- May 1, 2016
- 28,726
- 55,971
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #576
For fun, I'm going to describe to you how each of these things you list are positions on different spectrums, therefore placing them 'on the fringes' isn't a useful analysis.
Can you not imagine a possibility of needing a left wing revolt against the US government within the next 50 years?
Do you know what the point of this exercise is? You've listed a series of things you find bonkers, and they mostly don't exist on the same spectrum. They're opinions, isolated.
The centre doesn't exist because in order to be a centrist you need to have a series of opinions that all fall within the dead centre of every spectrum (which while imaginable is highly improbable) or to be utterly ignorant of all things.
'Centrism' is faux objectivity, when objectivity does not exist.
You don't think the American government could be seized by a psycho, for the purposes of removing rights from its people? Who would react to democratic vote by trying to overcome the government with a coup?
Oh wait. That happened.
Imagine if he got a second term. Imagine if he stacked military command with his own people, just as they stacked the high court over ******* decades. Imagine if the military co-operated with his attempt at retaking power.
What you have then is a situation in which a left wing revolution of that country is absolutely necessary, and the second amendment's loose interpretation could bite them on the arse.
In all seriousness, disagreement is at the root of societal improvement. Centrism is a genuine impediment to that, because you cannot talk down someone you refuse to interact with because 'they're a wackjob'.
You need the fringes, because they don't agree with you. Centrism is no less an echo chamber than the extremes; it's just a lot more boring.
Right wing position, harking back to the origin of the US as a nation on the basis of the overthrow of tyrants.
- 2nd amendment gun rights as currently interpreted by USA Supreme Court
Can you not imagine a possibility of needing a left wing revolt against the US government within the next 50 years?
Progressive position, or at least a position in favour of allowing people to define themselves. It also kind of borders on a position on freedom, as being able to choose your own name and gender is a position on freedom.
- excessive focus on language in terms of pronouns
A neo-liberal position, which is to say a modern right wing position from an economic perspective.
- tax cuts for high income earners in the Australian context
Being right/correct isn't partisan.
- climate change denialism
This is something I could spend a long time arguing about, because I don't think it's clear cut. There are some artists whose deeds permeate through their works in ways that make it impossible to separate them (you can hardly watch any film about sex with Harvey Weinstein's name attached to it without feeling that dissonance/discomfort, and there are quite a few of those films. Likewise, you cannot separate H.P Lovecraft's racism from his stories, as his horror is built from fear of the unknown and the oriental) but the art produced can absolutely be worth preserving.
- cancel culture (in that any serious criminal activity or activity judged by todays moral standards invalidates the entirety of that persons work)
Position on societal freedom, nature conservation.
- enforcement of vegetarian lifestyle
Could legitimately come from any side of the political spectrum.
- anti vaccination groups
Do you know what the point of this exercise is? You've listed a series of things you find bonkers, and they mostly don't exist on the same spectrum. They're opinions, isolated.
The centre doesn't exist because in order to be a centrist you need to have a series of opinions that all fall within the dead centre of every spectrum (which while imaginable is highly improbable) or to be utterly ignorant of all things.
'Centrism' is faux objectivity, when objectivity does not exist.
That, just there, is you closing your mind. It's you doing what you said they do. You cannot countenance yourself being sufficiently wrong about things.I do not judge someone just for voting Republican because in the context of an election you have to choose for the closest fit to your values and wants and you definitely aren’t going to have 100% overlap, so you vote for close enough. It doesn’t make that voter a whack job. But if they were then to be (for example) an advocate for the current interpretation of 2nd amendment gun rights I would close my mind to them on that issue as to me they are clearly a whack job.
You don't think the American government could be seized by a psycho, for the purposes of removing rights from its people? Who would react to democratic vote by trying to overcome the government with a coup?
Oh wait. That happened.
Imagine if he got a second term. Imagine if he stacked military command with his own people, just as they stacked the high court over ******* decades. Imagine if the military co-operated with his attempt at retaking power.
What you have then is a situation in which a left wing revolution of that country is absolutely necessary, and the second amendment's loose interpretation could bite them on the arse.
You disagree with other people?And I’m sure others will seem things I’ve posted as whack job and I accept that they may choose to ignore what I have to say - an example could be my comfort with current Victoria law on abortion to 24 weeks, some pro choice might still see it as too restrictive other pro life as too permissive.
In all seriousness, disagreement is at the root of societal improvement. Centrism is a genuine impediment to that, because you cannot talk down someone you refuse to interact with because 'they're a wackjob'.
You need the fringes, because they don't agree with you. Centrism is no less an echo chamber than the extremes; it's just a lot more boring.
Last edited: