Current Events > Do peopleWho hate centrists really think it's a neutral position?

(+) Yeah! (+)

CyricZ posted...

*sigh* They do for some people.

Those people haven't thought about their position enough.

---

legendary_zell posted...

Having that mix does not mean you are not left wing or right wing. Believing a core right wing tenet that keeps the world right wing along with something that benefits you and hardly affects the world does not a centrist make.

Taking from that list for example, wanting a bigger military and closed borders along with being okay with trans people existing does not make you a centrist, it makes you a right winger with one non-right wing view. Most people have a hodgepodge of views like this, that doesn't mean some things are not way more salient or abhorrent to them than others either.

So these ones aren't left-wing views too - in some cases pretty extreme ones?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

2.) Abortions should be freely available to anyone who needs one.
4.) Vaccines should be mandatory.
6.) Trans women should be able to freely compete in school and professional sports programs in accordance with the gender they identify as.
9.) College should be free for all

That's four left-wing views by my count, not just one, with #4 being considered extreme even to many left-wingers. Then of the remainder, one isn't particularly clearly either left or right.

Which reinforces the idea that most people who think centrism is just a dogwhistle for "the opposite side from myself" arrive at this position by defining the "center" as being far closer to themself than it really is.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Whoever best represents the issues that they care about.

I don't see why these people are pushing you so much right now. tbh, you and I have never gotten along, so I really have no reason to support or stand by you -what-so-ever-, but I don't really give a shit if this guy is far right, a trump supporter, far left, Joe Biden fan, whatever, it's the fact that he literally spelled out how I pick and choose what represents me the most out of both sides and you, zell, pick apart the example that he used as to whether or not "those example points" represent my personal views, (which they don't), but you find them to be a great way of saying "ah you're still far too right for my liking"

Just agree to disagree.

legendary_zell posted...

Taking from that list for example, wanting a bigger military and closed borders along with being okay with trans people existing does not make you a centrist, it makes you a right winger with one non-right wing view. Most people have a hodgepodge of views like this, that doesn't mean some things are not way more salient or abhorrent to them than others either.

Amazing you ignored the list of things he said that's generally left leaning like:

2.) Abortions should be freely available to anyone who needs one.
6.) Trans women should be able to freely compete in school and professional sports programs in accordance with the gender they identify as.
9.) College should be free for all

---

blakenbl00 posted...

I don't see why these people are pushing you so much right now. tbh, you and I have never gotten along, so I really have no reason to support or stand by you -what-so-ever-, but I don't really give a shit if this guy is far right, a trump supporter, far left, Joe Biden fan, whatever, it's the fact that he literally spelled out how I pick and choose what represents me the most out of both sides and you, zell, pick apart the example that he used as to whether or not "those example points" represent my personal views, (which they don't), but you find them to be a great way of saying "ah you're still far too right for my liking"

Just agree to disagree.

this crowd fucking loves ad hominem when they got nothing

---

NatsuSama posted...

Amazing you ignored the list of things he said that's generally left leaning like:

Well you bring up an interesting point.

2 or 8, what takes priority?

A woman desires an abortion. Also she's undocumented.

Of course, the answer doesn't really matter, because we're analyzing a fantasy person and nobody actually real.


---

CyricZ posted...

Well you bring up an interesting point.

2 or 8, what takes priority?

A woman desires an abortion. Also she's undocumented.

Of course, the answer doesn't really matter, because we're analyzing a fantasy person and nobody actually real.

Are we REALLY going to discuss this? The abortion takes priority because it's a timing thing while her path to citizenship can be addressed over time. Now please, shut the fuck up.

CyricZ posted...

Well you bring up an interesting point.

2 or 8, what takes priority?

A woman desires an abortion. Also she's undocumented.

Of course, the answer doesn't really matter, because we're analyzing a fantasy person and nobody actually real.

You're twisting into a pretzel again. Your question doesn't address my point.

One can believe in both 2 and 8.

---

blakenbl00 posted...

Are we REALLY going to discuss this?

Yes let's. Hold on a moment.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Yes let's. Hold on a moment.

hehehe, I like your style

Gobstoppers12 posted...

What about all the stuff about free college, open access to abortions, and mandatory vaccines? Those aren't right wing views at all. Please address the entire list when making assessments such as this. I chose those examples for a reason.

Immigration tends to be a high salience issue, especially when people phrase it the way you did. When someone has strong views on that, it tends to color their views of people who disagree more strongly than most other things, ranging from "they're killing our jobs" to white replacement shit.

Same with the military part, that indicates a siege mentality/strength focus.

Opinion polls since the 2016 election at least shows that some opinions are far more predictive of how someone actually votes than others. Especially ones related to race and immigration and we know how people who think that way vote in reality.

There's many Republicans that are for free health care, want free or subsidized college, or want legal weed, but a few issues and overwhelming hatred of the left override that. Left wing opinions are generally significantly more popular than right wing ones (especially economically) and yet people still vote right wing because the issues that decide their self image go the other way.


---

CyricZ posted...

Well you bring up an interesting point.

2 or 8, what takes priority?

A woman desires an abortion. Also she's undocumented.

Of course, the answer doesn't really matter, because we're analyzing a fantasy person and nobody actually real.

That depends if this person defines abortion as just another part of healthcare - in which case it hinges on whether an illegal immigrant is entitled to healthcare in general - or as its own seperate thing that overrides all else, such as how even an illegal immigrant can't legally be tortured.

And you're being wilfully ignorant if you believe that right-wingers or left-wingers are never self-contradictory either, for that matter.

---

NatsuSama posted...

Amazing you ignored the list of things he said that's generally left leaning like:

2.) Abortions should be freely available to anyone who needs one.
6.) Trans women should be able to freely compete in school and professional sports programs in accordance with the gender they identify as.
9.) College should be free for all

Some things matter more to individuals in actual lived reality than other things and like I said, some things affect the world more than others. If you think that capitalism as it currently exists should be left completely unchanged, but also think that gay people should be able to get married and the war on drugs should end, which do you think matters more subjectively and objectively?


---

Trumble posted...

And you're being wilfully ignorant if you believe that right-wingers or left-wingers are never self- contradictory either, for that matter.

This is exactly the reason that made me re-examine my political stance in this world. Because I what I "thought" I knew about politics (you know, because I learned Government in CE and Google, not in high school because I was too busy being a fuck off) turned out to be pretty naive and short sighted while the other side was just too cartoonishly ridiculous to agree with (I'll let you decide which party was which), so I have now affirmed myself as a conservative centralist. Have fun mocking my self proclaimed label but it encompasses my views 100%

Well, here's the problem. The political spectrum accounts for such a wide range of beliefs and ideologies that to fall squarely in the "centrist" category doesn't make much sense.

Like plenty of moderate Republicans would support LGBT rights and free college while at the same time advocating for a strong military/police force. In fact, that pretty much describes a lot of right-leaning, neoliberal Democrats.

But then what happens if you have to make a decision between allocating funding for colleges vs allocating funding for the police?

---

"the centrists" is a leftist ploy to try to endear the rights by tiptoeing lines on non-extreme topics.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Well, here's the problem. The political spectrum accounts for such a wide range of beliefs and ideologies that to fall squarely in the "centrist" category doesn't make much sense.

Like plenty of moderate Republicans would support LGBT rights and free college while at the same time advocating for a strong military/police force. In fact, that pretty much describes a lot of right-leaning Democrats.

But then what happens if you have to make a decision between allocating funding for colleges vs allocating funding for the police?

Luckily the lay-voter doesn't have any power in decision making such as funding for colleges or police, huh? Because those come out of 2 different funds ran by a committee of people, not just one person. Voted for or not.

legendary_zell posted...

Some things matter more to individuals in actual lived reality than other things and like I said, some things affect the world more than others. If you think that capitalism as it currently exists should be left completely unchanged, but also think that gay people should be able to get married and the war on drugs should end, which do you think matters more subjectively and objectively?

Exactly. My last post was arguing on a "push comes to shove" level because there's a good chance it might.

And that's when a person shows what they really value.

And then it slips away from the magical centerpoint of centrism.

Trumble posted...

And you're being wilfully ignorant if you believe that right-wingers or left-wingers are never self-contradictory either, for that matter.

Yes because that is certainly a thing I said out loud.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

But then what happens if you have to make a decision between allocating funding for colleges vs allocating funding for the police?

Personally, education. That is, if there isn't a 3rd option that's far more worthy of cutting, which there probably is.

But you very likely won't get the same answer from everyone you ask that to. Some will say police. Some will say colleges. Some will want to go for a split where both get some funding and neither get full. That split might not always be 50/50.

---

CyricZ posted...

And then it slips away from the magical centerpoint of centrism.

Yes, dude. I am sure every centrist believes they're literally bang-smack in the middle of the spectrum, without the slightest deviation to either side. >_>

Let me guess, you're also the kind of person who would cry about someone saying pi = 3.14 because "akshually it's 3.1415[insert millions more digits here]"? And that they may as well be saying pi is just equal to 3?

---

Its the bisexuality of politics.

This topic: Immovable Object

Cyric Z: Unmovable Force

500 posts later: who wins?

So one can veer away from centrism? Where's the boundary? Is there one?

---

A lot of centrists seem to think they are taking a neutral position, or that a free thinker would settle at an equal distance between America's two political parties.

The idea of the political spectrum is that there shouldn't be several defined positions. The average person is likely visibly off of center. Not being an extremist, which barely anyone is, does not make one a centrist.

---

Trumble posted...

Personally, education. That is, if there isn't a 3rd option that's far more worthy of cutting, which there probably is.

But you very likely won't get the same answer from everyone you ask that to. Some will say police. Some will say colleges. Some will want to go for a split where both get some funding and neither get full. That split might not always be 50/50.

Well I think that's what Cyric is getting at.

You can claim to be dead center between left and right-wing ideals, but you're eventually going to have to prioritize some issues over the other.

It's important to remember that this is a spectrum we're talking about here; it's not like you're either completely right-wing or completely left-wing. Dead center of that is equivalent to political apathy.

---

legendary_zell posted...

Some things matter more to individuals in actual lived reality than other things and like I said, some things affect the world more than others. If you think that capitalism as it currently exists should be left completely unchanged, but also think that gay people should be able to get married and the war on drugs should end, which do you think matters more subjectively and objectively?

That depends from person to person. That doesn't change you can have a variety of viewpoints. For example let's arbitrarily pick 8 viewpoints. Like said earlier by someone else, 4 individual ideals can be left wing while 4 individual ideals can right wing.

The issue with the rampant tribalism going on is, many think you have to mindlessly support a particular party or wing. Or that having X belief automatically means you also agree with Y. That is nothing more than just tribalism.

For example, back to that arbitrary 8 viewpoints example. The tribalism some of you argue has it that it doesn't matter if 5 out 8 beliefs you have are left leaning. You will focus on the 3 out of 8 and claim they are right leaning.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Well, here's the problem. The political spectrum accounts for such a wide range of beliefs and ideologies that to fall squarely in the "centrist" category doesn't make much sense.

At this point it's just semantics. Centrists, people who are "leaning left/right," etc. are more simply defined as people who do not strongly support one side/party over another and might vote for some Democrats and some Republicans on the very same ballot. They make decisions based on the candidate's individual viewpoints and not their party affiliation.

There are a lot of people who are closer to the center than to either end of the political spectrum. That's all it really means.

---

CyricZ posted...

So one can veer away from centrism? Where's the boundary? Is there one?

Where is the boundary between moderate left and far-left? Or between moderate-right and far right? Is there one?

---

NatsuSama posted...

The issue with the rampant tribalism going on is, many think you have to mindlessly support a particular party or wing. Or that having X belief automatically means you also agree with Y. That is nothing more than just tribalism.

Well, sure. But at the end of the day, you kind of only have one option or the other in America depending on what issues matter the most to you.

---

Another problem with centrism/compromise is that for some programs/policies to work, it's almost a requirement that 100% of effort and resources are allocated to that goal.

Healthcare is an example. The far right wants a privatized system while the left wants a single-payer system. The compromise that many moderates/centrists promote is the public option. The problem is that you're still tying healthcare to employment, and making it an option makes it more expensive than it could be if everyone was paying into it instead.

This is doubly bad for the left-leaning standpoint because 1) it doesn't accomplish what they want and 2) the right can use the inadequacy of the public option as "evidence" that universal healthcare is a failure and therefore shouldn't be pursued any more. Compromise doesn't always lead to equal outcomes.


---

Trumble posted...

Where is the boundary between moderate left and far-left? Or between moderate-right and far right? Is there one?

Of course there isn't one. Everything's relative.

So in theory, everyone could be centrist because you're not setting boundaries.

---

Trumble posted...

Where is the boundary between moderate left and far-left? Or between moderate-right and far right? Is there one?

Sure there is. Like, I would say a Social Democrat is moderate-left, while a communist is far-left. I'd say Joe Biden is moderate-right while Mitch McConnell is far-right.

It's going to depend on the independent person as to where the boundaries lie, but it's easy to make clear distinctions between moderate and radical views.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Well, sure. But at the end of the day, you kind of only have one option or the other in America depending on what issues matter the most to you.

Ironically, the reason you only have two choices is because everyone believes you only have two choices.

---

CyricZ posted...

Of course there isn't one. Everything's relative.

So in theory, everyone could be centrist because you're not setting boundaries.

This is a circle. It goes round and around, and around. This is what you're doing and have been doing for hours.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Sure there is. Like, I would say a Social Democrat is moderate-left, while a communist is far-left. I'd say Joe Biden is moderate-right while Mitch McConnell is far-right.

But Cyric was asking about exact boundary points, not about general indications.

Much like how there isn't a clear boundary between blue and green, despite the fact that many given shades could clearly be labelled as one or the other; nor is there a clear boundary between the far right and the moderate right. Or between the far left and the moderate left. Or between either moderate and the center. It's a spectrum, with a slow "fade" from one to the next. And indeed, not everyone will define the cutoffs at the same point - much like how not all cultures / languages put the cutoff between blue and green at the same point either.

---

ZMythos posted...

Another problem with centrism/compromise is that for some programs/policies to work, it's almost a requirement that 100% of effort and resources are allocated to that goal.

Healthcare is an example. The far right wants a privatized system while the left wants a single-payer system. The compromise that many moderates/centrists promote is the public option. The problem is that you're still tying healthcare to employment, and making it an option makes it more expensive than it could be if everyone was paying into it instead.

This is doubly bad for the left-leaning standpoint because 1) it doesn't accomplish what they want and 2) the right can use the inadequacy of the public option as "evidence" that universal healthcare is a failure and therefore shouldn't be pursued any more.

Claiming only single-payer systems work when the majority of nations with UHC don't use single-payer systems lol

blakenbl00 posted...

This is a circle. It goes round and around, and around. This is what you're doing and have been doing for hours.

I still don't know who you are. It's a mystery.

Trumble posted...

But Cyric was asking about exact boundary points, not about general indications.

I mean any clarity on that would be nice. Let's say it doesn't have to be exact.

And indeed, not everyone will define the cutoffs at the same point - much like how not all cultures / languages put the cutoff between blue and green at the same point either.

Exactly. It's all relative.

Which is why I think trying to establish yourself as centrist is quite simply a useless exercise.

---

I don't trust or like either side, so I don't vote or support either side.

It's really that simple.
---

Trumble posted...

But Cyric was asking about exact boundary points, not about general indications.

Much like how there isn't a clear boundary between blue and green, despite the fact that many given shades could clearly be labelled as one or the other; nor is there a clear boundary between the far right and the moderate right. Or between the far left and the moderate left. Or between either moderate and the center. It's a spectrum, with a slow "fade" from one to the next. And indeed, not everyone will define the cutoffs at the same point - much like how not all cultures / languages put the cutoff between blue and green at the same point either.

But the issue here is that some political beliefs are simply incompatible with others from the opposite side.

Like, this is the main issue many leftists have with Democrats. They try to reconcile left and right-wing ideology, and the end result of that always ends up with things skewing further right.

---

CyricZ posted...

I still don't know who you are. It's a mystery.

Again, it wouldn't matter who I am because 20 years of accounts coming and going on gamefaqs, mine would just be another one of them. A raised eyebrow and nothing more. You'd rather ignore the points that I'm making to ponder my identity when that's really not the issue here, at all.

CyricZ posted...

Which is why I think trying to establish yourself as centrist is quite simply a useless exercise.

Because there aren't exact hard-and-fast defined boundaries?

By your logic then, there's no point trying to establish "green", because there isn't any single universal, exact cutoff point where light is green, rather than slightly red or slightly violet.

---

Trumble posted...

Because there aren't exact hard-and-fast defined boundaries?

By your logic then, there's no point trying to establish "green", because there isn't any single universal, exact cutoff point where light is green, rather than slightly red or slightly violet.

Well the big problem with this analogy is that red and green aren't fighting for dominance over the color spectrum.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

But the issue here is that some political beliefs are simply incompatible with others from the opposite side.

It tends to be only incompatible with with tribal individuals who want to categories everyone into left wing or right wing. Democrat or Republican.

Like the post from earlier that tries to make being pro choice to be incompatible with less immigration.

---

blakenbl00 posted...

Again, it wouldn't matter who I am because 20 years of accounts coming and going on gamefaqs, mine would just be another one of them. A raised eyebrow and nothing more. You'd rather ignore the points that I'm making to ponder my identity when that's really not the issue here, at all.

Yes, but you're the one who keeps bringing up that 20 year point like it's supposed to mean something. How am I to know our history if you're too scared to admit your former identity?

Or you're just lying.

Also you haven't made a point in hours.

Trumble posted...

Because there aren't exact hard-and-fast defined boundaries?

Well no, more because at the end of the day, who cares? We'll bring up an issue and agree or disagree on it. What does it matter what you call yourself?

NatsuSama posted...

It tends to be only incompatible with with tribal individuals who want to categories everyone into left wing or right wing.

How about slavery? Is there nuance to that to be debated?

---

CyricZ posted...

Well no, more because at the end of the day, who cares? We'll bring up an issue and agree or disagree on it. What does it matter what you call yourself?

It seems to matter a great deal to people in this topic who are trying to argue that centrists don't exist.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Well the big problem with this analogy is that red and green aren't fighting for dominance over the color spectrum.

Nor do they (red and violet, rather than your inaccurate quoting thereof) generally try to deny that green exists or claim it's just secretly their own opposite, or that all green is really just "slight red" or "slight violet".

---

CyricZ posted...

Yes, but you're the one who keeps bringing up that 20 year point like it's supposed to mean something. How am I to know our history if you're too scared to admit your former identity?

Or you're just lying.

I didn't mention 20 years anything when I said you're going on and on in circles for hours. That was a point. But you missed it because you're too busy going in your circles. But of course, I'm lying, right? After all, I said "I've known you for 20 years' not, "we've known each other for 20 years".

Reading....some of us call it easy, others I guess call it hard.

CyricZ posted...

Well no, more because at the end of the day, who cares? We'll bring up an issue and agree or disagree on it. What does it matter what you call yourself?

It kinda does matter when the typical assumption of people like yourselves is that anyone who doesn't 100% agree with your side should be lumped in with the most extreme of the opposite side.

---

NatsuSama posted...

It tends to be only incompatible with with tribal individuals who want to categories everyone into left wing or right wing. Democrat or Republican.

Like the post from earlier that tries to make being pro choice to be incompatible with less immigration.

Again, Democrats have been trying to reconcile fiscal conservatism with social liberalism and the results have been pretty disastrous.

For example, let's say you want a strong police state but you also want economic freedom for minorities. How do you make that happen when overpolicing has played a large part in a lack of economic opportunity for minority groups, perpetuating crime and thus requiring MORE policing to correct?

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It seems to matter a great deal to people in this topic who are trying to argue that centrists don't exist.

To speak for myself and not other people in this topic, I'm opposed to people who call themselves centrist, for reasons I've stated in this topic, but to recap:

• I think it's an ego-stroking exercise to establish that you're not extreme, a sentiment shared by so many people in this country, it boils down to being incredibly low-stakes.
• No one can agree what it means.
• For those who think of it as an identity and a "mediating" philosophy, history has shown that in the American spectrum it will serve to the whims of conservatives and right-wings, those who would take greater advantage of their lack of desire to take a stand.

---