Is this, dare I say, the end of "Centrism"?

Is this, dare I say, the end of "Centrism"?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html
foxnews.com/us/2011/10/17/controversial-therapy-for-young-transgender-patients-raises-questions.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

This is stupid. There can be issues on both sides that one can agree with.

>everyone resents neoliberalism
>alternatives rise up
>everyone panics and wants to return to neoliberalism

Sounds like a destiny fan. All the do is insult anyone who is right of corporate leftist

> their own limited understanding of the political discourse

What a ridiculous statement. Everyone's point of view (and political stance) is limited to their own understanding. That's what "understanding" means.

it doesn't mean the members on the two sides you are critiquing have some magical superset of knowledge, as if the members on either side have full knowledge of the ideas at hand.

The whole claim of centrism isn't to have full knowledge but to have enough knowledge that is exclusive to either side as to observe bias. Presumably because the extreme sides are ideologically biased to acknowledge the some of the point of view of their adversaries

What a cuck

I like Edgy but if I were him I'd be cautious siding with white nationalists being half Coptic.

edit: ideologically biased and unable to acknowledge some of the points of view of their adversaries

This is no different than saying one can't be agnostic because you either have to believe or disbelieve in a god. It's fucking stupid. They just want people to pick a side so they can know who to consider friend and foe but not everything is a simple black and white issue.

Braving Ruin/EdgySphinx is a fascist-lite who constantly gets entangled in e-celeb drama. He's feuded with Destiny before.

...

>you cant have individual opinions about each issue presented.

you arent required to agree with everything each party pushes and you would be stupid to do so. Heres an example. I dont like central banks, but I do like independence. I like universal healthcare but I dont like too much government. you see how normal and completely sane it sounds in comparison to the two party system? There is dire need for a central party to mediate between the two extreme parties.

there's more than one "right vs left" issue. you can be against pro-life and hate trannies. you can want stricter gun control at the same time as wanting a border wall. you can want a $15 min wage and want stricter drug laws. that's why people are centrists. not because they cannot decide but because what they believe in does not match up completely with a political party.

This is the stupidest fucking strawman example I've ever seen. Real life situations are way more nuanced than this.

>t. catfucker

It's not irrational to not 'side' with one of two retarded sides who don't have their facts entirely straight.

There needs to be a great culling of world war 2 larpers.

The leftist argument against centrism is that there is no middle ground between “hate” and leftism. Leftists truly believe they have the moral high ground and those with polar opposite views are full of “hate”

Right-wingers and conservatives see centrists and proxy leftists. Centrists are hated by both opposing “sides” for very different reasons. Which is kinda dumb because, for example, national socialism is literally centrist ideology

>if you aren't with me, you are against me.

...

Views of course can be diverse depending on what each individual believe in but this is more targeted towards people that think "the middle is always right". I would say its more likely that most centrists have their stance for good reasons but some just use it as a "middle class" to sound more reasonable than the two "extremes".

>Which is kinda dumb because, for example, national socialism is literally centrist ideology
No it isn't. Economically maybe, but not socially.

>This is no different than saying one can't be agnostic because you either have to believe or disbelieve in a god. It's fucking stupid.

It's more stupid to think Agnosticism deals with belief and is a middle-man/mutually-exclusive.

lmao new life into a stale meme

Centrism is futile because they prescribe to predefined set of partisan beliefs
>How can religious people blindly believe in a belief system? LOL
My noggin is joggin

the problem with this comic is that not fucking cats is the centrist position, while the opposite extreme would be that anyone who fucks cats should be raped to death

>You're either with us or you're against us

I'm not a centrist, my political beliefs hover around the center but I consider myself a pragmatist, I don't take centrist positions because I believe centrist positions are always the best in every situation, I just look at something and my beliefs on it usually fall within one or two points of center

Centrism has absolutely nothing to do with "not picking a side"

centrism is like you believe in everything, which is like believing in nothing. its the political "singularity"

there is not a brainlet wojack in this world to accurately portray this poster.

...

it's just about believing in nothing so you can alter your views for the particular argument you're in. fact

...

the fuck

>if you don't fit in my personally established political spectrum then it isn't real!
Why would you talk to someone like this in the first place

>Trump successfully plays both parties from the center draining the swamp, effectively making America great again.
>gets re-elected in 2020 in a landslide victory due to unprecedented gdp and job growth.
>during second term makes usury illegal with the restoration act.
>abolishes the federal reserve and absolves all debts foreign and domestic for all. >removing all interest and debt allows for the care and rehabilitation of our nation on an unprecedented scale.
>middle class is restored to its normal and intended state of robustness.
>A Time of unprecedented peace and prosperity ensues for the next 1000 years.

MAGA party incoming. make it happen Trump.

Correct. Europeanism is the only way, the light is ours.

Someone likes my meme?

if you cant preserve it you dont deserve it.

This guy is a retard. Centrism isn't about not picking a side or lacking an opinion.

Centrism is about realizing that between two polar opposites within an argument, each generally has some valid points. Centrism is about identifying those valid points and arriving at a more efficient, well balanced conclusion opinion or course of action.

Example of centrism
>gen control
>one side: let's ban all guns!
>other side: everything legal!
>centrist: we need to restrict some forms of gun ownership, the more extreme options are ultimately flawed

>"You're either with me, or you're my enemy."
Chill out Anakin

>This is no different than saying one can't be agnostic because you either have to believe or disbelieve in a god.
That's actually true though, you absolute fucking moron. All agnostics are atheists.

>there are people who think that centrism is picking a middle point in everything

Ideologies are for the weak and evil.

Sort.

And rightly so.

So which side do you pick, Mr. EdgySphinx? The side who wants to throw you in a gulag for being a white male or the side who wants to gas/deport you for being half Egyptian?

>What a ridiculous statement.

Your entire post is retarded. The average centrist type who doesn't want to "pick between two extremes" says this because they've got this really idiotic mentality because they're only capable of framing everything as Nazism vs Communism, both of which they have such a poor understanding of they actually argue they're equivalent. Moreover, you can have a policy that separates the races or even places one in control of another without having a fascist government. This is the type of nuance braving ruin is talking about, and it's the type of nuance that has clearly gone over your head.

as a party it would be about policies though. what you are talking about is being neutral. this is not centralist. centralist would be about taking the good things from both parties and removing the bad without too much compromise on either side of the spectrum.

So centrism is really just dictated by the overton window, and as soon as someone else shifts their position on something, you aren't in the centre anymore. Do you stick with the beliefs you held during the previous contrived and ephemeral political order or do you follow the centre off and away to new pastures?

>overton window
no its about taking the obvious good things both parties have created and removing the obviously bad parts. example. I like the fact that you cant screw people over because of a pre existing condition anymore, but I hate the fact that lesbians can adopt a son and stunt his growth on purpose so they can fulfill their twisted power fantasies irl. its almost like if you allow crazy people to run shit they will try to make crazy shit law.

and by stunt his growth I mean this

>no its about taking the obvious good things both parties have created and removing the obviously bad parts.

Is it so "obvious"? It seems people are often polarized on topics that I find to have "obvious" solutions. What you are actually doing then, is being ideological, but in a way in which you can pretend you're being more objective than you actually are by first trying to classify the people you disagree with most under "two extremes" and then saying they're "extreme" because they have "bad beliefs" mixed in with the good and that if you can remove those "bad" beliefs by your own supposedly "objective" value system you will end up with a moderate position.

Instead, you end up with an arguably coherent ideology that is in no way less ideological or more nuanced than anything you will get from the supposed "extremes."

When you sum up all the economic and social policies of Nazi Germany, you end up with a centrist regime, but self-described centrists (I can't speak for you, but only from the ones I've seen) will label National Socialism as extreme, despite being a compromise between the left and the right.

heres the link notice the difference in headlines between the mass hysteria media and fox.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html

foxnews.com/us/2011/10/17/controversial-therapy-for-young-transgender-patients-raises-questions.html

pic unrelated its just the newest self proclaimed relative of the liberals. I have started calling all liberals tree rats in response.

So what happens when your opinion on certain economic and social issues are at odds with you being classified as strictly left and right wing?

you must not understand American politics. for it to work both sides need to compromise. this is no longer happening and what we are left with is a civil war unless we can mediate the parties. ignorance is not going to fix this.

>Implyng we were not royals and whatnot

Those who refuse to leave the middle ground during times of fracture are the first to fall into the chasm

Democracy was ruined by people like you

>avoiding debate

>implying political debate isn't feces throwing contest and you can """redpill""" your opponent

you must be new on Sup Forums

maybe democracy isnt about 2 ideologies but a system of adaptation. you ever think of that? settle down its for your own good. let it happen.

Why are you conflating ideology with party politics? Democrats and Republicans don't resemble anything close to a coherent set of values because they are results of the democratic mistake. Their purported beliefs are a result of sub-national social currents, and the recommendations of their campaign strategists.

>ignorance is not going to fix this.

Who cares about your opinion about what is and isn't ignorant when you claim to have some objective metric by which to discern good policies from bad policies? You're an ideologue, only one who is dishonest about it. You have a concrete set of values that you wish to project outwards on to the world, congratulations, you are literally no different from the taditionalists, fascists, communists, socialists, strasserists etc etc out there who all also believe themselves to be objectively correct.

Democracy was a mistake anyway. Why on Earth would you exalt the lowest castes of society, whose very soul is dominated by the lower, transient and Earthly forces? It's antithetical to the very idea of civilization and hierarchy. It's only natural we would collapse into the state we have currently.

>democracy is a thing in society where 50% of people have iq below average

No shit. Centrists who constantly try to pull everything to to middle ground prevent ideological progress by killing debate and forcing compromise.

Centrists treat everything as if it's A vs B when it's a whole entire spectrum that is represented in general by A and B. Centrists kill ideological adaptation so by your definition they are counter intuitive to the Democratic system

He's right though

you ever argued with a "centrist"? their arguments mainly boil down to "lel im the truly enlightened one in this situation both sides are dumb". Their argumentation is poor and rely on half truths and platitudes to raise a point.

>Why are you conflating ideology with party politics.
maybe because I'm talking about a centralist party
and not an ideology.

I hope so. I want to kill communists in the great Western civil wars.

>thinking there are two distinct "sides" in the first place

You're allowed to have nuanced opinions. Often times you'll agree with both "sides" on certain issues and strongly disagree with them on others.

It's ideological because you're building a set of beliefs on law, order and society which you claim to be objective. Your response to this was "uhhhh republicans and democrats are more polarized than they used to be, this is bad because civil war." I don't care how "divided" the political parties are, this is again a result of sub-national currents, which is to say IDEOLOGICAL currents. People are shifting away from compromise because compromise has destroyed the country. You're looking at a symptom, not the cause of "division" when you see the split between the two parties.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism

Oh shit so it does exist.

I'm slowly realizing the errors of democracy

There’s only two sides really. The red pilled and the blue pilled, whether that’s by willful ignorance or plain ignorance

so how do you avoid being ideological in any case? it seems to be a bad word to you.

...

> hur hur if you don't pick the red team or the blue team which are both manipulated by (((them))) it means you don't believe in anything and you're just weak / dishonest etc

Wow you sure got me there, I guess I need to review my political opinions.

It is absolutely not a bad word to me, I am ideological. I believe my ideas are correct, and my way of discerning good beliefs from bad beliefs is by evaluating how closely they match my own.

I am merely claiming that the people who most often claim others are "ideologically driven" and that this is "bad" are ideologues themselves. The only kind of centrism that is not ideological, is one that shifts along with the overton window and is entirely dictated by the present social climate.

No, this is just some gobshite lefty whose brain melted because they couldn't cope with the cognitive dissonance which arises when you are trying to claim moral and ethical superiority but you're not a vegan. Just some other empty can screaming in Twitter hell. At least with right wing cunts, they're cunts but they're not hypocritical cunts. K bye.

Democracy was originally intended for educated land owners.

> they've got this really idiotic mentality because they're only capable of framing everything as Nazism vs Communism, both of which they have such a poor understanding of they actually argue they're equivalent.

paraphrasing the OP's pointless strawman against "centrists" doesn't make it meaningful, user

it's almost like you're only capable of framing everything as capitulating impotent centrist idiots versus superior hardline race realist intellectuals who were vikangz and shiiett

The entire premise in this thread is wrong. While there are some strange weirdos who seem to always try to compromise everything most centrists just have a mixed set of beliefs such as left social policies but right foreign policies. When ever i take the meme political compass test i answer each question but for every anti-gay marriage im pro universal healthcare. In the end it puts me near the middle.

Is there a side for legal abortions only if by firearm?

He states there's more than two sides

I paraphrased the OP's post because the guy's response failed to contradict it at all. His failure to contradict was the assumption in the second last line of the post that somehow knowledge is unique to each ideology, and that one doesn't know anything about the other, and that centrism is superior because they know a little bit about both. If you'd read his post you'd realize how absurd he was being, and how he failed to actually address what he was trying to address at all.

you claimed I was ideologically driven as an insult.

tfw you realize you are talking to a jew.

oi vey I meant to quote

...

The comment is not about you, there is a fairly large set of people who believe that opinions become invalid when they are on a "side" and the central focus of their arguments is trying to pigeonhole their opponents into a side so they can dismiss them. Their personal viewpoints all revolve around community-curated "most popular" points. Common arguments from them are:

1. Nothing matters, so don't discuss this subject with me.
2. You are on a side, even if you claim not to be. This makes you a mindless sheep, and my intellectual inferior.
3. My viewpoint is not a side, it's the default and everyone believes it. You just need to "get educated" on the consensus.

They describe themselves as centrists, independents, and "true liberals" but tout that they are "above" politics, not falling anywhere on the spectrum. They are actually too cowardly and dishonest to ever state their opinions on anything. They wait for a new viewpoint to become popular and then adopt it as the new "default" position that everyone should agree with. These are the people who obsessed over SJWs, but at the same time lump dissenters together as "right-wingers" and dismiss them out of hand for being "just like the other side."

They never, and I mean NEVER, challenge popular left-wing viewpoints because this is harmful to their image. All of their views revolve around their image as an intellectual, and they judge all opposing arguments using this metric. This makes more original or unpopular thoughts, regardless of their leanings or holders, contemptible. They focus on their credibility as an independent at the cost of all rigor and they hide behind the definition of an independent or a centrist when questioned about their methodology.

There is no way to discuss them without the term "centrist," even if that includes a huge number of other people, because they abuse semantics and reject all other definitions of their position or stated viewpoints.

It wasn't as an insult, I just get annoyed with centrists who act like they transcend ideology, in particular the ideologies which are presently considered "extreme" due to extremely recent social and spiritual changes, when in actuality they're just another ideological faction with typically liberal democratic beliefs (in the French Revolution sense and in the American sense) who want to assert their values at the political level.

> t. retard who doesn't know centrism is

he never claimed he or centrism is objective you asshat.

And bisexual.

He knows that the rope hangs low above him.

You can't read. He also doesn't need you to argue for him. If I was misinterpreting him, he would've told me himself many posts ago.

>there is no center to be in

so you're either a cuck or not?

what if my girlfriend was fucking a black robot??

It's basically just a sex toy and not cucking

what the fuck are you talking about? I dont even think you have ever met a centralist considering your point is not even a tangent.

This. Political debate is to convince others, not the opponent. Make them look like an utter fool.

>In El Salvador abortion is 100% illegal under all circumstances
>In Canada you can have an abortion just because you feel like it literally 1 day before the baby is due

I guess I'm dishonest because I disagree with both these things.

but what if the two things are complete opposites

is centrism just pointless compromise

most people are moderates, too much internet friend

give me an example and I will entertain you.

>Neoliberalism is centrist

...