2390
I tried. It was exhausting. I'm better now.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
2390 points (100.0% liked)
tumblr
3375 readers
522 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If someone says that they are “centrist” they are not telling you that they base all of their opinions on being in the middle of any two positions. That would be astoundingly stupid and is very much a straw-man take on the situation.
They are telling you that they agree with neither major party on everything, and find that both parties have views that they don’t agree with. It’s pretty easy to come to that conclusion because the US two-party system packs in an almost incoherent mishmash of beliefs into exactly two sides.
There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days. There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting limits on them. There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services and universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets are effective. There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded.
The idea that there are only two sides in politics is a strange delusion created by your two party system.
If you are left wing, and argue for left-wing policies in every case, that means you will also be argued with by somebody who believes political nuance and not just waving a party flag.
The right wing also shits on centrists because they think they are secretly left-wing since they argue with some of their stupider points as well.
These people are not "secretly right-wing" and just don’t have the balls to say it. That is a horrendous take no matter where you fall on the political spectrum the only serves to limit conversation.
The majority of people who identify as centrist/libertarian/“on the fence” are purely doing it because they know that saying they’re conservative gets them attacked.
In the US there really is no compromise anymore, nor can there be. If you willingly vote for a facist, racist, sexist party under any circumstances I’m personally not interested in your opinions at all, because you’ve deemed whatever minor policy more important than my, and many others, ability to live safely in this country.
This seems to be what the so-called centrists don't get. The issues may be important, but "I am ok with rapists, fascism, and manipulating/stealing elections" should be a dealbreaker.
Even if someone rejects everything else, there's no doubt that Republicans are the perpetuating force behind Gerrymandering, and that the goal of Gerrymandering is for a minority of voters in a state to have more power in the Federal government.
I am not okay with any of the things you listed and I'd be classified by some as a Centrist or an Independent.
I am also not okay with the politically motivated manipulation of language to support whatever cause a side happens to be involved in which is a thing that both left and right-wings do in the USA.
I'd like to remind you about your other post where you were defending a centrist who voted for all those horrible things "because abortion". If your "centrist" bin includes everyone from the alt-left to the alt-right, you're using the word wrong. You've already related centrism to the Left, and already related centrism to the Right. At this point, Centrism in your replies to me means "I vote, or I don't vote".
I didn't "defend" them, I simply mentioned that they exist. I'm pro-choice, but stating that they're right wingers in disguise is disingenuous at best when they only agree with ONE issue. It just so happens to be one that causes them to vote that way.
I don't relate Centrism to the left or right as it can be quite literally in between any two groups (the example I used elsewhere was between the Green Party and NDP in Canada - both heavily left-leaning parties). To use the above example, a person that wants unlimited abortion available up to the third trimester would be a Centrist on the issue. You can also be Right or Left wing on a specific issue and Centrist on others or overall.
I think we're going to have to disagree. You seem to have this fantasy about the Center that is so foreign to anything that actually happens it's getting impossible to respond to you. Not because your arguments are right or wrong, but because they're coming across as nonsense now.
So... you don't understand what it is and have your own personal definition, and you don't like people who match your definition, therefore all that you apply the label to are bad? That seems pretty par for the course for what I've seen from US politics currently - anti-intellectual and quick to think the absolute worst about others.
Here's Wikipedia's definition if you like. Mine matches it.
i've never met a ''''''centrist'''''' who disagrees with conservative talking points.
To quote the Black Panthers, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
As soon as someone self describes a a neither right nor left free thinker, I know exactly what they are
Then you either have a very small bubble, or don't identify some because they happen to have agreed with you on some particular issues.
My boss is one who identifies as a "moderate" and gets offended when people call him right wing or Republican. Yet, on 9/10 issues he sides with the conservative stance. We've correctly deduced that he actually is a conservative and votes for conservative candidates in every election, but he doesn't like being confronted about his association with extremist viewpoints in a blue state so he claims he is just a centrist to take the heat off of himself.
You just described a Leftist, in some ways. Disagreeing with both majority parties doesn't mean you have to stand between "evidence-based" and "far-right".
That's being in the middle of the two positions. It's not that there's a contradiction, but that you just ate up the rhetoric that BLM protesting was all "riots lasting for days". And "Police Reform" is a middle-of-the-road alternative to "follow the evidence, defund 90% of the police and have non-lethally-armed services do those things". This fits our description of centrist to a tee
Sure. I'm a leftist who feels this way. The "real center" here, though, would be the Democratic party, who still want less gun control than most civilized nations. Your view perhaps resembles the "the Right is so bat-shit insane that conservatives are confused for moderates"?
I mean... yeah there is. If free markets were effective, we should be gutting all government services and regulatory bodies. Nobody actually believes free markets are effective. There are those who embrace the buzz-word without realizing it, and then there are those who want the free markets because they are ineffective and that the profit margins available to them are massive.
Again, this is the formal Democratic position. The formal Republican position is called "Starve the Beast", and it is for there to NEITHER be a balanced budget NOR be government services funded. I'm not making that up. On this view, you sound like a Democrat, but if you vote for Republicans on their economic stances despite matching Democrats, that makes you the middle of the two views again.
Obviously, but there are two sides to every issue. If we get back to the OP issue, it's that one side has been screaming "climate change is real and permanent damage is imminent" and the other side has been screaming "climate change is fake and God loves us". Centrists have been between the two saying "I know the meteor is headed for us, but my retirement is more important to me than the world still being around when my kids grow up". We've been dealing with 40+ years of that. But yeah, that IS between the two sides.
The funny thing is that for 9 policies out of 10, most lefties just argue for the educated position against the "gut instinct" or "I know science says this but it worked for me" position. Hell, just look at the topic of parents hitting kids and it covers all the nuances of the leftist problem. Is the Left always correct? No. But the Right and/or Center is a broken clock in this. I think the Left is wrong on Gun Control and the Democrats are right. That's about the only issue I can think of right now that the majority of the Left is wrong on. Not because I'm a leftist but because I'm educated in the issues.
Not quite. They pretend centrists are the far left and shit on them, so that "moderate" really means "neocon but not seeking Handmaid's Tale".
Anyone who voted Trump in 2020 was either ignorant or Right-Wing, regardless of what they claimed to be. He is against fiscal conservativism, against modern medicine, and was caught red-handed working with Russia to steal the 2016 election. His presidency damaged the economy, but also focused that damage on states that net-provide resources for the country as a whole because they are Democrat. A person in New York paying an extra $10,000/yr in taxes with reduced overall QOL and COVID-dead family members "voting Trump anyway" is not a centrist.
weird you can get so much correct and still somehow fail to see gun control is crucially important. I see this a lot in left wing Americans. it's like some sort of epigenetic brain disfunction, that doesn't permit logic and guns to meet. so strange.
I didn't say it wasn't important. I just know that gun rights are important. There are a small number in the American Left who want us to have gun laws that are more extreme than most of Europe). Then there are a larger number in the American Left who try to write gun control without actually educating themselves on the issue. And they are outspoken, uneducated and reactionary (sorta like the Right)
Good gun control IS important. Bad gun control does nothing. So many gun control advocates don't understand what living 50 miles from the nearest town looks like. Ever been charged by a wild animal living in a town without PD, knowing the deputized PD the next town over doesn't have Animal Control and tells you "shoot it" if you call with an animal complaint? There's a difference between Free Gun drives in Urban Centers and actually needing them. Background checks? Registries? Bans on excessive weapons/munitions? That's fine (though the last gun control bill I read had bans on things like heat compensation, so I guess gun owners need to burn themselves).
Ah yes. Nothing like the Left talking things out in good faith and respect. Our Right can get an atheist businessman and a Christian Zealot into a room and come out happy, but we've got factions in our Far Left threatening to execute each other or refusing to consider their positions on the issues without them having "epigenetic brain disfunction".
Here's for logic. I've never met a gun ban advocate (let's be honest, that's the kind of Gun Control the left won't agree on. We all agree on smart gun control) whose answer to "what about people who actually need guns to live" was anything different than "tough fucking luck. I'd rather you get mauled by a bear than deal with the nuances of country vs city life".
I had a bear in my back yard last month destroying shit. He didn't come after anyone, but a couple miles down he surprised a family and endangered a kid. He needed to be shot (luckily he survived like bears do, but he ran away and the kid was safe). And you don't want a bolt-action weapon when dealing with a bear or a pack of coyotes. You want a semi-automatic.
I have never once voted for the right-wing party in my country (Canada). I also don't agree that any left-leaning party in my country is particularly great. If I were in the US, I would be presently voting for the Democrats, but only because they are the least bad of the two. I would also be stumping for third-party candidate viability as a solution to this.
It was vague on purpose. I'm not discussing a specific set of current events, merely commonly attached attitudes to events that have occurred throughout history. Police forces vs. protesters is a pretty common recurrence, no "rhetoric eating" required.
Well, if you'd like to actually discuss, they are to a limited extent. I also believe that the government should step in to break mon- du- and tri-opolies. If a bail out is required, the government should then own the business and all patents should be made public. Patent timeframes should also be restored to the original or shorter as all it's doing is stifling innovation. Some industries should be removed entirely from being for-profit. Now you go!
Maybe some. Centrists and independents are not a cohesive group with set ideals. Each individual has their own stance. It also doesn't mean that the views they hold are always between the two parties in power, but instead means that they fall between any two parties. As an example, I could be a Canadian Centrist between Green and NDP; I'm still a centrist. This makes ragging on the label kinda worthless because depending on the scale, most people are Centrists. I would be screaming at the top of my lungs about the fucking meteor in your example instead of wasting time on social politics. Yelling "Whataboutism" with things that important is fucking absurd when one means we're all going to die roasting in our own goddamn juices.
The dude sucks, no doubt. To me he represents the enshittification of modern politics, but... You can vote for Trump and still be centrist just like you can still have voted for Hillary and be a Centrist. It depends on what you value most and to what extent. There was a really good episode of Radiolab a few years back that discussed this. Basically, a legal US immigrant (with undocumented family members) voted Trump despite feeling that the man was disgusting and disagreeing with him on literally every single issue but one. The one issue they believed in so hard though, that it was enough to vote Trump (in that instance, their line was abortion). If you have a line that you will not cross, then that's all there is for some people. You can say they're wrong (and in that instance, I would agree with you), but they're neither stupid nor gullible.
This is another case of how more (and more varied) political candidates would help.
So let me get this straight. You're on the Left's side with everything the Right has been calling riots? You're on the Left's side on every issue? But you're a centrist?
I mean, that probably reads for Canada, where your Right-wing party sorta resembles Democrats with an added hint of fascism (at least, that's how my Canadian friends put it. I genuinely am not an expert on Canadian politics).
If you want to lock women and doctors in cages for something that a vast majority of your country thinks is 100% acceptable, then you're a monster. If you want to include them in "Centrists", have at it. But single-issue voters are absolutely something "we who dislike centrists" toss into that category that disgusts us.
Well, now we're getting personal and not into party / nomenclature semantics. But no, I'm not on the "left" side of every issue.
For example, I gave the example elsewhere in this thread, but I believe in much tighter immigration controls, if not outright eliminating most of it for now. You may look at that and call me a racist. You would be wrong. The race is irrelevant, and it’s an environmental and economic stance that led me there. Our current immigration policies allow pushing down the minimum wage, makes UBI more difficult (if not impossible) to implement, and allow countries that are outstripping their resources to simply place those people elsewhere instead of dealing with their population issues in a realistic way. This is one of many things that has also irreparably damaged the environment.
Something done for good reasons is having bad knock-on effects and we should adjust things before it gets worse. In my experience, a Centrist gets to say “right idea, horrible implementation, let’s fix it” instead of just clinging to an ideal.
I don’t like people making baseless accusations. I defend people on all sides when people are wrong about their opposition. I hate it when people think they know what others think and project incorrect (and often evil) bullshit on each other. It’s important to be right with the right reasoning and conclusion, not just one or the other.
I care when Christians purposely mischaracterize Muslims, and I am neither of those groups. I hate people being wilfully wrong because their group fetishizes a certain angle of the truth instead of the boring reality of the situation.
Ideas are important and I don’t feel we can get out of the current shitty slump we’re in politically unless we clearly identify and discuss the world. Labels and group membership make that harder to do.
Sure. The opinion expressed wasn't mine, and you're free to think that all you want. It was just an example of a position that didn't fit your definition. The episode didn't get into whether they felt like locking people in cages was appropriate or otherwise. Maybe they had in mind another solution. I don't know and they didn't get into it.
"I'm not a fascist but I am willing to vote a fascist into power if it means I can get my way on this single issue" isn't going to win over many left-wing people.
Centrism was a perfectly acceptable position when the left- and right-wing had broadly similar goals - a better society, a healthy economy, a happy population, a somewhat fair society, etc. Different sides might disagree on the methods, but they could find compromises to reached their shared goals.
However, modern day right-wing ideals are totally incompatible with left-wing ones. Many right-wing ideals and policies actively cause suffering and inequality. They enrich corporations and billionaires at the expense of regular people. They harm minority groups. They cause misery. Even if someone isn't actively chanting for the death of minorities in the streets, being willing to enable all that makes them at best ignorant, selfish, and possibly stupid (especially in the case of your Radiolab guy).
I'm not totally against centrism, but centrists - especially in two-party systems - are defining themselves based on both parties. If one of the parties is awful and the centrist is unwilling to distance themselves from them, the centrist deserves the criticism they get.
I don't think the person was tying to win over left-wing people. They were voting the way they felt was right, which is how voting is supposed to work. They don't need to vote to make you happy, and they seemed very conflicted over it.
I personally agree that many right-wing policies cause misery. You're arguing like I'm right-wing and I am not.
That being said, I also think current left-wing policies are mostly toothless, focus on feelings over making the world better, are too easy on the wealthy, and are mostly preformative because the real solutions would alienate voters and donors alike - they seem to coast on "Let's not make things actively worse most of the time!"
I know they likely weren't trying to win left-wing people over specifically, I was just trying to explain why centrists are generally disliked by left-wing folks. Them being able to entertain voting for fascists and for generally misery-inducing policies is what makes left-wing people see them as fundamentally not that different from right-wing people. If someone's so strongly against abortion that they're willing to vote for a fascist (or at least seriously consider it) then, for most left-wing people, they're not just trying to achieve a similar positive goal through different methods, but rather they're actively a bad person.
That's not to say if you're left-wing you have to blanket disagree with every single right-wing policy - and I do genuinely think everyone should consider each individual issue on their own merits rather than just adopting the party line - but the overall right-wing package is just so awful that "enlightened" centrists being willing to entertain it are awful by extension.
I do agree with you about left-wing policies being toothless, and I think a lot of left-wingers are lacking in pragmatism - particularly when it comes to achieving their long-term goals and the sacrifices they might need to make to reach that point. Far too many left-wingers are willing to make perfect the enemy of good and end up suffering for it.
Of course, it's difficult when the right-wing are so good at rallying together and unifying different factions in order to get power. A lot of the right-wing's ideology is simply "get into power". Meanwhile, the left-wing is a mish-mash group filled with differing ideologies and factions that unite more out of necessity in order to be politically relevant and competitive with the right-wing than because they necessarily want to be a unified group. I'm not from the US, but I'll use the US Democratic party as an example: the party's overall stance is somewhat centre-right by most countries' standards, but it's also the party die-hard left-wingers have to vote for and support if they want any kind of representation at all. It makes it very difficult for genuine left-wing policies to get pushed through.
In the current political climate, left-wing parties tend to rely on swing voters to get into power, too. So not only do they have to try to appeal to all the varying ideologies of the people who make up and consistently support the party, they also have to try to appeal to the moderates. "Radical" left-wing policies would lose the support of moderates and swing voters, and therefore lose the party their political power. Sticking with the US example: the US' Overton window is so far to the right that real-world left-wing solutions to problems would probably ensure the Democrats don't regain power for years. There needs to be a more gradual shift to the left and a de-escalation before any real changes and solutions can happen.
And I agree with nearly all of that, and I would call most of the ideology you listed Centrist or independent (which are interchangeable to me when I talk about them, frankly), but I see what you're meaning.
It doesn't mean you're the centre of current USA right and left wings, which most of the people in this thread mischaracterise them as. It means you're between two points. Which points? Talk to them and find out. Maybe it's a left-wing position but they disagree vehemently on the "How" of the situation. Maybe it's a right-wing position, but they have a non-shitty take (like I tried to show with my immigration example elsewhere).
I desperately hate the "Centrists only want to kill some of the trans people" argument some make (even in this thread). It's disingenuous, anti-intellectual, and flat-out wrong.
Again, the real and long-term solution is to make more parties viable.
(As an addendum, thanks for actually discussing and not being just a shithead like some others!)
Bro, you're describing an independant.
Centrism is, by definition, staking your position as the middle between two (or more I suppose) defined positions. The reason it's such a ridiculed stance is that it's not based on any sort of principled viewpoints or analysis of the issues, and as one position shifts to extremism, the self-defined centrists follow happily along.
Just because you frame two positions as dichotomies does not mean that someone who agrees with parts of both is a centrist. It could mean they are false dichotomies (i.e. pro-riot vs pro-police) or they are positions where nuance is appropriate. Having a nuanced view is NOT being a centrist, unless the depth of your nuance is "Person A wants all of the things, and Person B wants none of the things, therefore the clear and correct answer is to have SOME of the things". Especially when the thing is something like systematic racism or corruption.
The fact that US politics is so polarized that we're constantly conditioned and primed to lump our positions into one of two (often incoherent) camps explains why centrism happens, but it's not a defense of centrism.
Wikipedia disagrees as does every other definition I found.
The far left and far right each have some funny ideas that aren't fair to the rest of the country in America (and in some cases the world). Thinking about how best to move forward while getting as many people on board as possible and affect real change doesn't mean "Hey other side, get fucked. Civil war time because I can't have everything I want in all scenarios!"
The "false dichotomies" that you're speaking about are simplifications to get the point across and are not false. You can feel that there needs to be a better system and that people in power shouldn't be able to ignore issues that they find uncomfortable so that riots are not needed, and also be opposed to destroying things belonging to people not in power. There is nothing false about that.
I don't agree with both parties (in the US) on most things ... it's kind of why I'm left. The Overton window is so fucking far right you have democrats running on a platform of "nothing will fundamentally change" while moving into the center right spaces that the GOP left behind when they finally started saying the quiet parts of loud
For real: these "neither right nor left 'free thinker' types" invariably skew the same way. 3 guesses a to which way that is
I'm not even in the US, I'm just mystified by these threads whenever they come up. It's always the highest level of straw-manning I've ever seen...
"You better attach the correct labels to yourself **and ** agree with my personal version of that label or FUCK YOU! YOU'RE BRAINWASHED! My carefully curated group of friends that think the same as me and social media where I've blocked everyone else says that I'm right! Here's a video of an expert on my side that says I'm right that neither of us will watch. Bet you feel dumb now, huh?"
I said no such thing, but good job constructing an argument to have with yourself. You win!
I wasn't talking specifically about your post, I was talking about the thread and things I was seeing as you appeared to be? But uhh... Allrighty!
That is a left position in the US.
The republicans are against police reform (except eliminating the FBI) and in favor of riots (as long as they are to overturn elections a Democrat won). They want no limits on gun ownership (except maybe black and LGBT people). They think the government is always worse than free markets and that child labor is part of a healthy free market. They want a balanced budget only when a Democrat is in office, otherwise they are fine with blowing trillions on tax cuts for the rich. The only government service they care about is ones to suppress and control non-white people.
Being against riots, and being for gun rights are not typically leftist ideals.
Edit: I mistook riots for protests. I stick by the gun rights stuff being right wing. I know what Marx said, I have a copy of the manifesto on my coffee table. Communism is about arming the workers against the proletariat, but not about guaranteed access to guns which is what gun rights means in the US. None of the major communist countries constitutions mention civilians rights to own guns, and the majority of them seek to limit civilians access to them. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, either.
The left is in favor of protests, not riots. They are different in spite of the media conflating them. As far as gun rights not being leftist, let me quote Karl Marx "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary".
Why do communist countries all typically enact gun control after the revolution, historically? In the Soviet Union, civilian gun ownership was illegal. In Cuba, they are very strict about giving licenses for them and you need to provide a valid reason. They are about arming the workers against the proletariat. Once that is accomplished, they typically seek to limit gun ownership. Not that thats a bad thing.
FWIW, I am a gun owning socialist, so I know all about this. Everything right of socialist and left of center is most definitely against gun rights. That is the vast majority of the "leftists" in the United States which is what I was referring to in this scenario.
As for the riots, you are correct. I mistook riots for protests in my ignorance, my bad, but we can't act like rioting isn't something in the anarchist playbook. Sometimes it is most definitely warranted.
Edit: you can downvote me that's fine but you still never answered my question. If the far left supports gun rights, why do none of them have gun rights in their constitutions? And why do they limit civilians access to them? That doesn't sound like gun rights to me, but idk. Unlimited gun rights are dumb, anyways, and that's why I would not connect it to the left who are actually sensible about it. Nobody should have unlimited rights to guns. It should be a position of privilege for those who are licensed and have valid use for them.
First, I didn't downvote you. To your question, I would argue that the US Constitution was written by the far left and it includes gun rights.
I also think it is important to distinguish between gun regulations originating from those in power and those originating from popular support (NZ for example).
Fair enough. The US constitution was written by people who were probably far left for their time, now that you make me think about it. I guess I just took gun rights to mean the US version of gun rights which are a bit extreme compared to the rest of the world. Sorry about getting my jimmies all rustled up there.
Literally nobody is pro-riot. That's just right-wing propaganda.
There are groups of anarchists that are indeed "pro riot" as a form of protest. I guess maybe you could say burning businesses and vandalizing things isnt rioting, but most other people would call it that. They are mostly young punk kids from my experience. There aren't a ton but they do exist. They don't go after neighborhoods like right wing media would portray, they target buildings owned by corporations that kind of deserve it, mostly. I'm not saying rioting is always a bad thing, myself. Sometimes it is warranted when a matter is serious enough and all other avenues aren't working.
I'm sorry, but when someone's "enlightened centrism" is between queer people having rights and getting murdered in the street I don't really care about your other options. You are a facists enabler at that point.
Yeah, that's not what it would mean though and that's a massive straw man definition. You've made up something you don't like and applied to a group that you now also don't like.
It's like a Republican saying that they don't like Drag Queens molesting kids. They made something up, and applied it to a group they don't like. You just did that to someone else.
You can be a centrist or independent and agree with every single LGBTQ+ talking point on the books; the label is irrelevant to a stance on any specific issue.
In fact, the labels are often the problem.
I find it a bit funny that this is basically the same argument that bisexual people face, especially in the US. You are ether "secretly gay, and afraid to commit to it" or you are "actually straight, and want to experiment" You can't just like both sides, you have to pick one.
This person gets it.
You criticize others for being brainwashed by the 2 party system, but your own understanding of left and right seems to be based on that very 2 party system
Nope. I don't use terms like brainwash unless I'm speaking about the literal act, not just media consumption (or making fun of those who do use those terms like I did in another response).
I do think that labels and identity politics are one of the worst things to be socially pushed, however. Group membership, gatekeeping those groups, and surrounding yourself with an echo chamber are the results. And with that, welcome to current politics. If you're a "Liberal" and identify as such, then that generally means certain things a large majority of the time. If you call yourself a "Conservative," then that also has connotations. When was the last time you heard a self-identified Liberal / Conservative want something considered a wedge-issue that was opposite to their standard issue position? It's increasingly rare.
If you call yourself an independent or centrist, both sides will call you stupid and assume you're the opposite of what they are by default because they've been trained to immediately think the worst about anyone that's not 100% on-board with what they feel. I'm in Canada - we have more viable parties than the US (notably the NDP), but it still happens here.
If asked, I don't tell people I'm anything. I argue individual points because then I can't be dismissed by people who see only the label and then plug their ears and run away.