It’s centrist nonsense, if someone says a waterfall flows downstream and someone else says the waterfall flows upstream, that doesn’t mean the waterfall is stagnant, or that the person who said it flows upstream has a good point.
The left and right aren’t arbitrary collections of disorganized and incoherent positions you can combine ad-hoc.
Looks like overanalysis to me. Not sure the massive metaphor was necessary to attack ‘them centrists’.
That being said - the notion that centrism is a compromise is only something I’ve seen from people who are not partaking in said centrism. Not that I give a shit or anything.
Why is it “overanalysis?” It’s a common problem, people who grow up privledged and don’t consider themselves to be very “political” tend to think politics is about listening to everyone and compromising. It isn’t limited to Mr. Beast.
As for the metaphor, it was, like, 2 sentences. I don’t think that’s “massive,” and it seemed to get the poijnt through.
As for Centrism, why is Centrism good? Why are Centrists Centrists?
Why are you calling people who want to do what’s good for the nation, centrists?
You’re smearing them since they are wanting to do something different than what you want, that doesn’t automatically make them bad.
This is the state of US politics… can’t even have someone poke their head in without being insulted since they aren’t fully in the left or right. Two party democracy doesn’t work, and you’re perpetuating and making it harder for your country to try and accept this needed change.
Don’t just insult and call people names who don’t agree with you politically, that just makes you an ass.
They are smearing “centrists” and the “right” in every comment dude…
And no, they just have an axe to grind for anyone who doesn’t align politically with them.
In a functioning democracy a “centrist” would have the good ideas of both the progressives and conservatives. So there isn’t anything about denying probable facts, and the rant they’re going on about 2+2=6 is a strawman fallacy to derail the conversation. Since that’s the uniquely US issue…
Why are you calling people who want to do what’s good for the nation, centrists?
People who want to do good for the nation are Leftists, not centrists.
You’re smearing them since they are wanting to do something different than what you want, that doesn’t automatically make them bad.
I’m smearing people who think politics is about taking midpoints from incompatible solutions.
This is the state of US politics… can’t even have someone poke their head in without being insulted since they aren’t fully in the left or right. Two party democracy doesn’t work, and you’re perpetuating and making it harder for your country to try and accept this needed change.
This is not a US issue.
Don’t just insult and call people names who don’t agree with you politically, that just makes you an ass.
When have I insulted anyone or called them names? Centrist nonsense is nonsense, correct, but I haven’t personally insulted anyone here, unlike you.
In a functioning political system both the “left” and “right” are competent and have good ideas.
Who said midpoints from incompatible solutions? Thats unique US issue as we’ve already discussed and pointed out, in other countries and political systems, that’s what you would want, since they are combing good ideas, not 2+2=6 as you’re claiming. Yes that’s apparently what happens in US political, not in healthy democracies.
Uh… yes it is, that’s why I would like for you to point to any other countries with these two party democracy issues.
You seriously can’t see how calling people “left”, “right”, or “centrist” is insulting them? Is that how ingrained and indoctrinated this stuff is in US politics?
It’s progressives and conservatives, the fact that you don’t even comprehend you’re refering to sides while using these insults and slurs to refer to political parties is quite frankly wild. You’re calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you politically names, I never mentioned in here dude lmfao, that makes you an ass. But yeah that shows your intent with this discussion, I’m gonna block you now instead.
Your comment makes it seem like there can only be two sides, that’s the entire issue with the US democracy from an outsider, where’s the other parties? Why only two, and why are you defending that there should be only two on divided lines?
And neither are they, so what’s your point? They’re just saying that both sides have good points, and they’re the “party” that will get what the nation wants done. Is trying to do what the nation wants as whole centrist to you? Or are trying to smear someone who doesn’t align fully with you? That’s the issue that they are also trying to bring to light, you are saying there is sides, there shouldn’t be… since to be centrist requires sides… or parties… you’ve no contradicted yourself in your explanation.
What’s centrist about that? I think you’re just reading way too far into this or trying to make it into something it’s not. Both sides have points, both are wrong, and you’re trying to decry someone saying this. That’s frankly wrong dude.
There shouldn’t be sides, and that makes centralism impossible, it’s only possible with the two party system.
I seriously wish this were the case. As someone who genuinely finds policy and political theory fascinating I wish I could have actual good faith policy discussions with people who don’t mostly agree with me, but the unfortunate fact is the Republican party doesn’t have any clear policy other than “whatever is good for the party members individually” or more currently “whatever Trump wants this week” (seriously, what isn’t listed at all on the shiny new Republican Party Platform speaks volumes to how the party doesn’t have any coherent political ideology to even pay lip service to)
They’re just saying that both sides have good points
Which is wrong. What “good points” do right-wingers legitimately have?
Is trying to do what the nation wants as whole centrist to you?
Saying “both sides have good points” places a mystical property on whatever is in the middle, as though the middle is inherently correct.
You’re batting a bit too hard for someone that thinks correct answers come from finding the midpoint. If someone says 2+2=4, and someone else says 2+2=6, the answer is still 4, not 5.
You are comparing basic addition with extremely complex social economics. You can’t just do A and guarantee B will happen. But if B actually happens it can be good for one group of people and bad for another one. Often the best solution is some kind of compromise. That said there surely can be some obviously bad ideas.
The Right are denying scientific consensus on anything that doesn’t make them money or own the libs.
Forget the “social economics” which is also bunk, because the majority of Americans want lower healthcare costs, gun control, freedom of choice, better economic equality, and better education.
These are all things the right (and written down in Project 2025 btw).
If Mr. Beast knew anything, he’d claim to work with the popular majority, but he’s been trained by social media that controversy equals popularity. Basically it’s an algorithmic version of “no such thing as bad press”. So he won’t do the best thing for the world, he’ll do whatever he thinks will be a net gain in popularity. Which is why he said what he said, so he doesn’t lose and right wing viewers of his clickbate.
Which is wrong. What “good points” do right-wingers legitimately have?
This is why US politics are wild….
Saying “both sides have good points” places a mystical property on whatever is in the middle, as though the middle is inherently correct.
And you’re saying only the left is right in both of your statements, obviously you aren’t impartial and have a bias, as pointed out in my previous comment
You’re batting a bit too hard for someone that thinks correct answers come from finding the midpoint. If someone says 2+2=4, and someone else says 2+2=6, the answer is still 4, not 5.
That is some fallacious strawmanning right there, you’re saying only one side can be right, that’s not someone who is willing to have a discussion, you’re obviously just throwing shit at anything you don’t agree with.
Which is the entire point of his joke running, it’s hilarious that you can’t see this, but not surprising since you think there’s only one party. This is American politics people.
This isn’t unique to the US. The US did not invent the concept of a midpoint.
And you’re saying only the left is right in both of your statements, obviously you aren’t impartial and have a bias, as pointed out in my previous comment
I never said I wasn’t biased. Of course I am biased, I am biased because I have a coherent worldview and set of values that aligns to the left.
That is some fallacious strawmanning right there, you’re saying only one side can be right, that’s not someone who is willing to have a discussion, you’re obviously just throwing shit at anything you don’t agree with.
Generally, yes, there is a correct side.
Which is the entire point of his joke running, it’s hilarious that you can’t see this, but not surprising since you think there’s only one party. This is American politics people.
Not sure where you got the idea that I think there’s only one party, but keep cooking, it’s funny lol
This isn’t unique to the US. The US did not invent the concept of a midpoint.
What other countries have a two party democracy? And what other countries smear the other parties to the degree of US politics?
I get you have an axe to grind, but I said I was an outsider, how am I supposed to know one side is right and one side is wrong? If one is right and one is wrong, that really only makes one party now doesn’t it? You seem to want to point out math to others, but have an issue understanding it yourself.
What’s wrong with that?
It’s centrist nonsense, if someone says a waterfall flows downstream and someone else says the waterfall flows upstream, that doesn’t mean the waterfall is stagnant, or that the person who said it flows upstream has a good point.
The left and right aren’t arbitrary collections of disorganized and incoherent positions you can combine ad-hoc.
You might be too optimistic about the coherence of either side
Removed by mod
I do regularly, what’s up?
Looks like overanalysis to me. Not sure the massive metaphor was necessary to attack ‘them centrists’.
That being said - the notion that centrism is a compromise is only something I’ve seen from people who are not partaking in said centrism. Not that I give a shit or anything.
Why is it “overanalysis?” It’s a common problem, people who grow up privledged and don’t consider themselves to be very “political” tend to think politics is about listening to everyone and compromising. It isn’t limited to Mr. Beast.
As for the metaphor, it was, like, 2 sentences. I don’t think that’s “massive,” and it seemed to get the poijnt through.
As for Centrism, why is Centrism good? Why are Centrists Centrists?
Why are you calling people who want to do what’s good for the nation, centrists?
You’re smearing them since they are wanting to do something different than what you want, that doesn’t automatically make them bad.
This is the state of US politics… can’t even have someone poke their head in without being insulted since they aren’t fully in the left or right. Two party democracy doesn’t work, and you’re perpetuating and making it harder for your country to try and accept this needed change.
Don’t just insult and call people names who don’t agree with you politically, that just makes you an ass.
They didn’t say centrists bad, they said arguing for compromise with bad actors (those that deny provable facts) is bad.
They are smearing “centrists” and the “right” in every comment dude…
And no, they just have an axe to grind for anyone who doesn’t align politically with them.
In a functioning democracy a “centrist” would have the good ideas of both the progressives and conservatives. So there isn’t anything about denying probable facts, and the rant they’re going on about 2+2=6 is a strawman fallacy to derail the conversation. Since that’s the uniquely US issue…
People who want to do good for the nation are Leftists, not centrists.
I’m smearing people who think politics is about taking midpoints from incompatible solutions.
This is not a US issue.
When have I insulted anyone or called them names? Centrist nonsense is nonsense, correct, but I haven’t personally insulted anyone here, unlike you.
In a functioning political system both the “left” and “right” are competent and have good ideas.
Who said midpoints from incompatible solutions? Thats unique US issue as we’ve already discussed and pointed out, in other countries and political systems, that’s what you would want, since they are combing good ideas, not 2+2=6 as you’re claiming. Yes that’s apparently what happens in US political, not in healthy democracies.
Uh… yes it is, that’s why I would like for you to point to any other countries with these two party democracy issues.
You seriously can’t see how calling people “left”, “right”, or “centrist” is insulting them? Is that how ingrained and indoctrinated this stuff is in US politics?
It’s progressives and conservatives, the fact that you don’t even comprehend you’re refering to sides while using these insults and slurs to refer to political parties is quite frankly wild. You’re calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you politically names, I never mentioned in here dude lmfao, that makes you an ass. But yeah that shows your intent with this discussion, I’m gonna block you now instead.
I think they were just saying that you aren’t a centrist if you support any part of Jan 6th… Like, of course you aren’t.
Definitionally…
Yeah, I think you’ve been whiffing too much of the city air. All those exhaust fumes did a number on you.
Your comment makes it seem like there can only be two sides, that’s the entire issue with the US democracy from an outsider, where’s the other parties? Why only two, and why are you defending that there should be only two on divided lines?
I’m not talking about parties.
And neither are they, so what’s your point? They’re just saying that both sides have good points, and they’re the “party” that will get what the nation wants done. Is trying to do what the nation wants as whole centrist to you? Or are trying to smear someone who doesn’t align fully with you? That’s the issue that they are also trying to bring to light, you are saying there is sides, there shouldn’t be… since to be centrist requires sides… or parties… you’ve no contradicted yourself in your explanation.
What’s centrist about that? I think you’re just reading way too far into this or trying to make it into something it’s not. Both sides have points, both are wrong, and you’re trying to decry someone saying this. That’s frankly wrong dude.
There shouldn’t be sides, and that makes centralism impossible, it’s only possible with the two party system.
I seriously wish this were the case. As someone who genuinely finds policy and political theory fascinating I wish I could have actual good faith policy discussions with people who don’t mostly agree with me, but the unfortunate fact is the Republican party doesn’t have any clear policy other than “whatever is good for the party members individually” or more currently “whatever Trump wants this week” (seriously, what isn’t listed at all on the shiny new Republican Party Platform speaks volumes to how the party doesn’t have any coherent political ideology to even pay lip service to)
Which is wrong. What “good points” do right-wingers legitimately have?
Saying “both sides have good points” places a mystical property on whatever is in the middle, as though the middle is inherently correct.
You’re batting a bit too hard for someone that thinks correct answers come from finding the midpoint. If someone says 2+2=4, and someone else says 2+2=6, the answer is still 4, not 5.
You are comparing basic addition with extremely complex social economics. You can’t just do A and guarantee B will happen. But if B actually happens it can be good for one group of people and bad for another one. Often the best solution is some kind of compromise. That said there surely can be some obviously bad ideas.
Which is why you can be correct. “Trickle Down Economics” was never even sound in theory, and proved itself wrong in practice even more, for example.
The Right are denying scientific consensus on anything that doesn’t make them money or own the libs.
Forget the “social economics” which is also bunk, because the majority of Americans want lower healthcare costs, gun control, freedom of choice, better economic equality, and better education.
These are all things the right (and written down in Project 2025 btw).
If Mr. Beast knew anything, he’d claim to work with the popular majority, but he’s been trained by social media that controversy equals popularity. Basically it’s an algorithmic version of “no such thing as bad press”. So he won’t do the best thing for the world, he’ll do whatever he thinks will be a net gain in popularity. Which is why he said what he said, so he doesn’t lose and right wing viewers of his clickbate.
Sorry should habe clarified, I know shit about US politics. I’m from Europe.
This is why US politics are wild….
And you’re saying only the left is right in both of your statements, obviously you aren’t impartial and have a bias, as pointed out in my previous comment
That is some fallacious strawmanning right there, you’re saying only one side can be right, that’s not someone who is willing to have a discussion, you’re obviously just throwing shit at anything you don’t agree with.
Which is the entire point of his joke running, it’s hilarious that you can’t see this, but not surprising since you think there’s only one party. This is American politics people.
This isn’t unique to the US. The US did not invent the concept of a midpoint.
I never said I wasn’t biased. Of course I am biased, I am biased because I have a coherent worldview and set of values that aligns to the left.
Generally, yes, there is a correct side.
Not sure where you got the idea that I think there’s only one party, but keep cooking, it’s funny lol
deleted by creator
What other countries have a two party democracy? And what other countries smear the other parties to the degree of US politics?
I get you have an axe to grind, but I said I was an outsider, how am I supposed to know one side is right and one side is wrong? If one is right and one is wrong, that really only makes one party now doesn’t it? You seem to want to point out math to others, but have an issue understanding it yourself.
He’ll take people that believe in science and human rights, AND entitled bigot fascists! What’s wrong with that?