Does this type of Centrist exist?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you mean to say right?
I've gotten into disagreements here with the right leaning people a lot though they do tend to be less aggressive to me then some left leaning people here.
There's a lot less right leaning people on wrong planet which is probably while I'm not seen to criticize the right as much. There is simply far more left leaning posts here and therefor far more views I disagree with.

Most of the prominent "right wing" posters who might be inclined to make arguments you might disagree with are either inactive or post so infrequently as to be effectively so. I doubt we could describe many (or even any) of them as anything but "right-leaning", either.

There's been a noticeable "left" slant here for as long as I can remember, which likely explains why the Progressive element is so desperate to find bogeymen from among those who aren't "left enough".

I don't think people happen cluster into a "left-right" spectrum purely due to information bias. There are major unifying moral principles... egalitarianism, justice, etc... that tend to place people under the label of "left". Many people tend to get put there even when they don't intentionally choose to identify with the label for the purpose of having a tribal identification. I get pretty annoyed when people think I don't judge issues on their individual merit just because I happen to land in a place most people would consider "left of center".

f**k it. I have more to say on this but I can't think right now because people are arguing in the room in Turkish and I can't hear myself think...

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

Extrapolate as you will.

There are many ideologies that have a moral basis--whether "left," "right," or "centrist."

I don't think that type of centrist exists.

I do think that most people don't form their views through a coherent ideology, but largely from ad-hoc coalescence of the last thing they read that they found credible with their existing views.

The (semi-reasonable) concern that some people have is that the presentation of distasteful radical views might make them seem more reasonable and credible. Maybe reasonable enough that someone might say "I don't think we should kill these people, but let's deport them or send them to prison" and still feel like they are a moderate.

You can see it all the time on here - people with quite extreme views figure that they are reasonable because they can see someone who is less reasonable than they are. Unfortunately, being the second-least-reasonable person doesn't actually make you moderate or correct.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with your rhetorical question (I assume it's a rhetorical question by how you worded it, though you leave out the proper grammar/punctuation, making it very confusing to read).

I think it's better I wait for you to fully explain yourself before I put any energy into responding based on a possible misunderstanding.

What rhetorical question? I made a grammatically sound statement.



There's no hidden meaning. Read the words at face value. If their meaning escapes you, well, I can't do your thinking for you.

I haven't ever found a truly precise objective definition for what is "reasonable" vs "extreme". There is obviously more than one dimension. There is a purely ideological dimension as well as a pragmatic dimension. I don't think many people on this forum believe opposition to nazism or white-supremacy is "extreme". The disagreement is mostly over HOW it is opposed. On the other hand, most people can agree that nazism and white-supremacy ARE extreme on an ideological level.

The distinction I'm making above might seem like hair-splitting, but it is something people looking at the conflict from a very emotionally detached perspective seem to miss when they equate the two "sides" as being ideological equals. People who are emotionally sensitive to the issue of racism (possibly due to real life experiences) are very aware of the distinction because to them the fear of racist ideology is very much a part of their life.

I know a lot of people want to argue that the other side is just as ideologically extreme because many who showed up were ideologically extreme. While its true that some had far-left leanings (ones , it was fairly clear that the protest wasn't ABOUT that. Some used it as an excuse to promote ideology, but it was a diverse crowd. It wasn't nearly as strictly ideological as the so-called alt-right crowd, which was unarguably ABOUT white nationalism (It was advertised well in advanced as such).

Then the statement is obviously false. Some ideologies are morally contradictory. To accept one is to condemn the other.

You're trying to force new variables into the equation, and appear to still be missing the point.

Oh well.

What variables? What point? I think if you want to have a discussion you should clearly spell out WTF you are talking about and quit acting like an obnoxious snob. I am not stupid.

As you're unwilling to be civilised, I decline your invitation to spell out the obvious to you.

I don't think anti-fascism remotely compares to the fascist terrorists in Charlottesville.

I do think there are far-left elements to whom the same logic could be applied, although we don't see many around here (this is more of a shelter for the far-right). There are some people out there who think it is OK to talk about killing Israelis in the name of communist solidarity with Palestine. Or if we trim the explicit hate, there are non-violent socialists who try to apply the same principles of presenting their radical views in order to make less-radical-but-still-stupid views become politically acceptable.

Re-reading my post, I think perhaps you are predominantly replying to "someone might say "I don't think we should kill these people, but let's deport them or send them to prison" and still feel like they are a moderate.". I think perhaps you may have missed the point I was getting at. The person speaking there isn't talking about locking up the extremists, they are talking about locking up the people who the extremists want to kill.

I think going to protest armed with improvised weapons, putting bike locks in socks and hitting people over the head with it, throwing Molotov cocktail, smashing windows, and generally assaulting people counts as violent.

Antifa stands for anti-fascist action, so they at least claim to be anti-fascist.

I think there is a lot of complexity hidden within the terms "centrist" and "moderate." All mainstream political forces are trying to "move the centre" and draw it towards them- making what the majority of citizens think right, reasonable and acceptable align more closely with the party's goals. (Extremist politcal forces, on the other hand, are happy to alienate the majority if it ups the conflict levels and motivates their supporters.)

Citizens may be centrist either out of a commitment to moderacy, or because of a lack of strong opinions. Many people in the middle will change their politics in the same direction as the general political climate is moving. Many others will stick to their guns and find themselves suddenly further away from mainstream opinion.

That's probably oversimplifying it a bit. But I feel like I've experienced both situations in my reaction to UK politics: first being drawn leftwards as the political climate moved left, then staying put as it moved rightwards again.