12 ms·

Attacking the center is always the craziest narrative to me. It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not ok

by anm89 5y ago

Attacking the center is always the craziest narrative to me. It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side. The only right way to view these complex issues is to sign your name to join my party and then hold the party line, and everything else is unethical. I can't imagine a more obnoxious political viewpoint than that. That enlightened centrism subreddit listed below is up there with the most toxic sub reddits I've seen on reddit where people "dunk" on the idea that anyone would be so brave to have the gall not to conform precisely with progressive rhetoric on anything. It somehow seems like some of these people are more offended with the center than the other side. Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's not because I'm trying to be neutral, it's because both sides are terrifying cesspools the further you get to their extremes and the best outcome for partisan politics is to give either of those groups as little power as possible. It's not some abstract goal of evenly seeing both sides on the issues.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Agreed. The center is the glue the holds the populace in check. We need these people. Once the center is eroded things will not go well.
- anm89 5y ago
  Here's an interesting article from a great blog that tries to use a game theory perspective to quantify your belief and makes a really interesting argument in agreement with you: https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/
- kthulutude 5y ago
  Once the center is eroded things will not go well... for centrists. The idea that both 'extremes' are equivalently bad neglects the real differences in worldview that create a sense of political urgency. It's important to remember that this political urgency is a reflection of real social problems--for some people, the consequences are literally life and death.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    Wether or not one side is better or worse than the other is besides the point. "A house divided against itself can not stand." ~ Abraham Lincoln The centrist who vote with rationality as the primary mechanism of choice are the third leg that holds up the democracy. They are the lifeline connecting the two sides. We can not survive with out them. Once they are gone we are left only with dogmatic ideology.
  - southeastern 5y ago
    I agree. I think one way to demonstrate that is to consider a particularly contentious debate. Say, the Palestine-Israel conflict. If you're on the side of Palestine, agreeing with Israel only leads to more death and hate. If you're on the side of Israel, agreeing with Palestine only leads to more death and hate. The center doesn't know what to think-- it's complicated but it definitely needs to end. So the centrist point is almost pointless. If your on either end, then they are simply protecting injustice. Same thing with people who were lukewarm about civil rights. The ones who said "yeah blacks should get rights but there are a lot of people against it that deserve a say" we now look at as wrong. In a task life scenario, necessity sometimes demands a choice be made
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > The center doesn't know what to think On the I-P and the way you've framed it, there centrist-on-this-question positions that don’t meet that description, e.g.: “both Israel and various entities on the Palestinian side have engage in, and continue to engage in, actions which are intolerable and not excused by abuses on the other side The international community should cease aid to all offending parties so long as that continues, while engaging in dialogue aimed to a more complete resolution, with readiness to commit substantial resources to support a peaceful resolution.
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      False dichotomy. Strawman. Just because someone is centrist doesn't mean they don't know what to think. It usually means they have a nuanced position on an issue that doesn't conveniently fit into a box that is red or blue.
slumdev 5y ago
There are two centrisms that can't be confused. The first kind of centrist examines each issue on its merits and arrives at a principled conclusion, regardless of how other people think about an issue. This kind of centrism is reasonable. This person can't really even be called a centrist. He's just non-partisan. The second kind of centrist looks at the existing parties to an argument and averages their viewpoints: "Group A insists 2+2=4 and group B insists 2+2=6, but I'm a virtuous centrist, so I believe that 2+2=5." I don't think anyone has any issue with the first kind of centrist. But there are far too many of the second kind.
- laputan_machine 5y ago
  Can you give an example of the second type? I see this kind of strawman argument against centrism all the time, yet I rarely see "worst of both worlds" outcomes in a political sense
  - slumdev 5y ago
    Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest. If the fetus is a human person with rights, there should be no exception. If the fetus is not a human person with rights, then restrictions of any kind are unjust. The provenance of the fetus has no effect on the moral liceity of killing it. It's a lazy opinion formed by appeals to emotion.
    - tomc1985 5y ago
      > Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest. This is news to me, can you qualify this statement?
      - slumdev 5y ago
        https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-aborti... > Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%) 75% of Americans support some kind of ban (with differing positions on what loopholes should be carved out.)
whimsicalism 5y ago
I think perhaps the reason enlightened centrism gets its reputation is because there is no well-formed critique. There is a vague reference to the awfulness of both sides, it's never really described in depth or weighed, and then you end with the blithe "and that's why i'm a centrist." Even in this comment, both sides are terrifying cesspools, maybe - so what are the concrete things that you are afraid of if each of the groups gets power?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
cwkoss 5y ago
I think your flavor of centrism is actually relatively rare. That you distrust both sides I think is the key to enabling 'the good kind' of centrism. Many with a similar viewpoint would call themselves Independent to separate themselves from the parties. The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle. So in effect, many centrists determine their positions by trusting BOTH parties - which can be just as bad or worse than having blind faith in either. They are setting the bounds of possibility in between two groups which have many ideological similarities (ex. how meaningfully different are democrats than republicans on war spending?). The vast majority of 'issues' do not cleanly divide along ideological lines, and by viewing them through the distorted lens of the two-party dichotomy it creates a reductive perception of reality.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  Most people I know don't even trust their own political party. I have a hard time believing there's many people that actually trust both.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  I would beg to differ. Anecdotally I have overheard a lot of people expressing frustration that there are only two real choices in political debates. There are a lot of "nonpartisans" out there but they are suppressed by ignorant and xenophobic politicos on both sides
- anm89 5y ago
  It's hard to say either way without getting into polling data but anecdotally, I would say the amount of people whos issue with American politics is that they trust both parties so much that they can't decide who they like so they settle for the middle is many orders of magnitude smaller than the number of people whose primary issue is that they feel a general sense of distrust with all of the parties.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
watwut 5y ago
The middle between truth and lie is a lie. The middle between torture and fredom is less bad torture. I could continue, but that is the point.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  "If you aren't for us, you are against us." This is a great tool for crusades and other holy wars. You can paint inconvenient bystanders who don't come over to your side as enemy combatants and justify attacking them. Also fantastic for reinforcing in-group identity, forcing group members to stay loyal or lose their entire friend group.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    This doesn't actually address the parent post in that quite literally half-truths aren't truths. Of course the rhetorical implication is that only one side had those truths but that is most certainly not the argument being made here.
    - rkk3 5y ago
      Except politics is based on conflicting value systems not objective truth.
  - watwut 5y ago
    What does that have to do with what I said? Nothing. Political center are not passive bystanders. They are people who are active in politics and either actively stop or actively push for real policies. That then affect how country operates. It is set of ideologies as much as any other political group is. They make aliances or refuse to make them too.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      A random example policy position: "We should vote for the immediate shutdown of coal plants and demand their replacement with large scale nuclear reactors." There are lots of good objections available here, from pointing out that blackouts kill people and coal is an important part of energy capacity, to jobs arguments, to arguments about micro-reactors and the lifespan of nuclear plants. If you're going to sit on one side of the debate and say anyone who isn't fully aligned is wrong/a liar/etc, then you are both doomed for failure and have started at a maximally partisan position. Political positions have little to do with objective truths and instead tend to fall on value arguments.
ABCLAW 5y ago
>Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's not because I'm trying to be neutral, it's because both sides are terrifying cesspools You aren't being neutral. Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change. That's an understandable position, but it isn't neutrality. Especially not if the status quo is actively negative for certain people. As an aside, this portion of your statement: >It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side. Feels like a strawman. The existence of critique isn't a censure. It's just how rational analysis works. You find ideas and you work through them. If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong, and that's why you've adopted a 'centrist' standpoint to get above it all that's a very political position to adopt.
- 13415 5y ago
  I don't think there are or could be neutral political positions, nor would it be desirable to have them.
- anm89 5y ago
  >Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's NOT because I'm trying to be neutral > You aren't being neutral. My claim is that I'm not neutral and that I'm also not trying to be neutral. >If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong, Speaking of strawmen.
  - ABCLAW 5y ago
    It's a bit tough to understand how you reconcile this position with your original paragraph. >Attacking the center is always the craziest narrative to me. It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side. The only right way to view these complex issues is to sign your name to join my party and then hold the party line, and everything else is unethical. I can't imagine a more obnoxious political viewpoint than that. Your position is that holding a position and critiquing those that don't hold it is the most obnoxious political viewpoint to take. How can you adopt and advocate for any political position, then, other than a 'non-position' which doesn't actually adopt any stance?
myfavoritedog 5y ago
I agree with you in a lot of ways, although my problem with the center is: When Democrats want to blow out the budget by spending $10 trillion and then centrist Republicans say, "Okay, we'll do $5 trillion", there's nowhere to go besides further to the right. is to give either of those groups as little power as possible The only two groups that even talk about decreasing the power of all the extremists are Libertarians and Conservatives. Those people have no voice in the center. The very lack of their agreeing to keep increasing the power of government labels them as "extremists".
- watwut 5y ago
  Historically, democrats make debt smaller and republicans larger.
  - myfavoritedog 5y ago
    Actually, nobody makes the debt smaller. They monkey with the deficit, but the debt continues to grow. But your original claim is a naive talking point based upon who happened to be President at the time. Often, the Congress has a lot more to do with what happens spending-wise. Clinton was a good example. The Republicans were the ones who reined in the budget under Clinton, but somehow Clinton liked to talk about how he had "balanced the budget".
x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
You mention both sides being terrible cesspools, but your concrete examples only hit out at what you deem to be progressive subreddits. One aspect of centrism is that it's generally people who either benefit from or want to maintain the status quo, without incurring the conflict that comes with stating so.
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  > One aspect of centrism is that it's generally people who either benefit from or want to maintain the status quo, without incurring the conflict that comes with stating so. This absolutely is not true, it's simply the straw man that polarized extremists use to lampoon centrism. It's based on two faulty assumptions: 1. Centrists believe the right course of action is "in the middle" of both extremes on all issues. This is like assuming that every movie that gets rated 5/10 on average got rated 5/10 by everyone who watched it, rather than 1/10 by 50% of people, and 10/10 by the other 50%. It's certainly true that sometimes centrists will believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it can also mean that they agree with the more extreme view of one wing on some issues, and strongly disagree on others. 2. It also assumes that neither wing of the political spectrum is never interested in maintaining the status quo, which is rarely the case. There are some issues for which progressives are pro-change and conservatives are for the status quo, and vice versa. You could conceivably have a centrist who is for raising taxes and government provided universal healthcare, and against affirmative action and for increased border security or against legality of abortions. All of these positions would represent upending a point of the status quo that either conservatives or progressives are for maintaining. The point is that too often, centrism is lazily painted as apathetic, uninterested in change, or unwilling to take a hard stance on anything. In reality, many centrists are simply not falling in line with a particular political faction consistently enough to be a supporter of any of them. And this doesn't even consider those who are skeptical of the self-perpetuating propaganda narratives that have been increasing in intensity as the internet has matured. Some people are centrists not because they aren't for change or taking a stance, but because they express skepticism at the narratives constantly being thrust upon us through the media and the internet. This doesn't equate to "both sides are right", or even "both sides are wrong", it is closer to "both sides have demonstrated a willingness to lie for their agenda, so I want to take things on a case by case basis rather than blindly throw my support at one".
throwaway894345 5y ago
> It somehow seems like some of these people are more offended with the center than the other side. I think this holds well beyond that particular subreddit. I think this is horseshoe theory in action. The klansman isn't the real threat, it's the moderate who won't toe the progressive line.
version_five 5y ago
Wow, all the confirmation one needs for the first two paragraphs of your post is to read the replies you got. I'm reminded a bit of the Futurama where Zapp Brannigan attacks the neutral planet :)
tootie 5y ago
Free speech as a sacred right means you have the absolute right to put yourself anywhere you want on the political spectrum, but that doesn't mean that one isn't right and the other side is wrong. I also think that "centrist" is a pretty meaningless term. I prefer to think of myself as more of an empiricist. I like policy that follows evidence. 90% of the time that's liberal policy. Roughly 0% of the time is that conservative policy. There's some rallying cries like $15 min wage or forgiving student loan debt that seem like foolish hills to die on, but universal healthcare, equal rights, voting rights, progressive taxation and aggressive action on climate are so blindingly obvious that anyone who questions them is wrong in my book. You have right to be wrong, but you're wrong. Saying that you oppose the poles because they are "cesspools" strongly implies you don't like the loudest proponents and aren't considering the validity of their policy.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  This is how liberal policies of Oakland, California will decide how to educate their children [PDF]: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11... I am not convinced, at all - this is coming from a liberal who has voted for every democratic candidate since age 18.
  - tootie 5y ago
    Yeah I don't back every policy just because a liberal came up with it. I think racial equity in education is great and it's a thing conservatives don't seem to care about. I'm not familiar enough with this plan to say if it's a bad idea or not. I think it's a really difficult problem to solve and no one has a great solution.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      > In 2017 Portland ranked third. Now it has dropped to 66th out of 80. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-was-once-a-byword-for-tattooed-vegan-microbrewers https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-... The unchecked progressivism is destroying entire cities, enmasse. No one wants to live in defunded police state, and I would be pretty pissed if I owned property in Portland. I might just vote for the republican party in the next election. I can't stand this just like I couldn't stand the prior republican administration. But, then I think about all the shitty politicians... America, you're broken. Find someone reasonable in the center that I can vote for.
gremlinsinc 5y ago
yeah, left/right are total cesspools. Left = right in toxicity. (Sarcasm, not trying to be snarky) but you really can't equate the far-right to the far-left. On the one hand you have people passionate about: - Equal access to schools, careers, pay, universities, healthcare... - Ending global warming. - Racism is real, and we should learn about it in school. - End poverty - More regulated capitalism - Higher taxes on wealthy, less on middle class. - Science is cool, we like science. Respected Orgs: ACLU, Trade Unions, Post Office, Defamation League, EFF, Palestinians (going back to equality - w/ regards to Israel), Science Orgs, Colleges / Universities On the other side you have people passionate about: - California wildfires > caused by Jewish space-lasers. - that all guns should have zero regulations (nobody wants to end guns, just maybe ar-15s outside gun ranges) - that tourists were just being tourists on January 6th. - Gun violence isn't a big deal - Cops deserve immunity cause their cops, and we love them and they can't do bad. - All unions are bad, except cop unions. See previous. - Ending all environmental protections. - Racism ended in the 60s, let's forget it ever existed all lives matter... - Who cares about poverty, I got mine, that's all that matters. - No regulations on capitalism. - Lower taxes on everyone, including the wealthy. - Science is bad it destroys our world view, let's ignore science. Respected Orgs: KKK, Boogaloo Bois, NRA, <anything> of the confederacy, Confederate Army (retrospective), Israel, Fascists, The Pillow Guy, Trump Empire. From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_s... Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".[16] Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists,[17] communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality[21] and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.[22] Political scientists and other analysts regard the right as including conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries and traditionalists. A number of significant political movements do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum, including Christian democracy,[26] feminism,[27][28] and regionalism.[27][28][29] Though nationalism is often regarded as a right-wing doctrine, many nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are also "liberal nationalists".[30] Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations in the form of left-wing populism and right-wing populism, respectively.[31] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[32]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
goldenManatee 5y ago
TIL analysis paralysis goes by centrism

by anm89 5y ago

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

Agreed. The center is the glue the holds the populace in check. We need these people. Once the center is eroded things will not go well.

anm89 5y ago
Here's an interesting article from a great blog that tries to use a game theory perspective to quantify your belief and makes a really interesting argument in agreement with you: https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/
kthulutude 5y ago
Once the center is eroded things will not go well... for centrists. The idea that both 'extremes' are equivalently bad neglects the real differences in worldview that create a sense of political urgency. It's important to remember that this political urgency is a reflection of real social problems--for some people, the consequences are literally life and death.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  Wether or not one side is better or worse than the other is besides the point. "A house divided against itself can not stand." ~ Abraham Lincoln The centrist who vote with rationality as the primary mechanism of choice are the third leg that holds up the democracy. They are the lifeline connecting the two sides. We can not survive with out them. Once they are gone we are left only with dogmatic ideology.
- southeastern 5y ago
  I agree. I think one way to demonstrate that is to consider a particularly contentious debate. Say, the Palestine-Israel conflict. If you're on the side of Palestine, agreeing with Israel only leads to more death and hate. If you're on the side of Israel, agreeing with Palestine only leads to more death and hate. The center doesn't know what to think-- it's complicated but it definitely needs to end. So the centrist point is almost pointless. If your on either end, then they are simply protecting injustice. Same thing with people who were lukewarm about civil rights. The ones who said "yeah blacks should get rights but there are a lot of people against it that deserve a say" we now look at as wrong. In a task life scenario, necessity sometimes demands a choice be made
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The center doesn't know what to think On the I-P and the way you've framed it, there centrist-on-this-question positions that don’t meet that description, e.g.: “both Israel and various entities on the Palestinian side have engage in, and continue to engage in, actions which are intolerable and not excused by abuses on the other side The international community should cease aid to all offending parties so long as that continues, while engaging in dialogue aimed to a more complete resolution, with readiness to commit substantial resources to support a peaceful resolution.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    False dichotomy. Strawman. Just because someone is centrist doesn't mean they don't know what to think. It usually means they have a nuanced position on an issue that doesn't conveniently fit into a box that is red or blue.

slumdev 5y ago

There are two centrisms that can't be confused. The first kind of centrist examines each issue on its merits and arrives at a principled conclusion, regardless of how other people think about an issue. This kind of centrism is reasonable. This person can't really even be called a centrist. He's just non-partisan. The second kind of centrist looks at the existing parties to an argument and averages their viewpoints: "Group A insists 2+2=4 and group B insists 2+2=6, but I'm a virtuous centrist, so I believe that 2+2=5." I don't think anyone has any issue with the first kind of centrist. But there are far too many of the second kind.

laputan_machine 5y ago
Can you give an example of the second type? I see this kind of strawman argument against centrism all the time, yet I rarely see "worst of both worlds" outcomes in a political sense
- slumdev 5y ago
  Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest. If the fetus is a human person with rights, there should be no exception. If the fetus is not a human person with rights, then restrictions of any kind are unjust. The provenance of the fetus has no effect on the moral liceity of killing it. It's a lazy opinion formed by appeals to emotion.
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    > Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest. This is news to me, can you qualify this statement?
    - slumdev 5y ago
      https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-aborti... > Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%) 75% of Americans support some kind of ban (with differing positions on what loopholes should be carved out.)

whimsicalism 5y ago

I think perhaps the reason enlightened centrism gets its reputation is because there is no well-formed critique. There is a vague reference to the awfulness of both sides, it's never really described in depth or weighed, and then you end with the blithe "and that's why i'm a centrist." Even in this comment, both sides are terrifying cesspools, maybe - so what are the concrete things that you are afraid of if each of the groups gets power?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cwkoss 5y ago

I think your flavor of centrism is actually relatively rare. That you distrust both sides I think is the key to enabling 'the good kind' of centrism. Many with a similar viewpoint would call themselves Independent to separate themselves from the parties. The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle. So in effect, many centrists determine their positions by trusting BOTH parties - which can be just as bad or worse than having blind faith in either. They are setting the bounds of possibility in between two groups which have many ideological similarities (ex. how meaningfully different are democrats than republicans on war spending?). The vast majority of 'issues' do not cleanly divide along ideological lines, and by viewing them through the distorted lens of the two-party dichotomy it creates a reductive perception of reality.

bcrosby95 5y ago
Most people I know don't even trust their own political party. I have a hard time believing there's many people that actually trust both.
tomc1985 5y ago
I would beg to differ. Anecdotally I have overheard a lot of people expressing frustration that there are only two real choices in political debates. There are a lot of "nonpartisans" out there but they are suppressed by ignorant and xenophobic politicos on both sides
anm89 5y ago
It's hard to say either way without getting into polling data but anecdotally, I would say the amount of people whos issue with American politics is that they trust both parties so much that they can't decide who they like so they settle for the middle is many orders of magnitude smaller than the number of people whose primary issue is that they feel a general sense of distrust with all of the parties.
- cwkoss 5y ago

watwut 5y ago

The middle between truth and lie is a lie. The middle between torture and fredom is less bad torture. I could continue, but that is the point.

vorpalhex 5y ago
"If you aren't for us, you are against us." This is a great tool for crusades and other holy wars. You can paint inconvenient bystanders who don't come over to your side as enemy combatants and justify attacking them. Also fantastic for reinforcing in-group identity, forcing group members to stay loyal or lose their entire friend group.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  This doesn't actually address the parent post in that quite literally half-truths aren't truths. Of course the rhetorical implication is that only one side had those truths but that is most certainly not the argument being made here.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    Except politics is based on conflicting value systems not objective truth.
- watwut 5y ago
  What does that have to do with what I said? Nothing. Political center are not passive bystanders. They are people who are active in politics and either actively stop or actively push for real policies. That then affect how country operates. It is set of ideologies as much as any other political group is. They make aliances or refuse to make them too.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    A random example policy position: "We should vote for the immediate shutdown of coal plants and demand their replacement with large scale nuclear reactors." There are lots of good objections available here, from pointing out that blackouts kill people and coal is an important part of energy capacity, to jobs arguments, to arguments about micro-reactors and the lifespan of nuclear plants. If you're going to sit on one side of the debate and say anyone who isn't fully aligned is wrong/a liar/etc, then you are both doomed for failure and have started at a maximally partisan position. Political positions have little to do with objective truths and instead tend to fall on value arguments.

ABCLAW 5y ago

>Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's not because I'm trying to be neutral, it's because both sides are terrifying cesspools You aren't being neutral. Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change. That's an understandable position, but it isn't neutrality. Especially not if the status quo is actively negative for certain people. As an aside, this portion of your statement: >It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side. Feels like a strawman. The existence of critique isn't a censure. It's just how rational analysis works. You find ideas and you work through them. If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong, and that's why you've adopted a 'centrist' standpoint to get above it all that's a very political position to adopt.

13415 5y ago
I don't think there are or could be neutral political positions, nor would it be desirable to have them.
anm89 5y ago
>Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's NOT because I'm trying to be neutral > You aren't being neutral. My claim is that I'm not neutral and that I'm also not trying to be neutral. >If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong, Speaking of strawmen.
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  It's a bit tough to understand how you reconcile this position with your original paragraph. >Attacking the center is always the craziest narrative to me. It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side. The only right way to view these complex issues is to sign your name to join my party and then hold the party line, and everything else is unethical. I can't imagine a more obnoxious political viewpoint than that. Your position is that holding a position and critiquing those that don't hold it is the most obnoxious political viewpoint to take. How can you adopt and advocate for any political position, then, other than a 'non-position' which doesn't actually adopt any stance?

myfavoritedog 5y ago

I agree with you in a lot of ways, although my problem with the center is: When Democrats want to blow out the budget by spending $10 trillion and then centrist Republicans say, "Okay, we'll do $5 trillion", there's nowhere to go besides further to the right. is to give either of those groups as little power as possible The only two groups that even talk about decreasing the power of all the extremists are Libertarians and Conservatives. Those people have no voice in the center. The very lack of their agreeing to keep increasing the power of government labels them as "extremists".

watwut 5y ago
Historically, democrats make debt smaller and republicans larger.
- myfavoritedog 5y ago
  Actually, nobody makes the debt smaller. They monkey with the deficit, but the debt continues to grow. But your original claim is a naive talking point based upon who happened to be President at the time. Often, the Congress has a lot more to do with what happens spending-wise. Clinton was a good example. The Republicans were the ones who reined in the budget under Clinton, but somehow Clinton liked to talk about how he had "balanced the budget".

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

You mention both sides being terrible cesspools, but your concrete examples only hit out at what you deem to be progressive subreddits. One aspect of centrism is that it's generally people who either benefit from or want to maintain the status quo, without incurring the conflict that comes with stating so.

bart_spoon 5y ago
> One aspect of centrism is that it's generally people who either benefit from or want to maintain the status quo, without incurring the conflict that comes with stating so. This absolutely is not true, it's simply the straw man that polarized extremists use to lampoon centrism. It's based on two faulty assumptions: 1. Centrists believe the right course of action is "in the middle" of both extremes on all issues. This is like assuming that every movie that gets rated 5/10 on average got rated 5/10 by everyone who watched it, rather than 1/10 by 50% of people, and 10/10 by the other 50%. It's certainly true that sometimes centrists will believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it can also mean that they agree with the more extreme view of one wing on some issues, and strongly disagree on others. 2. It also assumes that neither wing of the political spectrum is never interested in maintaining the status quo, which is rarely the case. There are some issues for which progressives are pro-change and conservatives are for the status quo, and vice versa. You could conceivably have a centrist who is for raising taxes and government provided universal healthcare, and against affirmative action and for increased border security or against legality of abortions. All of these positions would represent upending a point of the status quo that either conservatives or progressives are for maintaining. The point is that too often, centrism is lazily painted as apathetic, uninterested in change, or unwilling to take a hard stance on anything. In reality, many centrists are simply not falling in line with a particular political faction consistently enough to be a supporter of any of them. And this doesn't even consider those who are skeptical of the self-perpetuating propaganda narratives that have been increasing in intensity as the internet has matured. Some people are centrists not because they aren't for change or taking a stance, but because they express skepticism at the narratives constantly being thrust upon us through the media and the internet. This doesn't equate to "both sides are right", or even "both sides are wrong", it is closer to "both sides have demonstrated a willingness to lie for their agenda, so I want to take things on a case by case basis rather than blindly throw my support at one".

throwaway894345 5y ago

> It somehow seems like some of these people are more offended with the center than the other side. I think this holds well beyond that particular subreddit. I think this is horseshoe theory in action. The klansman isn't the real threat, it's the moderate who won't toe the progressive line.

version_five 5y ago

Wow, all the confirmation one needs for the first two paragraphs of your post is to read the replies you got. I'm reminded a bit of the Futurama where Zapp Brannigan attacks the neutral planet :)

tootie 5y ago

Free speech as a sacred right means you have the absolute right to put yourself anywhere you want on the political spectrum, but that doesn't mean that one isn't right and the other side is wrong. I also think that "centrist" is a pretty meaningless term. I prefer to think of myself as more of an empiricist. I like policy that follows evidence. 90% of the time that's liberal policy. Roughly 0% of the time is that conservative policy. There's some rallying cries like $15 min wage or forgiving student loan debt that seem like foolish hills to die on, but universal healthcare, equal rights, voting rights, progressive taxation and aggressive action on climate are so blindingly obvious that anyone who questions them is wrong in my book. You have right to be wrong, but you're wrong. Saying that you oppose the poles because they are "cesspools" strongly implies you don't like the loudest proponents and aren't considering the validity of their policy.

systemvoltage 5y ago
This is how liberal policies of Oakland, California will decide how to educate their children [PDF]: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11... I am not convinced, at all - this is coming from a liberal who has voted for every democratic candidate since age 18.
- tootie 5y ago
  Yeah I don't back every policy just because a liberal came up with it. I think racial equity in education is great and it's a thing conservatives don't seem to care about. I'm not familiar enough with this plan to say if it's a bad idea or not. I think it's a really difficult problem to solve and no one has a great solution.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    > In 2017 Portland ranked third. Now it has dropped to 66th out of 80. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-was-once-a-byword-for-tattooed-vegan-microbrewers https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-... The unchecked progressivism is destroying entire cities, enmasse. No one wants to live in defunded police state, and I would be pretty pissed if I owned property in Portland. I might just vote for the republican party in the next election. I can't stand this just like I couldn't stand the prior republican administration. But, then I think about all the shitty politicians... America, you're broken. Find someone reasonable in the center that I can vote for.

gremlinsinc 5y ago

yeah, left/right are total cesspools. Left = right in toxicity. (Sarcasm, not trying to be snarky) but you really can't equate the far-right to the far-left. On the one hand you have people passionate about: - Equal access to schools, careers, pay, universities, healthcare... - Ending global warming. - Racism is real, and we should learn about it in school. - End poverty - More regulated capitalism - Higher taxes on wealthy, less on middle class. - Science is cool, we like science. Respected Orgs: ACLU, Trade Unions, Post Office, Defamation League, EFF, Palestinians (going back to equality - w/ regards to Israel), Science Orgs, Colleges / Universities On the other side you have people passionate about: - California wildfires > caused by Jewish space-lasers. - that all guns should have zero regulations (nobody wants to end guns, just maybe ar-15s outside gun ranges) - that tourists were just being tourists on January 6th. - Gun violence isn't a big deal - Cops deserve immunity cause their cops, and we love them and they can't do bad. - All unions are bad, except cop unions. See previous. - Ending all environmental protections. - Racism ended in the 60s, let's forget it ever existed all lives matter... - Who cares about poverty, I got mine, that's all that matters. - No regulations on capitalism. - Lower taxes on everyone, including the wealthy. - Science is bad it destroys our world view, let's ignore science. Respected Orgs: KKK, Boogaloo Bois, NRA, <anything> of the confederacy, Confederate Army (retrospective), Israel, Fascists, The Pillow Guy, Trump Empire. From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_s... Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".[16] Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists,[17] communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality[21] and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.[22] Political scientists and other analysts regard the right as including conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries and traditionalists. A number of significant political movements do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum, including Christian democracy,[26] feminism,[27][28] and regionalism.[27][28][29] Though nationalism is often regarded as a right-wing doctrine, many nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are also "liberal nationalists".[30] Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations in the form of left-wing populism and right-wing populism, respectively.[31] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[32]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

goldenManatee 5y ago

TIL analysis paralysis goes by centrism