7 ms·

The problem with “the middle” is that’s relative to the Overton window. Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters didn’t used to be “one side” with “the

The problem with “the middle” is that’s relative to the Overton window. Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters didn’t used to be “one side” with “the middle” suggesting they should simply arrest them and lock them up.

iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
[flagged]
- rozal 9mo ago
  [dead]
- nozzlegear 9mo ago
  > edit: and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ). if you cant even manage that, what are you doing here? Is this irony? You literally just posted about arguments from vocal minorities on HN and other social media driving people away.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
    In the immortal words of the elder Elaine Benice: it means whatever you want it to mean. What I want is for someone to respond to my message as opposed to a lazy button press. But I dream.
- assimpleaspossi 9mo ago
  [flagged]
- hobs 9mo ago
  You say socially approved catch phrases and yet people are being shot in my city by federal agents, and I carry a passport knowing that it will do me no good if they decide to crack my head in. When do words have meanings that connect to reality for you personally?
  - iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
    Thank you. This is more reasonable way of phrasing this. That said, it is almost completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Is it acceptable for you if I simply do not engage or am I obligated to offer a personal value statement as if I were an embassy representative? I am not making fun of you. I treat words very seriously. I also treat them seriously enough to not direct every conversation to my pet cause ( whatever it may be ).
    - hobs 9mo ago
      You can ignore or whatever, but the framing of this as a vitriolic outburst from people instead of what should be an obvious call to action for their countrymen is the problem, when you choose not to engage you effectively endorse the outcome of totalitarianism.
      - iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
        May I suggest that what may appear obvious to you, is anything but obvious to others? May I suggest that other people may not share your values, your priorities, your constraints, or your willingness to engage. Just from those alone, you should be able to gather that telling people something is obvious is not the most endearing way to capture their attention. You might capture it, but not in the way you might imagine. And all this is before we even to get to the meaty part as to whether the people you are trying to convince are convinced something is a problem. So far, all I really see is posture and hand-wringing. You wanna say something? Say it.
  - kortilla 9mo ago
    People are being shot that are interfering with said federal agents. Absolute excessive use of force but it’s stupid to present this as if there isn’t an easy way to avoid it.
    - hobs 9mo ago
      Ah yes, lick the boot even harder and then maybe you will get some respite. This version of events you present has no connection with reality.
- idle_zealot 9mo ago
  > and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ). Sure. You can guess the "camp", but so what? Must we all use value-neutral language when discussing an issue? I take issue with centrism for centrism's sake. If your goal is to take two points of view and treat them as equals then that grants a systemic advantage to whoever has the more insane view. By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities. Fuck centrism. Believe in something, you coward.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
    << Believe in something, you coward. :D I appreciate it. I truly do. I am somewhat aghast that someone would suggest that centrism, as a whole, is a not, in itself, a belief system. If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ). On the other hand, it really are those pesky zealot believers that are causing all that ruckus.. << By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities. Oh man. Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me.
    - idle_zealot 9mo ago
      > If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ). What principles could a person have that would put them in the center of US politics right now? > Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me. Sure. My principles are that those with power must be held to higher, not lower, standards of conduct and accountability. When you act like maybe there's something to the obvious and boldfaced lie that the two recent killings by ICE* were done in self-defense then you are shifting the scope of acceptable conduct towards lawlessness. Playing both sides makes you an enemy of civil society. The "liberal" media has their version of events, largely blaming "insufficient training." The killers had 10+ years of experience in their roles. When interviewing administration officials reporters refuse to call them liars or question their motivations, instead suggesting that they are simply mistaken. And of course the official right-wing line is that the murdered civilians were extremist terrorists who attacked law enforcement officers and deserved what they got. Full-throated endorsement of street executions. Where is your centrism? What is the center between these two positions? I align myself more with the former because it's at least not totally deranged. I'm not a partisan because I don't think the Democrats or media agree with my values, but I'm also not going to equivocate between them and Republicans and act like I'm stranded in the middle of two positions. The solution isn't in the middle of two wrong answers, it's something else entirely. *: (or was it CBP? They all blend together all of a sudden)
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
treis 9mo ago
Right on cue
- Loughla 9mo ago
  What is the point of your three words here? Legitimately I don't get it.
  - nearbuy 9mo ago
    The parent comment was about how the most partisan users post the most on social media and sure enough, the first response was by a partisan user.
    - lazide 9mo ago
      They have the most to win/lose. The rest are just going ‘WTF is this shit?!?’
    - _9za9 9mo ago
      And you are replying to a partisan user.
      - nearbuy 9mo ago
        Not sure why this is relevant. The paper says partisanship is strongly correlated with frequency of posting. Are you also pointing out that the commenters here are very partisan and this shows the paper is correct?
        denuoweb2 9mo ago
        It is relevant, reread it.
        nearbuy 9mo ago
        Best I can tell, you're indicating that more partisan users post more, as the paper found.
greenavocado 9mo ago
[flagged]
- jasonlotito 9mo ago
  Jan 6 suggests those are merely tourists, not terrorists, even if they are trying to assassinate the VP.
  - _9za9 9mo ago
    All of the people there were trying to assassinate the VP? How come no one's been charged for assassination attempt?
    - jasonlotito 9mo ago
      > All of the people there were trying to assassinate the VP? Sure seemed like it. All those people chanting to kill the VP? Sure seems like it. > How come no one's been charged for assassination attempt? Corruption? Doesn't change the facts. They were trying to kill the VP. Pretend what you want, there were 1500+ that day that certain people said were just tourists.
      - _9za9 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        jasonlotito 9mo ago
        That's 100% not what I'm saying or claiming and you are 100% lying and making stuff up. At best you are a troll. At best. I do agree with what you, denuoweb, said though, you are a mentally ill person. Edit: Oh, I see, you are trying to circumvent a ban or something and creating multiple sock puppet accounts or something? No.
        denuoweb3 9mo ago
FiniteField 9mo ago
>Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters didn’t used to be “one side” This is factually not true. Levels of violence by the state against citizens in the United States is at near historic lows. The state killed dozens of children in Waco in the 90s, bombed domestic buildings in Philadelphia in the 80s, shot protestors Kent State University in the 70s, going back to the early years of the USA where protests and rebellions were put down with private militias and bounties. The shooting by one officer of one protester in a scuffle with officers wouldn't have reached the history books in any other time.
- jmyeet 9mo ago
  US law enforcement kill over 1000 people every year, way more than any comparable country [1]. The raw data of incidents on Wikipedia has to be broken down by month [2]. And here's a chart showing the number has been going up basically every year for at least a decade [3]. What "historic lows" are you talking about? [1]: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/policekillings_total.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/policekillings_total.htm... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enfor... [3]: https://www.consumershield.com/articles/how-many-people-are-killed-by-police-each-year https://www.consumershield.com/articles/how-many-people-are-...
  - int_19h 9mo ago
    OP is saying that this is a historical low for US, not in the grand scheme of things.
belorn 9mo ago
It is a major simplification to put the political spectrum on a single line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum). If we put it as a triangle, the Overton window can be as far from left to right as left/right is to the middle. The Overton window is not involved in defining the middle, and the middle definitively do not need to agree 50% with any specific decision done by the left or right.
noosphr 9mo ago
I would usually keep quiet and ignore post like this because they are extreme timesinks, but to give a perfect example: Waco. It happened under the other side. The official story is bunk and half the country that is supposedly anti-authoritarian cheered it on. I don't care to have the conversation or change anyone's mind but your post is the perfect example why people in the middle disengaged from the loud minority that takes over online spaces.
- jmyeet 9mo ago
  I'm old enough to remember Waco and there was widespread criticism of Janet Reno's handling of Waco. This idea that the Dems "cheered it on" is ahistorical post facto justification for a position you likely already held. I see this all the time. It's some combination of "X was hypocrditical" or "X was mean to me", which leads to "and that's why I support [the opposite of X] as [a centrist, a moderate, someone with common sense]". And reaching for a ~30 year old siege is the reachiest of reaches. This is the Myth of the Moderate. There is no such thing a "moderate" or a "centrist" in the modern day. Ask them about issues and they're just conservatives who are embarrassed about it.
  - dlivingston 9mo ago
    Hi, I consider myself a moderate. Feel free to ask me any questions. Happy to knock your silly strawman down. :)
tejohnso 9mo ago
Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters is still not within the Overton window though.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago

[flagged]

rozal 9mo ago
[dead]
nozzlegear 9mo ago
> edit: and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ). if you cant even manage that, what are you doing here? Is this irony? You literally just posted about arguments from vocal minorities on HN and other social media driving people away.
- iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
  In the immortal words of the elder Elaine Benice: it means whatever you want it to mean. What I want is for someone to respond to my message as opposed to a lazy button press. But I dream.
assimpleaspossi 9mo ago
[flagged]
hobs 9mo ago
You say socially approved catch phrases and yet people are being shot in my city by federal agents, and I carry a passport knowing that it will do me no good if they decide to crack my head in. When do words have meanings that connect to reality for you personally?
- iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
  Thank you. This is more reasonable way of phrasing this. That said, it is almost completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Is it acceptable for you if I simply do not engage or am I obligated to offer a personal value statement as if I were an embassy representative? I am not making fun of you. I treat words very seriously. I also treat them seriously enough to not direct every conversation to my pet cause ( whatever it may be ).
  - hobs 9mo ago
    You can ignore or whatever, but the framing of this as a vitriolic outburst from people instead of what should be an obvious call to action for their countrymen is the problem, when you choose not to engage you effectively endorse the outcome of totalitarianism.
    - iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
      May I suggest that what may appear obvious to you, is anything but obvious to others? May I suggest that other people may not share your values, your priorities, your constraints, or your willingness to engage. Just from those alone, you should be able to gather that telling people something is obvious is not the most endearing way to capture their attention. You might capture it, but not in the way you might imagine. And all this is before we even to get to the meaty part as to whether the people you are trying to convince are convinced something is a problem. So far, all I really see is posture and hand-wringing. You wanna say something? Say it.
- kortilla 9mo ago
  People are being shot that are interfering with said federal agents. Absolute excessive use of force but it’s stupid to present this as if there isn’t an easy way to avoid it.
  - hobs 9mo ago
    Ah yes, lick the boot even harder and then maybe you will get some respite. This version of events you present has no connection with reality.
idle_zealot 9mo ago
> and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ). Sure. You can guess the "camp", but so what? Must we all use value-neutral language when discussing an issue? I take issue with centrism for centrism's sake. If your goal is to take two points of view and treat them as equals then that grants a systemic advantage to whoever has the more insane view. By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities. Fuck centrism. Believe in something, you coward.
- iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
  << Believe in something, you coward. :D I appreciate it. I truly do. I am somewhat aghast that someone would suggest that centrism, as a whole, is a not, in itself, a belief system. If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ). On the other hand, it really are those pesky zealot believers that are causing all that ruckus.. << By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities. Oh man. Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me.
  - idle_zealot 9mo ago
    > If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ). What principles could a person have that would put them in the center of US politics right now? > Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me. Sure. My principles are that those with power must be held to higher, not lower, standards of conduct and accountability. When you act like maybe there's something to the obvious and boldfaced lie that the two recent killings by ICE* were done in self-defense then you are shifting the scope of acceptable conduct towards lawlessness. Playing both sides makes you an enemy of civil society. The "liberal" media has their version of events, largely blaming "insufficient training." The killers had 10+ years of experience in their roles. When interviewing administration officials reporters refuse to call them liars or question their motivations, instead suggesting that they are simply mistaken. And of course the official right-wing line is that the murdered civilians were extremist terrorists who attacked law enforcement officers and deserved what they got. Full-throated endorsement of street executions. Where is your centrism? What is the center between these two positions? I align myself more with the former because it's at least not totally deranged. I'm not a partisan because I don't think the Democrats or media agree with my values, but I'm also not going to equivocate between them and Republicans and act like I'm stranded in the middle of two positions. The solution isn't in the middle of two wrong answers, it's something else entirely. *: (or was it CBP? They all blend together all of a sudden)

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

treis 9mo ago

Right on cue

Loughla 9mo ago
What is the point of your three words here? Legitimately I don't get it.
- nearbuy 9mo ago
  The parent comment was about how the most partisan users post the most on social media and sure enough, the first response was by a partisan user.
  - lazide 9mo ago
    They have the most to win/lose. The rest are just going ‘WTF is this shit?!?’
  - _9za9 9mo ago
    And you are replying to a partisan user.
    - nearbuy 9mo ago
      Not sure why this is relevant. The paper says partisanship is strongly correlated with frequency of posting. Are you also pointing out that the commenters here are very partisan and this shows the paper is correct?
      - denuoweb2 9mo ago
        It is relevant, reread it.
        nearbuy 9mo ago
        Best I can tell, you're indicating that more partisan users post more, as the paper found.

greenavocado 9mo ago

[flagged]

jasonlotito 9mo ago
Jan 6 suggests those are merely tourists, not terrorists, even if they are trying to assassinate the VP.
- _9za9 9mo ago
  All of the people there were trying to assassinate the VP? How come no one's been charged for assassination attempt?
  - jasonlotito 9mo ago
    > All of the people there were trying to assassinate the VP? Sure seemed like it. All those people chanting to kill the VP? Sure seems like it. > How come no one's been charged for assassination attempt? Corruption? Doesn't change the facts. They were trying to kill the VP. Pretend what you want, there were 1500+ that day that certain people said were just tourists.
    - _9za9 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - jasonlotito 9mo ago
        That's 100% not what I'm saying or claiming and you are 100% lying and making stuff up. At best you are a troll. At best. I do agree with what you, denuoweb, said though, you are a mentally ill person. Edit: Oh, I see, you are trying to circumvent a ban or something and creating multiple sock puppet accounts or something? No.
        denuoweb3 9mo ago

FiniteField 9mo ago

>Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters didn’t used to be “one side” This is factually not true. Levels of violence by the state against citizens in the United States is at near historic lows. The state killed dozens of children in Waco in the 90s, bombed domestic buildings in Philadelphia in the 80s, shot protestors Kent State University in the 70s, going back to the early years of the USA where protests and rebellions were put down with private militias and bounties. The shooting by one officer of one protester in a scuffle with officers wouldn't have reached the history books in any other time.

jmyeet 9mo ago
US law enforcement kill over 1000 people every year, way more than any comparable country [1]. The raw data of incidents on Wikipedia has to be broken down by month [2]. And here's a chart showing the number has been going up basically every year for at least a decade [3]. What "historic lows" are you talking about? [1]: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/policekillings_total.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/policekillings_total.htm... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enfor... [3]: https://www.consumershield.com/articles/how-many-people-are-killed-by-police-each-year https://www.consumershield.com/articles/how-many-people-are-...
- int_19h 9mo ago
  OP is saying that this is a historical low for US, not in the grand scheme of things.

belorn 9mo ago

It is a major simplification to put the political spectrum on a single line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum). If we put it as a triangle, the Overton window can be as far from left to right as left/right is to the middle. The Overton window is not involved in defining the middle, and the middle definitively do not need to agree 50% with any specific decision done by the left or right.

noosphr 9mo ago

I would usually keep quiet and ignore post like this because they are extreme timesinks, but to give a perfect example: Waco. It happened under the other side. The official story is bunk and half the country that is supposedly anti-authoritarian cheered it on. I don't care to have the conversation or change anyone's mind but your post is the perfect example why people in the middle disengaged from the loud minority that takes over online spaces.

jmyeet 9mo ago
I'm old enough to remember Waco and there was widespread criticism of Janet Reno's handling of Waco. This idea that the Dems "cheered it on" is ahistorical post facto justification for a position you likely already held. I see this all the time. It's some combination of "X was hypocrditical" or "X was mean to me", which leads to "and that's why I support [the opposite of X] as [a centrist, a moderate, someone with common sense]". And reaching for a ~30 year old siege is the reachiest of reaches. This is the Myth of the Moderate. There is no such thing a "moderate" or a "centrist" in the modern day. Ask them about issues and they're just conservatives who are embarrassed about it.
- dlivingston 9mo ago
  Hi, I consider myself a moderate. Feel free to ask me any questions. Happy to knock your silly strawman down. :)

tejohnso 9mo ago

Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters is still not within the Overton window though.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]