20
submitted 1 day ago by Bidah@thelemmy.club to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 day ago

I don't believe the words 'good' or 'bad' are useful to describe people. We can, and should, aim to be more specific.

As Cowbee pointed out already, 'centrism' is a vague concept, especially since this site isn't just people from the USA. Does it mean people who are apathetic about left-right politics? People who intentionally position themselves in the middle? People resistant to changing this terrible tragedy?

Even in my country, and my country is progressive compared to the USA, both the center-right and center-left parties (I'm using Wikipedia's evaluation here because I object to the left-right political scale) are funneling wealth up to the rich, destroying our environment, compounding housing issues, supporting an ongoing genocide and scapegoating immigrants. Seeing either of these parties as acceptable is a serious issue, and is complicity in the crises these issues create.

That doesn't mean I absolutely judge these people as 'bad', perhaps ignorant or misled but not bad, there are many sincere and caring ways through life that lead people to these harmful positions, but it's a seriously harmful political position which we, as a society, are obligated to shift. And yes, apathy is a political position too, there is no 'apolitical': the status quo is just the ideology of the ruling class.

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'll add to this that a common rationale for centrism is that significantly changing course is dangerous. However, this is obviously relative, with an implication that the status quo is not as dangerous. Lots of unnecessary everyday death and suffering is normalized, often ignored by a centrist, but any death and suffering caused in the process of fixing these problems is counted!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder


The Two Terrors - an extract from Mark Twain

There were two "Reigns of Terror," if we would but remember it and consider it;

the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood;

the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years;

the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions;

but our shudders are all for the "horrors" of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak;

whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break?

What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake?

A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over;

but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror--that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

Mark Twain, 1889. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. Ch. XIII.

this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
20 points (77.8% liked)

Asklemmy

52896 readers
497 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS