why do we have to pick a side?

[allegedly]

we're supposed to be left or right, conservative or liberal
it's always something like that
just look at OT users, everyday defending their side or attacking the other side
the system gives us usually two options and we have to pick a side
can't we just not pick a side?

[xDDD]

You don't have to pick a side.
To be honest being near-center is the only sensible position to take. But you can choose to drink the blue Kool Aid or the red Kool Aid if you want.

[Brma]

allegedly の投稿を引用：

Brma の投稿を引用：

That's why it's important to vote. Imagine if the people who don't vote do so for a 3rd party that aligns with their values. Imagine if everyone who said it's impossible for 3rd party to win got their head out of their ass and voted 3rd party instead of whatever color cult they believe in most.

Would 3rd party win? Probably not the first time. But imagine seeing them in the race as someone who said it's impossible. Maybe the effect snowballs and more people start voting 3rd party. Eventually the corrupt system is dismantled.

People always say this isn't the election to do it. I say, if not now, when?

why would people vote for a "third" party? who is allowing this party to run? the system is allowing it, the system will not allow a party to run if it's not already controlled, you cannot just dismantle a system with the system rules

this is similar to people thinking trump is different because he's an "outsider" when in reality he's just another guy controlled by the system. People wanted an outsider, the system gave them an "outsider" and people continue getting involved, picking sides

Hey, so you know those indoctrinated bootlickers I was talking about? No reason, just asking.

[Fosty]

♥♥♥♥ 'em all

[Talby]

Hawk Tuah の投稿を引用：

Unless politics is your profession, you don’t really need to pick sides. Tho alternatively you can do what Tim Pool does and claim to be a centrist while only repeating alt right talking points.

There are probably a lot of folks who were modate/left lean, and noticed the hard-left swing of the democrat party from modate to hard-left that started with Obama's "cultural appropriation" and was fully on display in 2016 when they lost. So I can relate to Tim's perspective, he is moderate/right as well as I am.

"alt right talking points" are just pointing out the lies and corruption of the deep state lol, USAID? Hello?

[TheCr33pur]

I dont have to pick anyone side, if they have an issues, let them deal with it. It is not my problem.

[Voroff]

Ulfrinn の投稿を引用：

Just remember that when you pick a side, you have to mold yourself 100% to it, otherwise, you'll be accused of being for the other side. And that's how the left lost Trump, Musk, Rogan, RFK, Gabbard, etc.

Hééééééééééééé ... the argument goes both ways. Those who didnt want, at any cost, see Trump get elected were kinda forced to go to the Dem side, even if that means getting along with Biden-being, not only the RINOs (learned that term not that long ago, woooh !).

Anyhow, peeps changing side is a thing that happens in politics, for a number of reasons - previous disastrous politics of their own party, just maturing and getting older/wiser to the world, for greed and direct gains, or just because they have no real political affiliation at the very start and are ready to be sold to be on the "winning side", and so much more reasons.

What can i say ? Life is life and humans are faillible. Especially when they follow a leader. Then they are weak in the knee portion.

[Y1N9]

allegedly の投稿を引用：

we're supposed to be left or right, conservative or liberal
it's always something like that
just look at OT users, everyday defending their side or attacking the other side
the system gives us usually two options and we have to pick a side
can't we just not pick a side?

In essence, Marcuse's theory of one-dimensionality posits that contemporary society has been reduced to a single, dominant ideology that permeates all aspects of life. This monocausal thinking eliminates alternative perspectives, leaving individuals with limited choices and a lack of critical thought. It's as if society has been flattened into a singular dimension, lacking the diversity and complexity of previous eras.

Baudrillard extended this notion by suggesting that in our postmodern era, we've become increasingly immersed in a world of simulations and representations that have eclipsed reality itself. This "hyperreality" is a constructed, idealized version of the real world, often more appealing and satisfying than the actual experiences we could have.

In this sense, the one-dimensional society Marcuse described can be seen as a precursor to Baudrillard's hyperreality. The dominance of a single ideology in Marcuse's model leads to the creation of a manufactured, idealized reality – a hyperreal world – that distracts from genuine human experiences and possibilities.

Think of it like a city: in a one-dimensional society, the skyline is dominated by a single architectural style or aesthetic. In a hyperreal scenario, this cityscape becomes a seamless, glossy simulation, where the artificial and real blur together. The individual's perceptions are limited to the pre-conceived notions and desires projected by the dominant ideology – just as the city-dweller might be captivated by the hyperrealized urban environment, losing sight of the original, unmanipulated reality.

So in summary, Marcuse's one-dimensionality and Baudrillard's hyperreality represent two sides of the same coin. Both describe a world where individuals are increasingly controlled by a singular, dominant force – whether it's ideology or simulations. This leaves us with a reality that feels more artificial than authentic, a world where true diversity and choice are obscured by the uniformity of the hyperreal.

It's binary choices which reinforce this very system, as it doesn't allow for any other alternatives besides P or -P, it's negation. This isn't a choice, it's two sides of the same coin. You're not given a choice, you're given the illusion of one.

[GunsForBucks]

You don't have to pick a side at all.

For example

I believe in Freedom

So I believe it is the choice of the parents, especially mother, to decide if she wants an abortion.

But

I also believe in peoples right to have guns.

What we need to do is find moderate people to vote for that don't try to force beliefs on others.

Since the 80's the US government has been far right and ultra far right. Both have been trying to force people in crazy ways.

The corruption of greed and power.

Don't vote for liars anymore.

[GunsForBucks]

If you just wait to be told what side to choose, you lose.

<oh a nice tshirt slogan!!>

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

I'm on my own side.

[Mauserich]

The world is not black or white or right or left. The best thing you can do is to take a stance on the different aspects.

[xBCxRangers]

My "side" is that of the American Peoples side.

I am considered the "Old Left". I believe in putting our working class and poor first, free healthcare, universal incomes, raised minimal wages, and a RIGHT to a Union.

Trickle UP economics, and assuring there are cops on the beat protecting our consumers.

As Americans, we are not Ukrainians, or Israelis or Europeans etc et al, and EVERY dime made in this country, should be to help the AMERICAN peoples. NOT foreign wars or governments.

I do not care if you are gay, a woman, transgenderized, black, white, purple, these are your own businesses, and none of mine.

We just do not want these, and religions, and other of these soco issues and agenders PUSHED on us.

That is all.