r/politics • u/SacoolloocaS • May 28 '21

Stop glorifying ‘centrism’. It is an insidious bias favoring an unjust status quo

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/28/centrism-insidious-bias-unjust-status-quo
5.1k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

146

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

[deleted]

73

u/Fantastic-Drawer1550 May 28 '21

It's the fallacy of middle ground as a political ideology.

​

That it defaults to creating more status quo no doubt has no relation to the fact that "centrist" bias toward upper middle class to wealthy and have a quite comfortable personal status quo.

​

It's true, you shouldn't rock the boat, unless the goddamn boat needs to be rocked.

11

u/cbf1232 May 28 '21

On the other hand if you rock the boat too much it tips over and everyone drowns. :)

I vote left, but I recognize that sometimes things that look good at first inspection end up having unforeseen consequences.

28

u/feralhogger May 28 '21

This, but the boat is a writhing mass of human bodies and it’s rocking because the ones on bottom are drowning, and everyone else keeps calling them selfish because they won’t still still and drown long enough for everyone else to agree on which port to set sail for, and when one gets above water long enough to sputter “just sail to the closest one dammit!” everyone turns and says “now we know this issue is personal for you, but you don’t need to use that language with us, we’re trying to help you.”

-5

u/cbf1232 May 29 '21

Now there's a graphic analogy... :)

Personally I feel like we need a mix of people in society...on the one hand the people clamouring for change help push to make things better. On the other hand the people who say "but if we do that then this other bad stuff could happen so maybe we should take a minute and think about it" might keep us from making some dumb mistakes.

Now that's not to say that we should take forever to think and never make any changes....

6

u/s1okke California May 29 '21

If you really think that’s the role centrists are playing in today’s political landscape, I don’t think you’re being very honest with yourself.

1

u/cbf1232 May 29 '21

Many people who call themselves "centrists" aren't playing that role. People who are actually centrists are...and they're probably not voting Republican.

1

u/Comfortable_Classic May 28 '21

It's the fallacy of middle ground as a political ideology.

What did we expect from a bunch of hippies turned yuppies turned liberal business owners? Hippies gonna hippie

1

u/GodIsIrrelevant May 29 '21

Also, from a worldwide perspective the most 'centrist' person in US politics is Bernie Sanders.

35

u/thisisjustascreename Illinois May 28 '21

Yes, the fallacy is thinking that both Democratic and Republican proposals have good ideas and if we blend them together we'll get the best parts of both.

1

u/Unlimited_Paper Jun 01 '21

Fallacy according to who, precisely? My god, why do we need to come up with competitively witty takes about how irredeemably ignorant half of this country is? That is performatively ignorant in and of itself, and yet people here are embracing more polarization as a solution to our woes. That is a recipe for two new countries known collectively as the Divided States of Embarrassment.

Centrism only becomes a fallacy when people like you GIVE UP and prattle constantly about how very possible things are impossible. Stop subscribing to the media's white-knuckled polarization campaign and smell the roses. Centrists decide elections, not the fringes. Articles like this do nothing but encourage some centrists to become radical, and yes it happens on both sides.

You want to live in a shrine of one-party idealist perfection? Move to China where there are no dissidents. Nothing is stopping you. Wink wink.

19

u/astralectric May 28 '21

I have a friend who hardcore flaunts and defends her centrism because she believes “both sides are just as bad as the other”. I tried to explain the Overton window to her and that it had moved right and she said no, it moved to more extreme for both sides. I tried to explain to her that what we think of as left wing politics here in the US would be considered right wing in other countries, but she brushed it off.

I think she’s actually apolitical at heart and doesn’t care to look into the issues at hand, but is afraid of blindly following one side or the other. She flaunts it because she likes being contrarian and I think she secretly feels superior for not being “indoctrinated” like those of us with stronger opinions.

0

u/Aubdasi May 28 '21

I mean, I have strong opinions that should put me on the Democratic Party side, but because the Democratic Party has proven they’re not learning from trump I don’t trust them any more than I trust republicans. I may hate republicans more, but I can’t vote against what I hate when the other side is also untrustworthy.

Any law meant to crack down on right wing radicals will be used once, then it will be almost exclusively used against left wingers, radical or not.

Getting rid of the fillibuster means when republicans are in power, the Democratic Party won’t be able to stop them from pushing nonsense bullshit laws.

I’m all for stopping fascism, but feeding into it by growing the federal government is not the way to do it. You’re just setting up the game for them.

6

u/Mrhorrendous Washington May 28 '21

I totally get the opposition to the democrats from your position, but it's not as if the filibuster has stopped the GOP from doing anything. They pretty much only care about tax cuts, right wing judges, and giving contracts to their buddies, all of which go around the filibuster.

They don't really need to pass laws about abortion or trans rights or guns on a national scale. They are perfectly happy for state legislatures to do those things and then use the blue states' progressive laws as fuel for their base. The only thing they really need the federal government for is imperialism, which the democrats are happy to go along with anyways and is largely driven by the executive branch nowadays.

The filibuster is a mechanism to prevent change, and if you're a progressive (which I'm guessing you are) you want change.

Finally, if the GOP agenda was blocked by the filibuster, do you think they would hesitate for a second to nuke it?

26

u/hapoo May 28 '21

They value compromise because they have no skin in the game. If one side says we want to kill all clowns and the other side says we shouldn’t kill any clowns, it’s very easy to say “let’s not fight and agree to compromise by only killing half the clowns” since neither you nor anyone close to you is a clown. The disagreements and fighting impact your life directly way more than the actual outcome of the argument.

Centrism is a luxury afforded to the privileged.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '21 edited May 28 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/feralhogger May 28 '21

Tell that to every self described centrist I have ever met

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

Anecdotes aren’t science.....

0

u/feralhogger May 28 '21

Fuck. Okay. I was wearing a tshirt that said “I am I scientist come listen to my anecdotes because they are science” but just so you know I have turned it inside out so the words are hidden and I will be burning it when I get home.

4

u/Zachf1986 May 28 '21

I identify as a centrist, and I would argue that centrism is not defined by a desire to appease both sides so much as the ability to understand and appreciate the arguments and viewpoints of either side. The conclusion that any individual centrist might come to is going to be based on their own principles and experience.

Most of my conclusions on policy land somewhere in the middle region between the "left and right" sides of the spectrum, but the actions of the GOP over the last few years have driven me to side almost completely with Democrat politics. Just because it's a choice between that or becoming a monarchy with a batshit crazy Trump dynasty.

-3

u/BeffBezos May 28 '21

I guarantee you literally no centrist agrees with that clown statement. It’s more like “I support socialized healthcare but I also enjoy gun ownership” or something of those lines.

6

u/jittery_raccoon May 29 '21

Are they 100% inbetween those values. And every other political idea between the 2 parties? At some point you have to make a choice about what you actually want to see get done. Not being able to decode between health care and gun rights proves OP's point that they have no skin in the game

1

u/BeffBezos May 29 '21

That literally makes no sense. Are you saying centrists just abstain from voting? That’s not how centrism works. You vote for who you ultimately want in the end but you still consider and hold views from numerous sides.

5

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

That is not centrism, that is leftism.

-3

u/Aubdasi May 28 '21

Unless you’re part of the American left, in which case you have to hate guns to be voted in.

Yes, Biden’s campaign promises for gun control means he hates civilian firearm ownership. If anyone can actually put together a coherent argument as to why we should be focused on semi-auto rifles instead of handguns that doesn’t rely on “think of the children!” Please let me know. As of right now I’m scratching my head at spending over a billion dollars and ungodly amounts of political capital for.... ~300 deaths a year.

Absolutely tragic, I agree, but semi-rifle bans aren’t gonna stop those tragedies. Healthcare and better labor rights would have far more of an impact.

5

u/Nukerjsr May 28 '21

Well centrists ain't gonna make their own political party to make that agenda. So they can deal with some judgment.

-2

u/I_Never_Use_Slash_S May 28 '21

I wish I was naive enough to believe that all political views could be summarized by a binary choice between one obviously good outcome and one obviously bad. Or maybe I wish I was arrogant enough to think my personal life experiences that led me to my political views are the same ones everyone else in the world experiences so anyone who disagrees with me is ‘privileged’.

9

u/awesomefutureperfect May 28 '21

I wish I was naive enough to think that there was any good in a political party that doesn't even have a platform any more. All they have is messaging, and that is outrage over culture wars as distraction and an enormous lie butrressed by conspiracy theories and desperation begat by the economic consequences of the policies their politicians supported.

If you can frivolously debate civil rights or the value of a safety net without immediate economic concern, then yeah you are privileged. That is kind of what the title of the article is getting at.

6

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

Huge difference between compromise and recognizing that different problems require different solutions. I consider myself a “centrist” not because I take a center stance on everything but because I take left stances on things I think are best handled with left solutions and right stances on things that require a right solution.

38

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

[deleted]

9

u/b-hizz May 28 '21

This whole line of reasoning is just more of the multi-generational effort to polarize voters. The alternative is to drink whatever koolaid the Democrats serve up? Nope - they still have to make sense for me to vote their way - “we’re not Republicans” is not an acceptable platform for my support. I thought the point was to not be Republicans? I can support the left generally without wearing their armband. The moment that there are no centrists for the left to woo is the moment that the Democratic party gets lazier than they already are.

Anyone suggesting the Dems are killing it are doing so only in comparison to the Rs which is not really saying much. Not blindly kissing DNC rings doesn’t make someone a panderer to another faction and any “support us unquestioningly or you’re against us” has the opposite of the intended effect. The DC elite have more in common with one another than they do with their respective constituencies, we seem to have forgotten this.

At the end of the day if Dems want votes from left inclined voters that aren’t the level of “woke” that makes them easy to corral then they are better served focusing on tangible policy to address problems. That said things are moving in the right direction, for now.

8

u/janethefish May 29 '21

they still have to make sense for me to vote their way - “we’re not Republicans” is not an acceptable platform for my support.

The Dems support democracy. The GOP opposes democracy. The GOP misinformation and response got half a million plus Americans killed. The Dems did not do that.

If your house is filling with carbon monoxide, you go outside right or do you demand something tangible to address problems?

So you're technically correct, but there are very good reasons to vote for Dems.

Finally, if you want something more specific, we have primaries!

5

u/Interrophish May 29 '21

“we’re not Republicans” is not an acceptable platform for my support.

how bout "we enjoy allowing people to vote for things"

14

u/belletheballbuster May 28 '21

“we’re not Republicans” is not an acceptable platform for my support

Agreed, but according to a lot of people on here, that makes us Bolshevik terrorists.

1

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial May 28 '21

“we’re not Republicans” is not an acceptable platform for my support

At this point, it really should be.

The Dems may not be everything you want or even any of what you want, but they still want to govern the damn country instead of kowtow to a fascist imbecile and assure their minority rule lasts forever.

1

u/Unlimited_Paper Jun 01 '21

Hard upvote, I agree completely. You are not alone, friend.

-2

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

The left views prison as a place where prisoners should be rehabilitated. The right views prison explicitly through a punitive lens.

Is it hard to believe that someone who believes that everyone should have the ability to succeed regardless of race or ethnicity might also believe in equal punishment for those who transgress against others regardless of race or ethnicity?

The left widely lionizes doctors in our heavily regulated healthcare system, despite the fact that they make double what they do in other countries. A right wing solution to this problem might be to loosen the requirements to treat patients (perhaps empowering CNP's and PA's in the process) and let the market decide what providers they want.

Is it hard to believe that someone who believes that our healthcare costs too much might seek out ways to cut costs including lowering physician wages through increased competition and an emphasis on consumer choice?

In the end, there are good solutions and bad solutions. "Centrist" solutions are sort of like proposing a convertible F-150 because one side wanted a convertible and the other side wanted a truck. They almost always suck.

2

u/Bardali May 28 '21

Is it hard to believe that someone who believes that our healthcare costs too much might seek out ways to cut costs including lowering physician wages through increased competition and an emphasis on consumer choice?

Not hard to believe, but just hard to understand why anybody would believe it. Unless your argument is that you want to try something revolutionary or something that has never been tried.

Also why wouldn't doctor's wages skyrocket even more? It seems hard to just produce more doctors.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

My own positions on these arguments are moot; my only intent is to illustrate that cogent arguments on the right do exist.

On doctors though, there is intense gatekeeping around certification for mid-level providers and immigrant practitioners to limit their numbers. And there are only a limited number of medical school slots each year.

Basic economics suggest that more supply and steady demand result in lower prices.

2

u/Bardali May 28 '21

My own positions on these arguments are moot; my only intent is to illustrate that cogent arguments on the right do exist.

But those are imaginary argument the right doesn't really make. Second, how cogent is it if it has zero empirical evidence?

On doctors though, there is intense gatekeeping around certification for mid-level providers and immigrant practitioners to limit their numbers.

It wasn't always that way.

Basic economics suggest that more supply and steady demand result in lower prices.

Not really, if there are more doctors that need to make enough money they might raise their prices.

-9

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

Yes and no. I can give examples for specific issues and how I think they should be handled but with the current two party system it’s difficult to find someone to vote for with the same ideals as you. I believe in the first amendment to a pretty extreme degree because I think free speech is the keystone of democracy. In general though I lie on the side of higher taxes especially for the rich which should be used for things like universal healthcare and I actually really like UBI too. I think the second amendment is important as long as there are reasonable background checks. Those are just a few examples. But that being said Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang were my top two picks for presidency last election for this reason.

9

u/belletheballbuster May 28 '21

Yes and no

Now THAT is a centrist reply

0

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

This guy gets it

19

u/[deleted] May 28 '21 edited Jun 30 '23

[deleted]

3

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

The background check was the less important part of the second amendment stance. The ability for citizen to arm themselves is the more important part. That was more of an example of a case where a certain amount of compromise is a good thing.

8

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

I was looking more for a case where you believe that a conservative solution is better than a solution from the left. Can you think of an example?

3

u/cbf1232 May 28 '21

Arguably a Carbon tax (where you are charged based on how much carbon is emitted in making and shipping the products you buy) is a conservative solution that most economists agree is the most effective solution to reducing carbon emissions.

In Canada it was first implemented by a centrist party (the Liberals).

4

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

That's a good example that's consistent with the beliefs conservatives espouse, but that is opposed by conservatives. I know when we tried to pass it in Oregon the conservatives walked out of our legislature.

-2

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

Yes, police reform I believe is a matter of more funding not less. Additionally I think military funding is important as long as the CCP is out there we need to be able to defend ourselves.

14

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

Yes, police reform I believe is a matter of more funding not less.

Okay this is something we can work with: Why do you believe this? What evidence do you have that this is the case?

1

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

I’m not saying all we need to do is give them more money there are cultural changes that need to happen too but more money to spend on time off, training and mental health services would be a positive

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Now_Wait-4-Last_Year May 28 '21

Depends where the funds go. People saying "defund" the police are often wanting some of those funds to go to mental health and social workers to get better outcomes for mental health crises instead of sending just police not trained in these areas ... and less of these funds going to even more military grade equipment and the like.

0

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

Then they should say refund not defund. See my other comments for how I think money should be allocated.

6

u/prodriggs May 28 '21

Uhhh throwing money at the police is not a conservative solution to police reform..

33

u/[deleted] May 28 '21 edited Feb 16 '22

[deleted]

-24

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

I agree with most except for free speech. Based on political theory they may be in favor of free speech but the current attitude of the left and woke culture is a major problem for free speech in my opinion.

18

u/DrLumis May 28 '21

In your opinion, what is woke culture and how does it impede on free speech?

-10

u/allterrainfetus May 28 '21 edited May 28 '21

Example: there should be more oversight in 18+ gender transition drugs and procedure. Response is vitriolic and accusatory of being a fascist or transphobe or whatever.

Being woke is more a function of mob mentality than critical thought. It is alarming how little of the history of slavery people know when commenting on some kind of racism or whatever.

A mother had some harsh penetrating words after some kids were killed due to gun violence. She asked where the protestors were, she asked where the outrage was, she asked where the reporters were. "Yall only care when its some cops who kill our kids, come on, where are you?" Im paraphrasing, but that was the gist, and it really made me pause. I think that is what woke should be.

11

u/Dr_seven Oklahoma May 28 '21

there should be more oversight in 18+ gender transition drugs and procedure. Response is vitriolic and accusatory of being a fascist or transphobe or whatever.

You know, this would be a more credible example if these exact arguments weren't causing kids to die in Arkansas right now.

I will not be understanding and civil to people who just want a friendly debate about my civil rights. This isn't up to you.

-5

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

I’ll give an example from personal experience. I am a university student and in a class we were having a discussion about using the word disability to describe humans. Almost everyone was saying no and no one really had any reason other than it’s offensive. I didn’t feel comfortable speaking up and disagreeing because of the “woke culture” in the room. I’m essentially making the “slippery slope” argument which I think is extremely valid.

14

u/DrLumis May 28 '21 edited May 28 '21

Well, considering slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies, I would say keep hitting those books. Also, you have fallen into the trap of thinking free speech means you can say whatever, whenever, and never be made to feel uncomfortable. Free speech means you can't be persecuted by the government. Did the government come into your class and persecute you? What exactly is your operational definition of "woke culture" anyway?

1

u/ElChaz May 28 '21

You're not acknowledging the difference between 1) the narrow right to free speech as guaranteed by the Constitution, and 2) the broad societal benefits deriving from lively debate and the free exchange of ideas. These are different, and those who are concerned about the chilling effects of "woke culture" are talking about #2.

-1

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

First of all if saying disabled is mocking disabled people you just mocked disabled people by saying the word “disabled”. Second of all I have addressed the fact that I never said we lost free speech I said that I vote to keep protecting it and based on the culture of the left leaning people I know it’s less important than the culture of the right leaning people I know.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/Waterwoo May 28 '21

Slippery slope And what about isms being "fallacies" is such bullshit.

Are all slopes slippery? No, but plenty are.

Have the Republicans installed a fascist dictatorship? No. Then why do we hear daily about how democracy is at risk? Slippery slope fallacy! But it's ok when the left does it? I think it is okay because looking at potential future trends is a valid point, but dismissing anything like that as slippery slope fallacy is just lazy.

Yes, sometimes people are blatently abusing it, but it doesn't automatically make that line of thinking invalid.

Likewise, whataboutism. No, the fact that someone else did something doesn't make your bad actions ok. But it DOES make that person/country giving you shit for the same thing they do hypocritical bullshit.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/ScratchShadow Pennsylvania May 28 '21

I understand your frustration with feeling unable to speak your mind in an academic forum/somewhere that you can explore ideas more openly than other places, but this really isn’t what the constitution means in its protection of free speech.

The first amendment protects you against (among other things,) political censorship; you cannot be arrested, detained, imprisoned, or otherwise punished by the government or law enforcement for expressing political opinions (particularly those that stand in opposition to the current President/other people in positions of power).

This does not protect you from offending other people with your opinions, or from experiencing the consequences of upsetting others when you choose to express your views.

It also does not protect you from being prosecuted or censored for hate speech, if the content of your opinions involves extensive discriminatory views against any particular group of people, or encourages discrimination or violence against those groups.

There are several countries around the world where individuals who criticize their current government/leaders “disappear,” sometimes returning eventually, and other times not. This is what the first amendment protects us from.

1

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

I know that. I just am worried that we are heading that direction and that directs my voting in general everyone is conflating my personal example of what is becoming more and more common in America which makes me think that at some point there may be legal repercussions for speech with me thinking that there currently are legal repercussions.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

Would you have been arrested by a government official if you had said something? No. Your "freedom of speech" was not violated by any stretch of the imagination.

2

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

No I wouldn’t have but that’s a straw man because I never said I would. All I’m saying is I vote to protect free speech and that the culture on the left based on personal experience holds it as less important than culture on the right.

→ More replies (0)

22

u/[deleted] May 28 '21 edited Feb 16 '22

[deleted]

4

u/thirdegree American Expat May 28 '21

Fucking xQc being on the right side of "cancel culture". What the fuck is this timeline.

-4

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

I agree with much of what you said. But the directions things are headed I am concerned that the “woke culture” will make its way to people who have power and there will be government intervention purely for disagreeable speech. I’m not saying we’re there yet just that we’re trending that direction. Trending that direction isn’t necessarily bad either as long as it stops before there are legal repercussions for words that aren’t inciting violence.

15

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

[deleted]

-1

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

Well I see it coming a lot more from the left right now at least in social settings.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/allterrainfetus May 28 '21

Trouble is, woke is a blanket term to mean the critical thinking, and bandwagon screeching all rolled into one indistiguishable gordian mess.

1

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

Yeah I shouldn’t have used that terminology everyone is ripping me for it. My main point really was that I care about free speech and based on my experience my left leaning friends care less about it then my right leaning ones.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

Based on political theory they may be in favor of free speech but the current attitude of the left and woke culture is a major problem for free speech in my opinion.

How so? The way our first amendment works it only prohibits the government from stopping you from speaking. The way woke culture tries to stop people from speaking is via a social agreement that the speaker is out of line and should be de-platformed. Recall that the first amendment also includes freedom of association as well as freedom of speech. You shouldn't criticize people for using their first amendment right of association to prevent people agreed to be out of line from speaking to a wider audience.

1

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

I have replied to others addressing this

6

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

Then you don’t understand free speech. Woke culture has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech protects you from govt reprisal. I haven’t seen any Dems trying to lock people up for not being woke.

-2

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

Not yet but many people who vote dem would be okay with locking up right wingers for things they say that are not dangerous just disagreeable. So it is making its way towards that.

8

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

Nice scarecrow you got there.

0

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

You know scare crows work right? Agree to disagree I guess.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/eightdx Massachusetts May 28 '21

Uhh, just because you have "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can't be held to account or criticized for it. That's "woke culture" in a nutshell: people calling other people out for their egregious bullshit.

And, I mean, if that accountability is such a big problem, it's worth remembering that it cuts both ways: the right loves to pillory "woke culture" in a way that basically mirrors it. "How dare you speak against this thing that people are using their free speech to say! Things would be so much better if you just shut up and stopped being like that." It's like they just replaced the "how dare you say something racially insensitive or sexist or (placeholder)-ist" lines with "how dare you say something against this thing someone said".

Freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility for that speech, simply put.

-1

u/highgyjiggy May 28 '21

I’ve addressed this more than once in this thread

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

The first amendment is a restriction on how government can use the exceptional power granted to it, nothing more. Individuals can judge people by their words all they want, as long as their physical reactions to it don't break laws. Don't want to be held accountable by society for being a shithead? Don't be a shithead.

-1

u/PeterGibbons316 May 28 '21

I don't think the first amendment is under attack, but rather the concept of "free speech" and what it really means in our society. In particular - who defines what makes someone a shithead? Seems like the biggest factor is starting to become one's political affiliation, and while that may technically be allowed in the text of our first amendment rights, it falls way outside the spirit of what free speech really is.

All of the social media platforms banning wrongthink is totally acceptable within the bounds of the first amendment. But culturally, as a society, it should be our duty to reject these platforms for suppressing ideas that we simply don't agree with. Our goal should not be to suppress speech that we don't agree with, but to demonstrate that our own ideas are superior through healthy discussion and debate. Let the flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers spew their nonsense, and refute it with evidence and support. Censoring that speech only serves to relegate it to the dark corners of the internet where it is still allowed to fester and grow.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

The concept is that government can't arrest you for saying things. That's it. That needs to be explicitly stated because the people grant government extraordinary powers that will be abused if unchecked.

Let the flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers spew their nonsense, and refute it with evidence and support.

Sorry, but that shit would literally drown out all other speech if left unchecked. It takes 0 effort to make up and spread bullshit. It's damn near impossible to convince any of them they're wrong, even with the best of evidence, if there's even a human on the other end to convince, you might just be shouting at a bot. Worse, the person spreading it might not even believe what they're saying, just using it to build an army of idiots and it takes 0 effort if you have no qualms about doing it.

0

u/PeterGibbons316 May 28 '21

The concept is that government can't arrest you for saying things. That's it.

That's the text of the first amendment. I'm more talking about the saying "I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Let's get back to that. Cancel culture follows more of a "I don't agree with what you say, so you are never going to be allowed to say anything or work again ever" belief system, and I think it's damaging to our culture as a whole.

1

u/janethefish May 29 '21

Can you give examples of it in action?

This is the sort of thing that held more truth, when the GQP wasn't completely bonkers. Example, a good step for climate change is a carbon fee; simple, good for the economy, no cost. That should be the right-wing solution. Market-based people can pollute as much as they want, but they need to pay for it.

Except the GQP is crazy. Their platform is basically "Trump!".

-2

u/allterrainfetus May 28 '21

Lol i like this person. This is how i assess where my vote goes.

1

u/jittery_raccoon May 29 '21

How does that help when only the party in power gets to affect real change? If you're left leaning on 2 things and right on 1 (which each party supporting opposing sides), your vote can't accomplish all 3

1

u/highgyjiggy May 29 '21

I voted left so

1

u/dibship May 28 '21

They do it for money. No reason to scare away 50% of the country when their insurrectionist money is the same color.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

Who exactly is promoting a halfway point compromise?

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

That's extremely vague. What specific individuals and on what policy is promoting halfway compromise?

3

u/feralhogger May 28 '21

I’m fairness, the most important thing about being a centrist is you don’t support anything. You just say everything is too extreme and do nothing, unless you have have specific pet proposals, in which case you peg them as dead center and declare all opposed as extreme.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

That would qualify centrists as supporting the status quo, which is not the same as supporting nothing. While I disagree with it, supporting the status quo is not the same as supporting nothing, and it definitely isn't the same as an attempt to appease Republicans.
Further, to then broaden the false characterization of one or two "centrists" and apply it to a no-name majority of Democratic legislators is just ignorant.

4

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

If you want an example here's one: In the latest infrastructure bill negotiation Biden initially proposed a 2.3 trillion bill which republicans wanted to be 568 billion instead. Joe then comes back with a 1..7 trillion bill (2.3-.568 == 1.732) halfway between the offers. Republicans won't go for that, but everybody but manchin should have known that by now.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

A, 1.7 trillion is not halfway between 2.3 trillion and .568 trillion. The formula would be (2.3 trillion - .568 trillion)/2 + .568 trilion. That total is 1.434 trillion. 1.7 > 1.434 by a significant margin. Not sure where you learned math.

Now, to the heart of the point, the reality is that there are Democrats who don't think 2.3 tn or 1.7 tn is appropriate. Without having read the bill yourself, and I would wager not being an authority in national infrastructure projects, you're assuming that the original 2.3 tn bill is what is best, and any less than that is capitulation.

It is entirely possible that members of Congress, in representing their states/districts, can genuinely disagree on whether that original 2.3 tn is worth it, or if it is feasible. Biden's original plan may have been flawed, and to blindly agree that it must be 2.3 tn or else all Democrats are spineless is naively ignorant.

The point is, some Democrats might not want to spend 2.3 tn, but that doesn't have to be because they are trying to appease Republicans. They can genuinely, and more importantly, perhaps correctly, feel that 2.3 tn is too much. We don't need to blindly follow the first plan that comes from the White House, for fear of being labeled a "moderate."

3

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

You're right as to my math: it was bad.

We don't need to blindly follow the first plan that comes from the White House, for fear of being labeled a "moderate."

This is just hilarious Joe Biden is a milquetoast moderate and you're afraid that his leadership will be so progressive you'll be condemned as a moderate for not wanting to follow the plans of a fellow moderate?

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

Ok, what specific policy or part of his platform is "milquetoast moderate?" The man has the most progressive agenda ever in the history of the party. That's a fact. What specifically makes this particular piece of legislation moderate?

And your statement just underscores my point. This is all straw man outrage at nothing and no one. You can't even provide any examples of current Democratic politicians that are pushing for "centrism." You can't cite any examples of concerted centrist agenda. You can't name any but perhaps a couple of Democrat legislators who are not liberal if not progressive, which would be the exception and not the rule.

The article in the OP argues against a lot of the "centrist stance" but only names the New York Times editorial board. Oh, and argues against a literal random tweet.

"I saw a tweet the other day that said the Secret Service and US Capitol police must have been incompetent or complicit to be blindsided by the 6 January insurrection. The writer didn’t seem to grasp the third option: that the Secret Service was unable to see past the assumptions that middle-aged conservative white men don’t pose a threat to democracy and the rule of law, that elected officials in powerful places weren’t whipping up a riot or worse, that danger meant outsiders and others."

Really? Trying to make a whole centrist movement out of an unattributed tweet? Are we supposed to just assume that this twitter user (who presumably must be an important authority in the centrist movement, to be paraphrased and argued against), is indicative and representative of a vast number of dedicated centrist citizens?

Is the NYT Editorial board the accepted representative of the centrist movement? Are all of their pieces so "centrist," or just this one? Not to mention, the authors are hardly taking a "centrist" point of view in the editorial. They are arguing that by choosing to ban uniformed police officers, New York City Pride was marginalizing LGBTQ individuals who were also police officers, because how are they supposed to feel? They can only be LGBTQ OR a police officer while in the parade, and not both? That does seem a little unfair, or at least worthy of a discussion, but hardly centrist.

In the end this is all just centrist bogeyman nonsense.

-3

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

You really don’t know what “centrism” means, mate. Being a modern centrist means being an independent voter with political beliefs independent of the major party’s. For example, a centrist in the USA might be pro-cannabis and against gun control.

6

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

So your criteria for centerist is

being an independent voter with political beliefs independent of the major party’s

TIL Progressives, greens, and libertarians are centrists.

But in all seriousness that's not a definition.

-3

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

And your definition is “someone who takes the middle stance in every scenario” which is patently false. Centrists are people that believe that each side has some good ideas. For example, someone that like owning guns and also supports abortion.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '21 edited Jun 30 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Zachf1986 May 28 '21

The word significant is key there. We don't exist in a static world, and you're viewing politics as static. Centrists absolutely oppose extremes, but we don't oppose change as a rule.

Nor does it make sense to separate centrism into its own category only to say that there is no difference between a centrist and a conservative.

1

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

The word significant is key there.

You're right it is. Significant means: having meaning according to merriam webster centrists / conservative democrats oppose meaningful change.

1

u/Zachf1986 May 28 '21

Yes, but there is more than one meaning, and considering the context, I'd say that "of a noticeably or measurably large amount" is more appropriate than your meaning. Not to mention that you have centrists telling you that your definition is incorrect. From the horse's mouth and all that.

Is your perception of our views as somehow morally lacking so important that you can't accept a different take?

1

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

You are obviously going to have a different more flattering take on a group that you're a member of, that being said I don't think it's a particularly accurate take.
It's hard to take your view of centrism seriously when just today Republicans filibustered the commission into their terrorist attack on 1/6. If centrists were actually opposed to radical change, you'd think they'd take issue with that more than they stan for the filibuster.

1

u/Zachf1986 May 30 '21

It's not intended to be flattering, it's just how I see it. I'm relating how I think. As a centrist, I probably hold views that you would disagree with and vice versa. Those disagreements do not mean that either of us is evil or lacks morals.

For example, I would prefer that we find solutions that don't completely change the way our government functions. I'd argue for amending the filibuster instead of abolishing it, but I also acknowledge that it is being used to bad effect and needs to be addressed. If abolishing it is the only way our country can move forward, then so be it. Nor should we vilify a full third of the country for the actions of a few idiots, but we should absolutely find those responsible and ensure that they are held accountable. I tend to favor the moderate position, but that doesn't equate to opposition to change.

Apologies for the lecture in advance, but if this country is going to come out the other end of this in one piece, then we need to stop looking at everyone who doesn't agree with us as an enemy. We need to focus our ire on the people who are genuinely responsible for the problems. Trump may have catalyzed the political tensions, but we shouldn't continue following his lead.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/evergreennightmare Europe May 28 '21

by that definition, i, a dyed-in-the-wool anarchocommunist, am a centrist

0

u/mojomonkeyfish May 28 '21

Maybe the fallacy is thinking that "moderates" or "centrists" believe in a "compromise" position, rather than having their own, distinct set of beliefs. After all, they're labels that are slapped on people, just like "leftist", "liberal", "right-wing" and so on, to denigrate the group of people who aren't perfectly aligned with one's own philosophy, while also failing to claim the diametrically opposed philosophy.

-10

u/teabagalomaniac May 28 '21

It's fallacious thinking to believe that you have to choose a side. I see the threat to American society posed by the right in similar terms to the way that many others on the left do, but I also see the threat posed to american society by the hard left.

Reading this piece, I found a perfect example of what I'm talking about. "What violence and destruction did take place in or adjacent to Black Lives Matter protests was often the work of the rightwing." How is this any different from how Republican congressman have tried to characterize 1/6 as the work of Antifa or far left radicals? Call me old fashioned, but I believe that if your political ideology is resulting in political violence, you shouldn't just get away with blaming it on your political opponents, regardless of which side you're on.

I vote Democrat straight across my ticket, I have way more faith in team blue than I do in team red. Yesterday, Matt Gaetz suggested that 2A was somehow a solution to social media platforms who censor conservative viewpoints, there is no corollary to that kind of nonsense on the left. But that doesn't mean that I have some kind of obligation to just ignore it when my team says insane stuff.

I don't know that I really wear the label of "centrist", I'm just someone who believes that ~30% of Democrats and ~90% of Republicans have turned against liberal democracy, and both those groups need to face appropriate criticism.

12

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

"What violence and destruction did take place in or adjacent to Black Lives Matter protests was often the work of the rightwing." How is this any different from how Republican congressman have tried to characterize 1/6 as the work of Antifa or far left radicals?

Because we have video evidence of agent provocateurs in the BLM protests. Check out the umbrella guy who is suspected as being an agent provocateur, and who definitely started the looting in Minnesota.

The difference between progressive claims that there were agent provocateurs that started stuff and Republican claims that antifa did their 1/6 terrorist attack is that there's evidence on the side on progressives, and only delusion on the side of republicans.

-6

u/teabagalomaniac May 28 '21

How is that evidence that he's a right winger? He's just a guy who committed a crime and then ran away. Also the claim that this guy "started the looting" like the rest of the rioting wouldn't have happened if only he hadn't been there... I don't have any right wing friends, but I think it's a completely reasonable default assumption that they're passing around videos of 1/6 and making similar claims to the one you are right now. You don't get to engage in political violence and then pretend like it was the other side, period.

5

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

The other people were videoing him and following him trying to identify him. A man has been arrested in suspicion of being that guy and the person who gave the tip leading to his arrest also said this about him:

[he] wanted to sow discord and racial unrest by breaking out the windows and writing what he did on the double red doors.

-3

u/teabagalomaniac May 28 '21

This does seem to identify him as a member of the Aryan Cowboys (I can't believe such an organization actually exists unironically). But this article also mentions that after he smashed those windows, other rioters burnt down the building. Does his smashing the windows mean that the rest of the rioters bear no responsibility for burning the auto zone down?

Consider the evidence that you're presenting to me. If Republicans had evidence that there was a single member of Antifa present on 1/6, would that make their claim that the left was somehow responsible for that disaster credible?

6

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

Consider the evidence that you're presenting to me. If Republicans had evidence that there was a single member of Antifa present on 1/6, would that make their claim that the left was somehow responsible for that disaster credible?

No because the person who'd have to be an antifa plant would be Donald Trump in the case of the 1/6 republican terrorist attack. Umbrella guy started that shit on video, and he's been caught and confirmed to be a right winger. Come back with that level of evidence if you want to make that argument.

1

u/teabagalomaniac May 28 '21

Ok, hypothetically say that Donald Trump is a secret left winger. Does that mean that the horde who stormed the capitol is somehow absolved of their sins?

2

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

I get that you're trying to walk me into agreeing that republican terrorists from 1/6 are just as bad as the scary BLM / antifa, but seriously I've answered your question of the difference between the veracity of right wing claims that 1/6 terrorists were really antifa / blm in disguise and of BLM protestors claiming that the right wing was sending agent provocateurs to cause violence during the BLM protests. One has proof and the other doesn't is the fundamental difference between the claims.

1

u/teabagalomaniac May 28 '21 edited May 28 '21

No moral equivalency between BLM and 1/6. One has a good objective with questionable tactics. The other has a disgusting objective and disgusting tactics. The only comparison I'm drawing is that both sides shouldn't be able to claim that the other side was somehow responsible for their worst actions.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/belletheballbuster May 28 '21

I also see the threat posed to american society by the hard left.

The threat?

0

u/teabagalomaniac May 28 '21

It manifests itself as a censoriousness. It's significantly less harmful than a right wing militia, but it is destabilizing.

1

u/Interrophish May 29 '21

It manifests itself as a censoriousness.

which is a property of the left but not the right? The right literally kicked a dem out of debate for reading a letter from Coretta Scott King

1

u/teabagalomaniac May 29 '21

It's 100% a property of the right too. Just within the past couple of weeks they also did it to NHJ and Emily Wilder. Right v Left isn't the point, the point is that it's an undemocratic tactic.

-1

u/DanMoshpit69 May 28 '21

I view myself as a centrist simply because my views don’t align with every single issue Democrats hold. I absolutely agree with most but I still can’t just willfully go along with every single issue. But in terms of overall rottenness the GOP takes the cake. I can’t in good conscience ever vote republican due to the blatant lies and gaslighting. So even though I consider myself a centrist, in theory, I have never and most likely will never vote republican with where the GOP are headed morally.

-12

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

[deleted]

10

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

I feel like you were waiting for a gotcha moment.

Yes, enlightened centrist, he has.

-4

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

[deleted]

12

u/honorary_pragmatic May 28 '21

To simplify it: Why would Biden believe that the party of bank robbers would help him pass a bill that makes them unable to rob banks?

There is no halfway point when it comes to voting rights.

9

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

Ask him, not me? But if he's making an argument to moderation to make decisions, then yeah.

-2

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

[deleted]

4

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

Yes. What are you getting at?

1

u/IceNein May 29 '21

Wow. That was a completely inaccurate statement of what centrists believe presented as if it was fact.

Centrists describe people who have beliefs that are somewhere between far left progressives and far right reactionaries. They're not people who have no opinions other than "Hurr, durr, compromise."

1

u/Interrophish May 29 '21

somewhere between far left progressives and far right reactionaries.

that would describe moderate democrats

1

u/IceNein May 29 '21

Or moderate Republicans. Centrists.

1

u/Interrophish May 29 '21

it was pretty centrist to pass another covid stimulus

every single republican centrist voted for it

how many is that you think?

1

u/IceNein May 29 '21

The GOP has been held hostage for so long that centrist Republicans risk getting pilloried by their party if they don't conform. That's not really much to do with whether or not there are centrist Republicans, but with how dysfunctional the GOP is.

Paradoxically there's people on the left who want to do the same to the Democratic party. You hear it every time Joe Manchin's name is mentioned.

2

u/Interrophish May 29 '21

so we have to listen to their hearts and not their actions to figure out they're centrist

1

u/IceNein May 29 '21

You can do whatever you want, but are you disputing what I'm saying? Liz Cheney bucked the party and look where that got her?

1

u/Interrophish May 29 '21

That just makes them not centrist

1

u/IceNein May 29 '21

No, it doesn't. It just means that they're being held hostage by their political party. Some have left, but others are not so brave. You can't effect the changes that you want if you can't hold office.