You're viewing a single thread.
Enlightened centrist thoughts intensify
People even use centralism as a weapon as well though. They push the idea that the correct position in any debate is slap bang in the middle. Sometimes there is a demonstrably correct answer, and sitting in the middle is a bad thing.
But they'll argue to the death that sitting on the fence is the best thing to do in every situation. I've had people claim that the Ukrainians should just negotiate with Russia (assuming that would be even be possible) because that would be the middle option between fighting them and surrendering.
I like to break out this when people claim centrist/moderate is neutral. Nazi's: kill all Jews and Aryans. Non-Nazi's: don't kill Jews or non-Aryans. Moderates: let's compromise and just kill Jews instead guys.
If 9 people sit at a table with 1 nazi and none leave or make the nazi leave, you have 10 Nazi's sitting at a table.
If you try to compromise between two moral/legal viewpoints, you're still supporting the worst side
Interesting turn of phrase. I've read "if not Nazis are sitting at a table and someone else sits down and they're not a Nazi, you've got 10 Nazis sitting at a table"
I like yours better. looks like it's closer to the original German too.
(assuming that would be even be possible)
Putin will not let Russians negotiate anything.
Well yes of course there is that.
But even if they were possible it would not be an appropriate response. The centralist position in this case is barely any better than the defeatist position. Ukraine still ultimately ends up losing and Russias choice to attack is justified. After all what they're after in that scenario is gained land.
I'll go even a step further, there is usually a correct answer. Like, objectively provably correct answer.
Politics, a long time ago, was once about civilly considering what spending and infrastructure actions to take as well as taking into account what can be done for the future.
But that's enough about The High Republic era, here in reality its always been a bloodbath.
I blame the American political system which seems purpose designed to be dysfunctional. Europe had perfectly normal political debating until about the mid 1980s, when people started to see American style politics on the news and that gave them the idea that they could act like that when they became politicians. Then 2001 happened and suddenly they could do whatever they wanted if they just blamed it on terrorists.
And then of course Trump came along and taught them that you can straight up just lie about things.
Europe had perfectly normal political debating until about the mid 1980s
Did you miss all of European history from neolithic times to 1950? They have been at each other's throats the entire time, starting 2 huge wars that dragged everyone else into it. Plus all the other Europe only wars.
Even after 1950 there was... the Cold War. Europe was literally divided in two parts with nuclear weapons pointed at each other. If you think Europe was civil, you are only looking at a few political parties in a few Western European countries for a few decades.
Only one part of our political system has led to the current polarization, but it was enabled by a series of media developments going back to the 1980s with the abolition of the fairness doctrine, the subsequent rise of right wing AM talk radio, the invention of cable TV which catered to niche markets for the sake of advertising, the creation of Fox News --by an Australian who'd made his fortune in British tabloids-- and then finally the rise of social media which in turn fragmented media audience --what advertising companies like Google and Facebook sell to advertisers-- into ever tinier and increasingly homogeneous target groups with the result that cultural identity is now more important to how citizens make decisions than are actual policy issues.
To see that this is true, one need only look at the fact that people almost never change their minds about anything on the basis of facts or evidence for the very good reason that they don't form their opinions on the basis of facts and evidence in the first place and instead rely on cultural identity as a guide.
Centrism is a sign of a healthy, functioning Democracy. People are allowed to hold nuanced beliefs that don't line up with yours and this "enlightened centrist" bullshit is just pure tribalism from people on the far fringes. You are contributing to creating an "in group" and an "out group" which historically has worked out very well for persons living in Communist and Fascist societies.
I get what you're saying, but an "enlightened centrist" is someone that argues for compromise between a sane position and an insane or evil one -- their "middle ground" is still awful.
A "centrist" take between two relatively sane positions isn't enlightened centrism. "Moderate" used to be the word for that, but given how extreme the political discourse has become the meaning of that word is changing too. You're better off qualifying what positions you're moderate on and how, or people will make unkind assumptions.
That's the cartoon, but it's not accurate. A centrist is just someone whose positions aren't strongly correlated with each other the way they tend to be on both the left and the right. Like there's a reason I can accurately guess your position on abortion and climate change if I know whether you live closer to a Cracker Barrel or a Whole Foods; a centrist is just one of the people whose position on abortion isn't strongly correlated with their position on climate change.
That's not what a centrist is, lol. People tend to have similar stances on seemingly unrelated topics because the underlying knowledge and values required to coherently support one view can be applied to others.
As an example: someone who is anti-racist is also likely anti-homophobia, as usually those stances are both related to anti-bigotry.
Centrism, however, seeks to pay attention to both sides as equally valid, regardless of the merits of either position, and then seek compromise as a way to maintain the status quo. Centrism is, in all reality, the most privileged position one can take, as they seek to avoid change and preserve their already stable way of life.
Valid question here, how is what crashfrog described named?
Usually what crashfrog described is someone who only has positions as a relation to others, and is described by their lack of alignment. This person would likely be called an Independent if they held strong, multidirectional views (like a Libertarian that loves the idea of universal Healthcare and UBI), and as such doesn't align with any mainstream party. If they hold relatively weak, multidirectional or otherwise views, they would be considered "moderate," though it's worth noting that the Democrat party is the moderate, liberal party, and as such the republican party and those between the democrats and Republicans are not moderates, but right-wing.
That's why it gets messy, the US only has right wing parties of varying degrees.
That's not what a centrist is, lol. People tend to have similar stances on seemingly unrelated topics because the underlying knowledge and values required to coherently support one view can be applied to others.
Sure, that's what you'd expect, reasonably - everybody you talk to is really online and politically informed, so their political views highly correlate.
But most people aren't politically informed, so their political views don't correlate. People in "the center" don't hold the median view on every issue; they tend to hold an eclectic mix of right and left wing views. Against climate change and against abortion, etc.
This is increasingly disappearing. More people are getting more involved politically, regardless of level of political education. Centrism, the idea of accepting both sides as valid and coming to a consensus, is typically a position held by conservatives that do not wish to out themselves as such in the company of liberals.
This is increasingly disappearing. More people are getting more involved politically
Sure, but more people are born every day (and people die every day, too.) Individual people probably increase in political sophistication over time but that doesn't mean the population does, at all.
Centrism, the idea of accepting both sides as valid and coming to a consensus, is typically a position held by conservatives that do not wish to out themselves as such in the company of liberals.
Has a single person who identifies as a "centrist" told you they feel that way? No? Then why are you so quick to believe it?
The population is, as society develops and becomes increasingly social and interconnected, we are forced to become more aware simply through sheer osmosis.
I believe centrism is typically a shield for conservatives because I've seen it used that way many times. A good example is when "centrists" were against BLM and supported ALM, they claimed they were centrists in order to shield themselves from even worse backlash.
The population is, as society develops and becomes increasingly social and interconnected, we are forced to become more aware simply through sheer osmosis.
I'm sure this is something you're assuming to be true, but again it doesn't work like this. I mean, sure, individual people get older at the rate of one year of age per year. But the age of the population doesn't necessarily increase or decrease, unless there's an imbalance in the rate of deaths and the rate of births.
A good example is when "centrists" were against BLM and supported ALM, they claimed they were centrists in order to shield themselves from even worse backlash.
This an example of exactly what I'm talking about, though. You're talking about a person that has liberal-coded views on some issues and conservative-coded views on others (BLM/social unrest.)
I'm not talking about age, but exposure. People's exposure is increasing over time, not just the age of individuals. That's why radicalization is at an all time high.
My point is that the conservative is feigning that they have liberal views as a way to justify conservative views, this is a common occurrence. ALM is a far-right position, BLM was the moderate one.
Well, US is not a functioning Democracy, and centrism in US means "pretty right wing but pretends not to be".
You're missing the point of "enlightened centrism". The whole point is that it isn't actually attempting centrism, just a (almost exclusively) far right wing ideas with lipstick on.
that sounds exactly like what a radical leftist would say. is anything right of your viewpoint "far right" too?
Except when the political climate is between slightly center left and extreme far right "centrism" ends up being pretty far to the right instead of actually in the center.
Being center of left and right means being about where the Democractic Party in the US is. Anyone who considers themself a "centrist" between Democrats and Republicans is right-wing because the GOP is so far, far right and the Dems are so center-left.
Dems are so center-left.
Your dems are more right than Union of Right Forces and Republican Party of Russia back when they existed.
Yeah, it's a big tent and I was being generous.
I can probably come up with issues Democrats are further to the left than most other countries on. Abortion, for example.
Abortion isn't a left/right issue, but a socially progressive/conservative issue. Left/right are being used in this context to refer to economic composition.
As leftism is historically the revolutionary position, and rightism the conservative, you can technically call abortion protections left, but in this specific context economics are at play.
That's where the whole idea of "socially progressive, fiscally conservative" positioning comes from.
"Anyone who is a centrist should be brutally murdered, including all of their friends and family."
Versions of this have been posted repeatedly on various lemmy instances during political debates.