Quick I need a word for people who understands or seek to understand both sides

Quick I need a word for people who understands or seek to understand both sides.
I am a liberal but I do understand and is starting to understand the right.
Middle ground? There should be a word for it.
Pic may or may not be related.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=y_JKcAQTEn8
discord.gg/cMD2Vch
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Based on the definition of left or right wing that you have presented in the photo, no there is not. Those definitions were made to be basically dichotomous (which is why I like it). The only middle ground to be had there is holding some left and some right wing views.

Rational

>Rational
Hmm I like that.
Thanks.

Frankly, that's what 'open-minded' means but people bastardize it somewhat.

"Centrist" might be the word you're looking for

>left red
>right blue
fucking triggered

I thought about that but would a centrist understand both sides or see where both are coming from?

Why, because the idea of not being a part of either group appeals to your desire to be unique, and the use of the word "rational" in describing yourself helps to further the idea that the position you take is superior?

left-right not repub-demo

That's the colors everywhere but in the US, why do you think communism = red?

...

I think a good political affiliation for you is "Rabidly insecure"

How the fuck did you interpret that in my OP?
Methinks you are seriously triggered.

The purpose of having terms like liberal or conservative is to be able to quickly and effectively classify political views into categories and to increase efficiency of communication. Therefore, the definitions of these words that we can use, such as the definition presented by OP in his chart, should be as close to dichotomous as possible without any middle ground.

>I don't take the same view as people who I call liberal or conservative, I know I'll call myself "rational"
Talk to me once you've graduated high school, edgelords.

Politics is not a simple right left spectrum. It is much more complex than that. Anybody who can have their entire political view reduced to left or right is too simple minded to be participating in politics.

Look fucking retard what I am asking is the term for people who UNDERSTAND both sides and see where they are coming from.
I am a liberal and I can see and understand the right sometimes. Especially when it comes to Muslims.

Except that's not how words work anymore. People aren't interested in words having conventional meaning. Just look at fucking Merriam-Webster. Descriptivism has completely replaced Prescriptivism, and nobody cares.

Ok, what percentage right are you? I'll accept nothing less than two decimal places.

Anybody can have their entire political view classified as left or right wing. You just go issue by issue, determining if their stance could be considered more liberal or conservative by using a standard definition of those terms. You then take the sum of their answers and determine where they fall on the left-right spectrum. This is useful because it allows us to get a basic understanding of someone's head-space when dealing with political issues, but is obviously not meant to be used as a replacement for case-by-case discussion of a particular issue.

Why do liberals openly hate on christians and insult and blaspheme the bible without batting an eye, but as soon as anybody says anything remotely bad about islam you guys flip the fuck out?

>Christian doesn't want to bake a cake for gays
DESTROY THEIR SMALL COMPANY! THEY WILL NEVER WORK AGAIN!
>Muslims, shoot, behead, and throw gays from rooftops
It's their culture and we have no right to judge, don't be an islamophobe!

14.88

>left
>doves

Just like Wilson, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Obama and Hillary?

>Implying liberals don't hate Islam.

That means that you are over-all liberal, with some right wing positions. Duh. The term for people who understand both positions is "educated."
and what the fuck are you on about, dipshit?

...

Have you been living under a rock?
youtube.com/watch?v=y_JKcAQTEn8

for clarification this chart uses the same defintion as OP's picture and is made by the same group. I posted it to show the definition is consistent.

>and what the fuck are you on about, dipshit?
I'm on about shit like this

"Centrist" is the word for "middle ground"

But if you want to discuss politics intelligently, you should figure out which end of the spectrum you're on as it relates to specific issues.

If you believe the government should hand out food and money to dindus, you're might be fiscal-democrat.

If you recognize that traps have mental illness, you're probably a social-republican.

Using wacko far-left liberal feminazis as example.
KEK.

"Idiot"

There's no understanding either side. It's politics, ffs. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

OP's pic is the clothing, not the wolf.

>some random morons who fall under the category of liberal support Islam
>that means liberals like Islam
By that logic conservatives love Islam even more, because Muslims are right-wing in their positions.

Im not, I don't remember my political compass score exactly,but I'm far-left.

must be why Obama and Hillary both refused to even talk about "radical islamic terrorism" and why they refused to even associate islam with terrorism.

They knew it would lose millions of their braindead SJW voters.

I actually mostly agree with you, but language being fluid doesn't mean that we can't agree upon a set definition for the purposes of a particular kind of discussion.

OK, what does liberal mean in the context of politics? Full essay.

seeand actually it's do avoid losing allies in the middle east and avoid alienation of non-radical muslims. And way to dodge every point that was actually made, retard.

I have decided.
It's "enlightened liberal"
Thank you all for the discussions and suggestions.

>someone just pointed out that establishing definitions is useful for conversations after I said something dumb
>Oh shit, what do I do
>I know, I'll ask them to write an essay on Sup Forums even though OP literally opened the thread with a pretty good definition

I think they'd try to hear both sides out but I doubt anyone is ever truly in the middle. Tho they may not be very far to either side, people usually take a side. Some may flip tho, depending on the argument given.

topkek

I thought that was moderates that take the middle ground.

Please never look at that pic again, you simply cannot lump up every political outlook into "Left" and "Right". People in the USA often tend to do this because they live in a two-party system.

I live in the Netherlands, I am a right-wing liberal, I want low taxes, low government control, open borders, and no wars. According to that pic almost everyone on Earth would be a centrist. It just doesn't make sense.

...

>open borders

Jesus. What the fuck is wrong with you?

The only thing I can think of is that you haven't experienced it, so you have no idea why open borders are national, cultural, racial, and moral suicide.

It boggles the fucking mind that people actually think open borders is a good idea.

...

why do you hate geert wilders?

>open borders are national, cultural, racial, and moral suicide
fuck all of those things, stop living in your fucking bubble, snowflake

It's inevitable, it'll happen one day, there's no avoiding that, but forcing it is a very very bad idea.

discord.gg/cMD2Vch

tho I agree with racial suicide, what's the problem with nationality, cultural or morality?

A 'liberal' falls into neither side.

>nationality, cultural or morality
who cares about maintaining a specific culture or nationality? And the only kind of region-based morality is the dogmatic, tradition-based kind, and therefore is likely to be deeply flawed. Open communication between two cultures and the idiots might actually learn something.

Suck a dick.

Inevitable only when good men do nothing.

I should have said "ethnicity". Whether you see it or not, the nation/culture/moral part is entirely dependent on the ethnicity. It's why things are the way they are.

Open borders erases the race, which erases everything else.

What are you talking about? Like I said, I live in the Netherlands, which means I live in the Schengen area, open borders benefit everyone, businesses and individuals. Free movement of people and money is what keeps economies going.

If you're talking about people wanting to close borders because muslims, that's just because Western government can't stop carpet bombing their homes and at the same time promise free government handouts in your own nation.

>nation/culture/moral part is entirely dependent on the ethnicity
>Open borders erases the race, which erases everything else.
citation needed, and I'm still unconvinced that we need those things
>suck a dick
no, you

This one

DrLayman ftw

My view leads to a world rich in diversity, with varying ideals and ethics that shape entire societies, creating "culture". People spend thousands annually to visit various locales, to experience the spices of life.. to do exactly what your moronic ass seems to want.

Your view leads to a world without ethnicity, culture, or any other metric worth noting. It's a bland ball full of Morlockian morons slaving away for their masters.

It's not my fault I can common sense, and you can't user. That doesn't mean idiots like you should fuck it up for everyone else because your brain can't fathom reality, and the consequences thereof.

Suck a dick.

>citation needed, and I'm still unconvinced that we need those things

Citation = reality.

My "outside" is not in my house.
Your "outside" is the TV.

>My "outside" is not in my house.
>Your "outside" is the TV.
citation needed

>good men
No user, loving your country is great and all, but doesn't magically make you valuable/good.
Contributing to society, improving your country(which leads to the improvement of all human race) makes you good, and this progress leads to globalism, whether we like it or not.
If you don't like it, i have bad news, you've wasted too much time on Sup Forums to actually make a difference.

your entire picture is garbage fampai probs off yourself??

Colours are wrong, OP. Republicunts are red, libtards are blue.

thats the american party colors, not the left/right wing colors.

This is absolute bullshit, a black and white type of argument. Where are the many shades of grey. This is what's wrong with the world. People stereotyping a person based off one thing. Grouping things into left and right leaves no room for the middle, and encourages people to choose a side, instead of picking and choosing different individual points they agree and disagree with.

LOL libs 'interfere' with lives, and republicans 'dont interfere'. Bullshit. The right is against gay people getting married, that is interfering in peoples lives.

>fampai
"Attention whore"? I don't think so Tim.

...

As right as you may be, this for left/right wing ideology, not American political parties

Moderate or centrist. Those are the actual terms.

In other words, a pussy who will not stand for anything for the sole purpose of being thought of as "rational." So, you willingly submit yourself to whatever way of life is imposed upon you and will do nothing as long as your own life is not affected.

Where do you stand on the existence of a government?
What ethics would you wish there be?

Morality can be useful because it stands to cause the individual to hold by a set code regardless of the circumstance. Basically, if someone thinks theft is wrong then because of their morals they wouldn't steal from you. Why assume that all morality is based out of religion? Also, why assume that all things based out of religion are automatically deeply flawed? What's the flaws with Buddhism?

Why are you so quick to dismiss the culture that brought you this nation, all the good and the bad.

nationality doesn't make much sense to me either but I can see the value in a group of individuals working together for a common goal. What's the problem with that? Not everyone will share the same values as you, do you really wish them to be around you? Some people may even value your life as worthless, what do you stand to gain from opening communications with them? Someone that changes their mind about your worth? Only if you're lucky at convincing them.

Humrrr, I'm gonna go with "fucking nazi", kek about it, and say I agree with you. Tho I still think the lines between ethnicity are rather weak and arbitrary. So long as the group of individuals isn't hunting each other, I figure they'll get along.

You seem to forget that I mentioned that I am a liberal.

Moderate, maybe, but I doubt that's true for a centrist. At least not how I see it, then again I'm working off of because there's not many good definitions for it.

Then why does it have a pic of the capitol building up the top?

>Where do you stand on the existence of a government?
it exists
>What ethics would you wish there be?
utilitarianism is my preferred system, but I don't believe in objective morality
>Why are you so quick to dismiss the culture that brought you this nation, all the good and the bad.
Which nation might that be, and because I wanted to trigger the alt-right.
>I can see the value in a group of individuals working together for a common goal
me too, new-friend
>Some people may even value your life as worthless, what do you stand to gain from opening communications with them
might be fun, interesting side-note: I value everything as inherently worthless, including my life

lol. Sorry. I wasn't meaning you specifically, but anyone who is in the middle. Moderate or centrist is what people who are in the middle of the political spectrum are called.

I just gave you the real, no bullshit meaning of "moderates/centrists."

My guess is so dumb Americans would know what was being discussed
>but probably because it is a symbol of government, and the chart is discussing government

American Gumment is ONE government, not all government. It's basically saying "murica is more important". Fuck off merifags

Cont
>What's the flaws with Buddhism?
the inaccuracy for a start
>if someone thinks theft is wrong then because of their morals they wouldn't steal from you.
unless they think themselves evil
>Not everyone will share the same values as you, do you really wish them to be around you
yeah so over time the values merge and humanity will leave tribalism in the dustbin of history

discord.gg/cMD2Vch

>nice try fbi

They both mean the same thing. I'm going by what's in the Oxford dictionary, not by some youtube political commentator's own interpretation.

Centrist.

I'm progressive when it comes to distribution of wealth (in the sense that I believe in a personal wealth cap either for individuals or corporate liquid assets) and environmental/climate conservation and anti-pollution endeavors.

I'm conservative in social, legal, and economic principles.

...

It depends on where you are on the world.

If you're in the netherlands, open borders is fine because it means easy access to Germany/Belgium/Wherever.

If you're Germany, it means Austria and Czech have easy access to you. And given that people in Austria and Czech are poor as fuck and generally socially unstable, it's not something you want if you're Germany.

>conservative in economic principles
so you want the climate and rain forests to stay the same?

So then why try to change anything?
It's all worthless, after all.

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also, I never mentioned objective morality, where did that come from?

I'm assuming that most people talking with me are America. Now, that's kinda funny. You wish to "open communications" with people yet at the same time you wish to trigger an entire group? How is that conducive to open communications?

BTW, nice job picking out the only part that you agree with but I'm talking on a national level, duh.

So it's inaccurate to wish to harm none?
I know that's probably not what you mean but you'll need to specify, you're dismissing something as a whole and not even considering the valuable parts to get from it.

Further, you're assuming that because someone thinks them-self evil that it would suddenly nullify their morality, address the point instead of trying to shift it. Same could be said about ethics.

Again, you think that just because people are around each other they'll set aside their differences and get along given enough time. What if some values are objectively good and others aren't? Would you say that if two groups merged, one who thought rape was okay and the other didn't that rape would suddenly only become not okay? They're merging remember, not everything will work out smoothly and one side a situation will win. It seems rather idealistic, verging on dogmatism.

To clarify, what type of government would you prefer? Smart ass.

Less in the sense that I want giant swathes of forest cut down to make room for industrial expansion, and more that I believe in free market competition with government oversight only in regards to health and safety/monopoly and collusion protection.

Free Market works really well in 95% of economic scenarios. Its when it's practiced with things that people need to LIVE and can't adequately negotiate for or find an alternative buyer simply BECAUSE they're needed, like medicine or food, that free market sucks absolute dick.

I'm more of "An eye for an eye."

I think violence should be punished with violence.

People are flawed and savage creatures, and in moments of weakness or primal nature takes over and we lash out with fists and clubs and teeth, so simply saying "we should never harm each other" ignores the fact that people DO harm each other, and while forgiveness is a laudable trait when someone deserves forgiveness, it invites more violence when someone doesn't.

>So then why try to change anything?
because i want to
>Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
i agree
>Also, I never mentioned objective morality, where did that come from?
seemed relevant/interesting
>So it's inaccurate to wish to harm none?
I don't see how that could be innaccurate, it's your own wishes
>you'll need to specify
don't feel like it
>How is that conducive to open communications?
it's not, but it made me feel better
>what type of government would you prefer
long-term marxism, short-term social democracy. basically
>What if some values are objectively good and others aren't
That'd be neat, but you have to prove it first
>you think that just because people are around each other they'll set aside their differences and get along given enough time
yep
>Would you say that if two groups merged, one who thought rape was okay and the other didn't that rape would suddenly only become not okay?
not suddenly, but eventually, the tribalism and poverty that lead to such thinking would no longer be present, and through education it'd only take, like, a generation
>It seems rather idealistic
nah, just what I view as being likely to happen

>rape would suddenly only become not okay
just read that, no the idea was that it would be illegal still

who da fuck you be and y u pretendin to be me
jk not jk
jk

Please tell me you're a commie.
I really want to talk to one.

If not, then you're not worth the energy spent typing because you don't feel like specifying anything ... well, even if you were a commie you'd just back out if I asked questions that you didn't feel like specifying.

Just because the idea is that it'd still be illegal doesn't mean that you wouldn't be fucked out of a position where you get a say.

>Palestine/Israel
>2000 years and counting

>>liberal
kill yourself faggot

Killing = bad

That's it, go on and form your own opinions.