Anonymous #1 3d

OP is literally saying the exact opposite

11

Anonymous justinian 3d

"I consider myself a moderate"

4

Anonymous #1 3d

Yep and when push comes shove I’m backing the far left over the far right bc the latter is objectively 20x more evil and it’s not a debate

19

Anonymous justinian 3d

:)

1

Anonymous OP 3d

but please please please understand if you guys get another Biden we will end up getting another Trump 😭 give us on the left a chance please 😭

1

Anonymous justinian 3d

Look if these progressives out there in the Midwest can win ppl over I’m not too worried. Mamdani in NY alone isn’t enough

5

Anonymous justinian 3d

But just a fair warning the Dem nominee is almost certainly gonna be Newsom in 28

1

Anonymous OP 3d

I doubt it, dem primary voters are done with neoliberalism

1

Anonymous #3 3d

Dem primary voters appear to be complete zombies bc that 2020 primary by all accounts belonged to Sanders

1

Anonymous OP 3d

Yeah but that would be 8 years ago by the time 28 comes around. Shit is incredibly different now

1

Anonymous justinian 3d

Biden would've won if he didn't have his brain turn into Swiss cheese 2 years in. Like if Biden was 10 years younger he would've beaten trump in 24

1

Anonymous last_republican_on_yikyak 3d

Yeah gotta get rid of those evil non-Nordic DNA sequences in people’s genome don’t you lil guy

11

Anonymous #7 3d

I’ve come to the conclusion that these ppl accepted that they’re the bad guys in every single story they’re in. There is not a single group of ppl in the world they don’t openly have beef with

5

Anonymous OP 3d

yo, that’s straight up not true. The political divide in the US is more perceptual than it is empirical. Research shows that we are less divided on most policy than we think we are.

3

Anonymous #5 3d

If true the another reason for me to reject the far right in favor of the far left if I had to choose. They manage to pull this off without trying to make an enemy of every single ethnic/religous/sexual group that isn’t theirs

7

Anonymous OP 3d

We actually love how Poland is running their country. Look their border policies.

-3

Anonymous OP 3d

and a huge part of the problem here IS in-group/out-group dynamics. You are not any less guilty of ideological bias. But that was never the problem. Shit gets ugly when you let your ideological bias (against their ideas) turn into affective bias (against them as individuals). No “side” is innocent of that.

4

Anonymous OP 3d

And nah this is just not true. The modern far right is okay with gays, Muslims, and all genders(2). So long as they’re assimilated and are working to be a net positive tax payer we good with them.

-5

Anonymous last_republican_on_yikyak 3d

Ah your love is conditional on the state shooting people, how could I have seen this coming

11

Anonymous #5 3d

Wrong. The far-right has nothing in common with the rest of humanity. We do not want the same things. We want to live our lives. They want to kill us for existing

8

Anonymous OP 3d

You can check it yourself: look up More in Common's "Perception Gap" study. Both sides wildly overestimate how extreme the other side is. I've got lived data too. I grew up neoliberal and eventually dropped partisanship altogether, and from the outside it's clear the left makes enemies too, just different ones. Any "side" only exists because it's defined against another one. That's the trap.

4

Anonymous last_republican_on_yikyak 3d

Genuine question though: "okay with gays and Muslims as long as they assimilate and pay enough taxes" is conditional tolerance. Most people on any side wouldn't want their own acceptance to depend on passing a test. And "all genders (2)" kind of answers itself. I'm not trying to dunk. I'd rather hear what you actually think "assimilated" means, because that's where the real disagreement is.

3

Anonymous #5 3d

Bro said he’s cool with one religion other than Christianity, one sex other than male, and “gays”

4

Anonymous #7 3d

Your fear is valid, and some on the far right really do want that. But I've seen plenty of liberals cheer for capital punishment and mass incarceration too. Dehumanization isn't one side's monopoly. That's what I'm actually against.

0

Anonymous #7 3d

I get it, and you don't owe him patience. I'm not saying his views are fine. I just think people rarely change their minds while they're being dunked on. You protect yourself, I'll keep talking to him. We can want the same outcome and take different roles.

4

Anonymous #5 3d

There’s a difference dawg. Capital punishment is for committing crimes. To these “people”, a crime is your ancestry. Or your religion, or sexuality. They treat the entire world like animals. You can’t reason with that

5

Anonymous #5 3d

You’re talking to someone who fully knows they are the bad guy. Little Saddam Husseins running around in real life.

5

Anonymous #7 3d

“The far left is annoying and childish at worst” They literally shot an innocent man and celebrated it. And then they celebrate Luigi for killing another innocent man. Like in 2010s yeah Republicans were pretty bad with white supremacy groups and all. But by now they’ve lost all their influence. They are irrelevant nowadays. The far left is the one causing almost all the violence in the USA in 2026. The far right are just normal people who want to live in a safe country.

-2

Anonymous #7 3d

I'm genderqueer. I have just as much at stake as you, and I still won't write anyone off as less than human. You put "people" in quotes. That's the same thing they do to us. You're right that you can't reason with pure prejudice, but that cuts both ways. If you go in already sure someone's an animal, you've closed the door yourself.

5

Anonymous OP 3d

Liberals tend to be more sympathetic towards 9/11 terrorists and think our country deserved it.

-1

Anonymous #5 3d

If you’re genderqueer arm yourself. These ppl love guns til it’s the ppl they want to annihilate having guns

1

Anonymous #7 3d

thanks for addressing literally none of my points. Good job diva you won.

3

Anonymous last_republican_on_yikyak 3d

Who told you that?

3

Anonymous #9 3d

“ideologically correct” is what the word orthodox means… and external authority over correct belief is what led to witch heresy and the witch trials.

5

Anonymous last_republican_on_yikyak 3d

Fun fact, the main reason far right terrorism in the US dropped dramatically in 2025 was because trump started doing everything the far right terrorists wanted to

6

Anonymous #5 2d

orthodox is by definition adherence to tradition. leftists would abandon tradition if the tradition was to burn women suspected of witchcraft. the far right are the ones running on traditional values

0

Anonymous #9 2d

Orthodox literally means "correct belief" (orthos meaning correct or straight and doxa meaning belief or opinion). Tradition is just one way an orthodoxy gets established. My point wasn't about tradition, it's about any group claiming authority to declare which beliefs are correct and treating dissenters as heretics. That can happen on the left just as easily as the right.

4

Anonymous #9 2d

"Heresy" comes from the Greek for "choice," so a heretic was someone who chose their own belief. The witch trials happened because an authority defined correct belief and treated deviation as a crime. Even doubting witchcraft could get you accused. The hunters thought they were the good guys. The danger is certainty plus power to punish dissent, and no side is immune.

6

Anonymous #5 2d

ok but universal healthcare and a living wage aren't semantic arguments. they're not the correct position because an authority figure said they were correct, they're correct because of an intrinsic belief that that's what everyone deserves

0

Anonymous #9 2d

Healthcare and wages are policies, and policies can be tested. We can study outcomes and show what works, and I'd support them on that basis. But you said they're correct because of an intrinsic belief about what people deserve. That's a moral value, not a fact you can verify. I probably share it. The problem starts when a value gets treated as "ideologically correct" and people who disagree get treated as heretics instead of people to persuade.

6

Anonymous #5 2d

i don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people

1

Anonymous #9 2d

Are you thinking that I’m in support of orthodoxy?? these are the reasons I’m against it.

1

Anonymous #5 2d

far left ideology isn't an "i'm right because i said so" situation, it's right because it's predicated on the wellbeing of other people. this is the foundation of a functioning society and that's why it's ideologically correct

1

Anonymous #9 2d

I'm not arguing against leftism. I'm talking about online discourse from people who call themselves leftists but treat others cruelly. I judge beliefs by their fruit, so I agree collective wellbeing is the foundation. But if the ideology is right because it's based on wellbeing, then how we treat people who disagree is part of the test. Attacking people for harmful views usually doesn't change minds, it just pushes them further away. That's rotten fruit, even from the right tree.

1