Pro-choice is in the middle of the spectrum. The opposite of pro-life is the belief that people should be required to have abortions

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    There are plenty more examples of this.

    Say, the political spectrum. We take full equality as radical left and full inequality as radical right. But actually, right is about the few having all the economic means and power, and many not having them, so, the opposite is many holding these means and power, and those from few not having them. So, basically, society turning billionaires into slaves, not equals, or imprisoning/exiling/otherwise oppressing them and their families. This is radical left.

    This is what happens through many revolutions - world can be way more left than “radical left”, it’s not hypothetical. But ultimately, after everything is settled, this does not make too much political sense (and neither does the current right-leaning system), so people settle for equality for everyone. As a neutral point, not something radical.

    Framing equality as something extreme is one way of swaying people from something they would otherwise easily agree is reasonable and good.

    • MummysLittleBloodSlut@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      The many having rights and the few being oppressed is how it is for gender. And the people who support that are still right wing. So it’s more like a sideways horseshoe where left is actually the middle, and the ends are both on the right

    • birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      “Radical left” as you propose doesn’t exist. In a truly equal society, billionnaires don’t exist and instead those that would’ve been, would’ve worked the same jobs as anyone else.

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        It does not exist because it doesn’t make too much sense in the long run. Besides, people who want to dominate others would rather join right, as there are more slaves to work with.

        Doesn’t mean it cannot exist, and it temporarily existed in many revolutionary societies as a result of radical offset.

        I’m not saying that this “many dominating few” kind of thing should exist. Neither do I want for the few to dominate many.

        I prefer neutrality, and that comes with equality. This is true center, and the only meaningful way to go.

        • birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Tbh, I don’t trust the billionnaires to support neutrality. Whenever they ever have an ability to influence, they can and will abuse it to kick people down the fictional ladder.