Both sides r just as bad maaaaaaaan

Is being a moderate the most blatant form of pseudo intellectualism?

Horseshoe theory is a theory the way gravity is a theory.

Yes. No matter how neutral a person is, when looking at Trump or Clinton it is impossible to not agree with one more than the other.

Even if you only agree with Trump on 4/10 things, that still beats Clinton if you only agree with her on 2/10 things.

It's impossible to be totally neutral during a presidential election, the only people who do it are simply trying to fellate themselves by elevating themselves above the people around them.

No matter how much you hate the two candidates it's your duty to vote as an American.

...

Except if gravity leaves out an entire factor like space, time.

Horseshoe theory only works on a 2d space, with a straight line most of the time.

Political theory is much more complex then just "hur dur, your all da same!"

Both democrats and republicans are cancer. Trump isn't republican, just like Bernie isn't democrat.

It's a fact based upon a preponderance of evidence and ability to make testable predictions which verify its accuracy?

If you can't in any way see how Trump and Sanders represent the interests of similar groups of Americans, you might be retarded

True, but most faggots out there get butthurt when you don't worship their side for being slightly less shitty

>I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

No?
Sane people are moderate, and only occasionally extremist when circumstances dictate it.
People with mental issues and idiots are extremists. Extremism never worked. Extremism destroys itself over time, usually after much suffering.
Life isn't black and white, and extremists usually see things like that, that's why they're usually wrong.

more like these?

For some, it's a form of camouflage.

There's plenty of times I've wanted to scream "ITS THE FUCKING JEWS, YOU NIGGER", but felt that something more conciliatory might be necessary before I foam at the mouth.

"((Sane))" people don't pay attention to politics, and what you're referencing as "sane" is just the current cultural norms of where you live and grew up.

"Radical" political views, in relation to today, are a historical fact. Open a book.

Both sides are bad, but deciding to wade in the middle of a lake of shit rather than choose left or right is definitely the worst option. "Let's see, I take a little of this broken cultural statism over here and mix it with some government gibs!" On the day we toss all the power out of Washington and begin respecting private property rights again, all will be better. Ok, so the road is .04 miles longer 'cause some eighty year old man refuses to sell his land. The world turns on.

>If you aren't with me you are against me

So if we don't become trump bots we are bad?
Fuck you Faggots I am not a your meme machine
Tink for yourself and take your side first.
Don't let them to radicalised you .

If you are going to vote don't tell anyone just vote for YOUR CHOOSEN CANDIDATE afther reading or listening to his plans , dont be a fucking sheep we got to many sheep's .

Hail Alexander Janhas the only leader of the Alt right.

>Being in that blue
Feelsgoodman.jpg

Yeah, it's pretty stupid. These are the same fags who think they've been 'enlightened' by life.

I will disagree on some of this. You basically contradict yourself.

>.."Only occasionally extremist when circumstances dictate it"
>"People with mental issues and idiots are extremists..."
> "Extremism never worked..."
> "That's why they're usually wrong..."

You have to pick a side. You are arguing all sides at once, and contradicting yourself every which way you turn. As is, you claim: Rational people sometimes use it, even though only idiots (And mentally ill) use it, but it never works anyways. Usually, anyways. There are some times where it works.

Pick a stance and bone up. As is, you have no point and just sputter words to seem intelligent.

I don't get why blue is "cuck", it's the least cuck of them all

>I am not-a your meme machine

I didn't know Colombia had Italians.

fuck off dirty sicario

>I don't get why blue is "cuck"
It means you like to call other people "cuck".

...

It's too unclear

green quadrant should be "I have no idea what I'm doing"

red quadrant should be "gibsmedats"

What if the middle offers you the high ground though? Wouldn't you rather be above the shit than waist deep in y by veering off to far to one of the sides?

Best one

Too bad the red corner isn't fun anymore, should be replaced with a brightly colored wig

Come here and fuck me tootpaste.

Also

NICE ARGUMENT.

What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with hearts full of neutrality.

>Accept my false dilemma because I want to you accept MY side of it!

crude

When I think about it, it should be red. the green should stay at weed

>Only having two choices

Kindergarten shit, man.

Isn't Horseshoe Theory the idea that as political ideologies diverge (as in the example given) their actions and ways to achieving those ideologies becomes the same? The way you're representing it is Far Left = Far Right on all ways, when in reality it's Far Left =/= Far Right in stance, but in execution.

Regardless, moderation, compromise and working together is the best way to move forward as a society, because if you can't placate 30-49% of your society they will likely rebel or cause more problems for your society than if you had just placated them in the first place.

I'd say Australia is a prime example of this. We're a top 5 country in terms of livability, economic freedom and a load of other metrics, and we have a balanced mix of stuff like welfare and healthcare with easy small business infrastructure and government incentivization for business.

You are either a neoliberal millennial SJW or you are alt right trump supporter. Which is it user?

The most American thing anyone can do is not vote.

You're one of those faggots that think's anyone gives a shit if you don't vote? You're not making a political statement, you're just seen as an lazy idiot who didn't bother voting.

Your giving twice the vote to the person you wants the least.

Bet you're a kike

This is a great image.

I don't like the political compass, because left libertarian makes no goddamn sense. It seems inherently contradictory.

That's not what the image is implying. It's lampooning people who like to declare that, say, Sup Forums and the SJWs are exactly the same as each other.

In reality horseshoe theory is more like a declaration of "The further away someone is from me politically, the more wrong they are".

Its because you think left libertarian means communism/socialism

I am left libertarian in which I think the government should generally just exist to keep us alive and infrastructure afloat without telling is what to do otherwise as people

The free market is cool but unregulated free market is shit so we need some level of regulation to make sure nestle doesn't buy every body of water available and then sell us lead water for $8 a bottle.

People should still have the right to make their own riches and taxes should be reasonable.

Images like those are the most blatant form of pseudo intellectualism

Wow it's been a long long time sine I've see this image.

>Satire is pseudo-intellectual.

Shitty biased satire, yes
>i made an image about it so it must be gud :)

>satire can't be pseudo-intellectual

None of what you described would fall into the bottom left category. All you've said is that you want a middleground. Some regulation, but not too much, etc. That just makes you a centrist.

And then there's the people that think others are just interpreting the graph wrong, and that the X axis is economic freedom, and the Y axis is social freedom. And this is a false distinction. And these people that claim to be in the lower-left block - the bernie bros that think we should have economic regulation but people should be free to be gay or tranny or whatever else - don't see that their morality of tolerance requires FORCE because you need to force others to be tolerant. The civil rights act is authoritarian in nature because it prevents you from doing what you want with your property. People are forced through government intervention to accept gays and blacks and whoever else. These berniebro types are actually left authoritarian. It's just that the morality they wish to enforce is one of progressive morality and pathologic altruism, rather than traditional western morality.

No. Most sane people (read: most people) are varying degrees of moderate and form their own opinions, which are rarely entirely in sync with their political party of choice.

Some of the responses in this thread make it clear a lot of you don't even know what "moderate" in this context means. There many party-affiliated representatives who are moderate. Moderate is not synonymous with independent or apolitical.

In the real world almost nobody blindly sides with their party on absolutely everything.

>we need some level of regulation to make sure nestle doesn't buy every body of water available and then sell us lead water for $8 a bottle

if this is all you were for then you wouldn't be in green quadrant

there's more than one water source in the world. nobody is going to buy every water source ever any more than any government will. this idea is ridiculous anyway

>The free market is cool but unregulated free market is shit so we need some level of regulation to make sure nestle doesn't buy every body of water available and then sell us lead water for $8 a bottle.
>implying monopolies are immune to the INVISIBLE HAND

pls educate urself

I've taken the political compass test many times and im deep left libertarian all the time

I believe everyone should generally be able to behave how they want but there should be no government mandate to protect any behaviour one way or another.

Weirdos can have portland and williamsburg and be gay and weird there and rednecks can have the south.

I Think it would be pretty cool if we could all give up on hating each other over stupid shit but that isn't gonna happen anytime soon.

My point is with unregulated free market we would just be getting blasted up the ass by robber barons who already own everything and the infrastructure to provide goods.

i mean how do you even think that it's possible for some company to buy every water source in the world
you realise that water is used industrially, right? not just for consumption? so much more water is used for industrial processes than for consumption. these business won't allow such a hostile takeover of their raw resources. it's a vested interest for, say, coke, to keep water sources as fresh as possible so that their brands (including their brands of bottled water that are currently provided) are as high quality as possible

You are clearly invested in the idea that free market economics can do no wrong and that multinational corporations would never try to screw its customers over and there is no point trying to convince you otherwise.

Companies that campaign to remove water as a human right without a doubt have our best interest in mind when they sell us Michigan tap water

>no government mandate to protect any behaviour one way or another.

what about being a poor little fuck who never tried in his/her life (this does not mean all poor people haven't tried)
the government will subsidise your shitty behaviour with welfare then

the largest corporations in the world currently only maintain their semi-monopoly-like positions due to government favouritism. there are few things less profitable to do at that level of business size than to fund money into political campaigns and political players
diseconomies of scale etc, innovation etc, complacency, etc; it's ENTIRELY unfeasible that any company would ever have such a hold over infrastructure as you're implying
if they had such control, existing companies would find it profitable to make their own infrastructure to lower their long-term costs anyway

you're clearly incapable of offering an argument
strawman: i don't believe that corporations would never try to screw us over. they try to do that all of the time, their existence is made up of taking as much money from us as they can. they also try to screw over other companies. clearly you don't understand that a government has just as much selfish intent as a corporation has but it also has the ability to take what it wants at will and fuck around indefinitely and be absolutely terribly inefficient and still be praised as the bringer of life and destroyer of the satanic free market that would make everyone but the wealthy bankers with their wealthy bonuses poor as dirt
read an economics book

>water
>human right
Are you a democrat/

Buddha has taught me the Middle Path is the most righteous.

also, do you have any fucking clue how much water is wasted per year in the usa along due to shitty subsidies the public praise as the sacred fountain of life?
more than any business ever would

>I AM SILLY

also you know you can make your own fucking private well right unless you believe that somehow one entity will have sovereign control over every piece of land spanning millions of square kilometres
you know
like a government

Nice cherrypicking

OP, it isn't, because centrism actually works and is the most efficient political system known. Defending your position simply because it's yours instead of efficiency is cancer.

The political compass test is bullshit. You can be a hardcore SJW and score 100% libertarian, because the questions it asks are all framed as being for or against traditional western morality.

But your typical SJW progressive is actually far more socially authoritarian than some southern baptist. It's just a different morality they want to enforce. Read my second paragraph above

>moderate
>has diverging views on an issue-by-issue basis

What's wrong with that?

woah, really gets those neurons firing

>neoliberal
>SJW
I don't think you know what neoliberal means.

Logical inconsistency, which is the left's domain.

ex: being anti-guns and anti-cops but then saying that citizens don't need guns because we have cops

This, the modern American left is not "neoliberal"

Ask any leftist: "What is the difference between a democrat and a socialist?"
because at the core, there is none. "Progressivism" is progress towards the left.

>literally not the definition of moderate

wow

>Saying both sides of something are bad
>The same as saying they're both the same
>The same as being "moderate"

lelno

everyone who isn't retarded knows that both sides are bad, but one has to be less bad. using 'both sides as bad' as a reason not to support the better one is also cause to believe that a person is retarded

Your mistake is that you think there are only two sides.

of course there are more than two possible sides, but would you rather a half chance at preventing a terrible evil or a ridiculously small chance at making a relative good

No such thing as a moderate.
All choices are binary. Let's moderately flood the country with illegal hispanics!

>both sides are bad
Please stop trying to sound smart. There are many sides and not everything is bad.

in this instance i was talking about the two major parties in american politics, which are both often bad relative to the standards of most held ideologies

...

yes

>not everything is bad
Wow you told that strawman

If you say they are both bad, thst is fine, but saying they are equally bad is retarded. Trump is drastically better than Hillary in literally every way besides freedom of speech, which they both suck on, but the only thing that is pushing me to vote Trump at this point is the slight hope that if he gets elected America is not completely doomed like it will be under Clinton