851–860 of 964 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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: "…
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is the core problem that I have a hard time articulating: Here is what OP is doing: 1) Point out ills on the other side - QAnon, Climate denial, etc. 2) Make a sweeping statement that being a centrist means giving attention to aforementioned theories and giving "equal" importance to both sides. That's not what centrists do. OP's condenscending take on Centrists is based on low-blows and not much substance.
I feel like there was a time when you could be centrist and it made you appear objective, wise, open to discourse from both sides (a bit like Switzerland, LOL?). I think that time has passed though. Maybe it's the extremists that are forcing us to take sides. It's a little too nuanced in today's political climate to say, "I'm a centrist and entertain ideas from both sides … but not those crazy ideas."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 b…
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 inf…
I don't read most media, and I'm perfectly capable of researching and forming my own opinions.
I don't understand this fetishism with centrism and all opinions being treated equally, and that having made up your mind on an issue is necessarily wrong. When it comes to an issue like, say, climate change, I spent years reading the blogosphere, reading blogs like WUWT and whatever Judith Curry would come up with, and then the rebuttals, sometimes waiting years for the science to come out. For any issue around clim…
And I'm not a veteran dating back to mid 2000's. I'm a veteran dating to the late 80's at which time I was very concerned. But the dire predictions simply didn't come to pass. We have been burning coal for well over 200 years. And oil for over 100. Where is the massive climate change? Where is the massive increase in extreme weather events?
So I highly doubt the accuracy of many models. I also highly doubt a slightly warmer wetter world will be net negative for humanity should it come to pass.
I don't see my skepticism to be anti scientific at all. My purpose for posting this is not to argue against climate change, simply to point out that the magnitude and ultimate effects are not settled in my mind at least. The issue isn't closed. It's not "fact". It's a hypothesis as to what the effects will be and the way forward is very much opened to debate. It's certainly not "one side is absolutely right!" at all.
The elephant in the room is that this sort of enlightened centrism, while it sounds noble, rests on several ill-formed assumptions. The first is that, by reading from both sides, they’ll balance and you’ll arrive at an enlightened center. This assumes the Overton Window is balanced, stationary, and not tilted to one side or the other. You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further l…
It might result in people seeing how much common aspects a story has, and that helps to divorce the factual aspects from the editorialization. Maybe.
It might result in a broader intake of facts (if both/either side is being selective).
It might result in a litany of things better than the binary dung-hosing we have now.
If the worst that happens is people attempt to be less binary, I'd still consider that a small victory.
Being centrist is not inherently bad either, it just is. The only concern there I would have would be if one intentionally tries to triangulate towards a middle, as opposed to arriving there naturally.
It's what Paul Graham referred to as an "accidental moderate" versus and intentional one. http://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. They do for me, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Have a nice day.
Thankfully the facts are on my side. Have a nice day yourself. If you wish to defend your position, please explain Don Jr's meeting where he's looking for help from the Russian government, trump's obstruction regarding that meeting, Manafort's working in Ukraine on behalf of Putin, and Roger Stone's involvement with guccifier 2.0/wikileaks.
The facts are not on your side but the reverse. It's amazing to see in real time to be honest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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) circumstanc…
>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 mor…
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.