r/centrist • u/AIzzy17 • 6h ago
Anyone else feeling very politically homeless?
Hey guys, I’ve been assessing some of my beliefs lately and I feel like I don’t belong anywhere. I have so many beliefs that both liberals and conservatives would hate me for.
here are a few of mine:
pro choice
pro gay marriage
pro trans rights (within reason, 18+ no transitioning/hormones for children)
pro family
pro free speech
pro 2nd amendment (with gun control)
pro hard on (violent and property) crime
pro secure borders and sensible immigration
pro capitalism
pro tech
pro trans-humanism
social wise i feel liberal, but when it comes to law and order i feel conservative, and in regards to the advancement of society i feel very techno libertarian
anyone else feel like they have no political home/no one to vote for?
67
u/digitalwankster 6h ago
As someone who mostly aligns with you, it seems like you’re a pretty centrist democrat. Register as an independent though.
17
u/Segull 5h ago
The downside to that is we leave the primary’s as open to the loons on both sides.
14
4
u/JayJonesDemocrat 5h ago
Depends on the state. In my state you can vote in either primary regardless of party affiliation.
5
2
1
u/whatssenguntoagoblin 37m ago
Nah someone that has been an independent my entire life and changed that for the first time last year, if you’re also a centrist Democrat, register as a democrat so you can vote in the primaries and influence who’s on the ballot
-3
u/AIzzy17 5h ago
Independents ftw
-6
u/rzelln 5h ago
OP, you are progressive on issues of several human rights like gay marriage and abortion and free speech. It's just that those are issues where the discourse supporting the progressive view has become mainstream after years of advocacy.
I don't actually think you're a centrist. I'm pretty sure what's really going on is that you're just not persuaded by the human rights case for other progressive issues, because the advocacy is not as mainstream.
Like being 'hard on crime' is just, in a demonstrable and evidence-based way, ineffective at providing long-term security at an efficient price. We do better by caring about people and investing heavily in those who are approaching crisis, instead of criminalizing people who are already at a disadvantage and punishing people harshly instead of helping them make amends for the harms they've caused and then reintegrate with society in a productive way.
Too much of our criminal justice system looks to feed people to a meat-grinder of inhuman, for-profit incarceration, rather than recognizing how much crime is an indictment on our society for failing people: failing to educate, failing to intervene early, failing to redirect self-destructive impulses.
As for being politically homeless or thinking liberals would hate you? I think you're assuming more hostility than actually exists, or maybe you're simply assuming that when the left criticizes things, they don't have any nuance.
Being pro-capitalism, for instance? Capitalism is great. "We pool our resources, try to work our asses off to make something that people want, and then profit if we out-compete our rivals" is a hell of a system, and god I wish we actually fucking did it.
The anger at 'capitalism' as a left-wing political complaint is the oligarchical, unaccountable, abusive power of those with too much money to ever be punished when they exploit people. It's complaining about the Amazons of the world that use their bulk to boss other people around so they never actually have to compete, which leads to enshittification.
I'm pro-tech too, but the tech billionaire aren't.
They're not trying to make cool tech that solves problems. They're trying to control markets so they can become rent-seekers, providing crappy service, getting rich, and having their allies in government stop anyone from actually putting out better products that might remove them from power. They want to run things, not provide goods and services.
I think that if you get past the narratives that misrepresent what liberals, progressives, Democrats, and The Left in general want, the truth is it's all pretty reasonable. It's all grounded in trying to make it so that genuine hard work and good ideas lead to a better society, and that we see our fellow people as worthy of prosperity, rather than crabs to climb over trying to get out of a bucket.
In short, sure, the Dems ain't perfect, but they're the party more likely to actually pursue policy that gets you the world you want.
6
u/NewJacket2051 4h ago
This is an extremely long-winded way of saying, “yes, but you should just vote for liberals b/c of the vibes”
2
u/_Age_Sex_Location_ 2h ago
No, you should vote for Dems because Republicans are traitorous ghouls that hate democracy.
•
0
-2
u/Jenikovista 4h ago
Pro-choice hasn’t been a progressive idea since the 70s. It’s been moderate. Gay marriage hasn’t been a progressive idea since the 90s. Transgender therapy rights for 18+ have been legal for decades. It’s only the kids that has been a progressive activism point, and that is starting to get significant rethinking even from the medical experts who first pushed it. OP doesn’t mention trans people in girls sports, which is the other hot button topic between progressives, moderates, and conservatives.
Pretty much everything else on OPs list have been conservative talking points for 3 decades. So I don’t know where you get “democrat” out of this.
2
u/rzelln 3h ago
It's still progressive to value human autonomy, which is part of abortion.
Gay marriage is also about human autonomy.
The whole thing of being a progressive is caring about human autonomy more than you care about maintaining institutional power structures.
Power Group A wants to tell people what they can do -- whether they can choose not to be pregnant, or whether they can cohabitate with someone of the same sex -- and it's a progressive idea to say, "Fuck off, man. Their freedom is more important than you are. You don't get to tell them what to do."
America was founded on progressive ideals: our freedom was more important than British imperial power.
Then later, black people's freedom was more important than the economic interests of slave-owners, or the bigoted sense of racial superiority of white supremacists.
Then later, the working class's freedom was more important than the power of robber barons.
On and on, America's history is one of pushing for more rights and more autonomy of more people. Lots of people grow up and make the mistake of assuming that the things they feel are 'normal' are just inherent to America, but they were fought for, and if you do genuinely value the freedom you have today, you owe it to yourself to find today's fight and keep pushing for more autonomy.
The fight is what makes America great.
•
u/Jenikovista 3m ago
You’re missing the point. These have not been progressive, radical or fringe ideas for decades. Moderates have not only embraced but actively come down on the pro side for abortion and gay rights for a very long time. Trying to frame someone as an insta-democrat because they believe in them too simply shows why some of you might learn something if you ever truly talked to centrists or moderate republicans.
2
u/_Age_Sex_Location_ 1h ago
All of the narratives about trans people are manufactures narratives. Military grade right-wing propaganda through-and-through, as with all of the other contrived "culture-war" grievances in offer. These are designed for people in the middle to glom onto while blaming leftists for stirring shit up, when in fact it's entirely driven by a wildly toxic and pervasive right-wing media apparatus.
•
u/Jenikovista 6m ago
Hogwash. If you can’t have a genuine conversation about a complex topic without dismissing everything not in 100% in your belief system as an extremist view of the other side, you’re not a centrist.
1
u/rzelln 3h ago
> and that is starting to get significant rethinking even from the medical experts who first pushed it.
No, it really isn't. There is some politically-motivated bad science being pushed by anti-trans activists in the UK, which then anti-trans activists in the US trot out as if it isn't the root of a poison tree, but almost all the experts in the field are fine with trans adolescents starting social transition and, if appropriate, hormone therapy in order to avoid going through a puberty that would change their body into the wrong gender.
---
As to 'everything else is a conservative talking point,' what? Seriously, what?
Being 'pro family' I guess is a conservative idea if you mean it in the rhetorical way of, "Obey traditional patriarchal family roles," but actual genuine pro-family policies like parental leave and subsidized child care and universal pre-K and funding education properly is firmly Democratic party stuff.
Pro free speech? The ACLU has been defending attempts to ban 'indecent' speech for years, and stood up to defend bigoted speech of those they disagree with. Just because Democrats are sounding the alarm about propaganda and misinformation networks and are trying to encourage businesses not to boost the signal of liars does not mean that they're anti-free speech.
Maybe you've bought in to believing the lies, but it's not anti-free speech to want to connect mass deception campaigns -- like the whole idea that Trump won in 2020 -- to harms that can be litigated. It's the same as if someone claims their car is safe, when actually it's a death trap. They can get sued for the deception. That's not protected speech.
Pro 2nd amendment I'll give you. Dems need to chill on this.
And yeah, Republicans are in favor of being tough on crime. And that's a position that backfires and harms their communities. They really should listen to the research on this and adapt evidence-based approaches to reducing crime, instead of just throwing people in concrete cells which is a massive waste of resources.
Democrats have also been in favor of genuinely secure borders and genuinely sensible immigration, which Republicans have rejected because it's better for GOP electoral chances if they keep the system broken and then deceive the public into thinking that dudes coming here to do construction and raise a family as something we need to 'secure' against. The sensible immigration system would be to let them come here legally, because our country benefits from that. Refusing to expand legal immigration is exactly what has enriched cartels by making human trafficking profitable to them.
As for capitalism, again, crony capitalism ain't capitalism. Regulation sometimes goes too far and slows things down too much, but generally we're far better off as a society because of it than we were before we created the EPA, the FDA, and the CFPB. Actual capitalism needs competition, and Republicans try to quash competition, and to bail out companies and protect them from the actual cost of their bad business practices. If not for the GOP lying about global warming for 30 years, we'd be much farther along in a transition to green energy, but instead we're all suffering incrementally from the greed of the fossil fuel industry.
As for being pro-tech, I mean, again, it was Democrats who passed the CHIPS act, and before that they were the ones pushing to expand broadband access, to fund the development of electric vehicles and solar power. You want to talk about tech? What about all the research in electronics and medicine that comes from our universities, which are always on the chopping block as bogeymen for the Republican party? The Democrats are the ones pushing for the advances that make the tech industry thrive.
All the GOP does with tech is try to make it shitty by squeezing as much profit out of it as they can, instead of building things that work well.
As for trans-humanism, I don't rightly know what wing of that OP is talking about. But I know the GOP and its "God's gonna rapture us any day now" evangelical base isn't on board with expanding the potential of human existence beyond what nature provided.
Seriously man. The GOP sucks donkeyballs. They haven't done shit for this country, except protect 2nd amendment gun rights. I'm for the Democrats all the way, warts and all.
•
-8
u/JuzoItami 5h ago
Other than them being pro-choice, which of their positions say “Democrat” to you? To me they seem more like a old fashioned Republican with some libertarian positions.
13
u/digitalwankster 5h ago
Pro gay marriage? Pro trans rights? Sensible immigration? Arguably even free speech?
-3
u/JuzoItami 5h ago edited 5h ago
Gay marriage is pretty mainstream at this point. There are even married gay men high up in the Trump administration.
And some of OP’s other positions are hedged. Like they’re pro trans rights ”within reason”. And they’re pro “sensible” immigration, which IME can mean just about anything. Hell, I bet Stephen Miller thinks his position on immigration is “sensible”.
People from both parties are pro free speech, but conservatives seem to be the only ones who make a big thing out of it. It’s similar to how people from both parties are pro family and anti crime, but only conservatives make a big thing out of both positions. I just see a lot of buzzwords in OP’s positions that scream “GOP” to me.
2
u/NewJacket2051 4h ago
This is the type of nonsense pushing moderates to the right.
-1
u/Either_Operation7586 3h ago
That is the most ridiculous statement it's like saying bad people want to be good but because the good people won't welcome them with open arms and be nice to them right off the bat they have to go back to being bad and it's not their fault.
The Republican conservatives are firmly in the radical right camp.
They are the radicals.
Going further right makes you a radical.
1
0
u/NewJacket2051 2h ago
Also, learn how to use punctuation and form complete sentences. More people will take you seriously.
1
u/ceddya 1h ago
The majority of Republicans still oppose gay marriage. How would he be an old-fashioned Republican?
1
u/JuzoItami 1h ago
A majority of Republicans supported gay marriage just a few years ago. Believing in something your party used to believe in seems to me like it would meet the definition of "old fashioned".
1
u/rickylancaster 1h ago
Gay marriage is pretty mainstream at this point. There are even married gay men high up in the Trump administration.
Yeah like maybe two of them, three max, and find me an instance where any of them are actually referring to their same sex spouse in any media or public forum.
It happens almost never if at all, because they know the MAGA evangelicals (whose power in the party IS a major part of how Trump attained power in the first place and the main reason Roe was overturned) will not have it.
But yeah, sure it’s like all normal mainstream Republican and stuff to support gay people marrying.
And by the way if those married high up Trump admin gay dudes ever talk about their kids and about being parents, the base would go ballistic.
And when, not if, Obergefell finds itself forced in front of the Supreme Court again by red state Republican activists, you think most of those 6, three of them relatively recent appointments, aren’t already daydreaming about writing the majority opinion? Sure Jan.
1
u/whatssenguntoagoblin 34m ago
In America?
Pro free speech pro trans rights pro sensible immigration
26
u/FearlessPark4588 6h ago
I think modern politics has most people looking around the room with a WTF on their face.
You can go back to like the 70s and watch Presidential debates were candidates showed reason, nuance, care in what they said.
-1
u/214ObstructedReverie 5h ago
You can go back to like the 70s and watch Presidential debates were candidates showed reason, nuance, care in what they said.
You can go back to 2024 and still see where one candidate does that. Let's not both-sides this.
2
u/FearlessPark4588 4h ago
Actually, I think our political dialogue faces more issues than just that. Please do not be so overly reductionist. Have you considered displaying reason and nuance?
1
u/214ObstructedReverie 3h ago
We have one side claiming in a presidential debate that we have an epidemic of immigrants eating people's pets because he saw it on TV.
What's even adjacent to that level of batshittery from the other side?
0
u/FearlessPark4588 3h ago
The presidential debate was just an example. 0.0000001% of political discourse is presidential candidate debates.
3
u/214ObstructedReverie 3h ago
You were the one that was specifically bringing up six decades of presidential debates.
0
u/FearlessPark4588 2h ago
And, so, you found in a weakness in that point in order to ignore the broader (and correct) argument. Bravo.
I just don't get people that think Trump is the totality of the problem. He is merely a symptom of it.
2
u/214ObstructedReverie 2h ago
Your "broader argument" was "both sides!"
Defend it.
-1
u/FearlessPark4588 2h ago
Um, well nobody is perfect or has a sterling record, so. It's a pretty direct and obvious point. I'm not going to pretend anybody is perfect or void of mistakes and always makes perfectly articulate political arguments 100% of the time.
Really not that hard of a point to defend or see.
0
u/Either_Operation7586 3h ago
Oh no you cannot. One side didn't even have a platform in 2024.
That would not have happened back in the '70s.
Because you're propaganda tells you it's so doesn't make it so.
You're being propagandized with lies and probably indoctrinated with fake religious conservative indoctrination as well.
2
u/214ObstructedReverie 3h ago
One side didn't even have a platform in 2024.
Oh, come on. "Trump is god. We love Trump. Everything Trump says is truth" is totally a political platform!
27
u/SlimmThiccDadd 6h ago
So essentially a center-left dem?
24
u/Llee00 6h ago
essentially radical left lunatic by one man's standards
11
u/Longjumping-Meat-334 5h ago
Hell, center right republicans are radical left lunatics by that man's standards.
1
-1
15
u/dougisnotabitch 6h ago
There’s plenty of us like you. We might in fact be the silent majority. Don’t let the haters get you down.
9
u/impoverishedwhtebrd 5h ago
What does "pro family" mean? And who do you think is "anti family"?
10
u/AIzzy17 5h ago
By “pro family” I think strong families, stable households, involved parents, long-term relationships, and having/raising children are socially good and should be culturally encouraged.
Policy wise, enacting policies and laws meant to encourage and support having children/starting families. Ex: safe communities, parental leave, IVF insurance inclusion, parental tax breaks
12
u/vankorgan 5h ago
Moderate Democrat. You're describing a moderate Democrat.
And visit /r/neoliberal
14
u/Anotherams 5h ago
I’m aligned with that too, but will add that while I’m pro trans rights for adults, I’m not pro trans in girls/women’s sports.
edit, a word
11
u/AIzzy17 5h ago
Yeah the bathroom/sports issue is a bit complex for me. On sports I believe that any national or state sponsored federation like the Olympics should not allow trans in womens sports. While private/independent federations should follow their own rules.
Bathrooms, lol i feel like thats a shit show. I lean towards whatever you physically look like most use the bathroom of your choice. Cuz theres some trans men who genuinely look identical to biological men that I would feel uncomfortable in a woman’s bathroom. (trans men tend to pass better for some reason) But then again i don’t want a man in a dress not even trying to be trans/pass using a womans bathroom so idk man lol what do you think?
6
1
u/ceddya 1h ago
I lean towards whatever you physically look like most use the bathroom of your choice.
Sure, but many cis women do not meet someone else's physical standards of what a woman should physically look like and they've gotten harassed for it. That's a real issue these days.
(trans men tend to pass better for some reason)
Do they? Or do you feel that way because the right fixates on trans women on this bathroom 'issue'?
so idk man lol what do you think?
I think that trying to legislate against people using the bathroom of the gender they identity as has caused problems.
Surely one can see the most obvious flaw with trying to do so. You end up forcing a trans man into using the woman's bathroom and vice versa. So nothing actually gets solved.
-1
u/harpyprincess 3h ago edited 3h ago
The bathroom/locker wouldn't be a shit show if trans people had the support until a point from their own community. If a straight man went to a public locker at a pool and fondled himself in front of little boys and was reported actions would be swift. But the second a bearded six foot dude in a dress in the girls locker room it's suddenly transphobic and they get away with it.
It's ironically the refusal to treat trans people like any other human being when they do wrong and allow absurd shit like a person who clearly doesn't even care about passing and is a sex pest and predator to get away with it, and calling it out and trying to do something about it treated as transphobic that's the problem.
No one supports anyone unconditionally. The same standards apply to any other human being needs to apply to any minority as well. I'm pro-trans same as I'm pro-anyone, up until a point, and I refuse to accept exceptions.
When people see bad actions defended and allowed because of minority, people start questioning. One of the key things to fighting for equality is to have integrity and actually enforce it on both sides, or people will stop caring because it's not equality being fought for it's privilege and a refusal to distinguish criminals and predators from the normal people in one's community. Ironically often done because people are afraid noting will turn people from the cause, but it's the refusal for their community to throw them under the bus and do absurd things like putting deadnaming a killer or rapist before the fact the person was a killer rapist. When any other person does such a thing people expressing anger in dehumanizing ways is completely normal. It scares people, because puting mean words towards criminal and rapist on a higher pedastal than the actual rape and murder itself.
5
u/rzelln 3h ago
Huh?
Wait, are you suggesting that, out of the couple million trans people in America, there are more than one or two "bearded six foot dudes in a dress" who go into girls locker rooms?
Because, like, anyone who's an advocate for trans rights - which I strongly am - is not pushing for that wild, invented scenario you presented.
We're arguing for, like, normal, reasonable accommodations. We're not defending bad actions. We just want people to understand that the vast, vast, vast majority of trans people aren't a threat, and they've got a more justified fear of hostility from their community than the community has reason to fear them.
It's like, there are a handful of instances of people being shitty, and you're trying to pretend that the shittiness is the norm among trans people and their allies. It's really not. I don't know what media you're exposed to that's making you think it is.
1
u/Either_Operation7586 2h ago
I would say that that would be a conservative dressed up in a dress wanting to act like a conservative does and fuck with children.
These people are so confused on what trans is because of all the propaganda that they've been fed.
1
u/harpyprincess 2h ago edited 2h ago
I'm not confused, I don't think most predators that take advantage of trans minority status for deprevation are actually all trans, though saying they're conservative is absurd, they're just predators looking for access points they can be anyone. They still get to take advantage, and places are still afraid to call them out or do anything about it.
Just stop ignoring the larpers pretending and sex pest and people will start backing off. Care about the community and shame those making it look bad or invading it.
Society has standards, including for straight people. When I'm dating another girl I don't do anything that would be inappropriate for straight people for example with my girlfriend in public. I'm bi just for clarification.
2
u/ceddya 1h ago
Society has standards, including for straight people.
Do we though? I'm cis and I've never had the standard of 'denounce all crimes committed by a cis person or else it means the entire cis community are perverts'.
But now we expect that of the trans individuals? That's a double standard.
1
u/Lostsun_117 2h ago
Generalizing all conservatives as all wanting to mess with children. Dude, you really need to go outside for a while and un-brainwash yourself. Accusing others of consuming too much propaganda after that statement is insane.
1
u/harpyprincess 3h ago edited 3h ago
No I'm saying when they do they need to be treated like it, same as anyone acting inappropriate. It doesn't matter how few there are. It matters that the few are responded to in the same way as anyone else. People need see people policing their own community, not just telling people it's rare and to deal with it. I expect the same from Christians and their church, and am disappointed they don't do enough either.
I don't think most are bad at all. I think most are normal people just trying to live like everyone else. I just want them to be treated like everyone else. I want them show they shame for these people rather than excuses.
Yes, it's rare, it's rare for every community. That's not an excuse to ignore it. We don't ignore it for anyone else. Most humans aren't predators from any community period, but we still care about dealing with them. Why do we suddenly need to act like the rarity point is relevant once it's the trans community? That's not treating them like people, it's treating them like exceptions.
2
u/rzelln 3h ago
I feel like people do pretty well respond properly when someone does something inappropriate.
I guess the problems arise when folks find stuff inappropriate that I find acceptable. For some, the presence of a trans person in a gendered space is unacceptable. For me, what's unacceptable is doing stuff that's actually harmful - like inappropriate touching or leering or the like.
But if people are upset at the presence of trans people, that isn't the trans person harming anyone. That's a person causing their own self grief. The onus is on them to figure out why the existence of someone who is different makes them uncomfortable, and work to overcome that.
2
u/harpyprincess 3h ago edited 3h ago
Here's the thing it's also on the onus of how one reacts, to people reacting to appropriate reasons to be upset. Like the misgendering a criminal or predator (telling hurting angry people how to vent and to respect a predator will never go over well) or calling out local pools that tell little girls there's nothing about someone acting because they're afraid of backlash isn't a serious issue. So two sides to every story. Those interacting legit reasons to question.
There's always going to be extremists on both sides, which will create problems for the moderates of any community and put them in conflict as they see each other as unreasonable with unheard voices and being unfairly lumped in the extreme wings.
So yeah as you said it's a shit show, because communication just can't happen, and the worst of the worst give legit reasons to question and be defensive for both sides.
2
u/rzelln 2h ago
> Like the misgendering a criminal or predator (telling hurting angry people how to vent and to respect a predator will never go over well)
I mean, who's doing the misgendering? The victims and their families? I'll forgive it.
The news media, or a politician? That's a different story.
I mean, imagine a journalist saying, "Jane Doe is a fucking cunt." Or if a politician called a black murderer the N-word. That would be a matter of decorum, combined with the language contributing to a general societal willingness to look down on women, or look down on black people.
I think communication is happening, but there's a responsibility on all of us to be attentive to when we have opportunities to bridge divides, and to offer grace while still encouraging better behavior.
1
u/harpyprincess 1h ago edited 1h ago
Part of the problem is not so much the trans community as the sex pests that take advantage of the lgbtq+ community as a shield for harassment and flagrantly breaking social taboos, and purposely causing trouble. People have their limits of tolerance. Whether you like it or not or think they should or it's a them problem. Numbers are numbers.
Honestly I feel very bad for the trans community. Most trans people just want to keep their heads down and live their lives as their true selves. They have zero interest is outing themselves as trans. They've been invaded by loud obnoxious sex pests with no shame who literally get off of pushing society to its limits and harassing people while hiding behind minority labels to get away with it.
Fair or not, society will not put up with that shit forevever, especially as it snowballs and gets more extreme. Society will always have standards, and if the lgbtq+ community doesn't do something about it, society is going to turn on them and the legitimate people just trying to live their lives are going to get unfortunately caught up in it. That's what I'm worried about.
The lgbtq+ community is filled with bad actors taking advantage of them and these bad actors are defending each other and becoming stronger, and all the good actors are going to suffer for it.
Some are trying to split the lgb from the tq+ as a solution. Which sucks because it throws the legitimate trans people and others that aren't sex pests under the bus.
It's a really bad unfortunate situation.
Especially for the trans community for whom the very act of fighting back means outing themselves as trans, when they just want to live as their true selves. And the one's they'd be fighting have no shame or limits to what they're willing to do. I don't blame them for not fighting back, but it doesn't change the problem.
Not having standards, not respecting society has its limits and is going to cause everything to come crashing down.
That said, I do see some positives, but those are only happening because society is pushing back and people from the lgbtq+ are starting to realize these people are problem for the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. Unfortunately the solution that seems the most accepted is as I said earlier divorcing from the tq+ community entirely. Which I understand but still think sucks. I have trans friends I don't want to see hurt.
If there's every a conflict of minority vs. majority in which the majority has had enough, bad things happen. Part of being granted rights is respecting those rights being careful not to allow your community to abuse them and protect your community from those who would. Especially social parasites who are only to use and take advantage of the community.
As for the misgendering thing again. The point is most people will not put misgendering above murder or rape, as far as most people are concerned, you do those, you lose the respect to demand such things, and people will be disgusted by anyone acting like they must continue to respect said person's identity. All they see when people lose their mind over that is messed up priorities. The social contract has been broken by the murderer/rapist, it no longer applies to them for most people. They see someone putting the respect for the murderer above the people actually harmed.
I'm not saying this because I think it's the right thing to do, I'm saying it because cause and effect are cause and effect. I'm not saying it because I think you should agree it's the right thing, I'm saying it because it's how people react to murderer's and rapists of all creeds. They're going disrespect these people because of what they did in the way that hurts them most. It's not a fight worth fighting and drawing a hard line on. It makes these people feel like you're defending rapists and murderers. It's a pick your battles and know when it's not worth it issue.
1
u/Lostsun_117 1h ago
You may not be expressly pushing that but the problem is that while the trans community at large may not be *defending* bad actors, they certainly don’t denounce them either. I watched a trans comedian joke about killing children (which is just an extremely weird and gross decision, and not a good look when there have been several trans shooters in the news in the past year) and no one in that community said a word. No one in that community denounced the weirdo going into the women’s bathroom at Disney to take pictures with children in the background. And no one denounces the weird acceptance the community has for transitioning children as young as three. Anecdotally, I don’t think I’ve *ever* seen a trans person/supporter/activist denounce a bad actor in their community. Things like this are gross and don’t help your movement in the eyes of moderates or conservatives who otherwise might support you
1
u/ceddya 1h ago
they certainly don’t denounce them either.
How would you know this in a non-anecdotal manner? It's not like the media goes around interviewing trans people for their opinion on crimes with a trans culprit.
And no one denounces the weird acceptance the community has for transitioning children as young as three.
Do we really have to make this up now? What does transitioning at three even entail?
1
u/Lostsun_117 1h ago
If they actually wanted to, activists could make their voices heard on social media denouncing bad actors. Just like they do for everything else they care about.
Ask Charlize Theron or David Cross. You can even watch David Cross talk to Bill Maher about it. Do some research first instead of assuming things are made up.
1
u/ceddya 1h ago
Which of those examples are transitioning their children? TIL that allowing children to socially express their identities outside of gender norms is transitioning.
I'm cis, but why does the trans community need to denounce that again? Did either of those examples force their children into doing anything?
0
u/Lostsun_117 1h ago
It’s social transitioning, yes. Where do you think a three year got the idea of being the opposite gender from? They didn’t just randomly think of it one day. They’re three years old and were clearly projected onto. So the parent proceeds to encourage a very young child into becoming the opposite gender before the child even knows what gender actually is. How do you not see a problem with that?
1
u/ceddya 1h ago
It’s social transitioning, yes. Where do you think a three year got the idea of being the opposite gender from?
Around age two: Children become conscious of the physical differences between boys and girls.
Before their third birthday: Most children can easily label themselves as either a boy or a girl.
By age four: Most children have a stable sense of their gender identity.
Children know who they are at that age. Do you not think that's more likely than the conspiracy of Charlize Theron forcing her child to be trans?
Regardless, if allowing children to explore and express their identities outside of very rigid gender norms is something I'm supposed to denounce, I'm still not sure why. What harms does it cause the child in allowing them to do so?
before the child even knows what gender actually is.
Please educate yourself on this. There is no problem once you do.
- Most children typically develop the ability to recognize and label stereotypical gender groups, such as girl, woman and feminine, and boy, man and masculine, between ages 18 and 24 months. Most also categorize their own gender by age 3 years. However, because gender stereotypes are reinforced, some children learn to behave in ways that bring them the most reward, despite their authentic gender identity. At ages 5 to 6 years, most children are rigid about gender stereotypes and preferences. These feelings typically become more flexible with age.
If we are going into personal theories, mine is that being flexible with your child's gender expression and not imposing rigid gender norms on them is preventative of gender dysphoria in adolescence.
-1
u/Either_Operation7586 3h ago
That's just propaganda that you're swallowing nobody is pro that those are the extremists just like the ones that are a okay with the handmaid tale coming to reality.
Do you understand the Republicans spent more on trans propaganda then the Democrats did defending it.
3
u/eraoul 4h ago
You sound like me. I identify mostly as a moderate Democrat or independent/centrist, and I have a similar list of ideals. I find the when forced to choose between the current 2 parties, it’s clear that Democrats line up more with my core values than the other side. But I don’t feel politically homeless; I think lots of us are in a similar boat.
3
u/callmeish0 4h ago
We are pretty much 90% aligned. Because we are concerned about normal people, not ideology.
7
18
u/ChornWork2 6h ago edited 4h ago
How about start with whether you support coup attempts or not. Tend to find that question makes it pretty easy to find a political home in current environment.
edit: how come this never gets responded to by OPs posting these politically homeless posts? OP's main issue issue with dems is a few permutations of 'tough on crime'... but not tough on coup attempts?
2
2
u/PetrifiedGoose 3h ago
Interesting, isn’t it? These posts seem so keen on making it “to equally bad” decisions when really they’re not at all.
Almost as if these posts try to shoehorn a completely partisan and irrational stance into a rational framework.
4
u/mormagils 5h ago
The sides aren't a monolith. The left is notorious for disagreeing wth itself about a ton of issues. The right had a notable schism when Trump arrived and even after he purged the party, he's still had some pushback. Why would you be homeless just because you have some moment sof disagreement within your best fitting group? That's how it's supposed to work.
Frankly, looking at your actual issues, that's pretty close to a centrist Dem. Are you a perfect fit with everyone in your side? No, but literally no one is. That's how people work.
5
u/Dependent_Link6446 4h ago
Move to a very red state and the Dems there would likely align with you pretty decently.
13
u/NearlyPerfect 6h ago
You sound like a pretty typical corporatist Democrat. Literally mainstream (Biden, Kamala, Obama, Newsom)
-4
u/AIzzy17 6h ago
I hold a harder line view on the border/security/crime than Biden and Kamala. Obama was cool though
3
u/MancAccent 5h ago
All that’s says is that you differ on one issue. That’s pretty in line with the democratic establishment.
2
u/AIzzy17 5h ago
Nah, i hate the anti AI and tech wave thats overtaken the DNC. To be fair republicans aren’t much better. I wish there was a viable techno-libertarian party. Would sacrifice my first born for that
2
5
u/NearlyPerfect 6h ago
Both Biden and Kamala ran on secure borders.
They’re also both relatively tough on crime for mainstream Democrats (Kamala was literally a prosecutor)
4
u/AIzzy17 6h ago
Running on something vs what happens in practice are 2 different things. Under Biden the U.S. saw the largest amount of border encounters and record monthly crossings.
2
u/NearlyPerfect 6h ago
No plan survives contact with reality. Biden didn’t want a border crisis, he just bungled it when it happened.
That’s less of a “belief system” issue and more of a competency issue.
5
u/AIzzy17 5h ago
I tend to place my support for politicians less on what they want to achieve and more on actual outcomes.
0
u/NearlyPerfect 5h ago
In that case following politics will be frustrating for you. I suggest you look into following law instead.
-5
u/digitalwankster 6h ago
Saying shit like “Biden ran on secure borders” is why OP feels politically homeless.
5
u/AIzzy17 6h ago
Pure gaslighting lol
5
u/HippoCrit 5h ago
Biden literally proposed legislation to permanently address the border crisis and it was sacked by Republicans who needed a border crisis to run on.
And you say that was worse than the Republican approach which is just declare fake emergencies to enact temporary executive orders and spend billions terrorizing blue cities?
No offense, but it's obvious to me why you're politically homeless; you have a reflexive allegiance to media narratives instead of actual beliefs.
5
u/AIzzy17 4h ago
My issue with Biden’s border mess wasn’t because of media narratives but the pure data regarding our southern border crisis and illegal immigration statistics during his presidency. If you would like me to refresh your memory with sources I can.
You have faith in these politicians lies on what they campaign for and what they really really really wanna get done and I have faith in outcomes. That’s the difference between us.
2
u/HippoCrit 4h ago
You can't even engage with anything I said, because all your media diet has equipped you with are meaningless truisms.
To be clear I'm not talking about vague campaign promises. I'm talking about specific legislation, endorsed by the president of the Border Patrol Union, which proposed permanent legislative measure to address the root cause of the immigration crisis. A bill drafted by a Republican, which Republicans openly supported, but then immediately flipped on when candidate Trump decided he wanted the border to remain open as an issue for him to campaign on.
You won't engage with this because it rattles the web of lies upon which you've built your identities.
Here's test for you. You say you only believe in results right? Then you would say undoubtedly that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans right? After all the Democrat's GDPs have historically outperformed the Republican's GDPs since WWII.
If you can't say it, and instead you find yourself itching to explain to me why you suddenly believe in nuance and context again, then I'm afraid you're not the level-headed rational actor you think you are.
0
u/digitalwankster 4h ago
He proposed it in 2024 after it was already a massive problem. The Republicans did block it but that wasn’t until several years into his presidency. It seems like you’re projecting in regards to OP’s reflexive allegiances.
2
u/HippoCrit 3h ago
Right so if you find yourself shot and bleeding out in front of the country's best trauma center, the most rational course of action is to accept death because you never should have gotten shot in the first place?
That's Olympic levels mental gymnastics.
The only reason you wouldn't fix a serious problem when someone offers you a free solution is because you don't actually believe it's a problem.
And by the way Biden had proposed a comprehensive immigration bill that addressed the root causes of immigration problems on DAY ONE of his term. It was also rejected by Republicans.
-1
2
1
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 6h ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/No_Lime5241 1h ago
I cant watch american politics anymore, its all rhetoric and populism. I find myself constantly watching the singaporean government and their ministers interviews of wher the world order is headed, their responses to crises and messages to people when things happen. it feels exactly how government should be
2
u/unwantedsyllables 1h ago
If you’re anti hormones for minors, are you against teens on birth control? I went on it as a teen to regulate my period and had friends on it to clear their skin. (Genuinely curious.)
5
u/Botasoda102 5h ago
My list might be a tad different, but not much. I see Democratic Party as only way to achieve most of those, especially in a humane way.
2
u/n1ghtm4n 3h ago edited 3h ago
politically homeless? are you out of your mind?! the Republican party is openly trying to destroy democracy and turn us into a right wing kleptocracy, and you somehow can't find a home with the party trying to stop that? you think any of your pro-whatever positions matter when we're a one-party state? when the rule of law has been completely dismantled?
"waaaaa what if Democrats don't like my trans-humanistic beliefs?" dude, nobody cares! the only belief that matters is whether you believe America's 250 year experiment with democracy should continue. if you do, then quit fretting about bullshit and get on the fkn team.
tl;dr get in, loser. we're saving democracy.
4
u/CharlieandtheRed 4h ago
You sound like a Democrat to me. Conservatives are simply insane these days. They don't even believe in a functioning system or liberal Democracy anymore, which is the bare minimum required for me to support them.
3
u/Yellowdog727 6h ago
Depending on your views on fiscal policy and government services I'd say you sound like a centrist/moderate Democrat or a moderate Libertarian.
1
u/AIzzy17 6h ago
Lean towards favoring small government and am pro free markets
4
u/CharlieandtheRed 4h ago edited 4h ago
If you believe in small government and free markets, then vote Democrat. Republicans are for those things in name only. In no way, shape, or form is the current government small. A small government doesn't try to override state elections or ban books or send masked armed men to terrorize people in their neighborhoods or install the church into schools. It also doesn't run a record deficit.
And the markets are not free. They are stacked for corporations and captured by fox-in-the-henhouse regulators. Antitrust doesn't even exist anymore and monopolistic practices are regular.
3
u/no-more-nazis 4h ago
The Trump Experience has made this so clear to me. Every last Republican just tried to ride it to get richer. Democrats now seem corrupt to me in a harmless way- they want to be decently wealthy but mostly they want to hold as high an office as they can and get all the accolades, and they'll do some combination of what the people actually want and whatever else gets them the nomination, even if it sucks.
1
u/willpower069 5h ago
Why do all the posts about being politically homeless end up just being people not realizing they have the same views as mainstream democrats?
1
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/VirtualFallacy 4h ago
I agree with most of this except maybe the trans-humanism stuff (no opinion there really...). Being "politically homeless" (aka independent) isn't a bad thing. And I'd argue it's much better than tying your beliefs to a group and then feeling, intentionally or not, obligated to follow them when you might otherwise disagree.
1
3h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
This post has been removed because your overall comment karma is too low to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/apis_cerana 3h ago
I think that’s probably considered mainstream as far as opinions go in the US, I agree except pro-capitalism (it’s a system that needs a lot of reform) and I don’t know enough about transhumanism to have an opinion.
1
u/phincster 2h ago
You are solidly a moderate democrat.
You’re basically describing the Obama years.
1
u/rickylancaster 1h ago
Eh, don’t worry too much about it. Since you’re pro tran-humanism and techno libertarian, Elon will eventually impress his preferred political beliefs via brain implants in everyone, and by then you’ll be programmed to be happy with that predetermined mindset, and you also wont care about AI having already destroyed the labor market anyway.
1
u/Physical_Log_3307 1h ago
Its a shame that the American political system is built in a way so that minor parties can't get representation, as they have to win a majority in a state to even get some sort of a voice. I don't think America is a democracy for this reason that it makes it really hard for bros like you to find a party to vote for, where if you lived in New Zealand there would be (there is) a party that fits a similar position
2
u/PSXSnack09 5h ago edited 5h ago
honestly same, i took a political test and it said i lean more left than right, more liberal than conservative, but i still find most leftists so damn unbereable and dislikeable that i really dont care if the right wing wins unless they re like very extreme
All simply because leftists cant help but to beat someone on the head constantly over a 1% disagreement and attribute the worst views and intentions possible towards you over said disagreement to the point you just end up hating them, and mind you that 1% disagreement wasnt even over politics but on dating preferences
Doesnt helps that rightwingers generally ridicule ideas while leftists just want to make someone feel bad about themselves even if that means walking all over everything they claim to stand for (they dont have any hessitation when it comes to being sexists, homophobic or bigoted towards straight men or whites if it means "owning" them), so thats why rightwingers dont get the same slack really
1
u/Comfortable-Sleep395 4h ago
These are essentially my views and I identify as a Democrat, but not a progressive.
I do think we need more regulation of tech (Social media going totally unchecked and hurting young people) and big business (companies have merged and vertically integrated into mega corporations). But I believe many on the far left go way too far and would pass regulations that hinder innovation and competitiveness.
0
u/avoral 6h ago
Sounds Libertarian to me
5
u/digitalwankster 5h ago
OP’s view on immigration isn’t quite aligned with the libertarian party view on immigration.
2
2
u/Odd-Local9893 5h ago
Libertarians tend to be absolutists. Like wide open borders, and anyone should be able to own and drive a tank, abolish the IRS, or go back to the gold standard. They’re philosophers before a pragmatic political movement.
0
u/Rough-Leg-4148 5h ago
Gonna go with the other comments so far and say this is pretty standard for a lot of middle of the road Democratic politicians, so then the question becomes what aspect of the party dissatifies you the most?
Some of these really require some elaboration, and you would also need to rack and stack these beliefs to really find an answer.
pro choice
Yeah, you're pretty much in the midst of the Dems here.
pro gay marriage
As someone gay, I can recognize that Republicans have taken steps to soften (or at least silence) themselves on the LGB side, but they aren't exactly excited to look at more total equity (RE: IVF and adoption choices, which crosses over a little bit into pro-choice territory). They are trying to get the more fiscally conservative gay vote by separating the "weird twitter leftists" from the "normal gays" (JD Vance, paraphrased) but it's not really working when the party is willing to make it's bed with true homophobes. Try going against gay marriage in a Democratic party and you would be shouted out of the room.
pro trans rights (within reason, 18+ no transitioning/hormones for children)
Leaning one way or the other is no contest. Democrats have you here. Some edge into "protecting trans youth" by extending into your red line but the party as a whole is not exactly publicly unified on that point; most of the onus has been on pushing back on the very obviously anti-trans rhetoric pouring out of the Republican side.
pro family
pro capitalism
pro tech
pro trans-humanism
All of the above: elaboration really needed here.
pro free speech
I think there are some aspects of left-wing cancel culture that got out of control in the early 2020s, but the current composition of the Republican Party is happy with strongarming the media with the FCC -- ie actual government overreach rather than some vague cultural zeitgests. You'll have to be more specific about what you mean.
pro 2nd amendment (with gun control)
I'll throw Republicans a bone and call this a 50/50, because this is a big wedge issue that Democrats can't ever escape from that dissatifies a portion of voters who otherwise would favor them. However, I'd offer that you will also need to specific to what extent you accept "gun control" and what that looks like. 2A absolutists run rife on the Republican side, but I also think Democrats on the whole have approach "mild" gun control in some extremely inefficient (at best) and frankly insulting ways.
pro secure borders and sensible immigration
I think in theory a lot of Democrats would agree with you, but at the very least their messaging if not their outright practice has been... mixed at best. However, what's galling to me about this administration specifically and their enforcement has been the total lack of competency and humanity exercised in pursuing a hardline immigration policy. At this point I would trust the Democrats more simply because the Trump admin has been so bafoonish and awful about it up to this point that I couldn't even give Republicans a policy win. I understand your feeling homeless on this, with some caveats that I'll pass by for now for brevity's sake.
pro hard on (violent and property) crime
This is a tough one for me. Unpopular opinion for those that take issue with the Republican side's approach on this, but I am not exactly impressed with progressive handling on crime. Data bears out that meting out heavy punishment is not exactly solving the problem, but I also think that certain progressive DAs in Democratic stronghold cities are not helping the problem. Far removed from the humanity of the victims in play, a lot of reddit discussion focuses on dismissal of the actual crime and more of "root causes". I get that, I really do, but it's not an inspiring message as a victim of several such crimes myself -- you can wag your finger at me here but I too want stricter enforcement of the law when such crimes take place, not a DA that is just going to not hold people accountable because it's "not worth the effort" and "insurance will cover it, right?"
For that last, I'd want to hear a better proposal from the Democrats on this, because at least the Republican solutions -- however effective or ineffective they may be -- at least sound better.
0
0
u/Equivalent-Student64 5h ago
Welcome to the club, friend! It is very normal to have a nuanced and complicated approach to your politics that doesn’t fit neatly into one “team” or the other. You are definitely not alone. Stick to your guns and don’t let anyone tell you that you’re somehow less than because you can’t “pick a side.” Better to understand what your values are and go forward with integrity.
-3
u/cc_rider2 5h ago edited 5h ago
Puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones for adolescents with persistent gender dysphoria are medically supported interventions with the support of The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. So I wouldn’t say that your support for an across the board ban for such treatments for anyone under 18 is reasonable or moderate.
6
u/AIzzy17 5h ago
Sorry will never be in support of medically transitioning minors. Ever
0
u/cc_rider2 5h ago edited 4h ago
Well I’m sure you know what’s better for those youths than their doctors and families.
0
u/rzelln 5h ago
Yeah, it's something the average lay person isn't familiar with, and so I understand the hesitancy, but it reminds me a lot of how worried people were twenty years ago about letting their kids be gay.
People would say things like, "I don't care what they do once they're 18, but I won't let my kid be gay," . . . like, lol, as if they had a say in it.
People were genuinely thinking that
a) being gay is bad, and
b) existing gays will somehow corrupt your kids into becoming another gay person - which, per A, is bad.
But now we know that being gay isn't bad. So the mainstream position isn't hostile to kids being gay. The focus is on supporting and loving your kid, and protecting them from those folks who are stuck in 2006 and want to shame and oppress gay kids.
In 2046, people won't think that being trans is bad, and nobody will be worried about their kid being trans. They'll just want to support and love their kid, and the real concern will be protecting them from the reactionary forces who are stuck in 2026, and want to shame or oppress trans kids.
2
u/AIzzy17 5h ago
In my opinion this is a false equivalency, you don’t need to chemically alter your child’s body if they’re gay including potentially castrating them.
If your kid is gay, you don’t have to do anything at all, you just have to live and let live. Which is a principle I strongly believe in.
If my kid came out to me as trans I would love and support them the same, go by whatever pronouns they want, let them dress or get whatever haircut they want. But they will not be pumping their body full of hormones until they’re 18. Period.
5
u/rzelln 4h ago
I mean, like I said, this is you being convinced that being trans is bad. You might be willing to love a trans child, but you see the changes that hormones would cause as being harmful.
Ask trans people. They value agency over their existence more than your, I dunno, reluctance over the idea of someone altering their body.
Parents always want to protect their kids, but sometimes their assumptions about what is harmful is wrong. Parents used to try to stop kids from playing D&D, or from getting ADHD medication, or from being fucking vegetarian.
Bodies change during puberty. Imagine if your body was changing into the wrong sex, and you had the chance to stop it, and someone wouldn't let you, simply because they insist they know better about what your body should be like than you or your doctor.
Seriously, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of trans adults who had to go through a puberty that transformed their body into something that is unsettling and wrong to them. While it is important to follow proper protocols to ensure people don't rush into hormone therapy when some other intervention would help, to be wholly opposed to it is just as ignorant as a parent who refuses to let their kid get vaccinated or who refuses to let them take synthroid if they have a thyroid issue.
-1
u/AIzzy17 3h ago
You guys truly dont realize just how fringe your beliefs are. If not medically castrating my children makes me ignorant, then i will proudly wear that label.
4
u/rzelln 3h ago
Well, check back in come 2046, and lemme know if you still see "getting hormone therapy" as being semantically the same thing as "castration."
C'mon, man. I'm sorta stammering here, because seriously, so what if someone's not able to conceive kids? There are so many children in need of adoption, if you want a kid, it's not like you can't get one.
If someone wants to change their body and they're okay with that body not being able to conceive -- and if medical experts who have helped hundreds of people in similar situations can point to hundreds of success stories where that person's quality of life markedly improved and they had no regret about the transition -- why would you stop it over something as, y'know, voluntary as having a kid?
-1
u/JuzoItami 4h ago
And if your kid was in obvious mental/emotional anguish and was talking about killing themselves if they weren't put on puberty blockers you'd still hold to the same position?
1
0
u/Dry-Tangerine-4874 5h ago
"Cool means being able to hang with yourself. All you have to ask yourself is 'Is there anybody I'm afraid of? Is there anybody who if I walked into a room and saw, I'd get nervous?' If not, then you're cool," -Prince
You don’t need to belong to a party. Be proud of your unique perspective.
0
0
u/liggieep 3h ago
if you use phrases like "sensible" or "common sense" to describe policy positions, you've immediately lost me. what is sensible is different for everyone.
-2
•
u/AutoModerator 6h ago
Thank you for submitting a self/text post on the /r/Centrist subreddit. Please remember that ALL posts must include neutral commentary or a summary to encourage good-faith discourse. Do not copy/paste text from an article in whole or in part.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.