This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine π΅πΈ . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
Holding views that are fatal to modern society while enjoying its benefitsβ¦ So hot right now! Maybe theyβll keep the dead half-husk of democracy that has all their stuff!
The right: "Genocide trans people!"
The left: "no"
Centrists: "these are both radical positions"
This isn't a centrist... It's a conservative.
congratulations you figured it out
centrists are just conservatives who don't have the balls to be open about it
Welcome to the joke bro
They political spectrum has moved so far right in the states that a true centrist position would be considered socialist.
Or just a lame ass contrarian
I used to consider myself a centrist. But in my not-all-too-extensive lifetime, I've seen some of my views go from being considered centrist to being considered leftist to being considered radical leftist without changing. At some point, I just decided to say fuck it, you want to label me a leftist nutjob, I'll roll with it.
Center is relative. And in the US, there's been a documented and deliberate effort from conservatives to push the country's political ideology further and further to the right for the past a little over fifty years, it started right after Nixon lost to Kennedy but really kicked into high gear during Nixon's first successful presidential campaign. So being a centrist used to be a reasonable position to hold. But it shifted. It moved. It was moved to the point where being a centrist means holding the expert and the kook in equal regard. If you really want to be a centrist between ideologies, between pure socialism and pure capitalism, between authoritarian and libertarian, between all the different political, social, economic and other ideologies, we don't have that. We're so far conservative economically, politically, and in most other ways that our "left-wing" party is right-of-center.
Why was Roosevelt's Workers Bill of Rights too radical and reasonable to oppose? I'll even go further, what was "so far left", that it was ever reasonable to oppose it and be a centrist?
to wit: an "economic bill of rights" to guarantee these specific rights:
Employment (right to work[notes 1])
An adequate income for food, shelter, and recreation
Farmers' rights to a fair income
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Decent housing
Adequate medical care
Social security
EducationSaying that you are a centrist is the "Not like other girls" of politics.
In my opinion, it's more like the "Nice Guy" of politics.
This couldn't be more apt.
"If you're not with us, you're against us."
That's a Republican talking point!
Responsible limits on campaign contributions are not remotely at odds with thinking money can be used on speech.
Writing a book is undeniably free speech. So why would it not be free speech if you pay out of pocket and self-publish? What if a group of people get together and pay to publish it as a collective?
Or how about Chevron running an ad saying "buy our gas." What if the ad says "buy our gas because global warming isn't real?" What if the ad says "vote for Eric Erickson, a staunch global warming denier?"
All are money, all are free speech, but not all are political speech. We don't need corporations or billionaires throwing unlimited money at political speech.
It's also worth pointing out that corporations aren't citizens, and aren't people - they have no more right to first amendment protections than your pet parrot or Vladimir Putin.
What if a group of people get together and pay to publish it as a collective?
Sounds like a corporation to me. What if the book is political? Now you've got a corporation throwing money at political speech. Can't have that.
The problem with the OP comic like most such comics is that it's demonizing the acknowledgement of nuance and considering arguments to have merit when they do. It can be simultaneously true that campaign finance laws serve a valid purpose for protecting democracy from regulatory capture, and that they risk enabling oppressive violations of free expression. There is nothing wrong with realizing this, people should be thinking things through enough to become conflicted about them.
The middle half duh
expired