[johnm]

You'll be called much much worse than that. IME, you'll be lumped into the "other side" as defined by each of the bad faith participants. And if you point out their bad faith intent and rhetorical games, the level of ad hominem attacks increases exponentially.

[switchbak]

Exactly. This explains why those in the middle receive the most aggression: they're traitors AND hated by both extremes.

Whether you want to or not, as things get more polarized, it becomes ever more difficult to maintain any kind of nuanced position.

[XorNot]

Except centrism isn't a real position - by definition. It's solely defined by the sides in opposition. There's a real and important difference between holding positions which make you "roughly" at the center of apparent sides, and the apparent holding of positions because "moderate" or "centrist" is being held up as a virtue.

And that last part is key: at the point where people are arguing that they are moderate, rather then what they actually believe, they're not arguing in good faith to start with - they're trying to argue they're morally superior without engaging with the actual subject matter.

At best, they're in fact arguing for the status quo and trying to pretend that they are not in fact very definitely asserting a position by doing that.

[mistermann]

I think what's caused a disagreement here with you and /u/notahacker is the word "real" in this casual, seemingly fine phrase:

>> Except centrism isn't a real position - by definition.

There is something distinctly and genuinely different about centrism, but it is still a real position (it does in fact exist, and is thus "real").

I think what you're actually getting at is that centrism is a relative position (by definition), whereas non-centrists are absolute positions. Well...at least potentially. Fundamentally, few positions are not mostly relative (especially if one includes premises, axioms, etc), as the mind fundamentally and almost necessarily perceives reality thorough relative lenses (with respect to the individual's prior experiences, or in neural network terms: according to the training of their model). And if one is to discuss things in purely/highly absolute terms, the other person will balk ("That's pedantry/Gish Galloping / JAQing off!", behavior which more than a few HN'ers are not immune to themselves).

I believe a large percentage of the population actually possesses these abilities, and some subset of people even exercise these abilities on a very regular basis, with extreme skill (say, when we are programming software) - but only under specific circumstances. Take someone who has these capabilities and drop them into an object level culture war discussion, and these abilities will vanish. This phenomenon can be seen in large quantities not just on sites like Reddit, but also here - it is our nature, at least for now (perhaps some day someone will notice and try to address the issue).

There are also other hidden fundamental problems that are rarely realized or discussed: as just one example, the very language we use to communicate - take the innocuous looking word word "is"....oh, the problems this one seemingly simple word causes in "reality".

[notahacker]

"Centrism" is every bit as real as "right wing" or "left wing", both positions also defined in different contexts by what is to the left/right of them. And people can be as genuinely enthusiastic in principle and detail about "a market, but a heavily regulated one" as they can about "the government has no business interfering in markets" or "private profiteers can't be allowed to exploit this resource". Or indeed hold a particular "right wing" or "left wing" position purely because they believe that agreeing with their tribe or expressing the appropriate degree of vehemence of disagreement with the other tribes makes them more virtuous.

There's a certain amount of irony in dismissing a entire range of political opinion as uniquely susceptible to "trying to argue they're morally superior without engaging with the actual subject matter" under an article about bad faith communication.

[cnelsenmilt]

> Except centrism isn't a real position - by definition.

> they're in fact [...] very definitely asserting a position by doing that.

You seem to have talked yourself out of your own argument through the course of making it.

[XorNot]

Status quo conservatism is definitively right wing.