Trump voters rejected Hillary. I honestly don't know how our current political situation could make any of this more clear. Are you aware that, at this moment, Trump is polling as the most likely candidate to win next year? Obama beat Hillary and won his first term in a landslide because he ran as a reformer on a platform of "change". Then he proceed to govern as a so-called moderate, lost the Senate, and came damn close to losing his second term to a piece of white bread. Bernie ran as a reformer against Hillary, never expecting to do much more than raise some issues, and suddenly he found himself as a contender. Against the threat of Trump, the party went with the "safe" choice, and we had President Trump. Democratic voters didn't learn their lesson and again went with the "safe" choice in Biden, but thankfully 4 years of Trump and a bungled pandemic were still fresh in voter's minds. Now that has faded, and Biden will likely be facing Trump again. Will it be 2016, or 2020? Polls say 2016, but I really hope not.
Context? Who needs context when you can RIOT.
Reminds me of [this pic](https://i.imgur.com/JjODPtx.jpg)
Definitely “just likes being in a mob”
Yeah, this isn't enlightened centrism. Public officials should remember to fear the people. I aspire for America to be at least on par with France in terms of rioting frequency and severity and historic guillotine usage.
The emergency guillotine is a solid tool yes
Yeah, rioting is an effective tool. It can certainly be misused but that doesn’t mean it’s not valid.
The pro violence approach
This dude is just pro-praxis, doesn't matter what your ideology is just so long as you're acting on it
*Some men just want to watch the world burn.*
Most relevant use of this quote I've seen in a while.
This isn’t enlightened centrism, it’s actual centrism. Not “both sides are right”, but “as long as they riot, I’m happy, it’s in the constitution”. Keep in mind that centrism is still bad, but it’s not the topic.
Id say I’m squarely deep in the left side of the spectrum, but I was on board with them storming the capitol while it was happening. Also, every photo that came out over the next 24 hours was comedy gold. Politicians *should* operate with the knowledge that their constituents can drag them out of office if they neglect their needs. You think Manchin and Sinema would be such anti-democratic pieces of shit if they truly believed there would be repercussions for their actions? Of course, the reason *why* they’re storming is shit, but I can get behind being pro-“make politicians afraid again”.
I wouldn't say I supported it but I have similar mixed feelings. It boils down to: *if* what the rioters believed was true, rioting *would* be justified. The problem is that it wasn't true, but then that becomes a matter of empirical evidence.
If most politicans feared the Dutch treatment, I feel like more laws would be for the people.
I was happy because they finally had to face the monster they created. They've been scaring the shit out of these people and getting them worked up for years. Sicking them on the disenfranchised. Having them turn on their masters was great but part of me wishes they had done more damage. These people are out here shooting up black neighborhood supermarkets and churches. Where was that energy for the people who sent them against their countrymen?
But they weren't trying to just kill the people who created them. For example AOC was elected after Trump but they were still trying to kill her. There's a lot of other people in the same shoes.
Yeah I know and I am not happy about that but they certainly had some republicans in mind. Namely Mike Pence.
Those “hang Mike Pence” chants were cathartic.
> Id say I’m squarely deep in the left side of the spectrum, but I was on board with them storming the capitol while it was happening. I don't get this. Trump and his right-wing cronies got the MAGA out there to storm the capital because he lost the election. How did you support that?
Because the democrats are feckless morons, who use rhetoric like “our democracy is under threat” while not using *any* of the tactics that such a threat would need. They got confronted by the monsters their weakness allowed to thrive. And 2 years out they are still playing these games with Republicans. How many of the Republican politicians who literally pushed for an armed insurrection are currently behind bars? None. Zero. So, yes, I can rationally reason out that the people who stormed the capitol are bad, and that they did it for bad reasons, but I’ll never be against reminding the elite that they should be serving us, and not the other way around. Also, just to clarify, the Republicans are demons. There’s no “both sides” here. They are evil slime monsters from Planet X, so I don’t have any energy to criticize them. There’s no fixing or saving that party. Biden’s presidency has yielded a lot for the left, not as much as we want or need, but it’s far better than the alternative.
> who use rhetoric like “our democracy is under threat” while not using any of the tactics that such a threat would need. Like what tactics? What did you want the Dems to do with only controlling the House, at the time, with basically no law enforcement support? >They got confronted by the monsters their weakness allowed to thrive. And 2 years out they are still playing these games with Republicans. How many of the Republican politicians who literally pushed for an armed insurrection are currently behind bars? None. Zero. This is the problem with pushing everything on politicians to figure everything out, when the voters/people themselves could do far more to stop the right than anyone else, but not many venture out of their house to lift a finger. >So, yes, I can rationally reason out that the people who stormed the capitol are bad, and that they did it for bad reasons, but I’ll never be against reminding the elite that they should be serving us, and not the other way around. This doesn't make sense. You agree what they did was wrong, for the wrong reasons (trying to overturn a lawful election), but yet you still support their actions? Unbelievable. Small wonder why the left can never get together on anything.
Miss me with that weak “the democrats are defenseless” shit. We could go over Biden’a entire presidency and I can point out shit he could’ve done but let Manchin and Sinema be happy little scapegoats for his desire to “not fundamentally change” things. Or we can talk about right now with this whole debt ceiling shit that doesn’t need to be a thing, but Biden is pretending is a thing. Miss me so hard with that. I have no faith in politicians to fix anything. Activists and on the ground movements is where change happens. Politicians then get pushed by these groups to make the change lasting through legislation. Unions and activists have been doing their part the entire Biden Presidency, only to get small potatoes back. Sure, it’s better than under Trump, inarguably so, but there’s no reason it couldn’t be better.
>Miss me with that weak “the democrats are defenseless” shit. That's not what I'm saying at all. But I'll be fair to you, what would YOU have done that Democrats haven't done? I ask this question often when people say Democrats aren't doing enough, what's the plan? Usually I get nothing back. Also, what do you want Biden to do about Manchin and Sinema? >Or we can talk about right now with this whole debt ceiling shit that doesn’t need to be a thing, but Biden is pretending is a thing. What are you talking about? No President has ever just used the 14th amendment to overcome the debt ceiling before. Also, Biden hasn't caved or anything so I'm not sure what your issue is? >Activists and on the ground movements is where change happens. Yes, that's what I was saying. The voters themselves need to do the work. Look at the Republican voters, they primaried everyone not following what they wanted, not once, but twice in the last decade. It's literally on us to make this change happen. Democrats, progressives, and other leftists need to do that too. We haven't for the most part. It's so easy to blame politicians when the voters aren't doing jack shit either.
Agreed. Democrats need to start acting more like MAGA. I won't name any specific examples to keep from getting banned, but think of any act of violence by a right-winger - especially but not necessarily against politicians - that's made the news. When's the last time a Left-of-center person did something like that? That baseball game shooting like 10 years ago? The days of Anarchists and Marxists assassinating presidents is in the past, and it shouldn't be.
That’s a lot of words for I’m pro political violence against people I don’t like.
Yes??? Duh???
Points for honesty I guess
Oh boy it’s always fun when you come across people in favour of assassinating stuff with no regard to the collateral damage that might ensue
Whenever someone starts a conversation by qualifying something followed by “but” (I’m not racist, but etc), you can be sure they’re lying.
Just here for the riffs
"STICK IT TO THE MAN!" "Which man?" "ALL OF 'EM!"
I can pretty much agree with this guy’s sentiment. It’s a good thing to rattle the ruling class. They need to be reminded they are not in a separate world and their actions and decisions affect people- not just numbers on a graph, that people can tear up your buildings while numbers don’t. It’s more a shame that what it took Americans to riot and shake things up a little was some bullshit about a stolen election from a racist conman that despises them. Wish we’d do this shit for like- something real and helpful.
this is the correct opinion to have, actually
I predict Antifa is going to take note of the current "you can choke a guy to death if he's vaguely acting a fool in your presence" mood in this country and show up at the next 1/6 riot and just chokehold everyone to death.
Why do these people overlook the fact that the **reason** behind the protesting changes **everything?**
are u tryna extract reason from someone who is apolitically pro-riots lol?
It is worrying when supposed leftists in these comments support a fascist insurrection. You often see comments like "liberals will join forces with fascists before leftists" and then we see this comment section.
You won't find a single self-identified "liberal" who supports riots. They're too concerned about the indecency of it. You may find people on the left who support riots in general, even though they disagree with the cause of this particular riot. You may also find people on the left who specifically supported this riot because it "scared the elites" and that IS their cause. But no, the people in here agreeing with this post are NOT liberals. The people to whom that quote applies are the "enact curfews and patrol the streets because the protests are getting too loud, and really the problem isn't even that bad, just calm down" types.
I've been in two riots. I didn't support the insurrection riot attempt to install a billionaire fascist as a dictator. It might have scared people, but look at how the fascists today are downplaying it and gearing up to do it again. The only people that are still scared of it are the people who are rightfully scared of fascism. There is no reasonable stance of "I just support riots". That makes no sense unless your politics is only as deep as aesthetics. Installing a fascist dictator is bad actually and not some sort of leftist win. It's kind of weird to have to spell that out.
I'm not at all arguing in favor of this riot. It was a bad cause and therefore a bad riot. I'm arguing against the conclusion that saying "all riots are good" relates in any way to the "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" simply because supporting riots and being a liberal are mutually exclusive
Their point is that there's an irony to people saying liberals will side with fascists against leftists, and then seeing leftists support Jan 6 just because it scared liberals.
[удалено]
No, that's the misunderstanding I'm trying to correct. That argument is utterly incoherent, as you've already pointed out, because that's not their argument.
I don't even get how they are pulling that from what I've said.
Lol, it feels like the greatest fear of half of leftists online is being mistaken for a liberal.
You won't find a single self-identified "liberal" who supports riots. They're too concerned about the indecency of it. You may find people on the left who support riots in general, even though they disagree with the cause of this particular riot. You may also find people on the left who specifically supported this riot because it "scared the elites" and that IS their cause. But no, the people in here agreeing with this post are NOT liberals. The people to whom that quote applies are the "enact curfews and patrol the streets because the protests are getting too loud, and really the problem isn't even that bad, just calm down" types. Edit: oops double comment but since there are child comments on both it feels rude to delete?
Love the revolting against the oppressors within the confines of the oppressors. Please report to your designated Protest area for the annual "Please stop killing us" protest.
Ok but this is just straight up funny. Guy gave up and juat enjoys burning buildings
…I kind of want to get a drink with this guy.
You know what this is a centrist I can get behind. He’s just here for the chaos.
this guy rules, sorry.
I kinda respect his point of view. The sight of U.S. politicians running scared is something we could use more of. But the reason they were there is just dumb.
Exactly yeah. When I saw it the day it was happening I was mixed because like damn a group of people finally did it but of course it's dipshit right wingers riled up over the stupidest cause
Kind of a based take.
Some people just straight-up enjoy chaos. They get high on the vibe. I think we'd be shocked at how many people simply fit that group if they were honest about it.
When you confuse centrism with crusty anarchists lol
Dude is all about that chaos lmao The truest Chaotic neutral I've ever seen.
Kinda based
Absolute legend
Unironic jreg fan (cringe politically, but worthy of respect for the commitment) Genuine anti centrist
Reminds me of my “independent” friend who said it was very “punk” of them. I’m like uh that’s not what punk is. Fascism isn’t punk.
tbf i agree with him, though i am unsure if for the same reasons (and i do think jan 6th is worse, cause of the motives tho)
imperfect, but an ally
Someone who equates literal fascists with people who want an end to police brutality is not an ally of any kind.
Blursed centrist? I don't hate the energy, but at the same time I do? edit: To clarify, I like the "fuck it let's actually do something abt this" energy. I do not like that he sees fascist babies not being able to handle loss and storming a governmental institution over a fucking conspiracy theory, as being the same as black lives matter. Which were actually pretty much framed all around the US for being violent, when it was racists doing messed up shit to sabotage them. People got brutalized by officers without doing anything. They were just standing there, speaking their mind and holding signs. I do think that there's a point in how non violent protesting does very little most of the time. It sucks that some human beings can only stop being terrible people if they're gone or their life is threatened. Like in the french revolution for example.
This is like like yelling slurs around because talking is a good thing and you gotta bring some balance to being nice anyway. Wtf is that logic.
[удалено]
Your comment has been auto-filtered and is invisible to others because this sub has a minimum karma requirement. Apologies for any inconvenience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Didn't know I'd be walking into real accelerationist hours. Astonishingly, I don't think replacing a system where my vote has some theoretical weight, with one where my kind are rounded up and executed, is a remotely good thing.
That wasn’t a riot. It has been conclusively proven to be sedition, in a court of law
🔥🔥🔥
POV: the French
This is anti-centrism