Is Centrism idiotic?

Is Centrism idiotic?

Yes. Radical Centrism is the next phase of humanity after the communist and capitalism phases

The only true political ideology is the Ascended Boganite ideology.

>Is Centrism idiotic?
no, its pretty reasonable. posting a thumbnail however is quite idiotic

Centrism on an absolute level (i.e. all solutions must be in the middle of the two extremes) is idiotic.

"Centrists" that are open minded to all arguments, but then weigh the evidence and make sound conclusions based on them, on the other hand, are awesome. Many will try to tie them up to specific party ideologies, but they will only find disappointment when they diverge on particular issues. They are true to themselves. Some of these "Centrists" may lean more to the right or to the left, but much of this is due to the evidence that they have seen, and they merely await the evidence required to change their thinking.

actual lol. and gotta love "reasonable" these idiot euros don't know what they're missing

>Centrists" that are open minded to all arguments, but then weigh the evidence and make sound conclusions based on them
So right-wingers

post your close to centers

>PictureForAnts.jpg

Here's OP's pic but bigger

>Centrism on an absolute level (i.e. all solutions must be in the middle of the two extremes) is idiotic.

I don't think a significant number of people hold this position.

Centrists are just people who landed in the center when they drew their conclusions

Or more commonly, centrists are people who hold conventional, mainstream opinions who have not been radicalized into a school of thought. And it seems to be the modern trend that, no matter where you are on the political spectrum, simply not changing your mind will likely make you a centrist one day as groups on the ideological edge become more and more radical. For example, conservatives are now closer to the center after the emergence of the alt right because the alt right stretched the american right wing spectrum to include positions that were previously rare. The same thing could be said for liberals in relation to batshit progressives sprinting left.

You're influenced by you're surroundings, whether you realise it or not. Centrists didn't just land in the center, the political norms of the time shaped them that way. They would have landed in a different spot if they were raised in a different time or country.

...

>australians

Yes.

The more you think about politics the less tenable "centrism" becomes. Policy on any particular issue might seem disconnected (what does reinstating conscription have to do with environmental protection regulation in marine parks?) but eventually, at some level, it all connects. There are really very few, very basic principles that a person holds and these are what determine his entire policy outlook - it is merely the abutment between these basic principles and the complexity of real life that causes the obscuring fog where national service and marine park conservation cannot readily be traced back to a possible coinciding origin - protection of the nation, both it's states and institutions and the environment and landscape it inhabits, for future generations. Thus you see where nationalism and environmentalism are natural brothers even though guns and roses might seem opposite sides of a coin.

"Centrist" positions are really the absence of a position. A centrist is willing to do or say whatever seems expedient in the circumstances. If you ask a centrist why he supports something his answer will always be based in pragmatism - not principle.

>"but user, isn't that a good thing? won't always doing the pragmatic thing always lead to the utility-maximising solution?"
No, you dirty moral coward. The "pragmatic thing" is always a question of how you interpret the evidence - or, rather (because you're no technical expert) whose interpretation is sold to you. If you're told that something's the most pragmatic option you've got very little ability to assess that independently yourself. Politics itself is the art of convincing without proving.

Principles are the bulwark against the "pragmatists" who sell us lies.

I didn't imply otherwise

"landed in the center" is a figure of speech. How could it be anything else? People don't choose conclusions like spinning a wheel or throwing a dart on the board.

Yes, it's the elevation of the fallacy of the golden mean to an ideal.

Anything worth reading regarding to what you just wrote?

Cheeki cunt

1930s - 40s: Hard Times
1940s - 50s: Strong Men
1950s: Good Times
1960s: Weak Men (hippies)
1970s: Hard Times (three day week / labour strikes here in the UK, oil crisis and Vietnam War for the US)
1980s: Strong Men
1990s - 00s: Good Times (besides the early 90s recession)
2010s: Weak Men
2010s - 2020s: Hard Times

The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow streaks and dead possums.

meh. i knew exactly what this was from he flag alone.

to fuckin smart

I still clicked it cause I didn't want to be left out.

Centrism is for morons who want to feel superior to those who have actual, fleshed-out opinions.

is this por?

fuck off antifa cunt
only retards use bog meme
kys

This is the best one I've seen yet.

Not really.

Those are my observations after spending many years on /new/ and Sup Forums and studying Political Science at uni.

If you can figure out their core beliefs you can figure out how to convince them of your argument.

This sounds obvious but people fuck it up ALL THE TIME.

Let's take communism as an example. I am a hypothetical communist. I think we should abolish the capitalist system because it is morally wrong. A capitalist comes along and tells me "but user, if you want to start a worker's co-op you're free to do that. Let workers who want to work for companies do that, and workers who want to work for co-ops do that." No, that's wrong. If I have a _moral_ objection to the entire capitalist system then that "solution" fixes nothing. It allows the system to persist.

So how should it be done?

Well, I am the communist with the moral objection to capitalism. Along comes the capitalist. Except this time, he puts on his empathy hat and he says "Marx himself said that morality is a spook and that communism will be pursued not because it's right but because it's in the rational self interest of the proletariat. By having moral objections to communism you are perpetuating bourgeois control over political discourse. Instead you must oppose capitalism on pragmatic grounds, not moral ones. Now tell me, is it really in the rational self-interest of the workers to leave their jobs and pick up guns and go fight and die in a big revolution? Of course not. I believe that communism will inevitably come but trying to force it before it's time is as destructive as capitalism - see: USSR. It failed because it wasn't real communism, and it wasn't real communism because it came too early..."

By attacking the communist on the communist's own ground the capitalist makes a much stronger argument. The capitalist is of course lying when he says he believes that communism will inevitably come but it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong - only if he's convincing.

>2010s: Weak Men
>2010s - 2020s: Hard Times

I don't think the hard times have started yet.

...

...

They're about to, that's my point, and it could well happen before the end of this decade.

Indeed, my friend. Indeed.