Does this type of Centrist exist?

Post Reply New Topic

My opinions are strong, even if they're "moderate," "centrist," or whatever.

There is also an element of knowing that "extreme" opinions are just too "extreme." That they don't reflect the "truth."

I don't feel a "revolution in the streets" will solve anything. There's a long history of this sort of thing destroying intact societies.

In fact, you care so little you cannot help but respond.

If you weren't so swift to abandon the principle of charity, there would be no confusion. You're a victim of your own rancor.

You labelled yourself uncivilised when you chose insults over reason. Cast out the beam in thine own eye, then I may reconsider your appeal.

How much I do or don't care about you saying I'm uncivilized has nothing to do with my choice to respond.

Somehow I doubt that. You started this row with your snide little "I can't do your thinking for you" comment. All I did was politely ask for clarification, and that was the treatment you gave me. Go back and read it. Think about it.

You gave me zero substance to respond to for which I could choose "reason". Saying you are acting like an "obnoxious snob" is not an insult. It is as accurate a description of your remark "I can't do your thinking for you" as your description of me as "uncivilized". You simply don't like harsh words and would rather insult people in a more passive-aggressive way and hope you can slide under the radar.

Sure it doesn't.




You started us down this path by announcing your ire at "people" assuming you don't judge issues on their individual merit, in response to my stating no such thing. But by all means pretend you were speaking generally, that quoting me was entirely incidental.



And this is where you abandoned the principle of charity altogether. When I invited you to "extrapolate as you will", what do you think I was suggesting?







If I claimed I could do your thinking for you, that might be considered snobbery.



That was your description of yourself. I described you as unwilling to be civilised. The two are not one and the same.



Whatever gives you that impression? I'm certainly disdainful of anyone who offers little else, but harsh words alone are nothing to be concerned by.



I've been perfectly straightforward in my contempt for your over-reliance on ad hominem. If you believe I've crossed a line, by all means issue a complaint. Of course, you'll have a hard time pointing out which of my responses was aimed at you rather than at your arguments. Can the same be said of your posts?

Unless you're willing to communicate in good faith, the best advice I can offer you is to refrain from further discourse with myself.

So you admit you got salty and decided to get snide with me. You stated that your definition of a "centrist" is someone who judges issues individually based on their perceived merit. There are many people you would consider to be "on the left" who also do that (but nonetheless tend to arrive at more ideologically consistent opinions due to their core values being pro-egalitarian). Are they also centrists or not?

Of course I am annoyed when people generalize that anyone deemed to be on "the left" (by American standards I should add) is somehow "biased". I didn't accuse you personally of anything, but your definition of "centrist" got me thinking of this.


Telling someone "I can't do your thinking for you" is a snobby remark, PERIOD. Saying you are ACTING like an obnoxious snob is not ad-hominem. I was not attacking YOU. I was attacking the way you were ACTING. All you reacted to was the use of strong words, because you'd rather be passive-aggressive and play victim. Sorry. I'm not falling for it. You admitted you were mad at me for being expressing ire at something which you chose to take personally.

I made no such 'admission'. I'll assume this is projection on your part.



That's a mischaracterisation of what I said. Little wonder you're so confused.



To which I repeat my earlier response.

"The suggestion that one ideological position is founded on morality is not a condemnation of another ideological position as immoral.

Extrapolate as you will."

If you're still confused after reading this, I suggest you ask someone for help.



Egalitarianism is a liberal value, not a "left" value. This is just one of many reasons I eschew the false dichotomy of "left" and "right".







Now you're shifting the focus of your ire. Anyone who identifies with any political ideology (including "apolitical") is, by definition, biased, regardless of how others perceive them. Some people take it a step further and engage in bigotry on the pretext that their specific brand of politics is superior, but I digress. To be offended by the suggestion that you have a bias in your thinking is to be offended by reality.



Except you were responding to your own straw-interpretation of what I posted which, incidentally, is not "my" definition of centrist. Rather, it's a commonly accepted definition of "Centrism" - which is itself an ideology.



You're injecting intent - seemingly to salve your own ego and to justify making personal attacks.







You were attacking the intent that you projected onto my words. You're seeking to excuse your own bad behaviour by applying the least charitable interpretation you can to what is, after all, a statement of fact. Your personal attack remains a personal attack.



All I reacted to was weak argumentation and a strawman. This is yet another example of both.



As is this. It's also more ad hominem.



Doubtful.



Now we're entering the realm of paranoid conspiracy theories. You're tripping over your own feet and seeking to blame me for your clumsiness.



Care to provide a quote of this "admission"?

I admit only to being almost perpetually bemused by people who claim they can read between the lines of plain text and accurately decipher the emotional state of the writer. If you wish to know my mind, try asking questions. These repeated attempts to project your own narrative onto my words is, quite frankly, pathetically puerile.

That is to say, I find your inability to discern my meaning - primarily due to your own wilful abandonment of the principle of charity - mildly amusing rather than maddening.

I can honestly say that years of WP leftists screaming at me that I was a far right extremist due to my handful of mostly economic, moderate right wing positions is a large part of the reason that while I still only lean right politically, I've come to despise the left with a real intensity on a personal level. That such people seem to make up an ever larger and shriller proportion of the regular posters here is largely why I try and stay away these days, I get enough of that on Facebook.

You're also 100% correct about the left/right ratio here and how it skews criticism, it's simply a more target rich environment on the left here, and you've criticized the right more than I ever did; you even argued with me over minimum wage and welfare issues a few times if I recall. I wouldn't expect any apologies though, not their style.

Do you really mean that?

It has nothing to do with your f*****g intent. The statement itself is insulting, as is your dumb game of refusing to address anything of substance, but instead focus on semantics. If you can't see that you are hopeless.


Now it appears you don't even know what "ad hominem" means. "ad hominem" would be if I decided to refute factual content by attacking the messenger. I was not refuting factual content (in the appropriate context). I was responding to your (so called)debate tactics, which I described as snobby and annoying. At the very best you are woefully unaware of how you come across.




But by all means, keep trying to obfuscate with anal semantics games. Also, if I say "people" I AM SPEAKING GENERALLY. To accuse me of reading too much between the lines is a ridiculous case of the pot calling the kettle black (in light of the bolded part of the quote).


I already responded to this.


Again, pot calling the kettle black. I asked for clarification at the very beginning and you got haughty.

I hope I can hear stories of how it is in Turkey, Marshall.

How's it going with your friend?

Exactly my point.



You interpreted an insult where none was offered. That's on you, buddy.







The irony of you complaining about "semantics" before going on to claim that ad hominem only applies to "factual content" is delicious. That you pair this with further ad hominem is doubly delicious. What's your next gambit, "It's only ad hominem if you're quoting a peer-reviewed scientific paper from a reputable scientist!"?

Find me a credible source that describes ad hominem as "refuting factual content" rather than "an argument" or "an opinion" using "personal attacks" or by attacking the "character", "motive" or any other aspect of the person making the argument.



If you quote me, then respond specifically to a point I made, you're speaking directly to my argument or opinion. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. You've now done so twice.



From ad hominem riddled fluff to tu quoque with barely a breath between. Considering you've gone on to double down on your pretence, I believe my point stands.



More personal attacks. And you're still scratching your head as to why I won't offer you the assistance you're begging for.

Wow! You just don't get it do you? Here's a tip... If you don't want people to assume your intent is to act like a douchebag then stop acting like a douchebag. Is that so hard?


"ad hominem" is traditionally is listed as a logical fallacy. People who use it as a synonym for any kind of personal attack are simply choosing to use a big word in order to appear more intelligent than they actually are. That's the epitome of your mode of operation... all word fluff, no substance.

I did not respond in order to contest an argument you made, but to call you out on acting like a haughty douchebag. Once you decided to insult me with snide BS like "I can't do your thinking for you" the debate/argument was OVER. We were not having a debate/argument. We are fighting. You know this. Now stop playing stupid. Take your "ad hominem" and shove it up your ass. I am finished with you.

Other than reversing your previous claim of "factual content", what relevance does the above have?



So you agree it was ad hominem! Was that so hard?



You chose to be insulted. Any "snide BS" was inserted by yourself.



We're exchanging words, not violence. What I know is that you seem intent on escalating matters, but it's difficult to see how that might be achieved since you've already resorted to personal attacks.











Finished? You barely got out of the blocks! Had I known you'd blow yourself out this early I'd have given you time to prepare.

So you are intent on never learning.


I'll leave that for you to figure out.


No. It was calling you out on your insulting behavior. You never made an argument, therefore I had nothing of substance to contest. You are too scared to engage in any kind of substantial debate so you insult. I respond in kind. End of story.


This is the crux right here. I can only deduce that you are either 1.) a complete idiot 2.) a disingenuous troll.

In either case, there is nothing more to say. I know you're now going respond with something incredibly stupid just to goad me into replying. I'm not anymore. Get lost.

None then. Glad that's settled.



So you still agree it was ad hominem!







I thought you were finished already?



Arguably the most substantial point you've made.

Guess that's an achievement... of sorts.

I get that . I avoid this section sometimes and I have to avoid lots of topics in it all the time.