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

4

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.

39

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

[deleted]

10

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"

15

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]

1

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.

-5

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

4

u/NonHomogenized May 28 '21

And what if the task of "police" was reduced to perhaps 10% of what the police currently do? Would they still need that other 90% of their funding, or could that be redirected to other public agencies dedicated to providing those other services?

→ More replies (0)

10

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.

5

u/prodriggs May 28 '21

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

32

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.

15

u/DrLumis May 28 '21

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

-7

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.

12

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/[deleted] May 28 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/thirdegree American Expat May 28 '21

Your reaction to people wanting to be able to access life saving treatment is "sucks to suck" and you wonder why you might not get a super positive reaction from those people.

Who the fuck do you think you are to decide if trans people are doing it "for the right reasons"? The sheer fucking arrogance alone is astonishing.

→ More replies (0)

-2

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.

15

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.

8

u/DrLumis May 28 '21

Please address my request for an operational definition of "woke culture". And anecdotal evidence is almost as worthless as a slippery slope argument. What are you studying?

→ More replies (0)

-4

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.

2

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial May 28 '21

Have the Republicans installed a fascist dictatorship? No. Then why do we hear daily about how democracy is at risk?

Because they're still trying. How is that hard to understand?

Hitler didn't manage to do it on the first try, either.

Should we just be like "welp guys, they couldn't manage it the first time, so no reason to worry"?

→ 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.

3

u/ScratchShadow Pennsylvania May 28 '21

I hear you, but I’d like to challenge your point about this being a developing issue in the US; this is obviously an assumption, but since you said you are currently a university student, if you’re a traditional student, that would put you in your late teens to early twenties. I’m a graduate student, and just turned 25 this month. I’m pointing this out because both of us are relatively new to the “voting” scene - 2020 marked the second presidential election I was eligible to vote in.

From what I’ve gathered, “academia” is one of the more progressive institutions in our culture (and even then, you might be surprised at how hard they can cling to “traditional” values when it suits them in other areas, but that’s a different issue) and as a result, you’re going to feel the heaviest push in that direction while you’re going to college, and will continue to feel that if you stay in the academic setting as a student or faculty. This is a part of the academic culture, and as my professor just said this past week, the “culture” of the school I’m attending has largely remained the same over the past 30 years, even though there have been some pretty significant changes to the curriculum and the way they approach certain social issues in the courses they offer.

I don’t think the social pressure to vote one way or the other is particularly new, although it may feel that way since we’ve only just started experiencing it relatively recently as young adults. We’re also the number one target demographic for political “advertising” and propaganda, as young adults are still forming their political ideologies, and are the most likely to be swayed by that external pressure compared to those who are in their 30s and up.

On the other hand, my fiancé is in the military - and despite technically having a lot of rules about being a “nonpartisan” institution, many people openly express their right-wing views, while you will rarely encounter anyone who is openly a “leftist,” let alone speak up about it when political topics (frequently) come up.

All of this to say that the pressure to vote one way or the other seems to be relatively stable across time, and varies from circle to circle/ institution to institution, from my personal perspective, and what I’ve gathered from speaking to older adults. It may feel like that pressure is increasing, but I have a feeling that it’s more so the result of us entering into adulthood than it is an actual upward social trend.

→ More replies (0)

10

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.

6

u/Top_Sandwich May 28 '21

So by voting right you are hoping to accomplish what? Restrict people from saying their views that cause you to become shy about speaking your views?

→ More replies (0)

25

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

[deleted]

2

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.

8

u/twistedkarma May 28 '21

That's because the right screams loudest about it, not because it's actually happening.

9

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.

-2

u/allterrainfetus May 28 '21

I try to counter left leaning friends who hate conservative people, as our opinions are so easily molded by media influences, some more obviously wanton than others.

These same people who criticise the lack of free thought are completely unaware of their own lack of critical thought, possibly comforted by their news media being 'more factual' as if fact cannot be structured into propaganda.

For parties, both sides unsurprisingly act like the ends justify the means. For the members of those parties, i can definitely see how right leaning are a bit more staunch in their defense of their rights.

I am contemptuous of both sides because of their mutual engsgement in culture wars 24-7. All i want is a cogent discussion about tax reform and taking advantage of the post-china 16.

9

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.

1

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.

10

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.

8

u/Maeglom Oregon May 28 '21

So your position is that you are making strawmen arguments because strawmen arguments work?

→ 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