[anm89]

Attacking the center is always the craziest narrative to me. It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side. The only right way to view these complex issues is to sign your name to join my party and then hold the party line, and everything else is unethical. I can't imagine a more obnoxious political viewpoint than that.

That enlightened centrism subreddit listed below is up there with the most toxic sub reddits I've seen on reddit where people "dunk" on the idea that anyone would be so brave to have the gall not to conform precisely with progressive rhetoric on anything. It somehow seems like some of these people are more offended with the center than the other side.

Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's not because I'm trying to be neutral, it's because both sides are terrifying cesspools the further you get to their extremes and the best outcome for partisan politics is to give either of those groups as little power as possible. It's not some abstract goal of evenly seeing both sides on the issues.

[cwkoss]

I think your flavor of centrism is actually relatively rare. That you distrust both sides I think is the key to enabling 'the good kind' of centrism. Many with a similar viewpoint would call themselves Independent to separate themselves from the parties.

The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle.

So in effect, many centrists determine their positions by trusting BOTH parties - which can be just as bad or worse than having blind faith in either. They are setting the bounds of possibility in between two groups which have many ideological similarities (ex. how meaningfully different are democrats than republicans on war spending?).

The vast majority of 'issues' do not cleanly divide along ideological lines, and by viewing them through the distorted lens of the two-party dichotomy it creates a reductive perception of reality.

[anm89]

It's hard to say either way without getting into polling data but anecdotally, I would say the amount of people whos issue with American politics is that they trust both parties so much that they can't decide who they like so they settle for the middle is many orders of magnitude smaller than the number of people whose primary issue is that they feel a general sense of distrust with all of the parties.

[reedjosh]

I agree and imagine that the overwhelming majority of people do

> feel a general sense of distrust with all of the parties.

Yet our system only allows for `pick red or blue`. In this case the control of the minority by the majority on what are incredibly complex topics is filtered down to a binary decision.

In what world is our current system reasonable!?

Our current system is a tyrannical mess, and it's no surprise everyone is polarized to the max under it.

[cwkoss]

You may be right about orders of magnitude, but I think there is an important distinction to the relative loudness of these two groups though.

There is a large silent majority of people who distrust both parties and ignores and avoid politics.

However I think the "trusts both" group tends to be overrepresented in the media, government and political classes because it has utility to them: hard to work with or get interviews or jobs with politicians that you've called disingenuous or bought by special interests - even when it is clearly the case.

I think there is a breed of people who watch the West Wing and see it as a utopian possible reality ("Federalists"?) and they prioritize the power and respectability of the state as more important than the results of political actions. I believe these people self-sort into these roles and are able to advance in these roles more easily because of this ideology.

[tomc1985]

I would beg to differ. Anecdotally I have overheard a lot of people expressing frustration that there are only two real choices in political debates. There are a lot of "nonpartisans" out there but they are suppressed by ignorant and xenophobic politicos on both sides

[rictic]

I don't think I've ever heard someone argue that the rational position is the compromise in the middle. I have heard people argue that it's the only politically available option in one circumstance or another, which makes sense because the structure of American democracy creates a strong pressure for there to be two parties of approximately equal power.

When I talk to people I generally hear people taking specific positions on specific issues, which often but not always aligns with their preferred political party's position on that issue.

[bcrosby95]

Most people I know don't even trust their own political party. I have a hard time believing there's many people that actually trust both.

[junon]

> The issue lies is the false dichotomy of the two-party system. Centrists I interact with often seem to view the world as if the two party lines are a single dimension and that a rational 'compromise' position can be found somewhere in the middle.

As a self-proclaimed centrist, it's weird to me that anyone who calls themselves a centrist thinks this way.

For me, I see both sides as being correct sometimes but also blindly agreeing with anything else they come up with even if it's wrong. It kind of negates any good ideas because, to me, they don't come from a point of reasoning or critical thinking, but from tribalism.

I disagree with a lot from the left, usually because (these days) it's unscientific. I disagree with a lot from the right, usually because it's uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific.

However, there are some good ideas financially coming from the (American) right that I think would work well for the US. I say this living in (and enjoying) Germany, which is largely what the left views as "socialism".

As well, living in San Francisco for a few years prior, there are of course a lot of good humanitarian efforts coming from people mostly based on the left - including renewable energy, for example, which seems to be wholly rejected by conservatives.

To me, what "makes sense" is oftentimes owned by one of the sides, and sometimes owned by neither. I'm often found to be politically homeless, and thus why I call myself a centrist - usually my viewpoints have some relation to one of the parties' extreme standpoints but generally nowhere near the fanaticism they exude (e.g. I'm what the Twitter left calls a "trans-medicalist", whereas the right tends to completely deny the humanity of trans individuals entirely).

I don't think people who claim that all issues can have a solution "somewhere in the middle" are centrist. I think they're undecided, uninformed, weak-thinkers, or people pleasers - or some mixture of those things. I myself have strong, solid opinions that oftentimes don't align with either side - hence why I call myself a centrist.

[slowhand09]

Regarding "I disagree with a lot from the left, usually because (these days) it's unscientific. I disagree with a lot from the right, usually because it's uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific."

Have you ever considered that given the left dominates the media, they might imply or present thinking from the right as "uninformed, religious, or inhumane - and also, unscientific."

I take the "How informed about..." quizzes at Pew regularly. And I regularly score in the top group across the board. And I identify as conservative, after growing up as blue collar, patriotic, and somewhat liberal.

[junon]

> Have you ever considered that given the left dominates the media

I don't read most media, and I'm perfectly capable of researching and forming my own opinions.

[reedjosh]

Downvoted... How dare you imply conservatives can be well informed and the media paints a bigoted picture. /s

[whimsicalism]

I think perhaps the reason enlightened centrism gets its reputation is because there is no well-formed critique.

There is a vague reference to the awfulness of both sides, it's never really described in depth or weighed, and then you end with the blithe "and that's why i'm a centrist."

Even in this comment, both sides are terrifying cesspools, maybe - so what are the concrete things that you are afraid of if each of the groups gets power?

[version_five]

Wow, all the confirmation one needs for the first two paragraphs of your post is to read the replies you got.

I'm reminded a bit of the Futurama where Zapp Brannigan attacks the neutral planet :)

[throwaway894345]

> It somehow seems like some of these people are more offended with the center than the other side.

I think this holds well beyond that particular subreddit. I think this is horseshoe theory in action. The klansman isn't the real threat, it's the moderate who won't toe the progressive line.

[TrispusAttucks]

Agreed. The center is the glue the holds the populace in check. We need these people. Once the center is eroded things will not go well.

[anm89]

Here's an interesting article from a great blog that tries to use a game theory perspective to quantify your belief and makes a really interesting argument in agreement with you:

https://www.epsilontheory.com/things-fall-apart-pt-1/

[kthulutude]

Once the center is eroded things will not go well... for centrists. The idea that both 'extremes' are equivalently bad neglects the real differences in worldview that create a sense of political urgency. It's important to remember that this political urgency is a reflection of real social problems--for some people, the consequences are literally life and death.

[rayiner]

> It's important to remember that this political urgency is a reflection of real social problems--for some people, the consequences are literally life and death.

That’s true for very few people. At the same time, injecting life-and-death urgency into politics deprives the vast majority of a sane and orderly society, which is extremely important as well.

Look, you’re not the first one to think that “politics is so serious we need to treat it extremely seriously.” I come from a part of the world where politics is “serious.” The Islamists are convinced that society must be dissolved and reformed as the Ummah. Others have dreams of creating a socialist secular utopia out of that same deeply Muslim community. For everyone it’s life or death business. (Especially in a third world country where poverty means that few people have much margin.) Elections are followed by rioting and mass protests. But this doesn’t actually lead to justice. Instead, it’s just animosity, unrest, and bitterness.

One of the things I loved about America, as an immigrant, was that elections were boring. I hate that my kids may never know that America and will have to grow up in this new one.

[TrispusAttucks]

Wether or not one side is better or worse than the other is besides the point.

"A house divided against itself can not stand." ~ Abraham Lincoln

The centrist who vote with rationality as the primary mechanism of choice are the third leg that holds up the democracy. They are the lifeline connecting the two sides. We can not survive with out them. Once they are gone we are left only with dogmatic ideology.

[southeastern]

I agree. I think one way to demonstrate that is to consider a particularly contentious debate. Say, the Palestine-Israel conflict. If you're on the side of Palestine, agreeing with Israel only leads to more death and hate. If you're on the side of Israel, agreeing with Palestine only leads to more death and hate. The center doesn't know what to think-- it's complicated but it definitely needs to end. So the centrist point is almost pointless. If your on either end, then they are simply protecting injustice. Same thing with people who were lukewarm about civil rights. The ones who said "yeah blacks should get rights but there are a lot of people against it that deserve a say" we now look at as wrong. In a task life scenario, necessity sometimes demands a choice be made

[TrispusAttucks]

False dichotomy. Strawman.

Just because someone is centrist doesn't mean they don't know what to think. It usually means they have a nuanced position on an issue that doesn't conveniently fit into a box that is red or blue.

[thu2111]

All the people I know who like to think about issues deeply generally hate to be described as left or right and much prefer to reject labels.

Sometimes I'm not sure they actually can't be labelled, and sometimes the difficulty in labelling them comes from an overall lack of coherency rather than a truly uncategorisable position, but, I don't know anyone who calls themselves a centrist and could talk about politics in any depth. Centrism seems mostly, at least where I live, to be what people call themselves when they just support the status quo and wish politics would go away.

[belorn]

As an example, Sweden where I live has 8 major political parties and during elections years there are usually tests where one can compare each parties political program to ones own political views. For me, the lowest rated for me sit at 45% and highest sit around 60% (which wasn't the centrist party).

I would definitively not call myself a centrist, nor left or right. There is some good goals even in the far left and far right, but also a lot of things I strongly disagree with to the point of alienation. Centrism simply just an other political agenda with its own set of prioritized demographics and intentions.

[TrispusAttucks]

Therein lies the problem with labels.

"I will not make any deals with you. I've resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

~ Number 6

[dragonwriter]

> The center doesn't know what to think

On the I-P and the way you've framed it, there centrist-on-this-question positions that don’t meet that description, e.g.:

“both Israel and various entities on the Palestinian side have engage in, and continue to engage in, actions which are intolerable and not excused by abuses on the other side The international community should cease aid to all offending parties so long as that continues, while engaging in dialogue aimed to a more complete resolution, with readiness to commit substantial resources to support a peaceful resolution.

[ABCLAW]

>Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's not because I'm trying to be neutral, it's because both sides are terrifying cesspools

You aren't being neutral. Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change.

That's an understandable position, but it isn't neutrality. Especially not if the status quo is actively negative for certain people.

As an aside, this portion of your statement:

>It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side.

Feels like a strawman. The existence of critique isn't a censure. It's just how rational analysis works. You find ideas and you work through them.

If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong, and that's why you've adopted a 'centrist' standpoint to get above it all that's a very political position to adopt.

[mlac]

Not the OP, but I'll counter: >You aren't being neutral. Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change.

It's not that I don't want ANYONE to enact change, I just don't want people with extreme views enacting change. And it's this all-or-nothing discussion that drives the country apart and makes for little or no common ground on major issues. The US Federal laws impact hundreds of millions of people. In most cases, this requires gray areas, exceptions, and a one-size-fits-all approach leaning to one extreme or another creates externalities and negative consequences. People who hold extreme views either don't feel these consequences, don't know them, or do not care about them. If they did, then they wouldn't be in the extreme.

For any given situation there are extremes and some path of action between the two that is optimal. Let's say an infected finger - there are extremes (do nothing, cut it off) and an optimal path (some treatment). If OP is in the "some treatment" standpoint, he or she is not advocating for inaction (inaction is actually an extreme in this case), but may be advocating for an optimal, less aggressive approach.

[x86_64Ubuntu]

I'm not sure how "Extreme views enacting change" => Centrism.

[mlac]

I was replying to OP: "Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo. You don't want anyone to be able to enact change."

[ABCLAW]

>It's not that I don't want ANYONE to enact change, I just don't want people with extreme views enacting change.

This position sounds fine until you realize all it has done is shift discussion away from the effectiveness and correctness of a given policy, to a pre-discussion of the reasonableness of that policy. The heuristic replaces the thing itself. "Is this an extreme position?" replaces "Is this good policy?"

This is fine when public discourse is a never-ending deluge of extreme ideas: 'should we commit genocide?' - let's not even bother working through that one.

However, in practice this position is often used to prevent or shut down discussion of social legislation aimed at fixing publicly broken but privately lucrative policy positions.

Is single-payer healthcare too extreme an idea for the states? Regardless of your answer you've likely seen this exact form of argument. It adds nothing to the discussion and creates a presumption that the status quo is correct.

The inverse position isn't 'Is single-payer healthcare good?', it's 'Is remaining on employer funded healthcare too extreme an idea for the states?' Note how the existence of the status quo makes this an uphill battle - how can what already exists be too extreme?

Everyone wants the policies they want. Being able to define the policies they do not want as 'extreme' is just an extra tool to ossify and slow legislative change. Which, again, is itself a position to take.

[mlac]

If a policy is effective and correct, I would not call it extreme.

I guess it depends on the definition of extreme, but I would not think "good" policy would be extreme in the sense that it has (whether real or perceived) negative externalities on a large portion of the population. Two years ago, I (and perhaps the country) would have said the PPP for paychecks would have been extreme. Given the (extreme) circumstances that occurred, it became a reasonable approach.

I would argue people that shut down dialogue are advocating for an extreme position (e.g. doing nothing and maintaining status quo can be an extreme approach in some cases).

I don't know if single-payer health care is too extreme, but any and all options should be discussed, and a reasonable course of action should be taken. I think most people agree that the current situation we have is a broken mess of half-measures. I don't think we're stuck with an either-or situation. [This feels like the most Yogi Berra thing I've ever written]

There is merit to discussing chopping off the finger or doing nothing. Both solutions are worth understanding - one avoids gangrene and the other saves the finger at the potential for the infection. Given no other choices or options available, the decision maker will have to choose one option or the other. But when other alternatives exist (e.g. modern medicine), creating a false dichotomy between the two camps yelling the loudest is not an optimal approach.

[ABCLAW]

>If a policy is effective and correct, I would not call it extreme.

>I guess it depends on the definition of extreme, but I would not think "good" policy would be extreme

The issue is that you've begged the question in your definition: Good policy isn't extreme, therefore all policy that is extreme isn't good, therefore no extreme policy. You've just redefined extreme to mean bad - so we can't really discuss much more.

I'll propose a different definition for use here, one that accords with common use: 'Extreme', in this case, is whether or not the position is unreasonable, unmoderate, or exceedingly unusual.

With this definition we can find examples of positive extreme policy positions: We take take the abolition of slavery as an example of extreme policy. Granting women suffrage is another. Desegregation is another.

This isn't to say that all extreme policy positions are right - many, maybe most, are wrong. But digging into the trade-offs between the two requires a far more nuanced discussion than the one we're having here, because there's a lot of legal history about the relative velocity of legislative change and that's gonna take up more room than we have.

[true_religion]

The abolishment of slavery wasn’t an extreme positive position to take in pre civil war America. A truly extreme position would be granting non-white races equal rights up to and including the right to vote. Pennsylvania and New Jersey abolished slavery but walked back equal rights in voting after once passing laws to allow it.

To contrast, the ideals of the slave holders were extreme.

As for abolishing slavery, internationally both slavery and serfdom had slowly been banned by every organized headed religion and country on the European continent. It was only in the US, and then only in the Southern states that people held the extreme position of needing to enslave an entire race despite how immoral and unprofitable it was.

I say this to argue that an effective policy is rarely an extreme one. Effective policies are simply one step to the left or right of where we already stand, not a great leap into the unknown. Often, as with abolishing slavery, we already will have examples where other people experimented with the policy.

[mlac]

I say “good” in the sense of good policy, not the moral sense. Good policy should obviously be moral but needs to be tractable and not extreme.

So yes, I would say extreme policy is bad policy, because it leads to all sorts of unintended consequences. First, it’s extreme because of impacts to others. A policy wouldn’t be considered extreme if the vast majority of people agreed with it and it aligned with common sense. People often don’t agree with it because it impacts them in a negative way.

You can’t pass “extreme” policy that is extreme in the eyes of the voters without blowback of some kind and a massive swing the other way. So I’d make the argument that incremental progress would get more done in the long run. We don’t need massive change that will be unwound when one side loses control in a few years.

And the abolition of slavery, woman’s suffrage, and desegregation were not “extreme” things. They were ensuring the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for United States Citizens. They were progressive, but not extreme in their time.

And do you have reading on the relative velocity of legislative change? I’d like to see how it changed as tech evolved.

[eli_gottlieb]

>If a policy is effective and correct, I would not call it extreme.

Now if we could just convince most Senators to follow this principle!

[anm89]

>Anyway yeah, I'm a centrist and it's NOT because I'm trying to be neutral

> You aren't being neutral.

My claim is that I'm not neutral and that I'm also not trying to be neutral.

>If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong,

Speaking of strawmen.

[alentist]

> Your position is a very strong affirmative for the current status quo.

Non sequitur.

> You don't want anyone to be able to enact change.

Non sequitur.

> If your goal is to never be critiqued because you can't stand to be wrong, and that's why you've adopted a 'centrist' standpoint

Strawman.

[13415]

I don't think there are or could be neutral political positions, nor would it be desirable to have them.

[tootie]

Free speech as a sacred right means you have the absolute right to put yourself anywhere you want on the political spectrum, but that doesn't mean that one isn't right and the other side is wrong. I also think that "centrist" is a pretty meaningless term. I prefer to think of myself as more of an empiricist. I like policy that follows evidence. 90% of the time that's liberal policy. Roughly 0% of the time is that conservative policy. There's some rallying cries like $15 min wage or forgiving student loan debt that seem like foolish hills to die on, but universal healthcare, equal rights, voting rights, progressive taxation and aggressive action on climate are so blindingly obvious that anyone who questions them is wrong in my book. You have right to be wrong, but you're wrong. Saying that you oppose the poles because they are "cesspools" strongly implies you don't like the loudest proponents and aren't considering the validity of their policy.

[systemvoltage]

This is how liberal policies of Oakland, California will decide how to educate their children [PDF]: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...

I am not convinced, at all - this is coming from a liberal who has voted for every democratic candidate since age 18.

[tootie]

Yeah I don't back every policy just because a liberal came up with it. I think racial equity in education is great and it's a thing conservatives don't seem to care about. I'm not familiar enough with this plan to say if it's a bad idea or not. I think it's a really difficult problem to solve and no one has a great solution.

[systemvoltage]

> In 2017 Portland ranked third. Now it has dropped to 66th out of 80.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-...

The unchecked progressivism is destroying entire cities, enmasse. No one wants to live in defunded police state, and I would be pretty pissed if I owned property in Portland.

I might just vote for the republican party in the next election. I can't stand this just like I couldn't stand the prior republican administration. But, then I think about all the shitty politicians... America, you're broken. Find someone reasonable in the center that I can vote for.

[slumdev]

There are two centrisms that can't be confused.

The first kind of centrist examines each issue on its merits and arrives at a principled conclusion, regardless of how other people think about an issue. This kind of centrism is reasonable. This person can't really even be called a centrist. He's just non-partisan.

The second kind of centrist looks at the existing parties to an argument and averages their viewpoints: "Group A insists 2+2=4 and group B insists 2+2=6, but I'm a virtuous centrist, so I believe that 2+2=5."

I don't think anyone has any issue with the first kind of centrist. But there are far too many of the second kind.

[laputan_machine]

Can you give an example of the second type? I see this kind of strawman argument against centrism all the time, yet I rarely see "worst of both worlds" outcomes in a political sense

[southeastern]

During the civil rights era, there were people that said "yeah I don't like racism but it's people choice to ban blacks from their businesses. I totally empathize with you it's awful, but over turning freedom would be more awful"

[esyir]

That's not a centrist position. That's a position solidly entrenched in favour of right of association over other rights.

[anm89]

Meta comment: I'm not allowed to vote specifically on this comment. I can vote on its parent and children. Does anyone know why that might be the case?

[gruez]

It's probably to prevent pointless tit-for-tat downvotes from replies. eg:

1. user A makes a comment

2. user B downvotes user A for disagreeing with him, makes a reply saying why user A's wrong

3. user A sees the downvote (or not), downvotes user B for disagreeing with him, makes a reply saying why user B's wrong

continue ad infinitum.

[anm89]

I'm not the parent of this

[heavyset_go]

Did you already vote on it and forgot?

[slumdev]

Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest.

If the fetus is a human person with rights, there should be no exception.

If the fetus is not a human person with rights, then restrictions of any kind are unjust.

The provenance of the fetus has no effect on the moral liceity of killing it. It's a lazy opinion formed by appeals to emotion.

[tjs8rj]

Very few people decide the value of a fetus on a binary. Some leftists say it’s always just a clump of cells, some rightists say it’s always a human life.

Most people just don’t know. Immediately after conception it’s clearly just a clump of cells, immediately before birth it’s clearly a baby. Hence why most Americans are between lots of exceptions and few exceptions.

In general, if lots of people feel a certain way, and your conclusion is completely contradictory, you should assume you’re wrong until strong evidence says otherwise. You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone.

[slumdev]

> In general, if lots of people feel a certain way, and your conclusion is completely contradictory, you should assume you’re wrong until strong evidence says otherwise.

This is a useful heuristic for becoming popular but not for making moral decisions. It is the worst possible approach to forming one's conscience.

> You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone.

You're assuming everyone else formed a reasoned opinion rather than following the loudest existing herd.

[tjs8rj]

In general, people are about as intelligent as you, and at least the same order of magnitude. People are prone to trends as much as the market is, but the market of ideas tends to be somewhat efficient (not least because all profits from financial to business to psychic stem from people and their expectations). So the conclusion that everyone is wrong requires serious burden of proof. Doesn’t mean you can’t be contradictory and correct, it just means that’s unlikely. You can beat the market, but usually you won’t without good evidence

This is less true with morals, unless you’re a relativist.

[tomc1985]

> Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest.

This is news to me, can you qualify this statement?

[slumdev]

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-aborti...

> Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%)

75% of Americans support some kind of ban (with differing positions on what loopholes should be carved out.)

[tomc1985]

The link contradicts your statement

> Most Americans support an abortion ban

Doesn't imply the same thing as

> Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%)

[hn_one_off]

Actually, this seems like a coherent position: they believe that fetuses are somewhat like a human person, but not entirely. They should generally be protected, but in exceptional cases might not be.

[atq2119]

Technically, one could make arguments based on genetics for the "middle" position. Something like: allowing abortion following rape puts a damper on the spread of genes that tend to lead towards rape.

That's probably not a good argument. I'm just playing devil's advocate for why that position isn't necessarily self-contradictory.

[KittenInABox]

Allowing abortion for purposes of eugenics is self-contradictory with the notion that life should be inviolate.

[atq2119]

That's not self-contradictory though -- it's just good old contradiction with a different position. So a person who only holds one of those beliefs would potentially be fine, as far as self-contradiction is concerned.

Besides, beliefs can be prioritized and in shades of gray. Somebody could value the life of an embryo very highly (going so far as to call it "inviolate" at times when they aren't carefully weighing their beliefs -- few people do that all the time, so we should allow for some lapses in precision), but still believe that certain other concerns trump it. After all, most pro-choice folks do value the life of an embryo highly, they just believe that the mother's rights over her body are even more important.

[watwut]

> Most Americans support an abortion ban

This is not true. They support restrictions that are way smaller then the "only rape" one.

[onethought]

As your example you use a weird right wing wedge issue.

How about science based climate change where people think you can literally compromise on physics/math and make 2+2=5 because 4 is just too inconvenient.

Edit: (I’ll clarify: Abortion is used as a kind of hack into the religious/cultural background of Americans. It is purposefully used to divide political debate in a non rational way).

[esyir]

It's a weird left wing wedge issue too. The point of a wedge is that it cleanly divides. They're thus bipartisan, almost by definition.

[onethought]

No, because it requires religious conservatism. Which is very much in the right sphere of the political spectrum.

Take a peak outside of the US and make note of how abortion is not a wedge issue, which if you were correct should not be possible.

[goldenManatee]

TIL analysis paralysis goes by centrism

[myfavoritedog]

I agree with you in a lot of ways, although my problem with the center is:

When Democrats want to blow out the budget by spending $10 trillion and then centrist Republicans say, "Okay, we'll do $5 trillion", there's nowhere to go besides further to the right.

is to give either of those groups as little power as possible

The only two groups that even talk about decreasing the power of all the extremists are Libertarians and Conservatives. Those people have no voice in the center. The very lack of their agreeing to keep increasing the power of government labels them as "extremists".

[watwut]

Historically, democrats make debt smaller and republicans larger.

[myfavoritedog]

Actually, nobody makes the debt smaller. They monkey with the deficit, but the debt continues to grow.

But your original claim is a naive talking point based upon who happened to be President at the time. Often, the Congress has a lot more to do with what happens spending-wise.

Clinton was a good example. The Republicans were the ones who reined in the budget under Clinton, but somehow Clinton liked to talk about how he had "balanced the budget".

[x86_64Ubuntu]

You mention both sides being terrible cesspools, but your concrete examples only hit out at what you deem to be progressive subreddits. One aspect of centrism is that it's generally people who either benefit from or want to maintain the status quo, without incurring the conflict that comes with stating so.

[NeutralCrane]

> One aspect of centrism is that it's generally people who either benefit from or want to maintain the status quo, without incurring the conflict that comes with stating so.

This absolutely is not true, it's simply the straw man that polarized extremists use to lampoon centrism. It's based on two faulty assumptions:

1. Centrists believe the right course of action is "in the middle" of both extremes on all issues. This is like assuming that every movie that gets rated 5/10 on average got rated 5/10 by everyone who watched it, rather than 1/10 by 50% of people, and 10/10 by the other 50%. It's certainly true that sometimes centrists will believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it can also mean that they agree with the more extreme view of one wing on some issues, and strongly disagree on others.

2. It also assumes that neither wing of the political spectrum is never interested in maintaining the status quo, which is rarely the case. There are some issues for which progressives are pro-change and conservatives are for the status quo, and vice versa. You could conceivably have a centrist who is for raising taxes and government provided universal healthcare, and against affirmative action and for increased border security or against legality of abortions. All of these positions would represent upending a point of the status quo that either conservatives or progressives are for maintaining.

The point is that too often, centrism is lazily painted as apathetic, uninterested in change, or unwilling to take a hard stance on anything. In reality, many centrists are simply not falling in line with a particular political faction consistently enough to be a supporter of any of them.

And this doesn't even consider those who are skeptical of the self-perpetuating propaganda narratives that have been increasing in intensity as the internet has matured. Some people are centrists not because they aren't for change or taking a stance, but because they express skepticism at the narratives constantly being thrust upon us through the media and the internet. This doesn't equate to "both sides are right", or even "both sides are wrong", it is closer to "both sides have demonstrated a willingness to lie for their agenda, so I want to take things on a case by case basis rather than blindly throw my support at one".

[x86_64Ubuntu]

So in the issues of chattel slavery, Jim Crow, anti-lynching laws, Voting Rights what position would a centrist have taken that wouldn't have explicitly maintained white supremacy?

[fleddr]

This is the typical bait to attack centrism: moral coercion by framing an issue so that "NO" can never be an answer.

Centrism doesn't mean indifference regarding any topic, nor does it mean "meet in the middle" on any topic.

[x86_64Ubuntu]

So centrism means everything and nothing at once.

[fleddr]

Pretty much, yes. What it means depends on context, the topic at hand, and the position of the person regarding the matter:

- Indifference - Do care, yet reject both extremer view points on left and right - Studied topic deeply and actually concluded middle ground is the best fit - Sees status quo as valid

It could mean any of these things. Therefore, it's inaccurate to conclude anything on centrists as if they are a well defined group.

Even the term centrist itself is inaccurate, as very few people would have a fully centrist view on every single topic imaginable.

Coercing somebody with a centrist view into a hard choice under the threat that otherwise you approve the "murdering of children" or some other awful consequence, is plain idiotic. It's a polarization tactic: friend or foe.

[eli_gottlieb]

I would call the Civil Rights Act of 1965 pretty damn centrist considering how many of today's "progressives" claim it did absolutely nothing to seriously free black people or abolish white supremacy.

[local_dev]

It's hard to assume a centrist's opinions on these things. Anecdotally, the centrists I know and talk to regularly are entirely aligned with the left on those issues.

Centrists don't pick the middle of every issue, they pick issues from both sides they agree with.

For example, a centrist may be FOR universal healthcare and AGAINST gun control. Or FOR lower taxes all around and FOR $15 min wage.

Taking each issue as it's own instead of aligning with one party or another on all issues is what a centrist is, to me.

Edit: I'm a self admitted centrist. Feel free to ask questions on my views if you'd like more info.

[watwut]

The middle between truth and lie is a lie. The middle between torture and fredom is less bad torture.

I could continue, but that is the point.

[vorpalhex]

"If you aren't for us, you are against us."

This is a great tool for crusades and other holy wars. You can paint inconvenient bystanders who don't come over to your side as enemy combatants and justify attacking them. Also fantastic for reinforcing in-group identity, forcing group members to stay loyal or lose their entire friend group.

[KittenInABox]

This doesn't actually address the parent post in that quite literally half-truths aren't truths. Of course the rhetorical implication is that only one side had those truths but that is most certainly not the argument being made here.

[rkk3]

Except politics is based on conflicting value systems not objective truth.

[watwut]

What does that have to do with what I said? Nothing.

Political center are not passive bystanders. They are people who are active in politics and either actively stop or actively push for real policies. That then affect how country operates.

It is set of ideologies as much as any other political group is. They make aliances or refuse to make them too.

[vorpalhex]

A random example policy position: "We should vote for the immediate shutdown of coal plants and demand their replacement with large scale nuclear reactors."

There are lots of good objections available here, from pointing out that blackouts kill people and coal is an important part of energy capacity, to jobs arguments, to arguments about micro-reactors and the lifespan of nuclear plants.

If you're going to sit on one side of the debate and say anyone who isn't fully aligned is wrong/a liar/etc, then you are both doomed for failure and have started at a maximally partisan position.

Political positions have little to do with objective truths and instead tend to fall on value arguments.

[rictic]

A "centrist" who looks at each issue and takes the average of the mainstream parties' positions is a fool, and will be wrong more often than someone who picks a party and follows along with their beliefs.

Someone who looks at each issue and comes to their own conclusion is likely to end up with views that will not line up cleanly with any political coalition, and must choose which issues to compromise on when deciding which coalition to back in a given political contest.

[denton-scratch]

A political party is a compromise - a bunch of people who've decided they can accept one-another's redlines and non-negotiables.

A sane person doesn't just choose a party and adopt their party-line; a sane person works out what their opinions are, and maybe then chooses to support a party with policies that are sufficiently congruent with their views. Or not.

People who don't think for themselves are not really participating in politics. They're kidding themselves. They should voluntarily refrain from voting.

[anm89]

All of humanity does not agree with your personal subjective assessment of "the truth", whatever that is supposed to even mean.

[watwut]

If you are determined to pick middle of all issues, you are not superior neutral thinker. Instead, you are enabler for whoever is bigger lier or whoever is set up to cause more harm.

People dont have to have same opinions as me. But the contemporary idea that if you position yourself in the middle you are doing good by definition is wrong.

[fleddr]

I don't think a lot of centrists claim to be "doing good" just for being in the middle.

You can't read from this position the intent. It could be indifference about a topic, caring about it yet rejecting both extreme views, or somebody that did deeply study the topic and found the center to be just right.

Both rejecting centrism or glorifying it, makes no sense in any case.

[slowhand09]

That sounds like a great philosophy.

Who gets to decide what is truth and what is a lie?

Case in point. The Pulse Nightclub shooting 5 years ago. Proven the shooter chose it because of lax security compared to other places he considered. He didn't know it was LGBTQ+. It was about Syria, Afganistan, and other middle eastern wars to him.

Now it is hailed as persecution of the LGBTQ+ community - a target. Who is doing this? Politicians, activist, etc.

Who decides what the truth is? Why do they spin the lies as truths? This is societies problem today. Manipulation of fact and fiction by those who want to control you, and those who control the message.

Inaguration Day at the US Capitol. Police officer killed after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher. No proof, not even a strand. Now thought to have had a stroke. Pols, pundits, and Trump haters still swear he was MURDERED. Female protester killed by capital police - still no identification which officer did it, or what she was doing when shot. Sound like open&shut case of self-defense? Wouldn't they sing that from the heavens?

How about Jeffery Epstein? How did he hang himself in a maximum security facility where two video cameras failed, and guards checked him frequently? Guilty - probably. I'm surprised if they aren't taking bets on when girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell committed suicide. Who else was involved in their island escapades? Who benefits from their silence?

Who controls the truth?

[krapp]

>Proven the shooter chose it because of lax security compared to other places he considered. He didn't know it was LGBTQ+. It was about Syria, Afganistan, and other middle eastern wars to him.

How? By whom? Why should we trust you or your sources?

Your thesis is that no one can be trusted to decide what is truth and what is a lie... then you follow up with several "facts" which clearly share a common ideological bias. Like most people who pretend only to be concerned with the integrity of the truth and ask "who controls the truth? Who watches the watchers?", you're just attempting to move the Overton window by pretending an anti-leftist narrative is a neutral one.

[slowhand09]

On June 12, 2016, Mateen spent just over three hours in PULSE from the time he began slaughtering innocent people at roughly 2:00 a.m. until he was killed by a SWAT team at roughly 5:00 a.m. During that time, he repeatedly spoke to his captives about his motive, did the same with the police with whom he was negotiating, and discussed his cause with local media which he had called from inside the club. Mateen was remarkably consistent in what he said about his motivation. Over and over, he emphasized that his attack at PULSE was in retaliation for U.S. bombing campaigns in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. In his first call with 911 while inside PULSE, this is what he said about why he was killing people:

Because you have to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq. They are killing a lot of innocent people. What am I to do here when my people are getting killed over there. … You need to stop the U.S. airstrikes. They need to stop the U.S. airstrikes, OK? . … This went down, a lot of innocent women and children are getting killed in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, OK? … The airstrikes need to stop and stop collaborating with Russia. OK?

In the hours he spent surrounded by the gay people he was murdering, he never once uttered a homophobic syllable, instead always emphasizing his geo-political motive. Not a single survivor reported him saying anything derogatory about LGBTs or even anything that suggested he knew he was in a gay club. All said he spoke extensively about his vengeance on behalf of ISIS against U.S. bombing of innocent Muslims.

Mateen's postings on Facebook leading up to his attack all reflected the same motive. They were filled with rage about and vows of retaliation against U.S. bombing. Not a single post contained any references to LGBTs let alone anger or violence toward them. “You kill innocent women and children by doing U.S. airstrikes,” Mateen wrote on Facebook in one of his last posts before attacking PULSE, adding: “Now taste the Islamic state vengeance.”

: People still surround the Pulse nightclub which is still an active crime scene on June 18, 2016 in Orlando, Florida. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) It was of course nonetheless possible that he secretly harbored hatred for LGBTs and hid his real motive, but that never made sense: the whole point of terrorism is to publicize, not conceal, the grievances driving the violence. And again, good journalism requires evidence before ratifying claims. There never was any to support the story that Mateen's attack was driven by anti-LGBT hatred, and all the available evidence early on negated that suspicion and pointed to a radically different motive. But the media frenzy ended up, by design or otherwise, obscuring Mateen's anger over Obama's bombing campaigns as his motive in favor of promoting this as an anti-LGBT hate crime.

As the FBI investigation into Mateen proceeded, all the early media gossip — that Mateen was a closeted gay man who had searched for male sexual partners and had even previously visited PULSE — were debunked. The month after the attack, The Washington Post reported that “The FBI has found no evidence so far that Omar Mateen chose the popular establishment because of its gay clientele,” and quoted a federal investigator as saying: “While there can be no denying the significant impact on the gay community, the investigation hasn’t revealed that he targeted PULSE because it was a gay club.” The New York Times quickly noted that no evidence could be found to support the speculation that Mateen was gay:

F.B.I. investigators, who have conducted more than 500 interviews in the case, are continuing to contact men who claim to have had sexual relations with Mr. Mateen or think they saw him at gay bars. But so far, they have not found any independent corroboration — through his web searches, emails or other electronic data — to establish that he was, in fact, gay, officials said.

The following year, the local paper that most extensively covered the PULSE massacre, The Orlando Sentinel, acknowledge that “there’s still no evidence that the Pulse killer intended to target gay people.”

As the investigation proceeded, this anti-LGBT hate crime narrative became more and more unlikely. But the question of Mateen's motives was settled once and for all — or at least it should have been — during the unsuccessful attempt by the Justice Department to prosecute Mateen's wife, Noor Salman, on numerous felony charges alleging her complicity in her husband's attack. That trial — quite justifiably — ended in a full acquittal for Salman, but evidence emerged during it that conclusively disproved the widely held view that Mateen chose PULSE because he wanted to kill gay people.

[krapp]

Ok. I'm not even claiming you're wrong, but again, if we can't trust anyone to determine what truth is, why should we believe you?

How can you prove you're right without invoking exactly the same sources of truth that are being discredited as untrustworthy due to their biases?

Once you play the "Who controls the truth?" card, it applies as much to you as anyone else. That argument becomes infinite and recursive when the implication is that no one can be trusted. Otherwise, the implication is that only certain sources of truth can't be trusted - which itself is simply a statement of bias. Just tell us which side you're on, in that case.

[cwkoss]

Epistemological proofs are an impossible standard. Take in what you think has credibility or value and make a personal judgement.

[esyir]

The best measure of truth I've found is when someone reports something that goes against their own interests.

I use that as a rough barometer of reliability, amongst others.