# Centrism as a Movement



## KimberVaile (Sep 23, 2018)

I've been finding more and more that centrism has begun to mean a myriad of many different things. To some it means viciously defending the status quo, to others, it's just a veneer they use so as to not call themselves conservative. Others still find it resembles being a skeptic more than anything.
Honestly, I thought centrist stood in as a term for somebody who agreed with a few stances from liberal and conservative camps. That's why I called myself one initially.

For myself, I called myself one because I agreed with some ideas from each party, but not all. It's really no more complicated than that. I'll elaborate.

I've aligned with ideas from both sides, I've remarked on my faith in green energy, and a pro scientific policy. I've also been pretty concerned about Global warming, believe in cutting military spending, against lobbying and money being involved in politics, so on. I believe gay rights is still important and I feel abortion should be a legal right to everyone.

On the same token.

I've also strongly believe in state rights and financial freedom, an overbearing federal government doesn't interest me, and on the federal level, we should be wary about being that. I'm a strong defender of the second amendment, and I've approved of Trump's tariffs against China, as previously stated. I am also strongly against eminent domain. I value personal liberty, and I do feel it is important to defend.


An example of what I feel is a mixed view on a hot subject for both sides.
Instead of raising the corporate tax, or any tax, we should first address the corporate tax loopholes, and make it more difficult to pull off.
If we could solve the tax loophole, I'd be for lowering the corporate tax somewhat to keep corporations within the states. This doesn't mean I approve of uncontrolled capitalism, I believe limits need to be placed on corporations to ensure capitalism does what it does best.

To those who call themselves centrists, can you describe why you see yourself as one?

Also, should any 'heated' debates arise, please avoid Godwin's law, communist accusations, ect. Generally, please be civil and try not to insult your opponent or accuse them of being something for having a different viewpoint than you, thanks.

*EDIT*: Please do not namedrop any banned or current forum users that are not participating in the conversation. _You can make your point without mentioning their name if you absolutely must say something that involves them_. If this bothers you, make your own thread and name drop to your heart's content.

Let's also not try to find a loophole and make it very obvious who you are talking about without directly mentioning them, this stuff is against TOS.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Sep 23, 2018)

I’ve always thought that centrism had some views of the left, some of the right, but not leaning towards either. Please correct me if I’m wrong


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 23, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> I’ve always thought that centrism had some views of the left, some of the right, but not leaning towards either. Please correct me if I’m wrong


That's what I thought as well.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2018)

I worry that, in this new political climate, _not _believing that global warming is a Chinese conspiracy is apparently sufficient for people to feel that they should be viewed as moderate. 

'I have at least one foot in reality,' isn't really a good starting point in any explanation of a political position.

Having both feet in reality should be a precondition to participate in politics whether you're liberal, conservative, a clanger or spacehopper- whatever.


----------



## Filter (Sep 23, 2018)

What you're describing is an issues-focused approach to politics. A thoughtful break from arbitrary party platforms. I think of it as unaffiliated or independent, rather than centrist.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Sep 24, 2018)

Barring the fact that the commonly-understood perception of the political spectrum is grossly oversimplified, centrism ultimately revolves around striking a balance between opposing political forces in at least one facet of the political sphere of influence. This gives rise to leanings that appear contradictory at first glance to the average outsider, such as those of the Red Tories (a.k.a. "progressive conservatives") in Canadian politics - a moderate, often fiscal, conservative demographic that embraces social liberalism with little issue.


Filter said:


> What you're describing is an issues-focused approach to politics. A thoughtful break from arbitrary party platforms. I think of it as unaffiliated or independent, rather than centrist.


Affiliation with a political party, or lack thereof, has little bearing on where you stand on the political spectrum. Still, I agree that a mercenary approach to politics is ideal at the voting booth.


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 24, 2018)

I'm a little wary of self-proclaimed centrists, as many of them draw false equivalency between groups like the far right/alt-right and antifascist groups, or white supremacists and civil rights groups.  Of course, not all of them do this, but it feels disingenuous to paint those as equal and opposite sides of the same coin.  While problematic behaviours and unsavoury individuals exist within all the above groups, it ignores that the core ideology of one side is inherently malign and the other is not.  There is no reasonable compromise to be struck with hate groups.
There's also the issue that in any place that tends towards a two-party system, you don't get to pick and choose between individual policies.  So if you support the economic policies of one party but abhor their social policies, you can't afford to just gloss over the latter.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Sep 24, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> I'm a little wary of self-proclaimed centrists, as many of them draw false equivalency between groups like the far right/alt-right and antifascist groups, or white supremacists and civil rights groups.  Of course, not all of them do this, but it feels disingenuous to paint those as equal and opposite sides of the same coin.  While problematic behaviours and unsavoury individuals exist within all the above groups, it ignores that the core ideology of one side is inherently malign and the other is not.  There is no reasonable compromise to be struck with hate groups.


Actions unfortunately speak louder than words. False equivalency it may be when discussing the merits and flaws of different ideologies, fact of the matter is that most of us, regardless of denomination, would rather not be represented by hooligans who, through their own actions, ultimately do more harm than good for the causes they fight for.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> I'm a little wary of self-proclaimed centrists, as many of them draw false equivalency between groups like the far right/alt-right and antifascist groups, or white supremacists and civil rights groups.  Of course, not all of them do this, but it feels disingenuous to paint those as equal and opposite sides of the same coin.  While problematic behaviours and unsavoury individuals exist within all the above groups, it ignores that the core ideology of one side is inherently malign and the other is not.  There is no reasonable compromise to be struck with hate groups.
> There's also the issue that in any place that tends towards a two-party system, you don't get to pick and choose between individual policies.  So if you support the economic policies of one party but abhor their social policies, you can't afford to just gloss over the latter.



Yeah my overall impression of 'centrism' has been one of middle-ground fallacies. 
It feels like a subtle play to soften liberal minded people's attitudes towards ideas that they would otherwise reject as crazy, by suggesting that liberal perspectives are equally extreme to popular conservative ones. 

It is rather telling that you don't really get centrists trying to convince conservatives that they should nationalise health care, or increase workplace protections for transgender people. (Even if centrists claim they support those things, they'll spend like < 1% of their time actually trying to convince any conservatives of their merit).

Centrists always seem to find themselves talking to groups of liberals, trying to convince them of Donald Trump's positive qualities, promote the idea that the European Union is an incipient dictatorship, etc.


----------



## AsheSkyler (Sep 24, 2018)

According to those lengthy "which political group are you in", I'm Centrist. I've otherwise been labelled as leaning socially liberal and financially conservative. Personally, I say to hell with the parties and just let us vote on the issues directly since the politicians can't be bothered to represent us properly anymore.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Yeah my overall impression of 'centrism' has been one of middle-ground fallacies.
> It feels like a subtle play to soften liberal minded people's attitudes towards ideas that they would otherwise reject as crazy, by suggesting that liberal perspectives are equally extreme to popular conservative ones.
> 
> It is rather telling that you don't really get centrists trying to convince conservatives that they should nationalise health care, or increase workplace protections for transgender people. (Even if centrists claim they support those things, they'll spend like < 1% of their time actually trying to convince any conservatives of their merit).
> ...



Nuance is the enemy! Nothing good can ever be said about somebody who is the designated bad guy!

It's not an evil to find a portion of the other side's viewpoints as having merit.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Nuance is the enemy! Nothing good can ever be said about somebody who is the designated bad guy!
> 
> It's not an evil to find a portion of the other side's viewpoints as having merit.



This is a strawman of my position, and you're well aware that it is.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> This is a strawman of my position, and you're well aware that it is.


Centrism can mean alot of things to alot of people, admittedly. I suppose that is part of the problem actually. Seem very vague actually, when I think about it.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Sep 24, 2018)

From some of the most popular voices of centrism I've seen, it sounds like announcing that you don't subscribe to any one side has become a way to repackage what I often find are right leaning views. While I do see a mix of both, I'm hard-pressed at finding videos promoting topics other than conservative policy. It ends up catering to one side more than the other because they depend on viewership, and certain ideas are more sought out than others,  narrowing the range of discussion to maximize their growth. It just doesn't seem sustainable.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 24, 2018)

I think I should say that I know two people on these forums who call themselves centrists, and they actually seem politically neutral, as centrists often claim. They don't seem interested in joining either party, nor do these two look anything like far righters hiding behind a mask. I think some are afraid of centrists and their beliefs because they aren't necessarily on their side, so they likely assume the possibility that they are in some way on the opposing end, and possibly a threat. Sort of like a fear of the unknown, which of course will be common in politics of all things.

I will agree in the possibility that some people out there who claim to be centrists may be far right just to hide from being criticized, considering that those on the far right have a nasty reputation as of recently. The majority however seem legitimately in the center, and I honestly see no problem in that.


----------



## Jarren (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> you don't really get centrists trying to convince conservatives that they should nationalise health care,


Hi. 



Fallowfox said:


> Centrists always seem to find themselves talking to groups of liberals, trying to convince them of Donald Trump's positive qualities, promote the idea that the European Union is an incipient dictatorship, etc.


Perhaps you don't see that because you're on the side of the spectrum that is the target of attempted persuasion. I've tried doing that persuasion of conservatives towards a central, taxpayer funded program and seen others (liberal, centrist, independent, etc) try doing the same. Falling into that unaligned middle ground, I've felt the vitriol and prostelytizing from both ends of the spectrum. It goes both directions a lot more than people give it credit for (especially with conservatives/Republicans in the minority overall).


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

What I think has happened.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 24, 2018)

@Fallowfox 

I deleted my comment so you don't have to worry about this user coming across it :3


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> View attachment 41854
> 
> What I think has happened.




LMAO...

Shows a graph with no source
Here's what's really happened Fallow...






*Via Pew Reseach*

PDF:
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sour...FjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1ILRSxxU1ZpOoBH82xP-QL


Both parties have moved more to the extreme of their own side, but it is the Left that has taken the hardest turn...

Even the Left wing MSM admits this...

Democrats are in danger of going too far left for 2018 - CNN

www.vox.com: Richard Rorty’s prescient warnings for the American left

www.huffingtonpost.ca: How Identity Politics Is Destroying The Left And Being Used By The 'Alt-Right'

www.theatlantic.com: How the Left Lost Its Mind


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> LMAO...
> 
> Shows a graph with no source
> Here's what's really happened Fallow...
> ...



If we're playing that game;
-Criticises a post which clearly identifies itself as a statement of opinion, for stating an opinion. 
-Cites four opinion pieces with no clear shared message.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

@Ramjet556 It's a graph *I* made to illustrate my idea.

Of course it isn't sourced. I am the 'source' of it.



Massan Otter said:


> If we're playing that game;
> -Criticises a post which clearly identifies itself as a statement of opinion, for stating an opinion.
> *-Cites four opinion pieces with no clear shared message*.



(That's because he didn't read them)


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> If we're playing that game;
> -Criticises a post which clearly identifies itself as a statement of opinion, for stating an opinion.
> -Cites four opinion pieces with no clear shared message.




It's quite clear, the Left has moved farther Left...Every source I posted shares this...You just don't want to see it...

Don't just take my word for it, clink on the PDF link to the Pew Research report I posted above and do your own DD...


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> @Ramjet556 It's a graph *I* made to illustrate my idea.
> 
> Of course it isn't sourced. I am the 'source' of it.
> 
> ...



Bullshit, I sure did.


----------



## Sagt (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> LMAO...
> 
> Shows a graph with no source
> Here's what's really happened Fallow...
> ...


The purpose of that data was (intentionally?) misinterpreted, with that misleading title 'Moving To The Extreme' added to the top.

From the Pew Research document sourced:


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 24, 2018)

"The left" and "supporters of the Democratic  party in the USA" might be loosely overlapping terms, but they are hardly synonyms.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Lcs said:


> The purpose of that data was (intentionally?) misinterpreted, with that misleading title 'Moving To The Extreme' added to the top.
> 
> From the Pew Research document sourced:






Lcs said:


> The purpose of that data was (intentionally?) misinterpreted, with that misleading title 'Moving To The Extreme' added to the top.
> 
> From the Pew Research document sourced:




The data shows both sides have solidified to their respective sides with less cross over then before...

How the fuck else would you interrupt that?


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Bullshit, I sure did.



The first source you link is an opinion piece written by the editor of news website 'redstate.com' and a contributor to 'thehayride.com'. 
Both of which self identity as conservative outlets. 

You literally didn't look any further than the word 'CNN' in the hyperlink you clicked on before deciding that 'this shows the left wing agrees I'm right,'. 

What you actually posted was a conservative opinion piece published by CNN. 
You might view CNN as 'leftwing', but evidently they publish conservatives opinion pieces too.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> The first source you link is an opinion piece written by the editor of news website 'redstate.com' and a contributor to 'thehayride.com'.
> Both of which self identity as conservative outlets.
> 
> You literally didn't look any further than the word 'CNN' in the hyperlink you clicked on before deciding that 'this shows the left wing agrees I'm right,'.
> ...




CNN wouldn't post anything that they dont agree with


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> CNN wouldn't post anything that they dont agree with








Do you admit you didn't read the articles?

Do you even know how much content you linked? 
You linked 127 pages of content all told.


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 24, 2018)

Ok, so if CNN are a leftwing media outlet, and would never post anything they didn't agree with, then clearly they agree with the editor of a self-proclaimed Conservative blog.  How does that support claims of increasing polarisation?


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you admit you didn't read the articles?
> 
> Do you even know how much content you linked?
> You linked 127 pages of content all told.



I read the article yes.
Could care less who it's from as the "source" is CNN, as they so happened to post it on their platform¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Sep 24, 2018)

Anything pertaining to Centrists or Moderates appears Right Wing to those looking at them from the Left, and the inverse equally applies when viewed from the Right. This much is evident. However, the recent trend towards political segregation has only served to exacerbate this vilification, making unnecessary enemies out of potential supporters.


----------



## Sagt (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Both sides have solidified to their respective sides with less cross over then before...
> 
> How the fuck else would you interrupt that?


That graph is basically saying that Democrat-voting populations tend to be more similarly-minded than Republican-voting populations nowadays. It also shows that there is now less overlap between the parties - people, in general, are more partisan now (which I guess is related to the topic of this thread).

It doesn't speak of whether either party is more extreme. That is, intentionally or not, misrepresenting the source.

By the way, I reverse searched that graph and came up to an editorial by investor.com that was misinforming people. That's kinda depressing.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Lcs said:


> That graph is basically saying that Democrat-voting populations tend to be more similarly-minded than Republican-voting populations nowadays. It also shows that there is now less overlap between the parties - people, in general, are more partisan now (which I guess is related to the topic of this thread).
> 
> It doesn't speak of whether either party is more extreme. That is, intentionally or not, misrepresenting the source.
> 
> By the way, I reverse searched that graph and came up to an editorial by investor.com that was misinforming people. That's kinda depressing.




I guess I disagree with how its interpreted then.

If you have less cross over from either party, it shows that each respective side is moving to their own side while they each rule out a consideration of the other...

I would interpret that as both parties moving to their extremes..


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> I guess I disagree with how its interpreted then.
> 
> If you have less cross over from either party it shows that each respective side is moving to their side without a consideration of the other...
> 
> I would interpret that as both parties moving to their extremes..



You didn't understand the metrics that the authors used to make the axes because you didn't read their research.


----------



## Troj (Sep 24, 2018)

Mainly, I take issue with the hipster-esque "South Parkian" belief that people with strong beliefs or deep convictions are necessarily "crazy," so the smartest, most perceptive, and most objective people are always necessarily "in the middle," and also don't get "too involved" emotionally or physically.

Centrists are often blind to their own conservative impulses, which drive them to maintain and protect the status quo. In my experience, they will often use faux-skepticism, faux-objectivity, and faux-rationality to conceal and rationalize their own conservative tendencies and avoid getting "too" emotionally or physically invested in messy, uncomfortable, and inconvenient sociopolitical or ethical matters. (In reality, centrists can become quite emotional and invested whenever their comfortable status quo is challenged or threatened.)

My sense is that "true" moderates ideally strive to learn from and apply the best insights from all valid and sincere points of view, because they realize that we all see reality through a glass darkly, so no one ideology or worldview can capture or encapsulate the entire truth or whole solution.


----------



## AppleButt (Sep 24, 2018)

Im okay with centrists as long as they don’t act like they can be the referees of politics because they take the middle ground.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> You didn't understand the metrics that the authors used to make the axes because you didn't read their research.



¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯

The data clearly shows that both parties are moving more to their respective side, I interpret that to mean both are moving to their own extremes.
You can interpret it anyway you wish...

The very fact you have politicians like Maxine Waters publicly calling to bully officials on the Right, puts that data to work in the real world...

Furthermore, the fact you have posters here shitting on Centrist to pony up and pick and choose a side further solidifies that for me...

Interesting times...


----------



## Sagt (Sep 24, 2018)

On topic:

I've encountered a fair number of diehard Trump supporters who think that just because they support the right for gays to marry, believe that global warming exists, or think that the economy shouldn't be left _entirely_ to the free market, that this makes them a centrist. I really don't think those three or so positions of non-conformity (and is it even deviating? I mean, stuff like gay marriage isn't even that partisan these days), which should really be the default, balance everything else out. 

I get the feeling that a lot of people prefer, irrationally, to think of themselves as a centrist because being 'the middle ground' sounds like they're more logical. 

Anyway, if someone tells me that they're a centrist, I take it with a grain of salt, and then I make my own decision after I've heard them talk more.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 24, 2018)

Troj said:


> Mainly, I take issue with the hipster-esque "South Parkian" belief that people with strong beliefs or deep convictions are necessarily "crazy," so the smartest, most perceptive, and most objective people are always necessarily "in the middle," and also don't get "too involved" emotionally or physically.
> 
> Centrists are often blind to their own conservative impulses, which drive them to maintain and protect the status quo. In my experience, they will often use faux-skepticism, faux-objectivity, and faux-rationality to conceal and rationalize their own conservative tendencies and avoid getting "too" emotionally or physically invested in messy, uncomfortable, and inconvenient sociopolitical or ethical matters. (In reality, centrists can become quite emotional and invested whenever their comfortable status quo is challenged or threatened.)
> 
> My sense is that "true" moderates ideally strive to learn from and apply the best insights from all valid and sincere points of view, because they realize that we all see reality through a glass darkly, so no one ideology or worldview can capture or encapsulate the entire truth or whole solution.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but what do you mean " maintain and protect the status quo"? I didn't really understand that part.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way, but what do you mean " maintain and protect the status quo"? I didn't really understand that part.



It's because their drawing a line in the sand and don't respect people that want to sit and take bits from both sides without partisanship...


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

I've seen so many people call themselves centrists to avoid backlash. These same people are the ones that call refugees terrorists and think transexuals are abominations. If I hear someone call themselves a centrist I get immediately suspicious because of how many people I've seen use it as cover for their terrible ideas. Perhaps they are actually a true centrist but they'll have to overcome my skepticism first.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> It's quite clear, the Left has moved farther Left...Every source I posted shares this...You just don't want to see it...
> 
> Don't just take my word for it, clink on the PDF link to the Pew Research report I posted above and do your own DD...


It's clear the right has moved further right as well.


----------



## AppleButt (Sep 24, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> I've seen so many people call themselves centrists to avoid backlash. These same people are the ones that call refugees terrorists and think transexuals are abominations. If I hear someone call themselves a centrist I get immediately suspicious because of how many people I've seen use it as cover for their terrible ideas. Perhaps they are actually a true centrist but they'll have to overcome my skepticism first.



Well the “centrists” here that recently got banned definitely were not centrists, that’s pretty clear.

However,  I haven’t seen a whole lot of that to make me think that the entire centrist party is like that.

I do think centrism has a slight right wing bias to it, but that may be because America has been right leaning for 30+ years now, so maybe that’s natural.



Ovi the Dragon said:


> It's clear the right has moved further right as well.



And he did say the right has gone farther right too.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> ¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯
> 
> The data clearly shows that both parties are moving more to their respective side, I interpret that to mean both are moving to their own extremes.
> You can interpret it anyway you wish...
> ...



The source you linked says that the reasons for growing gaps between liberals and conservatives vary by different issue.
For example a growing gap in acceptance of homosexuality is caused by the Democratic party becoming more accepting of gay people at a fast rate than the Republican party has, over the last 2 decades.

Obviously in this instance the growing gap actually reflects a decrease in extreme attitudes towards gay people in both parties, rather than an increase in extremes.
(funny huh?)

Read the source you posted maybe.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> It's clear the right has moved further right as well.




Yup it has.

I acknowledge this in my first post..


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> It's because their drawing a line in the sand and don't respect people that want to sit and take bits from both sides without partisanship...


I just think status quo is implies that centrists have an agenda. Call me wrong, but I just don't see that. I know the right and the left have status quo's, but applying that assumption to centrists just seems like a "better safe than sorry" way of thinking, or as I said earlier, assuming the worst in someone based on them not aligning with you. 

I doubt that most centrists are just undercover conservatives with a right wing mission. (I'm not saying that's what Troj said).


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Yup it has.
> 
> I acknowledge this in my first post..


Sorry jetty boy. Just got back from a 4 day long visit with my bf and I'm catching up on the dumpster fires.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Returning to my original post. I was talking about right wing politics taking a surge towards the far right in the last few years, and I think it's a phenomenon occurring in Europe just as much as the USA. (Think of the bans on face veils in countries like France and Denmark)

I wasn't expressing an opinion on overall social changes over the last 24 years in the USA.



Infrarednexus said:


> I just think status quo is implies that centrists have an agenda. Call me wrong, but I just don't see that. I know the right and the left have status quo's, but applying that assumption to centrists just seems like a "better safe than sorry" way of thinking, or as I said earlier, assuming the worst in someone based on them not aligning with you.
> 
> I doubt that most centrists are just undercover conservatives with a right wing mission. (I'm not saying that's what Troj said).



Status quo means 'how things are now'. 

The right and the left don't both have status quos. 

Status quo simply describes the reality of what society is like at this moment.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> The source you linked says that the reasons for growing gaps between liberals and conservatives vary by different issue.
> For example a growing gap in acceptance of homosexuality is caused by the Democratic party becoming more accepting of gay people at a fast rate than the Republican party has, over the last 2 decades.
> 
> Obviously in this instance the growing gap actually reflects a decrease in extreme attitudes towards gay people in both parties, rather than an increase in extremes.
> ...



Yes 70% of overall Americans show an acceptance of homosexuality (which is a step in the right direction)

That's cherry picking data to sway to your interpretation though when the whole of the data supports both parties leaning to their own respective side with less crossover...

Maybe you should read the study.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Yes 70% of overall Americans show an acceptance of homosexuality (which is a step in the right direction)
> 
> That's cherry picking data to sway to your interpretation though when the whole of the data supports both parties leaning to their own respective side with less crossover...
> 
> Maybe you should read the study.


The republican party has very much always unanimously been opposed to gay marriage until very recently. I know because A. I'm American. B. I'm gay. C. I grew up in a majority Republican area. I think you're just reaching for things to go against Fallow. Which really you both probably don't know too much on this issue because you are Canadian and he is English.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Yes 70% of overall Americans show an acceptance of homosexuality (which is a step in the right direction)
> 
> That's cherry picking data to sway to your interpretation though when the whole of the data supports both parties leaning to their own respective side with less crossover...
> 
> Maybe you should read the study.



I picked it as an example to show that the picture is complex. The source you quoted acknowledges that and it wouldn't really be honest to say that the divergence in consistency scores between the parties is evidence of both parties becoming more extreme.
The source *you posted *says the growing disparity has multifaceted origins, and of course we can't really assess whether growing consistency in any party would actually be evidence of increasing extremism.  (that's where ancillary knowledge and qualitative judgements about what policies we should consider extreme come in)

Please read the source you posted.



Ovi the Dragon said:


> The republican party has very much always unanimously been opposed to gay marriage until very recently. I know because A. I'm American. B. I'm gay. C. I grew up in a majority Republican area. I think you're just reaching for things to go against Fallow. Which really you both probably don't know too much on this issue because you are Canadian and he is English.



For sure. My original post wasn't specifically about the USA. I live in Europe and I am particularly concerned about a rise in support for far right parties and far right policies here.


----------



## Alondight (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Returning to my original post. I was talking about right wing politics taking a surge towards the far right in the last few years, and I think it's a phenomenon occurring in Europe just as much as the USA. (Think of the bans on face veils in countries like France and Denmark)



Eh, I dunno, for me it looks more like common Right-wing views like patriotism, controlled immigration and secure borders have been demonized so much that they are extremist views now. The AfD in Germany (the "big bad right-wing extremist Nazi"-party) has pretty much the same program as Merkel's CDU had 10 years ago. The AfD is just more on the localism side of Conservatism, while the CDU is globalism.
And I don't see how the face veil bans are necessarily Right-wing issues - In Denmark it was not because of religious reasons but of security reasons, and in France it was implemented (and supported by 80% of voters) to help Muslims (as there were a lot of Muslim women who were forced to wear them).


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I picked it as an example to show that the picture is complex. The source you quoted acknowledges that and it wouldn't really be honest to say that the divergence in consistency scores between the parties is evidence of both parties becoming more extreme.
> The source *you posted *says the growing disparity has multifaceted origins, and of course we can't really assess whether growing consistency in any part would actually be evidence of increasing extremism.  (that's where ancillary knowledge and qualitative judgements about what policies we should consider extreme come in)
> 
> Please read the source you posted.




Please actually put down your books once and a while and pay attention to what's going on in the real world Fallow...

Look at the polarization of both sides that are a daily occurrence on both social media and on the MSM, as well as that divide spilling over on main street with increasing protests and solidification of beliefs on both sides...

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to intrepid this data to show an increase of extremist partisanship on both sides.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Alondight said:


> Eh, I dunno, for me it looks more like common Right-wing views like patriotism, controlled immigration and secure borders have been demonized so much that they are extremist views now. The AfD in Germany (the "big bad right-wing extremist Nazi"-party) has pretty much the same program as Merkel's CDU had 10 years ago. The AfD is just more on the localism side of Conservatism, while the CDU is globalism.
> And I don't see how the face veil bans are necessarily Right-wing issues - In Denmark it was not because of religious reasons but of security reasons, and in France it was implemented (and supported by 80% of voters) to help Muslims (as there were a lot of Muslim women who were forced to wear them).



This is why people regard Alternative fur Deutschland as far right;




They also oppose allowing gay people to marry or adopt and want to re-instate mandatory conscription of all German men at the age of 18.


In the last election in France, le Front national won 36% of the vote. Their party was founded by a man prosecuted for holocaust denial:
Jean-Marie Le Pen - Wikipedia
In Sweden a former neonazi party won 18% of the vote:
Sweden Democrats - Wikipedia

So my assessment, that far right politics have grown in popularity across Europe, is credible.



Ramjet556 said:


> Please actually put down your books once and a while and pay attention to what's going on in the real world Fallow...
> 
> Look at the polarization of both sides that are a daily occurrence on both social media and on the MSM, as well as that divide spilling over on main street with increasing protests and solidification of beliefs on both sides...
> 
> Doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to intrepid this data to show an increase of extremist partisanship on both sides.



How dare I read the studies you posted links to.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Basically I guess...the fact that a discussion about what centrism is ended up with people defending the AfD kind of says it all.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> This is why people regard Alternative fur Deutschland as far right;
> View attachment 41908
> They also oppose allowing gay people to marry or adopt and want to re-instate mandatory conscription of all German men at the age of 18.
> 
> ...




Good, I did too.

You interpreted it differently, big surprise to me

I'm not so obtuse to ignore real life correlation to these findings...

By all means though stick to your own fantasy of Left wing theorem that ignores such...


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Alondight said:


> Eh, I dunno, for me it looks more like common Right-wing views like patriotism, controlled immigration and secure borders have been demonized so much that they are extremist views now. The AfD in Germany (the "big bad right-wing extremist Nazi"-party) has pretty much the same program as Merkel's CDU had 10 years ago. The AfD is just more on the localism side of Conservatism, while the CDU is globalism.
> And I don't see how the face veil bans are necessarily Right-wing issues - In Denmark it was not because of religious reasons but of security reasons, and in France it was implemented (and supported by 80% of voters) to help Muslims (as there were a lot of Muslim women who were forced to wear them).


There's a difference between controlling immigration and just trying to keep the Mexicans and Muslims out.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Good, I did too.
> 
> You interpreted it differently, big surprise to me
> 
> ...



What do you think of the authors' suggestion that actually, although in general increased religosity correlated negatively with acceptance of homosexuality, that religious people who identify as republican leaning were actually more likely to accept homosexuals than those without an affiliation?


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Basically I guess...the fact that a discussion about what centrism is ended up with people defending the AfD kind of says it all.


It's funny how accepting Nazis and telling people to stop being so mean to them makes you a "centrist" and if you don't like them and don't want them to be around at all it makes you an "extremist liberal"


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Alondight said:


> a ban on Islam seems more rational than far-right.



And there we have it, true colours revealed. ._.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Alondight said:


> I mean, seeing how much 'prosperity' Islam has brought to Europe, a ban on Islam seems more rational than far-right. But that's a topic for another day. And the other two are moderate conservative views.
> 
> 
> Or could it perhaps be that the parties have changed their positions and become more moderate?
> ...


Ding ding ding. We found a winner. You are a perfect example of a right winger calling a far right thing just normal the right. Bringing things on the far right closer to what is normal for right peeps. Thank you for showing us your true colors. Bravo.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> And there we have it, true colours revealed. ._.


All you gotta do is just give people on the far right time and eventually they lose their facade.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> What do you think of the authors' suggestion that actually, although in general increased religosity correlated negatively with acceptance of homosexuality, that religious people who identify as republican leaning were actually more likely to accept homosexuals than those without an affiliation?




It shows that the tides are turning on that regard and it is becoming less and less of a partisan issue..

Which is fucking awesome!!!

It shouldn't be a partisan issue that either side gets to collect polical brownie points from...

Gay rights are human rights, full goddamn stop...


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Alondight said:


> Yeah, I don't see how opposing Islam makes me far-right, it's a totalitarian Ideology that has a lot in common with Nazism (hence why Hitler and Himmler loved it); so if you defend it you seem closer to the far right than I do.
> 
> 
> These are already far-right? Then can you at least tell me what you consider moderate right-wing views?


What koolaid have you been drinking to think Hitler loved Islam? And a moderate right wing view is low taxes, state over federal rights, and other stuff that isn't full blown crazy. I'll give you at least 2 days before a banning since the forums are actually cracking down on alt righters.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> It shows that the tides are turning on that regard and it is becoming less and less of a partisan issue..
> 
> Which is fucking awesome!!!
> 
> ...



I made it up actually. *To test if you had read the document. *

Turns out you didn't, eh?


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> It shows that the tides are turning on that regard and it is becoming less and less of a partisan issue..
> 
> Which is fucking awesome!!!
> 
> ...


I think you're trying to avoid the fact that repubs have been lagging far behind on the human rights issue. Sure they are catching up but that doesn't excuse the fact that these thing are only getting better in the recent few years. And when I say better I mean a moderate repub. Most seem to be going to crazy town nowadays.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> I think you're trying to avoid the fact that repubs have been lagging far behind on the human rights issue. Sure they are catching up but that doesn't excuse the fact that these thing are only getting better in the recent few years. And when I say better I mean a moderate repub. Most seem to be going to crazy town nowadays.



Ovi I made the claim up. That particular claim isn't made in the Pew Research Document.

The research doesn't claim that religious republicans are more likely to accept homosexuality than religious people who are not politically affiliated. 

Indeed I don't think they even test this claim. 

I just wanted to see whether Ramjet had actually read it.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I made it up actually. *To test if you had read the document. *
> 
> Turns out you didn't, eh?




I though you were talking about this asshat:






"For the first time, a majority of Republicans (54%) favor acceptance of homosexuality."

Then again you love baity gaslighting tactics don't you?


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

@Ramjet556 I'm glad you've opened the document now.
Of course, if you had read it *before hand* you would have known that the claim I was making _wasn't in the document_.

You'd know that acceptance of homosexuality has become more partisan through time, mostly because democrats' views have changed more rapidly than republicans'.
Instead, you made a post saying that my made up claim showed the opposite was true. x3



Alondight said:


> "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" - Adolf Hitler Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world - Wikipedia And Heinrich Himmler was also a huge fan of Islam.
> 
> 
> So simply opposing Islam makes you alt-right. Interesting.



Can you please not go full 'Godwin's law' on this please? 

Nobody should advocate banning religions, or promote religious intolerance.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> @Ramjet556 I'm glad you've opened the document now.
> Of course, if you had read it *before hand* you would have known that the claim I was making _wasn't in the document_.
> 
> You'd know that acceptance of homosexuality has become more partisan through time, mostly because democrats' views have changed more rapidly than republicans'.
> Instead, you made a post saying that my made up claim showed the opposite was true. x3




Were the hell did you think I got that 70% of Americans are in favor of acceptance of homosexuality that I posted almost 2 hours ago fuckhead?



Ramjet556 said:


> Yes 70% of overall Americans show an acceptance of homosexuality


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 24, 2018)

Alondight said:


> a ban on Islam seems more rational than far-right.


I'm sorry, but banning an entire religion is far from rational.

I don't support the culture and beliefs of Islam, but a massive exile of people based on their faith is completely unethical.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Alondight said:


> "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" - Adolf Hitler Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world - Wikipedia And Heinrich Himmler was also a huge fan of Islam.
> 
> 
> So simply opposing Islam makes you alt-right. Interesting.


Jesus you're thick skulled. It's not about opposing Islam. It's because you go full blowm crazy with it. I don't like Islam. Doesn't mean I'm gonna god damn ban it or worse.

I hate these types of excuses from alt righters. Always trying to make the things you say look small. Kinda like "stop being an enemy of free speech!", no it's because you say all jews should be dead. It's not about free speech.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Were the hell did you think I got that 70% of Americans are in favor of acceptance of homosexuality that I posted almost 2 hours ago fuckhead?


How about using respectful language when addressing another user, and then he will more likely reply accordingly. Also I notice that most of your replies are inflammatory, and can be seen as trolling.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I'm sorry, but banning an entire religion is far from rational.
> 
> I don't agree with the culture and beliefs of Islam, but a massive exile of people based on their faith is completely unethical.


This is why I made the post about being skeptic of so called "centrists".


----------



## ItsBrou (Sep 24, 2018)

Beautiful turn this conversation has taken.

I'm personally not satisfied with centrism, because a number of its proponents I interact with seem to falter on taking a defined stance on a number of things out of fear of isolation, the loss of prospective sexual partners, or other punishments. Frequently, they end up going with the flow and fall in line with the alignment of their peers, which for many metropolitan youth is leftism, and for those who are not, some degree of conservative or libertarianism(and I have my own issues with Libertarians, too).


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Yes 70% of overall Americans show an acceptance of homosexuality





Alondight said:


> I mean, seeing how much 'prosperity' Islam has brought to Europe, a ban on Islam seems more rational than far-right. But that's a topic for another day. And the other two are moderate conservative views.
> 
> 
> Or could it perhaps be that the parties have changed their positions and become more moderate?
> ...




Yeah a ban on a entire religion is a little fucked up...I do agree that the refugee crisis in Europe is a disaster and strong borders need to be upheld...

There are many muslims nationals though that were born and raised in Europe, and I don't think that same view should be held upon them just because of their faith...

I'm of the belief though that all religion is just a mental illness, I don't discriminate


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

I just want to point out by the way that Islam has been part of European identity and history for centuries, as a significant and important minority in our social fabric, just like the Jewish or Roma populations.

Islamic scholars like Averroes of Spain, were instrumental in preserving translating and reinterpreting ancient Greek texts. This process would eventually go on to make these works available in the European Renaissance.
Not to mention the developments in medicine and mathematics that Islamic scholars made of their own accord.
This is why Islamic scholars like Averroes are included in Renaissance paintings. 

So for any European Muslim furries reading this. You're part of Europe, Islam has been present here for centuries and nobody has any right to demand you leave.


----------



## TrishaCat (Sep 24, 2018)

I still consider centrism to just mean "I have some leftist and right wing beliefs both" and as a result I consider myself centrist. (well, slightly left of center really, but only slightly)


KimberVaile said:


> To those who call themselves centrists, can you describe why you see yourself as one?


I hold left and right wing beliefs and some things that people feel strongly about I have no opinion on.
Left wing beliefs of mine:

I support a push towards free healthcare and free college education.
I support gay marriage and LGBT rights.
I voted for Jill Stein last election (Green party candidate).

I support the legalization of marijuana
I am against the death penalty
I support a push towards prisoner rights (who are treated very poorly in the US)
I believe efforts should be made to reduce CO2 emissions
The US should be welcoming towards refugees (however should attempt to perform background checks before allowing people into the country)
Increase minimum wage to $15/hr
Right wing beliefs of mine:

I am very sympathetic towards libertarians as a political party, as I desire the government to have as weak a control over my life as possible.
I support freedom of speech to an _extreme _degree and desire major social media websites to be considered a modern equivalent of a public forum
If I had to choose between a capitalistic society or a communist one, I'd choose capitalism, and would almost go so far as to say that I am supportive of laissez-fair capitalism (within limits).
I support gun rights
Neutral beliefs of mine (or I have no idea where this would be placed in the case of prison sentences):

I believe modern prison sentences are obscene and should be reduced significantly
I have no opinion on abortion

I have no opinion on whether or not people should be able to refuse services based on religious beliefs
Because of all these things in tandem I consider myself very slightly left of center and referable as a centrist.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> How about using respectful language when addressing another user, and then he will more likely reply accordingly. Also I notice that most of your replies are inflammatory, and can be seen as trolling.




I'm not the first to call out Fallows tactics as Misha has pointed out the same...

Who's really trolling?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Sep 24, 2018)

I find American "center" to be a pretty quaint concept, given that mainstream American left is probably somewhere right of our center here.



Alondight said:


> And I don't see how the face veil bans are necessarily Right-wing issues - In Denmark it was not because of religious reasons but of security reasons, and in France it was implemented (and supported by 80% of voters) to help Muslims (as there were a lot of Muslim women who were forced to wear them).


Please keep in mind that these arguments sound very much like "polite right-wing extremism". The Swedish racist fuckwit party (obviously not their actual name, but a good descriptor) sent out campaign materials before the 2010 elections to the effect that sending minor refugees arriving without guardians back where they came from would be doing them a kindness. Does that mean that their motivation was humanitarian rather than xenophobic? Hell no.
I can't speak for France, but Denmark is pretty widely recognized here as the racist black sheep of Scandinavia.



Fallowfox said:


> In Sweden a former neonazi party won 18% of the vote:
> Sweden Democrats - Wikipedia


Correction: A barely-closeted neonazi party. Anyone who thinks they've actually changed their stripes is tricking themselves. They've just learned to hide their racist bullshit under a thin veneer of polite right-wing extremism. (And basically anyone that didn't vote for them is pretty pissed about the situation.) This would be the racist fuckwit party above.



Alondight said:


> Or could it perhaps be that the parties have changed their positions and become more moderate?


I can assure you, SD is far from moderate. People pretty high up in the party hierarchy are caught participating in neonazi/white supremacist events with disturbing regularity, including marching with EDL. They very much play up and promote xenophobia. Note that this is shit I have picked up on _despite deliberately avoiding news_ for the last ten years or so. It's _that_ prevalent.



Ramjet556 said:


> the refugee crisis in Europe is a disaster


The so-called "refugee crisis" in Europe is largely an invention of fearmongering right-wingers. It sucks that people have to resort to seeking asylum in foreign countries, yes. Sometimes finding adequate facilities to house an influx of refugees can be an inconvenience, yes. (Housing in general is a major pain in the ass as new housing is generally built at a price point most of the people in need of housing can't afford, but that's a separate issue.) But this doesn't translate to "oh god the refugees are breaking down society" or whatever the fuck the misconception is. 

They're just people who don't want to die in a war they never asked for, for fuck's sake. Trying to paint that as a crisis on anything but a humanitarian "well shit we need to help these people" level is highly suspect far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

I am evil incarnate.



quoting_mungo said:


> Correction: A barely-closeted neonazi party. Anyone who thinks they've actually changed their stripes is tricking themselves. They've just learned to hide their racist bullshit under a thin veneer of polite right-wing extremism. (And basically anyone that didn't vote for them is pretty pissed about the situation.) This would be the racist fuckwit party above.
> .



Yeah fair point. I agree that this leopard 'aint changing its spots.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I find American "center" to be a pretty quaint concept, given that mainstream American left is probably somewhere right of our center here.
> 
> 
> Please keep in mind that these arguments sound very much like "polite right-wing extremism". The Swedish racist fuckwit party (obviously not their actual name, but a good descriptor) sent out campaign materials before the 2010 elections to the effect that sending minor refugees arriving without guardians back where they came from would be doing them a kindness. Does that mean that their motivation was humanitarian rather than xenophobic? Hell no.
> ...




The voting public over there are tending to disagree with you lately...


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> I'm not the first to call out Fallows tactics as Misha has pointed out the same...
> 
> Who's really trolling?


*sigh* You want to know the truth? The truth is Fallow uses the forum now to troll people on the right wing who are from America. HE TOLD ME ON DISCORD. (Or something along the lines of that statement.)


Fallowfox said:


> I am evil incarnate.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah fair point. I agree that this leopard 'aint changing its spots.


Dude I agree with your viewpoints but I dislike your subtle hatred towards Americans. I am no longer defending you anymore as it would be smarter for you to leave this forum for stirring up crap. (Besides I have been ignoring the drama other people on this forum decently enough.)
Edit: Gee sorry to bring discord into this conversation but crimenny the weather sucks where I live. effecting my mood


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> *sigh* You want to know the truth? The truth is Fallow uses the forum now to troll people on the right wing who are from America. HE TOLD ME ON DISCORD. (Or something along the lines of that statement.)
> 
> Dude I agree with your viewpoints but I dislike your subtle hatred towards Americans. I am no longer defending you anymore as it would be smarter for you to leave this forum for stirring up crap. (Besides I have been ignoring the drama other people on this forum decently enough.)




Thanks for giving us all the heads up on this.

Regardless of how you feel of me, I appreciate the honesty to say what you did about both of us.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> *sigh* You want to know the truth? The truth is Fallow uses the forum now to troll people on the right wing who are from America. HE TOLD ME ON DISCORD. (Or something along the lines of that statement.)
> 
> Dude I agree with your viewpoints but I dislike your subtle hatred towards Americans. I am no longer defending you anymore as it would be smarter for you to leave this forum for stirring up crap. (Besides I have been ignoring the drama other people on this forum decently enough.)
> Edit: Gee sorry to bring discord into this conversation but crimenny the weather sucks where I live. effecting my mood



I don't hate Americans. .-.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 24, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> *sigh* You want to know the truth? The truth is Fallow uses the forum now to troll people on the right wing who are from America. HE TOLD ME ON DISCORD. (Or something along the lines of that statement.)
> 
> Dude I agree with your viewpoints but I dislike your subtle hatred towards Americans. I am no longer defending you anymore as it would be smarter for you to leave this forum for stirring up crap. (Besides I have been ignoring the drama other people on this forum decently enough.)
> Edit: Gee sorry to bring discord into this conversation but crimenny the weather sucks where I live. effecting my mood


_let's head this off before it gets started, shall we?_
_@Fallowfox is far from a troll. _
_in fact, he has been one of the few users here substantively and consistently correcting the blatant misinformation and hate speech that has been pushed in the forum by far-right parties and persons. _
_i do call that trolling and neither should you._
_SOME people here are just eager to discredit his reputation since they can't do the same for his facts._
_don't get things twisted._​


----------



## quoting_mungo (Sep 24, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> The voting public over there are trending to disagree with you lately...


1) That's what fearmongering tends to do, yes. If people put up campaign signs saying "Foreign rapists must be deported!"* it will subtly influence people to believe that foreign rapists are a significant problem, and that foreigners in general are all Potential Rapists. It creates fear. That doesn't mean the fear has meaningful basis in fact.

2) Way to ignore the 82-point-something percent of Swedes who _didn't_ vote for the racist fuckwits. Most of whom, from what I've gathered, would _not_ be happy to see them get any more power than law mandates.

3) Also worth noting is that far-right parties and organizations seemingly _love_ to brand themselves by nationality. It's telling that SD and AfS (both far-right parties; AfS is basically a splinter group that got pissed that SD were getting too "moderate" when they tried to clean up their act to seem more palatable to the general public) were the only parties in our last national elections with "Sweden" in their name. I personally think country/nationality should be banned in party names due to the confusion it can cause. "I like Swedish democracy, so I want to vote for the Sweden Democrats" was literally an argument put forth by an immigrant taxi driver who hadn't realized what the party _actually_ stands for.


*) This is, sadly, a translation of an actual campaign poster. It's absolutely ridiculous, and highly offensive. Like, every time I see the damn things I get pissed off.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't hate Americans. .-.


Okay it is just some of your previous posts have somewhat veiled insults towards Americans. I understand you mean well for the most part.


Dancy said:


> _let's head this off before it gets started, shall we?_
> _@Fallowfox is far from a troll. _
> _in fact, he has been one of the few users here substantively and consistently correcting the blatant misinformation and hate speech that has been pushed in the forum by far-right parties and persons. _
> _i do call that trolling and neither should you._
> ...


Right and I am sorry Fallow for bring up the discord post.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 24, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> Okay it is just some of your previous posts have somewhat veiled insults towards Americans. I understand you mean well for the most part.


_he isn't so much criticizing americans as far-righters who are americans._
_just saying._​


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 24, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> 1) That's what fearmongering tends to do, yes. If people put up campaign signs saying "Foreign rapists must be deported!"* it will subtly influence people to believe that foreign rapists are a significant problem, and that foreigners in general are all Potential Rapists. It creates fear. That doesn't mean the fear has meaningful basis in fact.
> 
> 2) Way to ignore the 82-point-something percent of Swedes who _didn't_ vote for the racist fuckwits. Most of whom, from what I've gathered, would _not_ be happy to see them get any more power than law mandates.
> 
> ...




That's the divide though, you have a good chuck of your populist that are not for open borders and would like to defend their own culture from an influx of refugees that they don't see sharing the same value...
Not to mention the economical cost when Europe is already teetering on the edge of insolvency on it's own accord...

Blame the US military industry complex for the former...
If the west stayed out of Iraq, Libya, and Syria none of this would have happened the way it has...


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 24, 2018)

Something as innocuous as asking people who considers themselves as centrists is contentious, because, of course it is. Apparently it's too much of an ask to drop the sanctimonious attitude for once. I'd ask people to cease with the person insults, but I'm sure just saying that is an unspeakable requests in of itself.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 24, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Something as innocuous as asking people who considers themselves as centrists is contentious, because, of course it is. Apparently it's too much of an ask to drop the sanctimonious attitude for once. I' ask people to cease with the person insults, but I'm sure just saying that is an unspeakable requests in of itself.


_who is being sanctimonious?_​


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 24, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _who is being sanctimonious?_​


Not going to name people, as it would cause more of an issue. From here on out though, I would like everybody to refrain from personal insults.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 24, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Not going to name people, as it would cause more of an issue. From here on out though, I would like everybody to refrain from personal insults.


_i really don't see any personal insults being lobbed here._​


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 24, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _i really don't see any personal insults being lobbed here._​


It's on this page, if you decide to read over all the replies. Anyways, I'm just catching up on all of this, so don't mind me.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 24, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> I still consider centrism to just mean "I have some leftist and right wing beliefs both" and as a result I consider myself centrist. (well, slightly left of center really, but only slightly)
> I hold left and right wing beliefs and some things that people feel strongly about I have no opinion on.
> Left wing beliefs of mine:
> 
> ...



Sounds pretty reasonable, I am very much on board with making college education free too. Education is tantamount and I've always felt we didn't give enough funding to education over all. Similarly, I don't see the harm in legalizing marijuana. People getting busted for it and going to prison is in no way, just. I don't think  I have a stance on immigration, but I agree the minimum wage needs to be bumped up. Inflation has had an effect on our economy, but the wages have stayed the same.


----------



## TrishaCat (Sep 24, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Sounds pretty reasonable, I am very much on board with making college education free too. Education is tantamount and I've always felt we didn't give enough funding to education over all. Similarly, I don't see the harm in legalizing marijuana. People getting busted for it and going to prison is in no way, just. I don't think I have a stance on immigration, but I agree the minimum wage needs to be bumped up. Inflation has had an effect on our economy, but the wages have stayed the same.


I'm glad you feel similarly!
Although honestly I was half expecting someone to be very upset with me and start an argument or someone to start telling me I'm not a centrist for [insert reason here]. I am pleasantly surprised.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Sep 24, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Sounds pretty reasonable, I am very much on board with making college education free too. Education is tantamount and I've always felt we didn't give enough funding to education over all. Similarly, I don't see the harm in legalizing marijuana. People getting busted for it and going to prison is in no way, just. I don't think  I have a stance on immigration, but I agree the minimum wage needs to be bumped up. Inflation has had an effect on our economy, but the wages have stayed the same.


Hope I don’t sound stupid, but would free education help end the poverty cycle? I’ve been wondering if it would


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 24, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> Hope I don’t sound stupid, but would free education help end the poverty cycle? I’ve been wondering if it would



Possibly, but there are more factors at play than education, I think. More would have to be done.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Sep 24, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Possibly, but there are more factors at play than education, I think. More would have to be done.


It could atleast be a step towards it, I think free education would be a good idea, but where could we get funding for it?


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 24, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> It could atleast be a step towards it, I think free education would be a good idea, but where could we get funding for it?


As with most things, it'd come at the cost of something else (ideally military spending).


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Sep 24, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> As with most things, it'd come at the cost of something else (ideally military spending).


Oh ok, thanks for explaining that


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 24, 2018)

Five pages without a shitpost? Let me fix that for you guys. uwu


----------



## Troj (Sep 24, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way, but what do you mean " maintain and protect the status quo"? I didn't really understand that part.



Basically, if the choice is between keeping things the way they are--even if the current system or way of doing things causes serious problems and/or profound suffering--and embracing change, the status quo warrior will want things to stay the same, mainly because they don't want to be inconvenienced or bothered, and don't want to get their hands dirty.

So, for example, when given the choice between confronting injustice or unfairness, and pretending it's not there, isn't a problem, or isn't _their_ problem, the SQW-type centrist will inevitably choose the latter.

The worst Status Quo Warriors will often move conspicuously to the Right as they increasingly try to dig in their heels and keep the world from turning--often while continuing to identify as a liberal, "classical liberal," centrist, or libertarian!


----------



## Filter (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> It is rather telling that you don't really get centrists trying to convince conservatives that they should nationalise health care, or increase workplace protections for transgender people. (Even if centrists claim they support those things, they'll spend like < 1% of their time actually trying to convince any conservatives of their merit).
> 
> Centrists always seem to find themselves talking to groups of liberals, trying to convince them of Donald Trump's positive qualities, promote the idea that the European Union is an incipient dictatorship, etc.


Telling, yes.

Many centrists identify as liberals themselves. Especially as classical liberals. Their position is one that opposes authoritarianism. Liberals historically  opposed authoritarianism. As such, it makes sense that they might spend more time reasoning with liberals rather than with conservatives (who are are perhaps more distant politically and less likely to change their minds). Classical liberals stand against whichever wing, or wings, they consider to be a threat to liberty. Most are opposed to foreign military intervention, and strongly disagree with things like the Bush-era invasions and the Patriot Act. Nowadays, the Democrats are arguably the more hawkish and coercive of the two major US political parties. The many wars and other military operations under Bush and Obama, along with Hillary's mishandling of Libya, were a continuation of the same neocon/neolib virus that we were subjected to for nearly 15 years. Trump's election was largely a reaction to that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Filter said:


> Telling, yes.
> 
> Many centrists identify as liberals themselves. Especially as classical liberals. Their position is one that opposes authoritarianism. Liberals historically  opposed authoritarianism. As such, it makes sense that they might spend more time reasoning with liberals rather than with conservatives (who are are perhaps more distant politically and less likely to change their minds). Classical liberals stand against whichever wing, or wings, they consider to be a threat to liberty. Most are opposed to foreign military intervention, and strongly disagree with things like the Bush-era invasions and the Patriot Act. Nowadays, the Democrats are arguably the more hawkish and coercive of the two major US political parties. The many wars and other military operations under Bush and Obama, along with Hillary's mishandling of Libya, were a continuation of the same neocon/neolib virus that we were subjected to for nearly 15 years. Trump's election was largely a reaction to that.



Sargon of Akkad being an example of a 'classic liberal', now a member of UKIP, a far-right party: Carl Benjamin - Wikipedia
(I hope people don't mind me talking about British politics; but those are the politics that actually interest me most because they're the ones I live with).

I get a real 'wolf in sheep's clothing' impression from the folk who say they're classic liberals. In my experience people using this label care passionately about complaining about feminism...and sometimes that's all they care about.

This sort of thing:







Troj said:


> Basically, if the choice is between keeping things the way they are--even if the current system or way of doing things causes serious problems and/or profound suffering--and embracing change, the status quo warrior will want things to stay the same, mainly because they don't want to be inconvenienced or bothered, and don't want to get their hands dirty.
> 
> So, for example, when given the choice between confronting injustice or unfairness, and pretending it's not there, isn't a problem, or isn't _their_ problem, the SQW-type centrist will inevitably choose the latter.
> 
> The worst Status Quo Warriors will often move conspicuously to the Right as they increasingly try to dig in their heels and keep the world from turning--often while continuing to identify as a liberal, "classical liberal," centrist, or libertarian!



Any day now I'm going to start calling my self a classical centrist, and make a youtube channel defaming Copernicus.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Any day now I'm going to start calling my self a classical centrist, and make a youtube channel defaming Copernicus.


Copernicus was a coward, a real man would insult the pope to get him to agree with you. -Galileo


----------



## David Drake (Sep 24, 2018)

I'm against people treating other people like shit.

The right - and I'm talking broad terms, there are exceptions to every rule - tends to treat people like shit for being different. Different colors, different sexes, identities, orientations, religions, classes, etc. This is in rhetoric and policy as well.

The left tends to treat people like shit when the people in question start treating others like shit first. Granted two wrongs don't make a right, and sometimes the aim is slightly off, but the overall message is please stop treating people like shit.

This is why I identify as left, even though I have disagreements with certain areas.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Sep 24, 2018)

David Drake said:


> I'm against people treating other people like shit.
> 
> The right - and I'm talking broad terms, there are exceptions to every rule - tends to treat people like shit for being different. Different colors, different sexes, identities, orientations, religions, classes, etc. This is in rhetoric and policy as well.
> 
> ...


It generally holds true that it doesn't matter what you believe if you ultimately act like an asshole.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> *sigh* You want to know the truth? The truth is Fallow uses the forum now to troll people on the right wing who are from America. HE TOLD ME ON DISCORD. (Or something along the lines of that statement.)
> 
> Dude I agree with your viewpoints but I dislike your subtle hatred towards Americans. I am no longer defending you anymore as it would be smarter for you to leave this forum for stirring up crap. (Besides I have been ignoring the drama other people on this forum decently enough.)
> Edit: Gee sorry to bring discord into this conversation but crimenny the weather sucks where I live. effecting my mood


Um. I'm American and he's been treating me just fine?


----------



## Troj (Sep 24, 2018)

Carlgon is the quintessential Status Quo Warrior/centrist. By all appearances, he started out as a left-leaning moderate skeptic, and he's devolved to the point where he's actively campaigning for the Angry Old Men Who Yell at Clouds Party. Young Carl would probably want to sock Old Carl in the gob.

If you're constantly freaked out over Antifa and SJWs, but don't even bat an eye at Neo-Nazis running people over with cars or burning down churches, you might be a SQW.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

> Redacted by staff



This thread, is not about other FAF users, Yaka at one point mentioning he used to be a classical liberal does warrant his mention so you can dunk on him for what you think he really is. You can make your point without name dropping him, would appreciate you stop that.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Troj said:


> Carlgon is the quintessential Status Quo Warrior/centrist. By all appearances, he started out as a left-leaning moderate skeptic, and he's devolved to the point where he's actively campaigning for the Angry Old Men Who Yell at Clouds Party. Young Carl would probably want to sock Old Carl in the gob.
> 
> If you're constantly freaked out over Antifa and SJWs, but don't even bat an eye at Neo-Nazis running people over with cars or burning down churches, you might be a SQW.



Sargon just suffers from unwarranted self importance. He's a joke, and thinks he can play a crucial role in politics and still unironically call people racial slurs. What's more, he really doesn't have much in the way of educational credentials to do what he claims he needs to do. He's the same guy who said he needs to be there to fight the good fight in the 'culture war'. It sound like something I would say to mock the skeptic community. He's just an egotist as far as I am concerned. 



Troj said:


> Basically, if the choice is between keeping things the way they are--even if the current system or way of doing things causes serious problems and/or profound suffering--and embracing change, the status quo warrior will want things to stay the same, mainly because they don't want to be inconvenienced or bothered, and don't want to get their hands dirty.
> 
> So, for example, when given the choice between confronting injustice or unfairness, and pretending it's not there, isn't a problem, or isn't _their_ problem, the SQW-type centrist will inevitably choose the latter.
> 
> The worst Status Quo Warriors will often move conspicuously to the Right as they increasingly try to dig in their heels and keep the world from turning--often while continuing to identify as a liberal, "classical liberal," centrist, or libertarian!



The same happens with the left, you have people who hijack the movement to preach about how all men are pigs, rapists, that all white people are inherently racist. Almost like some excuse to vomit vitriol,  the crazies are always the minority though. It's really not a centrist, liberalist or left thing as much as it is a human thing. Much like how Sargon is using UKIP to spread his own agenda, people will use others parties for selfish reasons, no matter what party it is.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> This thread, is not about other FAF users, Yaka at one point mentioning he used to be a classical liberal does warrant his mention so you can dunk on him for what you think he really is. You can make your point without name dropping him, would appreciate you stop that.


_so it's interesting you didn't want to name names when one user called another a fuckhead, but you can light up ovi for pointing out yakamaru's hypocrisies and falsehoods since it is on-topic to the matter of far-righters dressing themselves up as centrists. _​


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _so it's interesting you didn't want to name names when one user called another a fuckhead, but you can light up ovi for pointing out yakamaru's hypocrisies and falsehoods since it is on-topic to the matter of far-righters dressing themselves up as centrists. _​


He's not part of the conversation, in case you didn't notice. Lmao. What happened between Ramjet and Fallow was a two way street of disrespect. It was hardly any better. But they were both part of the conversation, weren't they? Yaka has nothing to do with it. He's barely even active here anymore, yet people still bring him up like he's still relevant somehow. 

Is the kindling getting a bit cold?


----------



## Dancy (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> He's not part of the conversation, in case you didn't notice. Lmao. What happened between Ramjet and Fallow was a two way street of disrespect. It was hardly any better. But they were both part of the conversation, weren't they? Yaka has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Is the kindling getting a bit cold?


_fallowfox didn't disrespect ramjet. he just pointed out ramjet's inability to produce evidence to support his spurious claims or even review his own evidence. pointing out the flaws in person's arguments isn't disrespecting them. _

_yakamaru was a typical far-right user with bigoted opinions who attempted pass himself off as a centrist. he is, or was, a living example of such a person operating in bad faith. and i doubt he'll be a part of any conversation here since he was banned. _

_and nice try to portray trying to portray my last response as inflammatory when i'm just stating fact._​


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _fallowfox didn't disrespect ramjet. he just pointed out ramjet's inability to produce evidence to support his spurious claims or even review his own evidence. pointing out the flaws in person's arguments isn't disrespecting them. _
> 
> _yakamaru was a typical far-right user with bigoted opinions who attempted pass himself off as a centrist. he is, or was, a living example of such a person operating in bad faith. and i doubt he'll be a part of any conversation here since he was banned. _
> 
> _and nice try to portray trying to portray my last response as inflammatory when i'm just stating fact._​



He repeatedly told him he didn't read his own article that he sent to him, and in his tone, yeah I would see it as a little patronizing, Ramjet openly insulting him wasn't in good faith either. Nor was the whole thing about Banning Islam ok, or the response to that. This thread is about centrism for god's sake. It's not meant to be an intense debate thread, but of course, that's what happened, and as usual, people can't practice restraint.
Also if Yaka is truly banned, why does he need to be mentioned? Who cares? He's not relevant to the conversation. I asked people what centrism meant to them, not say. Hey tell me all about the people who used to frequent the forums who masqueraded as a centrist to express extreme views! Let's gossip!  That was not the point of the thread and furthermore, I asked people to keep their insults and accusations out of it.

But it's always a case of shouting in the wind, isn't it?

It went from two people debating each other throwing shit at each other to users involving people who aren't even a part of the conversation into this. It escalated, as it always does, on a thread that wasn't even intended to be a debate thread, in what can only be described as utter irony. We can stop talking about Yaka now, yeah he had quite a few views I found incredibly distasteful, but he's not here now, so I would love if we could stop talking about him and actually focus on the topic, without the usual animosity that pops up over particular users. Just ends up perpetuating pointless drama.

So I'll just ask nicely. Can we all just hold our tongues? Or are we all just going to devolve back into the Us vs Them thing again? I'd like to get back to more genuine interest in the thread, as users like Tacoma and BattleChili were willing to contribute, but it seems we still got pages of political warfare to wade trough.

Was all fine when I was lamenting Ramjet's comments and how the situation escalated, but now that my arbitration isn't firmly on your side, it's suddenly an issue.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> He's not part of the conversation, in case you didn't notice. Lmao. What happened between Ramjet and Fallow was a two way street of disrespect. It was hardly any better. But they were both part of the conversation, weren't they? Yaka has nothing to do with it. He's barely even active here anymore, yet people still bring him up like he's still relevant somehow.
> 
> Is the kindling getting a bit cold?


You know for someone who tells people to behave better you sure like to throw little th8ngs into your posts to be an ass.



KimberVaile said:


> This thread, is not about other FAF users, Yaka at one point mentioning he used to be a classical liberal does warrant his mention so you can dunk on him for what you think he really is. You can make your point without name dropping him, would appreciate you stop that.


Oh shut up Kimber. You'll defend that guy to the end of days. I was responding to the guy talking about a so called classical liberal and I was mentioning the only other time I heard that bullshit. Why should we be talking about Sargon but Yaka is untouchable? The guy is an integral part to my "point" because apparently beinga  classical liberal means being a piece of shit. Excuse my language but you jumping on other people for saying things you don't like but then telling other people to behave is getting pretty damn annoying.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> He repeatedly told him he didn't read his own article that he sent to him, and in his tone, yeah I would see it as a little patronizing, Ramjet openly insulting him wasn't in good faith either. Nor was the whole thing about Banning Islam ok, or the response to that. This thread is about centrism for god's sake. It's not meant to be an intense debate thread, but of course, that's what happened, and as usual, people can't practice restraint.
> Also if Yaka is truly banned, why does he need to be mentioned? Who cares? He's not relevant to the conversation. I asked people what centrism meant to them, not say. Hey tell me all about the people who used to frequent the forums who masqueraded as a centrist to express extreme views! Let's gossip!  That was not the point of the thread and furthermore, I asked people to keep their insults and accusations out of it.
> 
> But it's always a case of shouting in the wind, isn't it?
> ...


Kimver in your original post you talked about people who were hiding behind the term centrist so we are mentioning people who we know are the same. Just because you don't like who we call out doesn't mean you can throw a hissy fit and call us names.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> You know for someone who tells people to behave better you sure like to throw little th8ngs into your posts to be an ass.
> 
> 
> Oh shut up Kimber. You'll defend that guy to the end of days. I was responding to the guy talking about a so called classical liberal and I was mentioning the only other time I heard that bullshit. Why should we be talking about Sargon but Yaka is untouchable? The guy is an integral part to my "point" because apparently beinga  classical liberal means being a piece of shit. Excuse my language but you jumping on other people for saying things you don't like but then telling other people to behave is getting pretty damn annoying.



Because I'm tired of hearing about Yaka, every single political thread he comes up, and I don't care. I don't want your god forsaken user gossip, keep it out of my thread. Also, here's a hot tip for you. Now, I don't know if you noticed, I mean, I could have easily missed it myself, but Sargon of Akkad has a YouTube channel with 850 thousand subscribers. I know, easy thing to miss right?! I would have never guessed Sargon had a YT channel that had 850k subs, and would qualify as a public figure. Could have eluded anybody.

So, railing on about somebody who, I dunno, was a part of the forums and incredibly involved in them, and putting somebody like that on the same pedestal as somebody like Sargon. Seems to be a bit of a contrast, doesn't it?
Your personal issues with Yaka don't interest me and don't belong here.

You know what's annoying? You going in every thread I make and using it as your own personal toilet for all the seething rage you have for the person of the week you decided on a whim has crossed you.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Kimver in your original post you talked about people who were hiding behind the term centrist so we are mentioning people who we know are the same. Just because you don't like who we call out doesn't mean you can throw a hissy fit and call us names.


Might want to look in a mirror, I expressed a general exasperation with the attitudes in this thread, insulted nobody. You're still doing you, on the other hand.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Because I'm tired of hearing about Yaka, every single political thread he comes up, and I don't care. I don't want your god forsaken user gossip, keep it out of my thread. Also, here's a hot tip for you. Know, I don't know if you noticed, I mean, I could have easily missed it myself, but Sargon of Akkad has a YouTube channel with 850 thousand subscribers. I know, easy thing to miss right?! I would have never guessed Sargon had a YT channel that had 850k subs, and would qualify as a public figure. Could have eluded anybody.
> 
> So, railing on about somebody who, I dunno, was a part of the forums and incredibly involved in the forums, and putting somebody like that on the same pedestal as somebody like Sargon. Seems to be a bit of a contrast, doesn't it?
> Your personal issues with Yaka don't interest me and don't belong here.
> ...


Anyone with bad opinions is just as bad as the next. I don't care if you're popular or not. Plus do you prefer personal experiences or just hearing shit about some "famous" person on the internet? It's not "personal issues". The whple damn thread is about centrists and on a side note about those who jide under the term. Yaka is one of those people like it or not. If you don't want to hear people's opinions om things then maybe you shouldn't start a political thread.



KimberVaile said:


> Might want to look in a mirror, I expressed a general exasperation with the attitudes in this thread, insulted nobody. You're still doing you, on the other hand.


Always everyone else. Never you I see.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> He repeatedly told him he didn't read his own article that he sent to him, and in his tone, yeah I would see it as a little patronizing, Ramjet openly insulting him wasn't in good faith either.


_fallowfox criticizing ramjet repeatedly for not reading articles posted to bolster his arguments isn't patronizing; it's accurate. if ramjet wants to debate on a political thread yet another political thread you started but can't be bothered to do basic research before posting, that is worthy criticism. ramjet called fallowfox a fuckhead. that's a clear insult. however, i see you bending over backwards to portray fallowfox as  something he is not and i'm calling you out on it._


KimberVaile said:


> Nor was the whole thing about Banning Islam ok, or the response to that.


_besides the fact that someone musing about banning islam is clear indicative of them NOT being a centrist, proposing to ban people on the basis of their religion is clearly bigoted behavior, however much you try to downplay it as compromise._


KimberVaile said:


> It's not meant to be an intense debate thread, but of course, that's what happened, and as usual, people can't practice restraint.


_this is rich, coming from you. you have a history of starting dumpster fire threads that YOU like act patronizing on and selectively criticize users on. you started the "Political Exercise Thread" where users openly mused about lovely topics such as whether genocide justified if it yields politically acceptable results, if homophobic exclusionary policies are tolerable, and are transgendered people mentally disabled for wanting to be another gender. there was no criticism from you of them, but you found the time to chastise users who were correcting them for being "impolite"._

_forums.furaffinity.net: Political exercise Thread_

_my favorite thread of yours was the thread you made for me and resolutionblaze to duke it out after i called him out on his interesting views about nazis and zooaphilia. i didn't take that bait, but the thread backfired on you because your dirty laundry came out on it, like how you were banned on discord, which i can't imagine how you managed that. not to put ovi on the spot, but i'd bet dollars to donuts was over some unsavory views you had. so i hate to break it to you, but you shouldn't be putting that halo on your head just yet._

_also, i like the false equivalency you set up the in op. all alt-furries belong to a hate group and are therefore trash. you wouldn't say not at all alt-righters are horrible people. the same goes for alt-furries. end of story._

_forums.furaffinity.net: Ideological Warfare_


KimberVaile said:


> Also if Yaka is truly banned, why does he need to be mentioned? Who cares?


_yakamaru matters in this discussion because he is a local example of kind of bad-faith "centrist" several users here have mentioned. we're not gleefully gossiping about yakamaru, resolutionblaze, and oblique lynx being banned. we're discussing how those users are examples on this forum of those with far-right views co-opting the mantle of centrism to soft-peddle normally objectionable views. that makes him relevant to the discussion. 
see that._​


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Anyone with bad opinions is just as bad as the next. I don't care if you're popular or not. Plus do you prefer personal experiences or just hearing shit about some "famous" person on the internet? It's not "personal issues". The whple damn thread is about centrists and on a side note about those who jide under the term. Yaka is one of those people like it or not. If you don't want to hear people's opinions om things then maybe you shouldn't start a political thread.
> 
> 
> Always everyone else. Never you I see.



You're aware there is legal legislation that protects the criticism of public figures? It's an accepted part of culture and of legal legislation that public figures are fair game. It is nowhere even near comparable to honing in on a member of the forums and selectively insulting them when they are not even present in the conversation, or banned. especially because it's PERSONAL drama. And personal drama only perpetuates more of it. it's not only shitty etiquette, it only encourages more drama.
Well, Ovi, every time you showed up to my thread, you were always the first to cast stones.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> You're aware there is legal legislation that protects the criticism of public figures? It's an accepted part of culture and of legal legislation that public figures are fair game. It is nowhere even near comparable to honing in on a member of the forums and selectively insulting them when they are not even present in the conversation, or banned. especially because it's PERSONAL drama. And personal drama only perpetuates more of it. it's not only shitty etiquette, it only encourages more drama.
> Well, Ovi, every time you showed up to my thread, you were always the first to cast stones.


_for the reasons stated above, it clearly goes beyond personal drama. _​


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> You're aware there is legal legislation that protects the criticism of public figures? It's an accepted part of culture and of legal legislation that public figures are fair game. It is nowhere even near comparable to honing in on a member of the forums and selectively insulting them when they are not even present in the conversation, or banned. especially because it's PERSONAL drama. And personal drama only perpetuates more of it. it's not only shitty etiquette, it only encourages more drama.
> Well, Ovi, every time you showed up to my thread, you were always the first to cast stones.


You must have tunnel vision on me for some reason. And it's not personal drama. This shit happened here on the forums.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _fallowfox criticizing ramjet repeatedly for not reading articles posted to bolster his arguments isn't patronizing; it's accurate. if ramjet wants to debate on a political thread yet another political thread you started but can't be bothered to do basic research before posting, that is worthy criticism. ramjet called fallowfox a fuckhead. that's a clear insult. however, i see you bending over backwards to portray fallowfox as  something he is not and i'm calling you out on it._​
> _besides the fact that someone musing about banning islam is clear indicative of them NOT being a centrist, proposing to ban people on the basis of their religion is clearly bigoted behavior, however much you try to downplay it as compromise._​
> _this is rich, coming from you. you have a history of starting dumpster fire threads that YOU like act patronizing on and selectively criticize users on. you started the "Political Exercise Thread" where users openly mused about lovely topics such as whether genocide justified if it yields politically acceptable results, if homophobic exclusionary policies are tolerable, and are transgendered people mentally disabled for wanting to be another gender. there was no criticism from you of them, but you found the time to chastise users who correcting them for being "impolite"._
> 
> ...



I'm saying they are both at fault, and it seems the idea seems to offend you that he was patronizing. He was, he could have been more polite about asking him to read his source, yes. I'm not going to bend over backwards and praise him as blameless, sorry.

I know you can barely stand to come to terms with it, but yes, this is a two sided affair, it always is. If somebody expresses a distressful views, it is your choice as to how you want to respond to it. You can choose to be the one that let's it go, or you you can react just as poorly and in turn sink the whole thread.

It's hilarious you are even criticizing me for my past threads, were you, without fail swoop in and cheer-lead for your designated side with about as much impartiality as a Fox News. Got to purge all that wrong think, right?
I've stated before I don't care about ego, or opposing views, I seek to understand my opposition, where as, you would prefer to flail your arms and deem them hellspawns. I made my political threads to understand the opposing side's respective views, though such an foreign motivation would perhaps be seen as unacceptable to you I'm sure. What's ironic is you jumped into my political exercise thread guns blazing and throwing everybody who wasn't your side under the bus. Fond memories indeed.

I don't start dumpster fires, I put measures in place to keep a civil discussion. In fact, they stay civil until _particular_ people show up. Funny that.

That's cute, you dragging up something Ovi said to shame me? How professional. I made a self harm joke by the way, which was against discord's TOS. I don't mind admitting what I did, I learned from it, but apparently doing the act in of itself is wholly reprehensible.

I made that thread for you and Rez to keep your drama out of my thread, I know crazy right? I got sick of you and him airing dirty laundry. You even were on board with the idea, ironically. Whoops!
Alt righters? Yeah, I think most of them are racist, what does that have to do with anything? There aren't any alt righters here? What is your point?

You came with your drama with Rez on my thread without a single fucking apology. You still have yet to apologize for that, and now, now you want to bring up Yaka, and have this drama again? WHY? ENOUGH WITH THE DRAMA.
Stop bringing this shit to my threads, I don't CARE.

I want meaningful discussions, not whatever issue of the week you had with Yaka that you decided you wanted to talk about. I thought if I could make a less political thread I could get back to having more genuine discussions. If you really wanted genuine discussion, you'd leave the name out, and everything would have been fine. You could have even said all the things you wanted about him, you didn't even have to say his name.   But no, you won't let it happen, you have to hold this thread hostage, so you can talk about a user who isn't even here anymore and case some whirlwind of drama. Go ahead, kill the thread, your issues with Yaka matter way more than the discussion I wanted to have.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I'm saying they are both at fault, and it seems the idea seems to offend you that he was patronizing. He was, he could have been more polite about asking him to read his source, yes. I'm not going to bend over backwards and praise him as blameless, sorry.
> 
> I know you can barely stand to come to terms with it, but yes, this is a two sided affair, it always is. If somebody expresses a distressful views, it is your choice as to how you want to respond to it. You can choose to be the one that let's it go, or you you can react just as poorly and in turn sink the whole thread.
> 
> ...


You're the one bringing drama to your thread now. You're the one up in arms about us bringing up a user. We aren't at fault here. We were discussing things about the original post and just because you don't like what we have to say doesn't mean you can throw a hissy fit like this.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> You're the one bringing drama to your thread now. You're the one up in arms about us bringing up a user. We aren't at fault here. We were discussing things about the original post and just because you don't like what we have to say doesn't mean you can throw a hissy fit like this.



No, that's on you and other particular people who show up in my threads and disobey simple requests in the OP (no insults and accusations). Going on and on about somebody like Yaka who interacted with alot of people here, will inevitably lead to a division, which will create drama. I tried my damndest to try and stop to it, but nope, I can't enjoy my thread. It has to be the Yaka thread. I'm done trying to stop the train from going off the rails, do what you want.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I'm saying they are both at fault, and it seems the idea seems to offend you that he was patronizing. He was, he could have been more polite about asking him to read his source, yes. I'm not going to bend over backwards and praise him as blameless, sorry.
> 
> I know you can barely stand to come to terms with it, but yes, this is a two sided affair, it always is. If somebody expresses a distressful views, it is your choice as to how you want to respond to it. You can choose to be the one that let's it go, or you you can react just as poorly and in turn sink the whole thread.


_fallowfox merely pointed out ramjet was debating unprepared and in bad faith. he keep his criticism respectful and didn't resort to profane insults. the blame squarely falls on ramjet's shoulders, but you seem to be interested in pushing a false equivalency here. _​


KimberVaile said:


> It's hilarious you are even criticizing me for my past threads, were you, without fail swoop in and cheer-lead for your designated side with about as much impartiality as a Fox News. Got to purge all that wrong think, right?
> I've stated before I don't care about ego, or opposing views, I seek to understand my opposition, where as, you would prefer to flail your arms and deem them hellspawns. I made my political threads to understand the opposing side's respective views, though such an foreign motivation would perhaps be lost on you. What;s ironic is you jumped into my political exercise thread guns blazing and throwing everybody who wasn't your side under the bus. Fond memories indeed.


_look at what i and others have been arguing against, especially on the "political exercise thread". we were addressing bigoted views that most of society has agreed are wrong or "wrong think" as you cavalierly term such views. i come solidly on the side of those oppose racism, genocide, homophobia, transphobia, and islamophobia every single time, as do decent people. it is not hard to see why the other side on these issues is wrong. but i wonder why you have trouble see that ..._​


KimberVaile said:


> That's cute, you dragging up something Ovi said to shame me? How professional. I made a self harm joke by the way, which was against discord's TOS. I don't mind admitting what I did, I learned from it, but apparently doing the act in of itself is wholly reprehensible.


_total aside here, self-harm jokes are sickening and it's against the discord terms of service probably because the staff has a sense of decency. i brought this up because it is indicative that you are no moral authority here. _​


KimberVaile said:


> I made that thread for you and Rez to keep your drama out of my thread, I know crazy right? I got sick of you and him airing your dirty laundry. You even were on board with the idea, ironically. Whoops!


_rez and nexus, who you swooped in to defend when he was spreading bullshit about me, were trying to revise recent history in the alt-fur thread, where they both had some interesting views on hate speech. i was just setting them with other users. and i never agreed to engage in a cage-fight thread with rez. i agreed to leave the political exercise thread, so nice try, bro. you're the dumpster fire arsonist, not me. _​


KimberVaile said:


> There aren't any alt righters here?


uhm ... yak and rez admitted to joining alt-furry. they also regularly defended alt-right talking points, especially when it came to hate speech.


KimberVaile said:


> You still have yet to apologize for that, and now, now you want to bring up Yaka, and have this drama again?


_proton decay will happen before you get that from me, my dude. _
_besides, i've got nothing to apologize for._​


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> This is all everyone else's fault. I can do wrong. I am lord Kimber.


Okie


----------



## Moar Krabs (Sep 25, 2018)

I feel like i'm the only person here who doesn't know what centrism is.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _fallowfox merely pointed out ramjet was debating unprepared and in bad faith. he keep his criticism respectful and didn't resort to profane insults. the blame squarely falls on ramjet's shoulders, but you seem to be interested in pushing a false equivalency here. _​
> _look at what i and others have been arguing against, especially on the "political exercise thread". we were addressing bigoted views that most of society has agreed are wrong or "wrong think" as you cavalierly term such views. i come solidly on the side of those oppose racism, genocide, homophobia, transphobia, and islamophobia every single time, as do decent people. it is not hard to see why the other side on these issues is wrong. but i wonder why you have trouble see that ..._​
> _total aside here, self-harm jokes are sickening and it's against the discord terms of service probably because the staff has a sense of decency. i brought this up because it is indicative that you are no moral authority here. _​
> _rez and nexus, who you swooped in to defend when he was spreading bullshit about me, were trying to revise recent history in the alt-fur thread, where they both had some interesting views on hate speech. i was just setting them with other users. and i never agreed to engage in a cage-fight thread with rez. i agreed to leave the political exercise thread, so nice try, bro. you're the dumpster fire arsonist, not me. _​
> ...



Once again, he was very patronizing about it, Ramjet didn't suddenly snap, he was treated like a child, so no it's not a false equivalency here. Neither of us will budge, so sure, agree to disagree.

My issue is you judge before you even have all the information. I give benefits of the doubt, I don't automatically assume somebody is racist or homophobic because it offends me. Case and point, my interactions with KMK. I made certain he was homophobic before I laid into him, in fact he was banned because I let him out himself as a homophone because of the questions I asked. I like to hear people out, really. As opposed to everybody else who seems to want to jump the gun based on the first opinion that they find objectionable.

Yes, I need a moral lecture from the person who got into a 3 page insult match on my last thread. Lol.

1. I went to bat for Nexus, not Rez. 2. You blatantly disregarded my thread rules so you can fight it out with Rez. It got bad enough that I made a thread for you to keep it out of, again, you were on board with it, you said it verbatim, but personal accountability is hard, I know. Funny thing is, I wouldn't have had to do that if you'd have followed the Op's rules and stayed civil, but of course that isn't the case with you.

Rez and Yaka are not my concern. If you want to talk shit about them, make a thread about it, but this thread isn't for that. It's for genuine discussion.

I know you won't apologize, you're proud of causing dumpster fires. This thread is just one of many you have in your sights to utterly ruin.


----------



## Moar Krabs (Sep 25, 2018)

I just searched i up and now i know what it is. I guess its alright.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> You disagree with me, you are the scum of the earth!



A tale for the ages.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Moar Krabs said:


> I just searched i up and now i know what it is. I guess its alright.


Don't bother with this thread, it's been hijacked.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> My issue is you judge before you even have all the information. I give benefits of the doubt, I don't automatically assume somebody is racist or homophobic because it offends me. Case and point, my interactions with KMK. I made certain he was homophobic before I laid into him, in fact he was banned because I let him out himself as a homophone because of the questions I asked. I like to hear people out, really. As opposed to everybody else who seems to want to jump the gun based on the first opinion that they find objectionable.


_i and others generally address the opinions rather than their holders and we do so with facts and figures. i don't assume people are bigoted right off the bat, but if you're arguing that it isn't morally reprehensible for homosexuals to be excluded from society and that transgendered people are mentally ill, then it isn't unreasonable to draw that conclusion. furthermore, i'm going to hazard a guess and said kmk wasn't your friend like yakamaru is, so you would no compunction throw him under the bus. _​


KimberVaile said:


> Yes, I need a moral lecture from the person who got into a 3 page insult match on my last thread. Lol.


_would you mind producing these insults, friendo?_​


KimberVaile said:


> 1. I went to bat for Nexus, not Rez.


_you went to bat for nexus, who broke your rules first by slandering me. he failed to get a call out from you, however. _​


KimberVaile said:


> I know you won't apologize, you're proud of causing dumpster fires. This thread is just one of many you have in your sights to utterly ruin.


_i haven't caused any dumpster fires. you are one creating contentious threads and falsely accusing people on them. your threads also serve as a medium for certain users to push hateful views and propaganda like yakamaru, resolutionblaze, oblique lynx, and roose hurro did in the political exercise thread. it's worth noting those users have been banned now. but i'll leave yakamaru and resolutionblaze out of this now. _
_if i comment again, i won't mention them. _
_if you can drop this, i will._​


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Don't bother with this thread, it's been hijacked.


Right. Hijacked. We mentioned Yaka and then you threw a hissy fit.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _i and others generally address the opinions rather than their holders and we do so with facts and figures. i don't assume people are bigoted right off the bat, but if you're arguing that it isn't morally reprehensible for homosexuals to be excluded from society and that transgendered people are mentally ill, then it isn't unreasonable to draw that conclusion. furthermore, i'm going to hazard a guess and said kmk wasn't your friend like yakamaru is, so you would no compunction throw him under the bus. _​
> _would you mind producing these insults, friendo?_​
> _you went to bat for nexus, who broke your rules first by slandering me. he failed to get a call out from you, however. _​
> _i haven't caused any dumpster fires. you are one creating contentious threads and falsely accusing people on them. your threads also serve as a medium for certain users to push hateful views and propaganda like yakamaru, resolutionblaze, oblique lynx, and roose hurro did in the political exercise thread. it's worth noting those users have been banned now. but i'll leave yakamaru and resolutionblaze out of this now. _
> ...



I don't feel like KMK and Yaka are the on the same level that's why I don't consider them the same. I don't feel like Yaka is legitimately homophobic? By all means, you can dm what you think makes him homophobic if you like. Often times though I find people more misguided, rather than outright homophobic or racist.

Sure, you can start here, and if you can't see why what you said is insulting or rude, then there is no point continuing this particular topic.

forums.furaffinity.net: Political exercise Thread

I called him out later, but yes, I am at fault there, I should have told him it was not appropriate immediately. Though, he was rightly pointing out that Shadow came in looking to start a fight over nothing. Over something I said a month ago that had nothing to do with the topic. The fact that I still have to deal with stuff like that in a thread I try to keep civil is frustrating, but yes, I am in the wrong for that particular remark. Though, your response was the definition of disproportionate retribution. It was nothing short of a massive drama drive by shooting.

I genuinely want good, clean informative discussion, I do not want anything to do with inter user disagreements. I am aware that the topic of my threads attract certain people, but I've tried damn hard to keep it clean. I want thoughtful discussion, I just don't want the drama or ego. The name and shame stuff, I don't want that. Yes I would like to drop this.

If you can respect that, then we have no further issues.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Right. Hijacked. We mentioned Yaka and then you threw a hissy fit.


If you want so badly to talk about Yaka, make your own thread, and keep it out of here. You knew what you were doing, Ovi. Aside from which, I politely asked you to stop, then suddenly you two jumped on me for it, so if anybody overreacted, you should first look at yourself.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 25, 2018)

If there's any conclusion about what 'centrism' is, might it be that it's 'not a big enough town for the all of yous' ?

While there are honestly some centrists who simply are people with mixed left and right opinions,
there are others who hold very few left wing views, but simply happen to believe in science- and perceive belief in science as 'left wing'.
There are also centrists who are actually far-right, and using centrism as a form of camouflage to divorce themselves from that toxic label.

The thought of all those people potentially mixing together is a little worrying, because it presents a scenario where people who are politically naive may find themselves incorporating extreme ideas into their belief systems, or becoming convinced that scientific reality is a partisan political question.

...so maybe what we can conclude is that all of these different people need different labels?
A person who has a combination of left and right wing ideological sympathies is 'mixed'.
Somebody who accepts science is a 'scientific realist'.
And somebody who is far right is a 'butthole'.

Good enough?


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> If you want so badly to talk about Yaka, make your own thread, and keep it out of here. You knew what you were doing, Ovi. Aside from which, I politely asked you to stop, then suddenly you two jumped on me for it, so if anybody overreacted, you should first look at yourself.


I was _responding_ to a post about "classical liberals" about who and why I think it's a lot of hogwash. Screw off with this bullshit about trying to find whatever you can to get pissy at me.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> I was _responding_ to a post about "classical liberals" about who and why I think it's a lot of hogwash. Screw off with this bullshit about trying to find whatever you can to get pissy at me.


I politely asked you to keep Yaka's name out of it, and you threw a fit. Maybe you should conduct yourself a little better. 
I even told you I wouldn't have minded the things you said if you took out his name. Funny that.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I politely asked you to keep Yaka's name out of it, and you threw a fit. Maybe you should conduct yourself a little better.
> I even told you I wouldn't have minded the things you said if you took out his name. Funny that.


Good lord. Anyone who reads this will see you were the one who freaked out. There was nothing polite about anything you did.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Good lord. Anyone who reads this will see you were the one who freaked out. There was nothing polite about anything you did.



I reacted to utterly asinine and disrespectful attitudes. People are going to see  what I'd call the Ovi effect. The magical ability to destroy threads single handedly.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I reacted to utterly asinine and disrespectful attitudes. People are going to see  what I'd call the Ovi effect. The magical ability to destroy threads single handedly.


You know how you called Fallow patronizing? Might wanna make sure you aren't just projecting.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> You know how you called Fallow patronizing? Might wanna make sure you aren't just projecting.


It's because you always get combative in these threads. They could have been pleasant exchanges otherwise. There's little patronizing over bringing attention to this tendency.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> It's because you always get combative in these threads. They could have been pleasant exchanges otherwise. There's little patronizing over bringing attention to this tendency.


Did you completely miss where I was getting along just fine in this thread until you screeched at me for saying the name Yaka?


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Did you completely miss where I was getting along just fine in this thread until you screeched at me for saying the name Yaka?


You called somebody "thick skulled" before that. Granted, his viewpoint was asinine, and a bit concerning, but the appropriate response is not to start insulting them.

Also, I told you politely to stop mentioning his name, and you subsequently freak out about it and went on a rather long tirade. You can imagine I was a bit annoyed that you took a reasonable suggestion and told me to shut up and let you have your soapbox.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> You called somebody "thick skulled" before that. Granted, his viewpoint was asinine, and a bit concerning, but the appropriate response is not to start insulting them.
> 
> Also, I told you politely to stop mentioning his name, and you subsequently freak out about it and went on a rather long tirade. You can imagine I was a bit annoyed that you took a reasonable suggestion and told me to shut up and let you have your soapbox.


Oh god no I called someone thick skulled. You've called people way worse. And nah I didn't freak out. You made one of the longest post in history to respond to me and danci.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Oh god no I called someone thick skulled. You've called people way worse. And nah I didn't freak out. You made one of the longest post in history to respond to me and danci.



I don't outright insult people in what is supposed to be a civil debate, I'm a little snarky in situations like this though, sure. You can keep playing off your awful etiquette as harmless though. Doesn't escalate things at all, nope.

I'm freaking out by countering yours and Danci's posts? I'm just tired of the name and shame being associated with threads that are hardly even political. My responses were long, because yours and Danci's were. Bizarre concept to consider, I know.
Your the one who told me to shut up and let you have your soapbox, after all. How dare I put my foot down.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I don't outright insult people in what is supposed to be a civil debate, I'm a little snarky in situations like this though, sure. You can keep playing off your awful etiquette as harmless though. Doesn't escalate things at all, nope.
> 
> I'm freaking out by countering yours and Danci's posts? I'm just tired of the name and shame being associated with threads that are hardly even political. My responses were long, because yours and Danci's were. Bizarre concept to consider, I know.
> Your the one who told me to shut up and let you have your soapbox, after all. How dare I put my foot down.


This is a political thread. What the hell were you expecting? And I don't respect alt-righters. That's just simply how I am. They don't deserve it. Call it horrible all you like but I was not "rude" until I saw rhe guys true colors.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> This is a political thread. What the hell were you expecting? And I don't respect alt-righters. That's just simply how I am. They don't deserve it. Call it horrible all you like but I was not "rude" until I saw rhe guys true colors.



Report and move on.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> This is a political thread. What the hell were you expecting? And I don't respect alt-righters. That's just simply how I am. They don't deserve it. Call it horrible all you like but I was not "rude" until I saw rhe guys true colors.



Also, this was intended as a thread for American centrists, and how they see themselves and what exactly they believed in. I actually quite enjoyed getting everybody's honest perspective. Battlechili, Tacoma, Filter and many others provided very genuine and interesting feedback. There was no anger and disfranchisement behind their words. Just an honest intention to share their perspective. Exactly what I was going for. While I appreciate debates, past experience has shown me they are too difficult to keep civil on this site, so I wanted to get away from those on this thread. Even so, debates have found their way to the thread, despite me not explicitly looking for them this time around. I wasn't too surprised. but certainly disappointed.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 25, 2018)

I thought that after these users bans, the forums would have calmed down and people would have been more comfortable, but somehow this place has gotten even worse since they all left. Whether you are defending them or condemning them, it's all people have seemed to talk about in every single debate thread. It's getting old really fast, and it's going to just get even worse if you all keep doing this.

Fallow gave me some advice on learning from my past mistakes and moving on. I think you all should just move on as well.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Also, this was intended as a thread for American centrists, and how they see themselves and what exactly they believed in. I actually quite enjoyed getting everybody's honest perspective. Battlechili, Tacoma, Filter and many others provided very genuine and interesting feedback. There was no anger and disfranchisement behind their words. Just an honest intention to share their perspective. Exactly what I was going for. While I appreciate debates, past experience has shown me they are too difficult to keep civil on this site, so I wanted to get away from those on this thread. Even so, debates have found their way to the thread, despite me not explicitly looking for them this time around. I wasn't too surprised. but certainly disappointed.


It's a forum. You can't control people's actions. And this is political. That's the easiest way to start a debate is to bring up politics. How you don't see this coming every single time is beyond me.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> It's a forum. You can't control people's actions. And this is political. That's the easiest way to start a debate is to bring up politics. How you don't see this coming every single time is beyond me.


Reread my last post.
I knew it'd happen, hence the precautions in the OP. My last thread was made specifically for well mannered debate. This thread was directed at American centrists, and how they saw themselves, it was lot more removed from current political issues, and more focused on centrism and how people who describe themselves as centrists would describe themselves. I knew there'd be some debate, it doesn't change my disappointment.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi, I honestly have to agree with KimberVaile. With the amount of time you've dedicated in this thread to attacking a non-participant because of views they espoused elsewhere, I'm not convinced that you don't secretly have a crush on that person and are having difficulty expressing it.

If that is the hill you want to die on, that's your call. However, KimberVaile asked for us to keep discourse in this thread as civil as humanly possible, preferably without derailing the conversation by resorting to ad hominems.


----------



## Troj (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Sargon just suffers from unwarranted self importance. He's a joke, and thinks he can play a crucial role in politics and still unironically call people racial slurs. What's more, he really doesn't have much in the way of educational credentials to do what he claims he needs to do. He's the same guy who said he needs to be there to fight the good fight in the 'culture war'. It sound like something I would say to mock the skeptic community. He's just an egotist as far as I am concerned.



Wholeheartedly agreed. Fundamentally, he's a small fish in a big pond, and I think part of him knows that, but none of him wants to confront it.

This also means that he can never apologize and never back down, because his ego wouldn't allow it.



KimberVaile said:


> The same happens with the left, you have people who hijack the movement to preach about how all men are pigs, rapists, that all white people are inherently racist. Almost like some excuse to vomit vitriol, the crazies are always the minority though. It's really not a centrist, liberalist or left thing as much as it is a human thing. Much like how Sargon is using UKIP to spread his own agenda, people will use others parties for selfish reasons, no matter what party it is.



Yup, true. That's the more traditional type of SJW that we're all used to. (Which is why I don't like to focus on SJWs as much anymore---they're played-out, all-purpose scapegoat villains by now, and people often use them to ignore or disregard other and/or bigger problems.)

All of these behaviors and impulses come from a common human place, and aren't limited to just a single group, tribe, or faction.


----------



## Jarren (Sep 25, 2018)

Used to be a fan of Sargon until he kinda veered off the deep end... :/


----------



## Troj (Sep 25, 2018)

I used to be a fan of a lot of people in the Youtube "skeptic" community until "skeptic" became code for "constantly wigging out about SJWs at the exclusion of everything else."


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 25, 2018)

Apoc-Volkov said:


> Ovi, I honestly have to agree with KimberVaile. With the amount of time you've dedicated in this thread to attacking a non-participant because of views they espoused elsewhere, I'm not convinced that you don't secretly have a crush on that person and are having difficulty expressing it.
> 
> If that is the hill you want to die on, that's your call. However, KimberVaile asked for us to keep discourse in this thread as civil as humanly possible, preferably without derailing the conversation by resorting to ad hominems.


Riiiiight. Whatever you say. How dare I have experiences that have helped me form opinions and I can't believe I have the audacity to talk about it on a thread. I must be such a terrible person for saying someone's name. Everyone maybe we should stop talking about Sargon. Or at least using his name because it's rude to call him out like that.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Riiiiight. Whatever you say. How dare I have experiences that have helped me form opinions and I can't believe I have the audacity to talk about it on a thread. I must be such a terrible person for saying someone's name. Everyone maybe we should stop talking about Sargon. Or at least using his name because it's rude to call him out like that.



Yeah, cause shaming somebody who used the forum is totally the same as criticizing a public figure, (which is something the law itself supports btw), but how dare I expect civility of you! No, you keep saying whatever you want, it's totally fine, doesn't have an effect on anybody else, not at all. This thread is your personal bathroom, defecate wherever you please.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 25, 2018)

The public reputation of banned users isn't so important that it's worth being upset that people are criticising them for the posts that got them banned, tbh.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> The public reputation of banned users isn't so important that it's worth being upset that people are criticising them for the posts that got them banned, tbh.


It causes needless drama, and I'm tired of hearing about it. This thread is not the "users I really want to shit talk" thread. Aside from that, it's against TOS.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> It causes needless drama, and I'm tired of hearing about it. This thread is not the "users I really want to shit talk thread".



Well, I can appreciate that but we've been off the deepend here_ long _before people brought up the fact that some of the banned users identified as 'classic liberals'. x3

A meaningful comment about labels like classical liberal or centrist was made by bringing this up. 
Which is that these labels are regularly worn by people who want to sanitise the public image of far-right sentiments by pretending that these values are actually liberal in some way, right?


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Well, I can appreciate that but we've been off the deepend here_ long _before people brought up the fact that some of the banned users identified as 'classic liberals'. x3
> 
> A meaningful comment about labels like classical liberal or centrist was made by bringing this up.
> Which is that these labels are regularly worn by people who want to sanitise the public image of far-right sentiments by pretending that these values are actually liberal in some way, right?



They could have brought that up and omitted the name, and it would have been fine. The contribution would have been fine if the name was left out. Leaving out the name and making a valid contribution are not mutually exclusive things.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 25, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> They could have brought that up and omitted the name, and it would have been fine. The contribution would have been fine if the name was left out. Leaving out the name and making a valid contribution are not mutually exclusive things.



I mean. I can be coy and say 'a user who was recently banned was a classical liberal, and they made posts of dubious nature x'. 

But you'll all know who I'm talking about.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 25, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I mean. I can be coy and say 'a user who was recently banned was a classical liberal, and they made posts of dubious nature x'.
> 
> But you'll all know who I'm talking about.


As long as you have a relevant point to make with it I suppose. But this loophole stuff is not respecting my intent to keep drama out.


----------



## Marcl (Sep 25, 2018)

I identify myself as centrist. But that doesn't help anyone at all... From what I see left and right differ from country to country. For example few things associated in USA with the right wing here are left agenda and the other way. So left and right tell me very little.

So centrism is about being in the middle between more outstanding options and being for a combination of policies from all those options. Some people will reach this point because they really like a combination of these agendas, the others will do this because they want to find a middle ground for the rest of the party. The only issue with it is that centre tends to have a very varied point of view. On the other hand, if centre recognises that, it usually starts to put a value into a communication and reaching a point of compromise.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 25, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> A meaningful comment about labels like classical liberal or centrist was made by bringing this up.
> Which is that these labels are regularly worn by people who want to sanitise the public image of far-right sentiments by pretending that these values are actually liberal in some way, right?


_this is what i've been saying, tbh._
_and i was making relevant points._​


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Sep 25, 2018)

I'm a textbook "centrist", (I think).. as I frequently find myself on both sides of the political coin - at varying points and at varying degrees of intensity. Sometimes I skew a bit to the left, and - sometimes I skew a bit to the right, depending on the issue, and the circumstances.

Sometimes that places me in the conservative camp, sometimes in the liberal one, and sometimes, it's neither.

Being a "centrist" means that I can walk on both sides of the political fence, and not have any qualms about it. So.. yeah, I'd say I am.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Sep 25, 2018)

Troj said:


> Basically, if the choice is between keeping things the way they are--even if the current system or way of doing things causes serious problems and/or profound suffering--and embracing change, the status quo warrior will want things to stay the same, mainly because they don't want to be inconvenienced or bothered, and don't want to get their hands dirty.
> 
> So, for example, when given the choice between confronting injustice or unfairness, and pretending it's not there, isn't a problem, or isn't _their_ problem, the SQW-type centrist will inevitably choose the latter.
> 
> The worst Status Quo Warriors will often move conspicuously to the Right as they increasingly try to dig in their heels and keep the world from turning--often while continuing to identify as a liberal, "classical liberal," centrist, or libertarian!


Guest lecturer we had today actually mentioned something related to this, and I think he made a very good point:

Rarely do we ask for arguments to support the decision to keep going the way we "always have been".
But if someone wants to make a change, we immediately want evidence and arguments supporting the change.

This is true even if the status quo is unproven as a method (I study library science, so our status quo is rarely straightforward injustice, however I think the basic principle applies much more widely). It's human nature, or at least standard human behavior, to need more convincing to do something differently, than to keep doing it the same way they've always been.


----------



## Troj (Sep 25, 2018)

As the saying goes, nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM.

Meaning, if you go with the usual expected option, and it goes badly, people are less likely to get angry and criticize you than if you tried something new and different.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 26, 2018)

Edited the OP. I would *really* appreciate you read before posting and respect the requests. Please direct all comments about how horrible I am to the dms, I've debated this on the thread long enough.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 26, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> I'm a textbook "centrist", (I think).. as I frequently find myself on both sides of the political coin - at varying points and at varying degrees of intensity. Sometimes I skew a bit to the left, and - sometimes I skew a bit to the right, depending on the issue, and the circumstances.
> 
> Sometimes that places me in the conservative camp, sometimes in the liberal one, and sometimes, it's neither.
> 
> Being a "centrist" means that I can walk on both sides of the political fence, and not have any qualms about it. So.. yeah, I'd say I am.



I feel similarly, there are times where I am more left leaning, and times were I am more right leaning. There are still some issues in which I am not sure what to think actually.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 26, 2018)

Marcl said:


> I identify myself as centrist. But that doesn't help anyone at all... From what I see left and right differ from country to country. For example few things associated in USA with the right wing here are left agenda and the other way. So left and right tell me very little.
> 
> So centrism is about being in the middle between more outstanding options and being for a combination of policies from all those options. Some people will reach this point because they really like a combination of these agendas, the others will do this because they want to find a middle ground for the rest of the party. The only issue with it is that centre tends to have a very varied point of view. On the other hand, if centre recognises that, it usually starts to put a value into a communication and reaching a point of compromise.



Yeah, that seems to be a common theme, being able to find a compromise between two things. I perhaps should have made it clear I was talking about American centrism in the OP to avoid confusion. In some countries I am aware the Us democratic part is actually more like a right wing party in another country. That I think has alot to do with the strongly religious upbringing of the US. Something only now is being deviated from.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Sep 26, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Yeah, that seems to be a common theme, being able to find a compromise between two things. I perhaps should have made it clear I was talking about American centrism in the OP to avoid confusion. In some countries I am aware the Us democratic part is actually more like a right wing party in another country. That I think has alot to do with the strongly religious upbringing of the US. Something only now is being deviated from.


That would indeed clear a lot of things up. Few nations have political Overton windows that perfectly align.

As a brief aside, of interesting note is a Canadian Liberal MP who recently crossed over to the Conservative Party due to what she felt was a betrayal on the Liberals' part to be the centrists that voters wanted in 2015 (bear in mind that the CPC roughly goes about as far right as the American Democrats).


			
				Leona Alleslev said:
			
		

> The platform that I ran on in 2015 represented a largely centrist political vision. After three years, this government has not delivered the change that Canadians expected. Instead, we have seen the Prime Minister move increasingly to the left and away from the centre.



But of course, this is a topic for another thread.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 26, 2018)

Apoc-Volkov said:


> That would indeed clear a lot of things up. Few nations have political Overton windows that perfectly align.
> 
> As a brief aside, of interesting note is a Canadian Liberal MP who recently crossed over to the Conservative Party due to what she felt was a betrayal on the Liberals' part to be the centrists that voters wanted in 2015 (bear in mind that the CPC roughly goes about as far right as the American Democrats).
> 
> ...



Canada is similar in that it is very much a bipartisan system like the US. Though the policies are very different. Interesting that a party that appeals to centrism in Canada is a dominant party though. I'd have to do a little more research on what each Canadian parties's values are, see what they are about. It's an intriguing situation over there.


----------



## Marcl (Sep 26, 2018)

Apoc-Volkov said:


> That would indeed clear a lot of things up. Few nations have political Overton windows that perfectly align.
> 
> As a brief aside, of interesting note is a Canadian Liberal MP who recently crossed over to the Conservative Party due to what she felt was a betrayal on the Liberals' part to be the centrists that voters wanted in 2015 (bear in mind that the CPC roughly goes about as far right as the American Democrats).
> 
> ...





KimberVaile said:


> Canada is similar in that it is very much a bipartisan system like the US. Though the policies are very different. Interesting that a party that appeals to centrism in Canada is a dominant party though. I'd have to do a little more research on what each Canadian parties's values are, see what they are about. It's an intriguing situation over there.



That's actually interesting. In Poland one of the two major parties is centrist/left-centrist, while the other one is pure right-wing. We used to have left in the parliament, but for years they weren't big and during the last elections they just didn't make it.

So to be clear about my viewpoint - centrism is not about being between the most popular options, but between options that are standing out more, have more defined bundle of agendas. But again, centric options might have as well... they just lay in the middle because they are not that polarized in comparison to the rest.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Sep 26, 2018)

Marcl said:


> That's actually interesting. In Poland one of the two major parties is centrist/left-centrist, while the other one is pure right-wing. We used to have left in the parliament, but for years they weren't big and during the last elections they just didn't make it.
> 
> So to be clear about my viewpoint - centrism is not about being between the most popular options, but between options that are standing out more, have more defined bundle of agendas. But again, centric options might have as well... they just lay in the middle because they are not that polarized in comparison to the rest.


Indeed. It's also worth noting that political parties across regions can potentially cater to a much wider range across the political spectrum than is usually thought of. The Red Tories I mentioned a few pages back, who used to have their own (Progressive Conservative) party before it merged into the CPC, has since become a common battleground between the Liberal and Conservative parties for votes. With the current Liberal government under Trudeau moving left and intruding on the NDP's stamping grounds however, they are at risk of losing their center to the CPC, especially if Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer can spin it into a Progressive Conservative narrative.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Sep 27, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> There are still some issues in which I am not sure what to think actually.


 There's nothing wrong with that at all; in fact, some issues deserve careful consideration and a delicate approach; eventually - a gradation of one's opinion (will ultimately occur), as time drags on and one learns more about things.

Until then - airing on the side of caution, can be a very good way to go.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 27, 2018)

_@Connor J. Coyote said something i could get behind, but in the united states i think it's okay to personally consider yourself a centrist, but pragmatically you're better served by joining a party now. there's been a few attempts at building at centrist movement in the form of the green and libertarian parties and they're not exactly changing the system right now. the better option is to vote for party candidates in primaries who have positions you agree with and support them in the general election. both the democratic and republican parties have candidates running primaries who have wide range of positions on different issues, however some states only allow party members to vote in primaries. not being in a party limits your ability to make your voice heard in these situations. in the current political environment in the united states, you most likely will you share the majority of your positions with one of the two parties. join the party that suits you best. you can also join the mailing list of organizations that focus on the issues you care about and learn how you can apply political pressure with your vote or by contacting your representative._
_this may be work, but it's less work than starting a new movement from scratch._
_don't dilute your vote._​


----------



## Marcl (Sep 27, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _@Connor J. Coyote said something i could get behind, but in the united states i think it's okay to personally consider yourself a centrist, but pragmatically you're better served by joining a party now. there's been a few attempts at building at centrist movement in the form of the green and libertarian parties and they're not exactly changing the system right now. the better option is to vote for party candidates in primaries who have positions you agree with and support them in the general election. both the democratic and republican parties have candidates running primaries who have wide range of positions on different issues, however some states only allow party members to vote in primaries. not being in a party limits your ability to make your voice heard in these situations. in the current political environment in the united states, you most likely will you share the majority of your positions with one of the two parties. join the party that suits you best. you can also join the mailing list of organizations that focus on the issues you care about and learn how you can apply political pressure with your vote or by contacting your representative._
> _this may be work, but it's less work than starting a new movement from scratch._
> _don't dilute your vote._​


"Dilute" your vote as much as you can, that's my advice. I live in a country which transitioned from multiple-party system to practically two-party system. Parliament requires some variety to properly represent the public opinion, just two parties encourages polarisation (but too many, on the other hand, could be chaotic). Voting on smaller parties is a signal that larger parties do not represent the whole society and perhaps should be more considerate. And will be just on a simple notion that the other side might acquire those voters in the future.

And if voting for the other options can break the two-party system, it can only benefit the public discussion. That can create a space for actual strong centrist movements to appear.

Every vote matters. Even the one that does not pass because it represents minority.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 27, 2018)

Marcl said:


> "Dilute" your vote as much as you can, that's my advice. I live in a country which transitioned from multiple-party system to practically two-party system. Parliament requires some variety to properly represent the public opinion, just two parties encourages polarisation (but too many, on the other hand, could be chaotic). Voting on smaller parties is a signal that larger parties do not represent the whole society and perhaps should be more considerate. And will be just on a simple notion that the other side might acquire those voters in the future.
> 
> And if voting for the other options can break the two-party system, it can only benefit the public discussion. That can create a space for actual strong centrist movements to appear.
> 
> Every vote matters. Even the one that does not pass because it represents minority.



Agree, the large amount of independent votes that went to Gary Johnson turned alot of heads in the 2016 election. 3% of the vote is a sizable uptick, and with enough forward momentum could change the two party dynamic in the US. The larger amount of independent votes caught alot of attention in the press too. They knew it was sizable enough to be reckoned with.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 27, 2018)

Marcl said:


> "Dilute" your vote as much as you can, that's my advice. I live in a country which transitioned from multiple-party system to practically two-party system. Parliament requires some variety to properly represent the public opinion, just two parties encourages polarisation (but too many, on the other hand, could be chaotic). Voting on smaller parties is a signal that larger parties do not represent the whole society and perhaps should be more considerate. And will be just on a simple notion that the other side might acquire those voters in the future.
> 
> And if voting for the other options can break the two-party system, it can only benefit the public discussion. That can create a space for actual strong centrist movements to appear.
> 
> Every vote matters. Even the one that does not pass because it represents minority.


_that may work in poland, but can i ask if you think realistically that multiple parties will share power or gain prominence again? probably not, right? furthermore, voting for a smaller party when two party dominate in a binary fashion doesn't really send a message, because both parties have enough clout to flout those who voted for the minor parties. also in any given election, minor parties are unlikely to garner a sizeable amount of breakaway vote. you're better off trying to reform the larger parties by paying attention to the candidates who share your outlook in local elections. you also need to remember that in politics, you don't get everything you want out of the process. there probably won't be a candidate who completely embodies all the positions you believe in and minor parties, especially in the united states, tend to stake out more extreme positions that the larger parties. _​


KimberVaile said:


> Agree, the large amount of independent votes that went to Gary Johnson turned alot of heads in the 2016 election. 3% of the vote is a sizable uptic, and with enough forward momentum could change the two party dynamic in the US.


_most pollsters were mildly surprised, but let's not oversell this. gary johnson did good as a libertarian running for the presidency, but abysmal as candidate running for president. you're not a contender for the white house with 3% of the vote. jill stein wasn't storming the pennsylvania ave gates either. neither the green party or the libertarian party are going to be able to gain enough momentum to be major players._​


----------



## TrishaCat (Sep 27, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Also if Yaka is truly banned, why does he need to be mentioned? Who cares? He's not relevant to the conversation.





Dancy said:


> yakamaru was a typical far-right user with bigoted opinions who attempted pass himself off as a centrist. he is, or was, a living example of such a person operating in bad faith. and i doubt he'll be a part of any conversation here since he was banned


Hey just popping in to say that Yaka was never banned. He's just been busy with life things


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 27, 2018)

The reason some people speak of votes being diluted is because, in a two party system, winning people over to your side isn't the only way to win.

A party can also win by persuading people who might support their opposition not to bother voting, or to vote for a third party candidate who doesn't pose a risk.
This is called a 'split vote'.
In two party systems, the leading parties will sometimes even funnel money to a third party, so that it draws votes away from their opposition.
That problem can be solved by changing the voting system from models such as 'first past the post' to a model where you rank the parties in order of preference, and then the election is run-out as a tournament.

In some countries, like France, elections actually *do* run as tournaments if no party gets enough votes the first time.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 27, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Hey just popping in to say that Yaka was never banned. He's just been busy with life things


_i'm sure._
_cool._​


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 27, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Hey just popping in to say that Yaka was never banned. He's just been busy with life things


Thanks for the update, but let's keep the thread on track.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 27, 2018)

To be honest, if we're discussing Gary Johnson, the biggest problems were that he hadn't heard of Aleppo, which was headline news at the time, and wasn't able to name a single world leader when he was asked to do so on air. :S
This is kinda the result of the 2 party system though; when you don't have a realistic chance of getting in why bother doing your homework? The only reason you're running is to scare the big party closest to you with the prospect of a split vote, so that they will reform their policies to resemble yours more closely.
In the UK, with our 'few' party system, we had the same with the Green party candidate, who proposed building 500,000 new houses in Britain...at a cost of £5,400 each.
www.theguardian.com: Greens' Natalie Bennett suffers 'mind blank' during campaign launch

Neither of the biggest British political parties will do anything to fix the voting system though, because it currently benefits _them_. So who cares if it represents the public?
In 2015 our election was the* least representative in British history. *

and in our last election, the biggest party got 42% of the vote, but 49% of the seats, which meant they 'won' by making a deal with another party that got just 1% of the votes. :\


----------



## Dancy (Sep 27, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> To be honest, if we're discussing Gary Johnson, the biggest problems were that he hadn't heard of Aleppo, which was headline news at the time, and wasn't able to name a single world leader when he was asked to do so on air. :S
> This is kinda the result of the 2 party system though; when you don't have a realistic chance of getting in why bother doing your homework? The only reason you're running is to scare the big party closest to you with the prospect of a split vote, so that they will reform their policies to resemble yours more closely.
> In the UK, with our 'few' party system, we had the same with the Green party candidate, who proposed building 500,000 new houses in Britain...at a cost of £5,400 each.
> www.theguardian.com: Greens' Natalie Bennett suffers 'mind blank' during campaign launch
> ...


_it's worth noting that gerrymandering voting districts and mircotargeting constituencies make splitting the votes even more tenable tactic, particularly in the united states. but cambridge analytica frequently helped to exploit in the british system and elsewhere while they were in business. _​


----------



## TrishaCat (Sep 27, 2018)

I thought Johnson knew but just wasn't good at on the spot questions. He almost always fumbles when publicly put on the spot


----------



## Dancy (Sep 27, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> I thought Johnson knew but just wasn't good at on the spot questions. He almost always fumbles when publicly put on the spot


_he came across as not knowing about aleppo, tbh._
_he also said the president of mexico was his favorite foreign leader, then couldn't name him._​


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 27, 2018)

With Natalie Bennett the problem was that she forgot her own party's policy, so she made one up on the spot.

Even if Natalie is a genius, who just happens to behave idiotically in interviews (I don't know why we'd want to believe that) there are plenty of Green party supporters who_ are_ capable of remembering their party's policy, and they should have chosen one of them as their representative.

...I thought about it again and I guess the greens probably aren't a good example of a British centrist party (is there even a 'centre' in British politics at the moment?) but certainly changing our electoral system to a ranked vote, or at least making our seat-share reflect the vote share, would be a start on making our political system less polarised. 



Dancy said:


> _he came across as not knowing about aleppo, tbh._
> _he also said the president of mexico was his favorite foreign leader, then couldn't name him._​



He should have just doubled-down and called him 'Senior Burrito'.


----------



## ScrewLoose (Sep 27, 2018)

I'm a nobody and that's the way I like it


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 28, 2018)

Dancy said:


> _most pollsters were mildly surprised, but let's not oversell this. gary johnson did good as a libertarian running for the presidency, but abysmal as candidate running for president. you're not a contender for the white house with 3% of the vote. jill stein wasn't storming the pennsylvania ave gates either. neither the green party or the libertarian party are going to be able to gain enough momentum to be major players._​



Which is why I mentioned momentum, if enough people had enough faith to differently than Republican or Democrat, he'd make more of a difference. The very idea that you shouldn't vote for anything other than the big two is the greatest impediment right know. It was merely my personal opinion, that I felt both of the main candidates for 2016 would leave the country in a considerably worse state, and that Gary Johnson was leagues above the other contenders. So as some would say, I was more content to 'throw my vote away' though, it partially achieved something I wanted though, people noticed there was considerable discontent about the two main choices.

And this isn't to bash Hillary or Trump, whoever you chose, I'm not shaming you or saying you're wrong. I just personally disliked both, not trying to be judgmental or anything.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 28, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> To be honest, if we're discussing Gary Johnson, the biggest problems were that he hadn't heard of Aleppo, which was headline news at the time, and wasn't able to name a single world leader when he was asked to do so on air. :S
> This is kinda the result of the 2 party system though; when you don't have a realistic chance of getting in why bother doing your homework? The only reason you're running is to scare the big party closest to you with the prospect of a split vote, so that they will reform their policies to resemble yours more closely.
> In the UK, with our 'few' party system, we had the same with the Green party candidate, who proposed building 500,000 new houses in Britain...at a cost of £5,400 each.
> www.theguardian.com: Greens' Natalie Bennett suffers 'mind blank' during campaign launch
> ...



Some of us put stock into making statements, even if it didn't contribute to one of the two designated choices, the US so often pushes for. If I legitimately think both options will leave the US is pretty bad shape, it's not an invalid vote to go third party.


----------



## ScrewLoose (Sep 28, 2018)

_Republicans are red, Democrats are blue. Neither one gives a shit about you_


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 28, 2018)

ScrewLoose said:


> _Republicans are red, Democrats are blue. Neither one gives a shit about you_



That always confuses me; over here in the UK our main left-leaning party is red and the major right-leaning party is blue.  You'd think there could be standard colours for this stuff!


----------



## ScrewLoose (Sep 28, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> That always confuses me; over here in the UK our main left-leaning party is red and the major right-leaning party is blue.  You'd think there could be standard colours for this stuff!


Wouldn't matter much to me. Theyre both usurpers.


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 28, 2018)

It's been a long time since I've voted for either.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 28, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Some of us put stock into making statements, even if it didn't contribute to one of the two designated choices, the US so often pushes for. If I legitimately think both options will leave the US is pretty bad shape, it's not an invalid vote to go third party.



No of course not; we should just be aware that split-votes are a well known technique that parties use to 'win by the backdoor'.

Fundamental change to the electoral system itself is required to remedy this situation.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 28, 2018)

A minor thing I feel like pointing out: While it is by no means a _universal_ definition (indeed, you can find plenty of alternate definitions both officially and unofficially abroad and locally), in the United States Centrism _*technically*_ is supposed to refer specifically to a wing of Democrats who are further _*Left*_ than the Conservative and Blue Dog wings of the party (who themselves are convoluted mess of if they're synonymous or distinct), but to the *Right* of the Liberal, Progressive, DSA, and so-on wings. Which itself opens a number of cans of worms since the meaning of "Liberal" and "Progressive" once again varies significantly in the US compared to other nations (for example: Obama and Hillary Clinton would fall under the Liberal wing and Elizabeth Warren the Progressive wing, but if you compared either Obama or HRC to the Liberal Party of, say, Sweden, you'd find some _*significantly*_ different stances on matters social, economic, and political).

That said, I... it's complicated, putting my thoughts to words, but considering recent posts and events I'm just to be blunt and speak my mind without mincing words. Most of the time when I see / hear a non-policitician call themselves a "Centrist" these days I've increasingly come to realize that they aren't referring to the above definition. Heck, they generally aren't referring to the "I consider myself in the middle politically, having either no strong opinions or taking a mix from Left and Right opinions" (though the "no strong opinions" thing does prove somewhat accurate when given the caveat "towards things that do not directly apply to me").

No, what I've found it tends to refer to is somebody who loves to screech about "Both sides!" and is effectively the political equivalent of that stereotypical vegan commentator you spy on random Facebook feeds. The one who takes great pleasure telling _*everyone*_ how they're vegan, palpably _*oozing*_ smugness as they boast why they're superior to everyone else, why everyone who isn't like them is either stupid or not trying hard enough, etcetera.

Take the most recent page, for example: If you're going to consistently argue that there would have been _no discernible difference_ between a hypothetical HRC administration and the current one - an administration wherein the current President has, among other things: Put forward not one but _two_ blatantly partisan hack nominations to the Supreme Court (the most recent of which had a hearing on _credible Rape and Gang-Rape Allegations_ that featured them outright _shouting_ at some points how they were going to use their power to _specifically fuck over Democrats_); Dismantling the EPA, State Department, and generally the vast majority the government's organizations through either lack of staffing or putting ideological zealots in the top seats (who, among other things, have done such wonderful shit as demand the names of ideologically impure department members, the destruction of databases, and in the Department of Education's case argued for *removing it outright to replace with Free Market regulation*); Arguing how a seven degree temperature rise (let alone sea level and other ecological issues) is coming in the next century... but the Government won't do anything about it (and in fact will roll _back_ on efforts to mitigate this) because it's too _hard_ and won't see returns in their lifetime; Implemented a tax bill that's explicitly shown to benefit only the topmost of the topmost rungs of the economy; Implemented a tariff war with - effectively - the globe; Threatened a clusterfuck of a war with at least _two_ major nations (Iran and North Korea); Torn apart international deals out of literal "Spite my Predecessor" reasoning; Gone "both sides" on incidents like Charlottesville; and many _many *many*_ other things less than _*two years* _into office - and how you're so brave and smart and bold for seeing as much as, you're probably either not as politically active as you think you are, willfully obtuse... or an idiot.


----------



## CindyPig (Sep 28, 2018)

Its a cliche' , true , but standing in the middle of the road just makes yo a target for oncoming traffic.


----------



## Simo (Sep 28, 2018)

And they have to take these vitamins. That gets expensive.







Later, they subscribe to Reader's Digest, and buy a Buick.

But on a more serious note: to me, 'Centrism' died in the 1970s, and since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have fueled more and more of a slash and burn politics; there are next to zero 'moderate' Republicans anymore, while Democrats have also shifted to the right.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 28, 2018)

Simo said:


> But on a more serious note: to me, 'Centrism' died in the 1970s, and since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have fueled more and more of a slash and burn politics; there are next to zero 'moderate' Republicans anymore, while Democrats have also shifted to the right.


I think the "Which way have Democrats shifted" argument is dependent heavily on whether you mean economically, socially, both, or so-on.

For example, Democrats are _*significantly*_ more socially Left-leaning than they were even just fifteen years ago. This is in part because of the aforementioned Right-ward swing in the 80's and 90's, but even accounting for as much there are many social matters (particularly in regards to LGBTQ+ and Race) where the party is... if not necessarily where it _should_ be, still at least further to the Left than it has been for some time. Hell, each of the major Democratic Presidential Candidates in 2016 was strongly considering running under a policy of a Universal Basic Income and / or Basic Job Guarantee but wound up scrapping the ideas because they couldn't get the numbers to work with the then-current political environment (of course, since then we've come to learn that not being able to get the numbers to work doesn't mean anything to at least a third of the nation's population and the majority of the House and Senate, so in retrospect perhaps Clinton should have run her UBI / Sanders have run his BJG as a central part of their platform).

Where the Democrats have most prominently swung (and remained swung) Right-ward is mostly in regards to matters such as global economics and regulation, but even then it's hard to pin down just how far this swing has been since the Democrats have maintained "Don't need to worry about compromise" control of the three main policy chambers of the government (Presidential, House, Senate) for all of... I think three of the last twenty six years? It also does not help that Republicans have been _extremely_ effective in their propaganda arms in making people believe that Democrats are responsible for either things that have not happened or that they themselves have forced (such as the "Obamacare funnels money into Pharma / Big Insurance" schtiel), which only further compounds the difficulty in knowing how much of this swing to the Right economically was a matter of personal preference, a matter of pragmatism, and how much entirely unrelated to them versus hidden riders and post-passing addendums and whatnot.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 28, 2018)

I think looking at Nations' politics and trying to figure out which party over the long term has 'departed' most from the centre is difficult because the change is super-imposed on long term cultural shifts. 

For example, if you had party X that was 'in the centre' in 1900, _and didn't change any policies until the modern day_, they probably wouldn't be considered 'central' today (They'd probably be considered very conservative)
If party X and Y are less similar in 2018 than 1900, can party X blame this growth in disagreement on party Y becoming more extreme? 
Or would party Y be justified in blaming party X for not keeping up with the times? 

Over time periods of only a few years, we can probably assume that the 'political background' is unmoving, and more easily identify shifts towards or away from a perceived centre, but we lose our ability to make that assumption when the time period is long.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 28, 2018)

Attaman said:


> A minor thing I feel like pointing out: While it is by no means a _universal_ definition (indeed, you can find plenty of alternate definitions both officially and unofficially abroad and locally), in the United States Centrism _*technically*_ is supposed to refer specifically to a wing of Democrats who are further _*Left*_ than the Conservative and Blue Dog wings of the party (who themselves are convoluted mess of if they're synonymous or distinct), but to the *Right* of the Liberal, Progressive, DSA, and so-on wings. Which itself opens a number of cans of worms since the meaning of "Liberal" and "Progressive" once again varies significantly in the US compared to other nations (for example: Obama and Hillary Clinton would fall under the Liberal wing and Elizabeth Warren the Progressive wing, but if you compared either Obama or HRC to the Liberal Party of, say, Sweden, you'd find some _*significantly*_ different stances on matters social, economic, and political).
> 
> That said, I... it's complicated, putting my thoughts to words, but considering recent posts and events I'm just to be blunt and speak my mind without mincing words. Most of the time when I see / hear a non-policitician call themselves a "Centrist" these days I've increasingly come to realize that they aren't referring to the above definition. Heck, they generally aren't referring to the "I consider myself in the middle politically, having either no strong opinions or taking a mix from Left and Right opinions" (though the "no strong opinions" thing does prove somewhat accurate when given the caveat "towards things that do not directly apply to me").
> 
> ...



I don't think I've seen anybody say that the current Trump administration and the potential Hillary administration would have been the same and there was no discernible difference, as much as some arguing it'd be bad for the country in different ways. So that assertion confuses me. Mind you, the opinion doesn't come out of a desire to be disrespectful, or needlessly rude. Personally I feel most who contributed recently where pretty level headed about how they felt, and why they were more middle of the road. Personally speaking, it was what I legitimately felt at the time, I used to vote Democrat primarily before this current election.

Yes, some centrists can be a bit insufferable, but so can particular democrats and republicans, people are just people. Any side has the potential to be smug or self righteous. Centrism just describes me, as I have alot of strong views from both sides, I do often find it difficult to simply declare myself one side or the other, though I've attempted to do so before, and ended up feeling rather out of place for it.  It's not inherently wrong to feel put off by both sides, I feel. 

I think we're mostly on the same page with Trump though. I don't find his current administration to be doing very much good at all. Nobody really mentions how Trump was the one who put Ajit Pai in place as chairman btw, and tried to role out a weaker version of Net Neutrality. As to how a Hillary administration would have played out, well, it's up to educated speculation I guess.


----------



## CindyPig (Sep 28, 2018)

I'm in favor of any political entity, group, social club, or knitting circle that won't throw me or others like me into a concentration camp because of my sexuality , music, art , reading, social preferences, or for the fact I find their claims of intimate knowledge of the thoughts and desires of the universal cosmic sky being to be idiotic. Thats just me .


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 28, 2018)

It would be interesting to know  how third party voters in the American 2016 election had voted before, because that would help identify whether it was a 'split vote' situation.
For example, if most people who either didn't vote at all, or voted for a third party, had previously been democrats, and put their now choice down to 'email scandals' we might suspect that that's an example of a successful split vote campaign.

@Attaman
I guess I actually think there's a little bit of the_ opposite_ to the 'everybody else isn't trying as hard as me' attitude that we might imagine exists in stereotypical vegans. 

I think some people who regard themselves as moderate actually think that other people are too invested or emotional about their perspectives. 
...and you know, some of them might be right, and others might actually be more 'apathetic' than 'moderate'. It would be tricky to tell exactly without talking to them case-by-case.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 28, 2018)

Simo said:


> And they have to take these vitamins. That gets expensive.


Side effects include tooth staining*,* increased urination, stomach bleeding, uneven heart rate, confusion, muscle weakness, and limp feelings.

Ask your local doctor before taking Centrum to see if it is  not right or wrong, but somewhere in the middle for you.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Sep 28, 2018)

One should never apologize to people for being a centrist.

It's true - that those of us (in the middle of the road) might indeed get ourselves hit by traffic.. but (let's be honest here) - we're also the few people left in this World that still keeps things in some sort of balance - and that tries to bring some kind of sanity, to this crazy hyper-politicized (and deeply polarized) World.. where both sides often have a "take no prisoners" kind of attitude.

So take heart - as you can proudly wear the title of "centrist" as a Badge of Honor.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 28, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> One should never apologize to people for being a centrist.
> 
> It's true - that those of us (in the middle of the road) might indeed get ourselves hit by traffic.. but (let's be honest here) - we're also the few people left in this World that still keeps things in some sort of balance - and that tries to bring some kind of sanity, to this crazy hyper-politicized and deeply polarized World.. where both sides often have a "take no prisoners" kind of attitude.
> 
> So take heart - as you can proudly wear the title of "centrist" as a Badge of Honor.



Cindy was pretty spot on about the middle of the road analogy, you get a massive amount of shit from both sides. Lol


----------



## Attaman (Sep 28, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I don't think I've seen anybody say that the current Trump administration and the potential Hillary administration would have been the same and there was no discernible difference, as much as some arguing it'd be bad for the country in different ways. So that assertion confuses me.


The entire _*merit*_ behind the argument "Neither one gives a shit about you", "both sides are going crazy and will give you massive shit if you disagree", "both sides would leave the country in a worse state", and so-on, is couched on an implication / premise that both sides are _comparatively bad_. That by choosing otherwise one is rising above such comparative badness, or is refusing to compromise on integrity, or is choosing the lesser evil, or so-on.

For example, I've heard a lot in this thread about how why people define themselves as Centrist because they feel like they appreciate policies from both camps. Which is understandable, and stems back into what I mentioned earlier about the official definition of Centrist in the United States (which is basically, again, "Democrat who leans (D), but has some hang-ups and / or a few Conservative policies they particularly endorse over Left-leaning alternatives). But then we get the qualifiers: "I would get shafted either way if I voted (D) or (R)." "Either major party would have left the party in a considerably worse state." "I consider these policies to be deal-breakers.*" And then we see _why_ people feel this way and... the arguments do not make sense unless couched specifically in an implication / insinuation that both parties' variety of "evil" / "harm" are comparable. That, or a failure to understand that the United States' current political structure means that a split vote is effectively a thrown away vote for the sake of "conscience", or - as I've seen it more accurately phrased - a vote to the major candidate you like the least.

To expand and emphasize, if I might ask you: Do you feel that either a hypothetical Clinton or Sanders administration would have been equally - if in a different way - disastrous to the United States comparable to the Trump administration? Note that the Sanders inclusion is intentional, due to a mix of comparable policy between the two candidates as well as the fact that in this scenario we're talking about a preferential choice to vote for _Moderation_ and - I think we can all agree - Sanders at the very least would not have been any more an example of moderation from the Left than Clinton (unless, at least, you're a single-issue voter on matters of Gun Control and / or Abortion). If you do not believe the two would have been disastrous to comparable degrees, how do you feel they _would_ have been disastrous? 

Because as much as I might (_*vehemently*_) disagree with @Battlechili , for example, they do at least clarify that their personal belief was that matters such as Gun Control, Social Justice, and so-on are as much deal-breakers for them as various Republican platform policies, and other things that are traditionally considered strengths on the Left (economic reform, abortion rights, closing of religious freedom loopholes, etc) are either of no concern for them or either seen as the greater (or lesser) of two evils. Which, again, I disagree strongly with... but at least gives a perspective as to why they feel this way and voted Third Party last election. Whereas a lot of the arguments in here for why users admit to having voted Third Party or identifying as Centrist don't even have that and just shuffle around various wordings / phrasings of "both would have been bad" and "Neither would have given me everything I desire" without specifying _what_ it is that pushes them away / fails to excite them.

*Single-Issue or Single-Solution voters, in other words: People who will oppose a candidate and / or party on principle due to their stance (or lack thereof) on a matter.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 28, 2018)

Attaman said:


> The entire _*merit*_ behind the argument "Neither one gives a shit about you", "both sides are going crazy and will give you massive shit if you disagree", "both sides would leave the country in a worse state", and so-on, is couched on an implication / premise that both sides are _comparatively bad_. That by choosing otherwise one is rising above such comparative badness, or is refusing to compromise on integrity, or is choosing the lesser evil, or so-on.
> 
> For example, I've heard a lot in this thread about how why people define themselves as Centrist because they feel like they appreciate policies from both camps. Which is understandable, and stems back into what I mentioned earlier about the official definition of Centrist in the United States (which is basically, again, "Democrat who leans (D), but has some hang-ups and / or a few Conservative policies they particularly endorse over Left-leaning alternatives). But then we get the qualifiers: "I would get shafted either way if I voted (D) or (R)." "Either major party would have left the party in a considerably worse state." "I consider these policies to be deal-breakers.*" And then we see _why_ people feel this way and... the arguments do not make sense unless couched specifically in an implication / insinuation that both parties' variety of "evil" / "harm" are comparable. That, or a failure to understand that the United States' current political structure means that a split vote is effectively a thrown away vote for the sake of "conscience", or - as I've seen it more accurately phrased - a vote to the major candidate you like the least.
> 
> ...



I think you're misunderstanding something. Personally speaking, I never asserted "both sides are going crazy and will give you massive shit if you disagree" and "both sides would leave the country in a worse state", were argument points. They were statements. The First specifically was an observation. I actually detailed a decent portion of my political stances in my OP. I'm actually a bit reluctant to explain it full detail though, as to why I thought both sides were bad, because of how massively contentious it is. I know people will get upset, and get rather angry over it.  So I've stuck with some statements(not actual arguments.) I could further elaborate on my OP, sure but I feel like it may end up with the thread devolving, so I've not fully spoken on it.

While I slightly favored Hillary over Trump, I did personally find Hillary to be a on a similar level of concerning for the country. But again, further elaborating as to why would just cause a massive hellstorm.
I don't think both political parties are evil, nor do I think both candidates are evil, it's more, I just didn't have faith in either candidate's ability to meaningful impact the country, and only make the situation worse. I've also stated before, I 'threw away' my vote, for a mixture of reasons, one was that I legitimately felt Gary Johnson was a better choice, another was that I wanted to make my discontent with the tow choices heard, another still, was that I had begun to feel that I needed to be truer to myself and what I believed in in this instance. I'm aware that he probably wasn't going to get elected, but I stuck by the choice anyways, I felt the best option would be to give attention to a third party candidate, because the 2020 election looms and worries me just as much as the 2016 one does. As I mentioned before, I'm not comfortable elaborating as to why I specifically disliked Clinton enough to not vote, as I have reservations about the forum's ability to keep it civil. It's a very contentious topic after all.

I would have supported a Sanders administration without qualms, I had faith in his ability to run the country, I felt differently about Hillary. I'll say that one of my qualms with Hillary had to due with the Clinton Foundation leaks, which shook my perception of her a great deal. I had the belief _at the time_ she was corrupt. Whether she actually was involved in taking donations from other rulers as bribes or whatever the case is, who knows. Maybe it was blown out of proportion, all I am saying is that at the time, she did not seem trustworthy. Though just saying that is contentious already, no doubt people will be livid with me just asserting I once felt that way about Hillary. It's not a topic I particular want to dig too deep into for reasons I stated before.

As I said before, I clarified some of my beliefs as well in the Op, I don't mind elaborating on my personal political beliefs so long as it does not concern Hillary. In that context I can elaborate if needed.  Though I would appreciate you keep in mind, that I've not fully elucidated due, to trying to veer away from the Hillary talk.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Sep 28, 2018)

In my limited understanding of practical US politics, it's also worth noting that the "lower" the level, the higher the chances of third-party success. Voter turnout in the US is not generally very high, and it tends to be lower the more local the election is. It's not infeasible for a third party candidate to successfully run for mayor or city council. The change they may be able to enact from that position may be of a lesser magnitude than if they were president, but it's still non-zero. Support for third party candidates has to come from the bottom up.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 28, 2018)

With the benefit of hindsight, we now know the events Kimber is describing were Russian interference aimed at disenfranchising potential voters.


Spoiler



Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia



Now, since Kimber doesn't want to talk about the details of that, let's relate this to centrism.
Attaman pointed out that somebody saying they're centrist sometimes appears to be a euphemism for them admitting that they've become disenfranchised. Some users in this thread indicated that their underpinning reasons for being central weren't really driven by them liking both options equally, but but them being equally _dissatisfied_ with both options.

We need to be keenly aware of the vested reasons that other people often have for making us feel disenfranchised. Which means being knowledgeable and astute, I guess.


----------



## Troj (Sep 28, 2018)

...as disenfranchised as we might feel, authentically, we also need to be savvy and aware that there are those who are extremely keen to exploit and deepen that sense of alienation and apathy.


----------



## AsheSkyler (Sep 28, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> And this isn't to bash Hillary or Trump, whoever you chose, I'm not shaming you or saying you're wrong. I just personally disliked both, not trying to be judgmental or anything.


I think the 2016 election was the first where the majority voted more for who they did _not_ want as president.

On the bright side, I hear this stuff fluctuates. So while now we are currently stuck in a mind-numbingly stupid politic polarization that the States haven't seen for a few decades, it will continue to follow past patterns and slack off again, most likely in our lifetime, and if all goes well perhaps we'll all be dead of old age before it swings back to this level of crazy again. Or maybe our grandkids succeed in keeping the system a bit more balanced than the rest of us have and we never have to worry about this extreme nonsense again.


----------



## Simo (Sep 28, 2018)

Troj said:


> ...as disenfranchised as we might feel, authentically, we also need to be savvy and aware that there are those who are extremely keen to exploit and deepen that sense of alienation and apathy.



And how! That seems to be the _modus operandi_ of a great many movements here, and abroad. From Trump to Isis to Al Quida they are often fueled by this sense of having been excluded, and seeking some feeling of meaning, power and inclusion.

For a 'centrist' state to exist, it seems to depend on one hand, of not having too many feel or be disenfranchised, especially economically.

And I think in the US, the growing economic divide between the very wealthy and those struggling is making the idea of 'centrism' hard, when one is facing the fear of very basic needs: food, a place to live, paying the bills, transportation, having medical coverage they can actually use, a safe neighborhood to live in, being able to save, being able to get an education, having a bit left over for fun, being able to retire in a place other than a cardboard box in a park. These struggles seem to make people more and more desperate, and prone to more extreme solutions. And as the class divide has continued to widen, I don't see centrism taking very strong root in the US.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 28, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I would have supported a Sanders administration without qualms, I had faith in his ability to run the country, I felt differently about Hillary.


As a note, this does not suggest that you are a Centrist so much as that you have strong Democratic preferences / leans... and just strongly disapprove Clinton. Generally people who identify as Centrist (unless, again, they're single issue on matters where the two significantly diverged like Gun Control, Immigration, or Birth Control) tend not to be enthusiastically in favor of the policies Sanders' proposed, nor find their biggest hang-ups with a hypothetical Clinton administration stem less from their platform and more the person at its head. It's a conclusion that doesn't quite mesh as well when taken in context with "I thought Johnson was the better compared to Clinton and Trump", but considering the reasons given for why you didn't vote Clinton I imagine this was similarly based on the candidate their self instead of their / their party's platform?



AsheSkyler said:


> I think the 2016 election was the first where the majority voted more for who they did _not_ want as president.


This accusation gets tossed around a _lot_, but if one looks at the Approval Numbers of those at the Exit Polls (and, at least in Trump's case, the Approval Ratings after the fact) it's pretty clearly bunk: Clinton bounced around 83% for Approval Rating (on average) among her voters at the Exit Polls (with, on the high end, most minority groups leaning around 75-80% _Strongly_ Approve at the Exit Polls and another 10-ish percent general Approve); while Trump was sporting a 90%+ Strongly Approve rating among many of his voters until 2018 (and even then has generally kept above 80% approval among them in general).

EDIT: I guess I should add one more thing to my post since the discussion of Disenfranchisement has been brought up: Republicans _*bank*_ on disenfranchisement (both official disenfranchisement, such as limited polling stations and gerrymandering and strict Voter ID laws with even stricter Voter ID acquisition ones; and unofficial such as feeding "both sides" sentiment) to maintain political power. 

"Both sides are just as bad, so why don't you vote 3rd Party / you should just stay at home" favors them because they _*know*_ they have a solid 30-ish percent of the voting population that will reliably show up for them both in Midterms and the General (it's also why they tend to do so well in Midterms, where voter enthusiasm and participation typically takes a nose-dive for Democrats). By encouraging people to either remain at home or vote third party, it's one less vote that their own share of the voting populace needs to overcome. Even without accounting for Electoral College technicalities, one can easily win the Presidency simply through depressing the opposing vote to the point that 20-30% of the population voting for your candidate gives you a solid majority.


----------



## AsheSkyler (Sep 28, 2018)

Attaman said:


> This accusation gets tossed around a _lot_, but if one looks at the Approval Numbers of those at the Exit Polls (and, at least in Trump's case, the Approval Ratings after the fact) it's pretty clearly bunk: Clinton bounced around 83% for Approval Rating (on average) among her voters at the Exit Polls (with, on the high end, most minority groups leaning around 75-80% _Strongly_ Approve at the Exit Polls and another 10-ish percent general Approve); while Trump was sporting a 90%+ Strongly Approve rating among many of his voters until 2018 (and even then has generally kept above 80% approval among them in general).


Interesting...


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> With the benefit of hindsight, we now know the events Kimber is describing were Russian interference aimed at disenfranchising potential voters.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



I'm just going to say that, to this day whether Hillary was guilty of using their foundations for means of bribery is still hotly debated. There hasn't been a definitive yes or no to it. So I'm still skeptical, personally. I was a big supporter of Ron Paul before this, so I've had this middle of the road attitude before the 2016 election. Though, in contrast to the 2016 election, I didn't feel morally compromised over voting for Obama when Ron Paul was blacked out through shitty media bias. 

Yeah, 2016 was the disenfranchisement year for politics, but I've rooted for independent and libertarian candidates strongly before.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I'm just going to say that, to this day whether Hillary was guilty of using their foundations for means of bribery is still hotly debated. There hasn't been a definitive yes or no to it. So I'm still skeptical, personally. I was a big supporter of Ron Paul before this, so I've had this middle of the road attitude before the 2016 election. Though, in contrast to the 2016 election, I didn't feel morally compromised over voting for Obama when Ron Paul was blacked out through shitty media bias.
> 
> Yeah, 2016 was the disenfranchisement year for politics, but I've rooted for independent and libertarian candidates strongly before.



You're the one who doesn't want to talk about this, let me remind you. If you want to open a discussion about that, you can, but you did _ask_ people not to discuss the technical details- so I'm not going to pick that discussion up.

Anyway. Ron Paul was a tea party supporter, who wanted to pull the US out of the UN, and called global warming a 'Hoax'. He opposes *any *government support for healthcare and doesn't believe people born in the US have an automatic right to citizenship. He's further right than much of the republican party.
Compare that to the other politician you said you liked, Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders views global warming as a serious problem, and he endorses the creation of a universal healthcare system in the US. He's further left than most of the democratic party, and pretty much the polar opposite of Ron Paul on many issues.

The only thing candidates like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders have in common is that they were seen as 'third options'. That_ doesn't _make them 'central' options.
Indeed, anybody who actually believed in Bernie Sanders' ideas would probably throw up if Ron Paul got elected, and anybody who believed in Ron Paul's ideas would have an aneurysm if Bernie Sanders became president.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Attaman said:


> As a note, this does not suggest that you are a Centrist so much as that you have strong Democratic preferences / leans... and just strongly disapprove Clinton. Generally people who identify as Centrist (unless, again, they're single issue on matters where the two significantly diverged like Gun Control, Immigration, or Birth Control) tend not to be enthusiastically in favor of the policies Sanders' proposed, nor find their biggest hang-ups with a hypothetical Clinton administration stem less from their platform and more the person at its head. It's a conclusion that doesn't quite mesh as well when taken in context with "I thought Johnson was the better compared to Clinton and Trump", but considering the reasons given for why you didn't vote Clinton I imagine this was similarly based on the candidate their self instead of their / their party's platform?
> 
> 
> This accusation gets tossed around a _lot_, but if one looks at the Approval Numbers of those at the Exit Polls (and, at least in Trump's case, the Approval Ratings after the fact) it's pretty clearly bunk: Clinton bounced around 83% for Approval Rating (on average) among her voters at the Exit Polls (with, on the high end, most minority groups leaning around 75-80% _Strongly_ Approve at the Exit Polls and another 10-ish percent general Approve); while Trump was sporting a 90%+ Strongly Approve rating among many of his voters until 2018 (and even then has generally kept above 80% approval among them in general).
> ...



Right, but I've rooted for people like Ron Paul before, Libertarian and Independent candidates tended to take precedent often. However, I usually was ok with then turning to the democratic candidate when the independent/libertarian candidate didn't make the cut. I'm favorable towards the Democratic party platform concerning 2016, though there are a couple stances that I don't really agree with, though I could say the same about many Libertarian and independent candidates. 
There are a few key differences in Sander's policies and Hillary's, that contributed. 

In particular.
-He was for taxing coal plants and eliminating tax breaks for fossil fuel companies, which I preferred.
-Was for making Marijuana's legality hinge on the state, and remove it from being federally illegal. 
-Was for reinstating the  Glass-Stegall act 
-Was for withdrawing Troops from Afghanistan

There are other reasons I was not for Hillary, but as I said, would prefer not to dive too deep, but I'll just say I trusted Bernie's character more than Hillary's


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> You're the one who doesn't want to talk about this, let me remind you. If you want to open a discussion about that, you can, but you did _ask_ people not to discuss the technical details- so I'm not going to pick that discussion up.
> 
> Anyway. Ron Paul was a tea party supporter, who wanted to pull the US out of the UN, and called global warming a 'Hoax'. He opposes *any *government support for healthcare and doesn't believe people born in the US have an automatic right to citizenship. He's further right than much of the republican party.
> Compare that to the other politician you said you liked, Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders views global warming as a serious problem, and he endorses the creation of a universal healthcare system in the US. He's further left than most of the democratic party, and pretty much the polar opposite of Ron Paul on many issues.
> ...



I merely stated that I simply remain skeptical about the issue still.

Well no candidate is going to line up with my personal views one to one, so the whole "A Ron Paul supporter is the antithesis to a Bernie supporter" isn't something I agree with.
So yes, I don't agree with Paul's view on global warming, and I have a neutral view on the healthcare thing, I do not have a view on it. The citizenship is similarly not something I personally agree with. The UN thing, like the healthcare thing, I have a neutral view on.

I supported Ron Paul though because he has a very strong belief in personal liberty, which resonate very strongly with me. Particularly, I strongly agree with his stance on cutting down on the power and reach of the federal government and giving more authority on decisions to individual states. Similarly he was strong with reducing spending and advocated that the US become more isolationist, and getting less involved in foreign conflicts. He was also reasonable about marijuana, but so was Bernie.

His stance of having the federal government less intimately involved in an individuals life is also something I feel would be an overall good. I've also agreed with his taxcuts.

Bernie I liked for different reasons, he was not as intensely passionate when it came to personal freedoms, but his forward thinking green energy plans, I appreciated quite a bit.
A few things I liked.
-Raising the min wage to $15
-Pro green energy, harsh against fossil fuels
-Was ok with dropping marijuana from being a federal crime
-Was for making colleges tuition free
-Was for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan

This is just how I tend to judge things. I evaluate candidates based on how much overall good they'd do for the country, and try to forgive what I find to be the cons that come with that. Through my own perspective of course.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Well no candidate is going to line up with my personal views one to one, so the whole "A Ron Paul supporter is the antithesis to a Bernie supporter" isn't something I agree with.
> So yes, I don't agree with Paul's view on global warming, and I have a neutral view on the healthcare thing, I do not have a view on it. The citizenship is similarly not something I personally agree with.
> I supported Ron Paul though because he has a very strong belief in personal liberty, which resonate very strongly with me. Particularly, I strongly agree with his stance on cutting down on the power and reach of the federal government and giving more authority on decisions to individual states. Similarly he was strong with reducing spending and advocated that the US become more isolationist, and getting less involved in foreign conflicts. He was also reasonable about marijuana, but so was Bernie.
> 
> ...



Your ideas aren't really central if they have consistently motivated you to prefer candidates whose political positions are actually much further right than the Republican party, or much further left than most of the Democratic party.
It suggests that, if anything, they're actually a contradictory set of beliefs.

You need to have a clear think about what your political beliefs are, because the policies you said you liked (raising the minimum wage, subsidising green energy and making college tuition free) would require *extending* the reach of the federal government and *raising* taxes.
But apparently you also support people who want to decrease the reach of the federal government and cut taxes.

Do you see why you can't have both? It's a 'cake and eat it' scenario. You can't have your tax cut at the same time as having free tuition.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Your ideas aren't really central if they have consistently motivated you to prefer candidates whose political positions are actually much further right than the Republican party, or much further left than the Democratic party.
> It suggests that, if anything, they're actually an inconsistent set of beliefs.
> 
> You need to have a clear think about what your political beliefs are, because the policies you said you liked (raising the minimum wage, subsidising green energy and making college tuition free) would require *extending* the reach of the federal government and *raising* taxes.
> ...



As I said, I evaluate candidates based on how much overall good they'd do for the country, and try to forgive what I find to be the cons that come with that. Through my own perspective of course.

I have my own beliefs, but I'm not going to  make a fuss if a candidate I like is directly opposing what I personally belief in as long as he agrees with enough of my other personal views. 

This is why I consider myself a centrist, I don't mind if some of my core values are compromised, so long as the whole is strong and agreeable

In other words

"The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts."


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> As I said, I evaluate candidates based on how much overall good they'd do for the country, and try to forgive what I find to be the cons that come with that. Through my own perspective of course.



Do you recognise that the metrics you're using to assess the 'overall goodness' don't reflect moderate or central positions?

Your support has bounced around between the most extreme candidates at either end of the political spectrum, not lead you to support anybody whose position we might credibly describe as central.


Basically it's the equivalent of me thinking my political views are in the 'centreground' of British politics, and then flitting between support for the Green party and UKIP. 
If I was interested in the centreground of British politics my support would probably flitter between Labour and Conservative candidates, depending on which party is fielding the most moderate candidate in that election cycle.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you recognise that the metrics you're using to assess the 'overall goodness' don't reflect moderate or central positions?
> 
> Your support has bounced around between the most extreme candidates at either end of the political spectrum, not lead you to support anybody whose position we might credibly describe as central.



I call myself a centerist because my personal beliefs are a mixture of left and right views. Personal being the key word there.

My support of both Sanders and Paul partially scratched an itch of mine.

Paul was because he appealed very strongly towards my convictions concerning personal liberty. I felt his leadership would have done great things for personal liberties in the Us

Sanders, I supported because he was very supportive of green energy, the middle and lower class, and had open minded views on marijuana. He seemed conscious of the average person and how the Us actions affect the rest of the world.

Each candidate scratched an itch but none would I consider very close to all of my personal political beliefs.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I call myself a centerist because my personal beliefs are a mixture of left and right views. Personal being the key word there.
> 
> My support of both Sanders and Paul partially scratched an itch of mine.
> 
> ...



Do you see why a lot of people would not describe me as centrist if I supported Natalie Bennett, and then changed my support to Nigel Farage? 

Do you see why it would then be silly for my to criticise somebody who always votes Labour or Conservative, on the grounds that those parties are 'two extremes', when my voting record looks like this?


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you see why a lot of people would not describe me as centrist if I supported Natalie Bennett, and then changed my support to Nigel Farage?
> 
> Do you see why it would then be silly for my to criticise somebody who always votes Labour or Conservative, on the grounds that those parties are 'two extremes', when my voting record looks like this?
> 
> View attachment 42539



Fallow, you’re just going to have to accept that I don’t think like you. I am willing to drop some of my personal views to pursue political tenants that are dear to me. Paul was in favor of personal liberty.

Bernie, for empowering the working and middle class and his progressive look concerning the future. 

Both of those things mean a great deal to me and I am willing to compromise some of my personal beliefs to pursue just one of those ideals. 

You’re free to bemoan that if it frustrates you but it doesn’t change my personal beliefs. I operate differently than you, and that’s fine. I am confident in how I see myself, I mean I know myself better than anybody else here, I do not feel it is unfounded to say that. But you are free to critique what you perceive as a lack of moderation I suppose.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Fallow, you’re just going to have to accept that I don’t think like you. I am willing to drop some of my personal views to pursue political tenants that are dear to me. Paul was in favor of personal liberty.
> 
> Bernie, for empowering the working and middle class and his progressive look concerning the future.
> 
> ...



I'm worried if I try to push you to have a think about this that you'll just think I'm insulting your personality, rather than criticising your ideas. :\ 

We've got to the point where my sincere criticism is just me 'being unable to accept you'.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm worried if I try to push you to have a think about this that you'll just think I'm insulting your personality, rather than criticising your ideas. :\
> 
> We've got to the point where my sincere criticism is just me 'being unable to accept you'.


You never really asked me to elaborate on what my personal views are. Which is why I feel your views on me are too preemptive. If you had all the information, the criticisms would hold more weight.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> You never really asked me to elaborate on what my personal views are. Which is why I feel your views on me are too preemptive. If you had all the information, the criticisms would hold more weight.



This isn't about you as a person. It's about the ideas you've suggested and whether they stand up to skeptical scrutiny.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> This isn't about you as a person. It's about the ideas you've suggested and whether they stand up to skeptical scrutiny.


I am aware, I just feel, if you find that my ideas do not hold up you should seek the right information to see if it supports your hypothesis. I feel it’d be fair.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I am aware, I just feel, if you find that my ideas do not hold up you should seek the right information to see if it supports your hypothesis. I feel it’d be fair.



You don't need my permission in the first place to bring up anything you think I've left out, and I would of course appreciate it if you did.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> You don't need my permission in the first place to bring up anything you think I've left out, and I would of course appreciate it if you did.



I do feel you should be have asked about it right off the bat before making any judgement call. 

I’m away from my desktop atm, but when I can use it again I’ll explain my views as best as I can.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I do feel you should be have asked about it right off the bat before making any judgement call.
> 
> I’m away from my desktop atm, but when I can use it again I’ll explain my views as best as I can.



I have asked you a lot of questions to clarify what your perspectives are. :\ 

Maybe you don't _like_ those questions, but that's different to me being unfair to you.


----------



## Troj (Sep 29, 2018)

Well, this discussion confirms my basic sense that many self-described "centrists" actually don't fall at the exact center of the political spectrum in terms of their actual beliefs and behavior.

I think it's helpful and important to differentiate being an _independent _from being a _centrist_.

If you're _truly_ someone who prefers to vote down the middle and doesn't like to get crazy or rock the boat--which is what a lot of people mean when they call themselves "centrists" and/or "moderates"--in theory, at least, you'll typically find yourself drawn to moderate, libertarian-leaning Republicans and/or moderate, neoliberal or slightly-right-leaning Democrats (in the United States).

If you're receptive to rocking the boat, you might be an independent.

My sense is that many (though certainly not all) independent voters are guided more by "smell" than by a consistent and identifiable set of core convictions, which is why they may swing all over the political map. They like their candidates to have a particular rhetorical style or "vibe" more than anything else, I think.

Relevant and funny:


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I have asked you a lot of questions to clarify what your perspectives are. :\
> 
> Maybe you don't _like_ those questions, but that's different to me being unfair to you.


It’s not enough to gauge a view I don’t think, just a few scraps of what my perspective was.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Troj said:


> Well, this discussion confirms my basic sense that many self-described "centrists" actually don't fall at the exact center of the political spectrum in terms of their actual beliefs and behavior.
> 
> I think it's helpful and important to differentiate being an _independent _from being a _centrist_.
> 
> ...


If you want to try and psychoanalyze based on bits of information, it’s your prerogative. Though there really isn’t, a “smell” to it. I explained decently why I leaned towards my respective choices. It really isn’t inherently wrong to vote based on what is the greater whole. Nor is it woefully objectionable to set aside some of you own beliefs to pursue something you are passionate over.

I did state in the op that I personally felt centrism was an amalgamation of some left and right views. I think I have shown thus far I have had convictions from both camps.

It should be noted that in the Us you usually can only pick between two candidates in the end. I have often felt that way about political choices. It either one red or one blue. It only rather recently that I changed how I felt about that.Ie, the 2016 election and Gary Johnson.

Bernie Sanders was quite literally the closest representation to my beliefs that held a decent chance of winning. You really don’t have the luxury to be picky with that you just have to don the shoe that comes the closest to fitting


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

So whether or not it's a 'good' thing to abandon some beliefs in favour of key issues isn't the object of the discussion. 

The point is that the behaviours described don't really outlinea political position that leads to support for candidates in the centre of the political space, but one that is liable to swing between extreme options at the periphery of the political space who most clearly represent the key issue you're interested in at the time. 

Do you think that's a fair comment? It's not a moral judgement about whether that's right or wrong.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> So whether or not it's a 'good' thing to abandon some beliefs in favour of key issues isn't the object of the discussion.
> 
> The point is that the behaviours described don't really outlinea political position that leads to support for candidates in the centre of the political space, but one that is liable to swing between extreme options at the periphery of the political space who most clearly represent the key issue you're interested in at the time.
> 
> Do you think that's a fair comment? It's not a moral judgement about whether that's right or wrong.


Because getting a candidate that perfectly mirrored what I personally believed in would never happen. You have to make due with candidates that might only share but a single political tenant. That’s always how it is for me. There just really aren’t many moderate candidates, I feel. I don’t call myself centrist to be the edgy contrarian. My views just don’t all fit neatly into one camp. 

I suppose it’s unfortunate that politicians like Sanders and Paul cane the closest to representing my views but. Well it is what it is. I’ve not ever changed my love for personal liberty or my faith in green energy, or my belief that an empowered middle class is in the best interest for an economically powerful America. Presuming I have no strong stances because I set aside some of my personal views to pursue a powerful whole that I can get behind is a disengenious characterization.


----------



## Troj (Sep 29, 2018)

If I'm following rightly, Kimber, you want to:

Maximize personal liberty
Protect the environment
Support the creation of a social safety net

You don't appear to trust either the government or large corporations, and I don't have a read on which way you might lean more, so you can clarify that.

You also want to pull out of Afghanistan, and that could be for practical reasons, moral reasons, or economic reasons, or all of the above, and I'll leave you to explain  that, too.

Fair summary?

If I've followed Fallow correctly, his point is that Ron Paul's global warming denialism shits in the punch where protecting the environment is concerned, and that the kind of social safety net proposed by Bernie Sanders requires a particular kind of expansion of the federal government, and is also at odds with Ron Paul's grand libertarian vision for society.

I can see why aspects of each candidate would be appealing--those same aspects are very appealing to me as well--but Fallow's point is that Bernie and Paul each a have meaningfully different grand vision for society, and very different ideas of how to implement that grand vision.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Troj said:


> If I'm following rightly, Kimber, you want to:
> 
> Maximize personal liberty
> Protect the environment
> ...



You realize though that the set of beliefs I have, I,m lucky if my chosen candidates have a single political tentant in common with me. There are a lot of beliefs Paul has that I am strongly oppose to, the same can be said of Sanders. They,re both far from perfect but they both supported ideas that speak to beliefs I have a passion for.

The support of a strong working and middle class resonate with me. That could include social safety nets but, I do feel there are also other ways to uphold the ideal of a strong middle and worker class. That is where I am coming from on that, so while similar, the concepts are still different. The methods used to do that are another story.

I feel there can be an America with strong personal freedoms, smaller less intrusive federal government and have a strong working and middle class. Along with having a green energy policy. Even with social safety nets. I feel it all hinges on the method to bring those two together.

Yes, I am not trusting of either big government or corporations. I feel a stronger emphasis on state rights would both solve the big gov issue and better empower the individual.

The Afghanistan thing is just a little of everything. I feel the us should be less involved in foreign affairs, it’s not really our right, it’s costly and we have to be more focused on ourselves, should we want to survive.

I imagine some compromises would have to be made here and there. Though I do feel it is possible. 

Empowering the average American to pursue their dreams is important to me, personal liberty is important, progressive takes on global warming and science is important to me, education I’d important to me. Less intrusive federal governments are important to me. There is no reason these all can’t be present in today’s America. The right methods can ensure all of these. That’s kind of where the centrism comes into play actually, the desire to strike a decent balance to uphold all these ideals.

As you know though, no candidate really has all those ideas rolled up into one. So like a hungry dog, I’ll latch onto the closest thing that fits. I am aware it’s not an elegant solution but it keep s me from feeling too jaded to find somebody sharing at least a fraction of my perspective.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 29, 2018)

@KimberVaile I believe part of the issue coming up is that you don’t seem to realize that “Strong safety net, healthy worker protection laws, effective environmental regulation, increased support for matters such as education” and “small Federal Government” are mutually exclusive. The former _requires _a strong Federal Government (along with, for that matter, higher taxes so as to fund this government and it’s programs), which is in part why so many Republicans are against as much and push to decentralize as much to individual State Rights as possible (since that leaves them free to allocate money as desired) as well as to cut down Social Service program (because their success both requires increasing taxes on higher income brackets and serves as a big stick in the face of the idea “Big Government is Bad Government”).

Which is why people are saying that Sanders’ and Paul’s platforms are so different. One is talking about deregulation and shrinking the power of the Federal Government, the other expanding it to the point of creating new Departments and raising taxes to increase revenue for Government programs.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> You realize though that the set of beliefs I have, I,m lucky if my chosen candidates have a single political tentant in common with me. There are a lot of beliefs Paul has that I am strongly oppose to, the same can be said of Sanders. They,re both far from perfect but they both supported ideas that speak to beliefs I have a passion for.
> 
> The support of a strong working and middle class resonate with me. That could include social safety nets but, I do feel there are also other ways to uphold the ideal of a strong middle and worker class. That is where I am coming from on that, so while similar, the concepts are still different. The methods used to do that are another story.
> 
> ...



My core beliefs are the same. Maximum personal liberty, Protect the environment, Make society fairer.

But if a candidate came along who was 'pro liberty' and one of their policies included making littering legal, because 'scientists who believe that littering is bad are part of a conspiracy,',
...well, obviously this person doesn't represent a good balance of my core beliefs.
Not to mention the version of 'personal liberty' that they're purporting to represent is actually a perversion.

Ron Paul was much the same as that; defending corporations' 'liberty' to pollute freely, while trying to pass legislation that restricted women's reproductive rights.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Attaman said:


> @KimberVaile I believe part of the issue coming up is that you don’t seem to realize that “Strong safety net, healthy worker protection laws, effective environmental regulation, increased support for matters such as education” and “small Federal Government” are mutually exclusive. The former _requires _a strong Federal Government (along with, for that matter, higher taxes so as to fund this government and it’s programs), which is in part why so many Republicans are against as much and push to decentralize as much to individual State Rights as possible (since that leaves them free to allocate money as desired) as well as to cut down Social Service program (because their success both requires increasing taxes on higher income brackets and serves as a big stick in the face of the idea “Big Government is Bad Government”).
> 
> Which is why people are saying that Sanders’ and Paul’s platforms are so different. One is talking about deregulation and shrinking the power of the Federal Government, the other expanding it to the point of creating new Departments and raising taxes to increase revenue for Government programs.



My ideal candidate would have a thoughtful balance between the two. The exact methods enacted to obtain both sides is what interests me. I do feel some of the big government red tape can be cut while also using it to bolster the middle class. I just feel it’s the method that matters. Pursuing the idea of a less overbearing federal government while empowering the average American. Part of that is a thoughtful balancing act the other part is finding new methods to realize that goal.

Don’t get me wrong it’s a tall order but, seeing all these beliefs realized requires a thoughtful nuanced approach, something that I feel a more balanced perspective can achieve.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> My ideal candidate would have a thoughtful balance between the two. The exact methods enacted to obtain both sides is what interests me. I do feel some of the big government red tape can be cut while also using it to bolster the middle class. I just feel it’s the method that matters. Pursuing the idea of a less overbearing federal government while empowering the average American. Part of that is a thoughtful balancing act the other part is finding new methods to realize that goal.
> 
> Don’t get me wrong it’s a tall order but, seeing all these beliefs realized requires a thoughtful nuanced approach, something that I feel a more balanced approach can achieve.



If you want nuance, maybe the most extreme candidates aren't the best choices to vote for. 

Bernie Sanders might want to make a universal healthcare system, but if you don't like government increasing taxation, well...Bernie's policy will necessitate a large tax increase. 
Ron Paul might want to give you a tax cut, but if you want universal healthcare as well, well, Ron thinks that the government being involved in healthcare at all is unacceptable and Ron wouldn't be able to offer you a tax cat at the same time as spending more on public services. 

Bernie and Ron represent two extremes, and pretty much all other candidates were more 'balanced' on those issues than they were. For example maybe you have a democrat who wants to reform obamacare, or you have a republican who wants to repeal it but who still wants to keep medicaid programs.


----------



## Littlefoot505 (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> My core beliefs are the same. Maximum personal liberty, Protect the environment, Make society fairer.
> 
> But if a candidate came along who was 'pro liberty' and one of their policies included making littering legal, because 'scientists who believe that littering is bad are part of a conspiracy,',
> ...well, obviously this person doesn't represent a good balance of my core beliefs.


Those are pretty much my core beliefs exactly, and I totally agree with you. I identify as a libertarian, but for environmental issues, I take a rather authoritarian stance. So yeah, somebody who wants to defend 'liberty' by trying to excise protections from our national monuments because they create red tape for the fossil fuel industry will not get my vote. I'm also a big believer in having a secular government, so when we get a president who plants creationists in science boards, I will get ticked off. One of Trump's anti-environment cronies (I forget whether it was Zinke or Pruitt) legitimately once said how fossil fuels are "gifts from God for our benefit" as a pro-drilling argument. Ughh. Sorry for that big long tangent.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> If you want nuance, maybe the most extreme candidates aren't the best choices to vote for.
> 
> Bernie Sanders might want to make a universal healthcare system, but if you don't like government increasing taxation, well...Bernie's policy will necessitate a large tax increase.
> Ron Paul might want to give you a tax cut, but if you want universal healthcare as well, well, Ron thinks that the government being involved in healthcare at all is unacceptable and Ron wouldn't be able to offer you a tax cat at the same time as spending more on public services.
> ...



Keep in mind, the candidate pool was limited in the 2016 election.
There was some crossover in their stances concerning personal liberty. Same with the marijuana thing. I got to take what I can get, and to be honest. Bernie was closer to what I wanted in a candidate than Paul. He ticked more boxes overall. I’ve also mentioned that you can empower the average man without social benefits with the right methods.

The biggest impediment in 2016 was that most candidates were largely pretty weak and did little to deviate from the norm.


----------



## Littlefoot505 (Sep 29, 2018)

I hated the 2016 election. 2016 was the year I turned 18, so it was my first election. Bernie would've probably gotten my vote if he had won the primaries, but in the end, I voted for Hilary. Johnson and Stein were quite appealing though, and I would've voted for one of them if I didn't live in a rather purple state (New Mexico), because I REALLY did not want Trump, as many of his views are pretty much opposite to my own.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Keep in mind, the candidate pool was limited in the 2016 election.
> There was some crossover in their stances concerning personal liberty. Same with the marijuana thing. I got to take what I can get, and to be honest. Bernie was closer to what I wanted in a candidate than Paul. He ticked more boxes overall. I’ve also mentioned that you can empower the average man without social benefits with the right methods.
> 
> The biggest impediment in 2016 was that most candidates were largely pretty weak and did little to deviate from the norm.



So you're talking about it like the situation is this: 





when actually to a centrist it would look like this:


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 29, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> So you're talking about it like the situation is this:
> View attachment 42548
> 
> when actually to a centrist it would look like this:
> ...



Personal beliefs *≠ *How I choose to vote
As I explained, my personal views prompt me to describe myself as a centrist, but as I said, the limited number of  strong candidates, means my venues for expression are limited. I've stated many times before, I can sacrifice some of my core ideals for a strong cohesive whole as I described, if I feel it would lead to the ultimate betterment of the US in some way. You can go on about how I'm secretly not a centrist for focusing on one core ideal at certain points. Though, that's kind of the reality of the situation in Us politics. You'e very rarely going to get a whole lot of what you want in candidates. Maybe one or two core principles at most.

It doesn't bother me to set aside some principles to support a strong whole that I legitimately feel would benefit the US. Call it a tactical or strategic pick, but that is how I vote often. Not to mention that character and the candidate's past history should be given some consideration as well. 

There is a large gulf between my personal ideals, and my voting mindset.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Personal beliefs *≠ *How I choose to vote
> As I explained, my personal views prompt me to describe myself as a centrist, but as I said, the limited number of  strong candidates, means my venues for expression are limited. I've stated many times before, I can sacrifice some of my core ideals for a strong cohesive whole as I described, if I feel it would lead to the ultimate betterment of the US in some way. You can go on about how I'm secretly not a centrist for focusing on one core ideal at certain points. Though, that's kind of the reality of the situation in Us politics. You'e very rarely going to get a whole lot of what you want in candidates. Maybe one or two core principles at most.
> 
> It doesn't bother me to set aside some principles to support a strong whole that I legitimately feel would benefit the US. Call it a tactical or strategic pick, but that is how I vote often. Not to mention that character and the candidate's past history should be given some consideration as well.
> ...



This is why you should read what a candidate's political positions are, instead of supporting them because they claim they're a champion of liberty: 

When you say you want to champion liberty, you probably *don't* mean ending all federal funding for medical research and banning same sex couples from adopting. 

But that's what Ron Paul thinks liberty is.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 30, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> This is why you should read what a candidate's political positions are, instead of supporting them because they claim they're a champion of liberty:
> 
> When you say you want to champion liberty, you probably *don't* mean ending all federal funding for medical research and banning same sex couples from adopting.
> 
> ...



Look, hindsight is 20/20 alright? I just said I was for him, but when I've revisited him and his views, there were alot of concerning uber christian views that seeped in that pro liberty platform. I admit it was a mistake to root for him, but I'd prefer not to get shamed for past decisions. I still strongly identify with pro-liberty views, but I'll admit that maybe going for Ron Paul was a grave mistake.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Look, hindsight is 20/20 alright? I just said I was for him, but when I've revisited him and his views, there were alot of concerning uber christian views that seeped in that pro liberty platform. I admit it was a mistake to root for him, but I'd prefer not to get shamed for past decisions.



I'm really happy that you realised it was a mistake, and I obviously don't want you to feel ashamed for realising that. You should feel good about yourself for being big enough to admit a mistake. <3 
The question now is, how do you avoid being tricked in the future? There will definitely be more politicians in the future who say they will fight for freedom, but who secretly want to take your freedoms _away_.

The solution which requires the least effort is to look up their political positions on wikipedia before you consider voting for them, to critically assess whether their political views really do accord with your values. 
The best solution is to stay informed about the news and the machinations of politics, so that you develop a spidey-sense for spotting these kinds of politicians.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 30, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm really happy that you realised it was a mistake, and I obviously don't want you to feel ashamed for realising that. You should feel good about yourself for being big enough to admit a mistake. <3
> The question now is, how do you avoid being tricked in the future? There will definitely be more politicians in the future who say they will fight for freedom, but who secretly want to take your freedoms _away_.
> 
> The solution which requires the least effort is to look up their political positions on wikipedia before you consider voting for them, to critically assess whether their political views really do accord with your values.
> The best solution is to stay informed about the news and the machinations of politics, so that you develop a spidey-sense for spotting these kinds of politicians.



I was aware of alot of Paul's better positions, but the anti gay stuff was not mentioned. I was much younger then, during the 2012 election. It's not that he had all bad positions. It's more, 2012 had a very different me and a very different state of the world. All his positions were less known then.


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

And yet, nobody has addressed the extremes of alt accounts, trying to fuck us all


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I was aware of alot of Paul's better positions, but the anti gay stuff was not mentioned. I was much younger then, during the 2012 election. It's not that he had all bad positions. It's more, 2012 had a very different me and a very different state of the world. All his positions were less known then.



So Paul's positions have actually been public knowledge for decades, but you bring up a good point. What do you do if a new politician comes along in the future and doesn't make their views clear on matters that are important to you, like the environment or equal rights for everybody? 

My personal response would be 'if I can't find this person's views out about these important subjects, they either have nasty views that they want to hide, or they don't feel strongly about these issues that I care deeply about, and their views will probably reflect the wider attitudes in their party,'.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> And yet, nobody has addressed the extremes of alt accounts, trying to fuck us all


To be honest, there's not all that much to do about it. IP Bans are usually the farthest sites used to go, but they're ick because they're easy for trolls to circumvent and in other cases will result in banning other household members. Changing your IP address is easy and every troll knows how to do it, but the same isn't necessarily true for every family of Gary Stew, Mary Sue, and their 2.2 kids.
Only thing we can do is get enough mods to be on at all times and deal with trolls quickly enough that they can't enjoy themselves before they're banned. Until then, I guess try to make the environment less hospitable and entertaining for them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> To be honest, there's not all that much to do about it. IP Bans are usually the farthest sites used to go, but they're ick because they're easy for trolls to circumvent and in other cases will result in banning other household members. Changing your IP address is easy and every troll knows how to do it, but the same isn't necessarily true for every family of Gary Stew, Mary Sue, and their 2.2 kids.
> Only thing we can do is get enough mods to be on at all times and deal with trolls quickly enough that they can't enjoy themselves before they're banned. Until then, I guess try to make the environment less hospitable and entertaining for them.



Well, also we need to realise they're zealots, rather than trolls.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Sep 30, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Well, also we need to realise they're zealots, rather than trolls.


I was referring more to the old recurring account problems with LN and S.
I mean, I know Simo was referring to the other thread, but it's ah... It just seems pretty inaccurate to act like Krs two accounts make up the majority of what's been going on. Unless he actually is one of those two.
Or both of them.


----------



## Troj (Sep 30, 2018)

Ron Paul had a nice-enough and familiar-seeming-enough persona, and he didn't broadcast some of his dumber beliefs (especially compared to many Republicans, who've traditionally made a very proud and open show of being anti-gay, anti-environmentalism, and anti-abortion). His dumber beliefs also weren't necessarily ones the average person would associate with a libertarian candidate. Makes perfect sense that he fooled many people.

Obviously, no serious, savvy, sane politician is going to say, "I'm here to take away your freedoms, folks," so you've got to read between the lines when they start waxing poetic about "freedom" or what have you.  Freedom for whom? Freedom to do what? Freedom from what? At what cost?


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> I was referring more to the old recurring account problems with LN and S.
> I mean, I know Simo was referring to the other thread, but it's ah... It just seems pretty inaccurate to act like Krs two accounts make up the majority of what's been going on. Unless he actually is one of those two.
> Or both of them.


Kimber asked us not to specify users' names, but it's getting impossible. :\



Troj said:


> Ron Paul had a nice-enough and familiar-seeming-enough persona, and he didn't broadcast some of his dumber beliefs (especially compared to many Republicans, who've traditionally made a very proud and open show of being anti-gay, anti-environmentalism, and anti-abortion). His dumber beliefs also weren't necessarily ones the average person would associate with a libertarian candidate. Makes perfect sense that he fooled many people.
> 
> Obviously, no serious, savvy, sane politician is going to say, "I'm here to take away your freedoms, folks," so you've got to read between the lines when they start waxing poetic about "freedom" or what have you.  Freedom for whom? Freedom to do what? Freedom from what? At what cost?


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> And yet, nobody has addressed the extremes of alt accounts, trying to fuck us all



Do you mean the Forum? They've been addressed on here, time and time again.


----------



## KimberVaile (Oct 2, 2018)

If I haven't made my stance clear enough.
I don't care who the banned user is, why they got banned, whether they were left or right or just really wanted to pork a baloney sandwich the wrong way. Please take it somewhere else.

It's a simple enough request to follow.

As an aside, thank you, to those of you who've followed the thread requests so far, I appreciate it.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Oct 2, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> As an aside, thank you, to those of you who've followed the thread requests so far, I appreciate it.



No prob, dearie...






Political centrism is always the way to go, (I find) - when one is unsure about a vexatious topic.


----------



## TrishaCat (Oct 2, 2018)

One might consider resizing that image before posting it


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Oct 2, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> One might consider resizing that image before posting it


Big is beautiful.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Oct 7, 2018)

Perhaps political centrism is dead, who knows... given the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings (here in the U.S.) - and the angry, bitter, and nasty tone of the entire affair - it's very clear (to many of us) that the population (these days) is much more divided, angry, and polarized - than perhaps we initially thought.

When we now have a sitting Justice - (now on the bench of our highest Court) who was the most controversial appointment in recent memory, that is also a possible sexual predator, and who possibly perjured himself at the hearings, as well - but was still approved anyway on a near party-line vote, it tells me that the times of political moderation are (perhaps) coming to an end, (if they haven't already).

(With a deep sigh) I must say - that I and others (who are middle of the road types, politically) - *really wish* that things were different.

So perhaps there's no middle ground, anymore? I just don't know.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Oct 7, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Perhaps political centrism is dead, who knows... given the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings (here in the U.S.) - and the angry, bitter, and nasty tone of the entire affair - it's very clear (to many of us) that the population (these days) is much more divided, angry, and polarized - than perhaps we initially thought.
> 
> When we now have a sitting Justice - (now on the bench of our highest Court) who was the most controversial appointment in recent memory, that is also a possible sexual predator, and who possibly perjured himself at the hearings, as well - but was still approved anyway on a near party-line vote, it tells me that the times of political moderation are (perhaps) coming to an end, (if they haven't already).
> 
> ...


It's certainly become the hill upon which American society as we know it may very well die violently if things don't change.

A strong unifying center that is mutually beneficial to as many disparate groups as possible is a major characteristic of a stable society.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Oct 7, 2018)

I was hoping this thread died
Guess not :/


----------



## Angelcakes (Oct 7, 2018)

What is considered the political 'center' is in truth very fuzzy and often strikingly different depending on time, place and material conditions. The Overton Window is a real thing, and it defines what is considered centrist in any political debate.

But it must always be remembered: There's a difference between having a 'double standard' and having a 'MORAL standard'. And being a so-called 'enlightened' centrist in the face of evil is not being rational, but simply moral cowardice.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Oct 7, 2018)

Angelcakes said:


> But it must always be remembered: There's a difference between having a 'double standard' and having a 'MORAL standard'. And being a so-called 'enlightened' centrist in the face of evil is not being rational, but simply moral cowardice.


If being an "enlightened" centrist means abstaining from socio-political matters for the sake of not wanting to take sides, then yes I agree that it's an act of cowardice. What's lost in context however is that centrism can be a powerful moral force in its own right, so long as it embodies opposition to socio-political extremes; the archetypal Left and Right may bicker over which side of the political spectrum is better overall, but by and large they generally don't care to what lengths -however extreme, violent and self-destructive - their constituent demographics are willing to go to prove themselves right.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 8, 2018)

Apoc-Volkov said:


> If being an "enlightened" centrist means abstaining from socio-political matters for the sake of not wanting to take sides, then yes I agree that it's an act of cowardice. What's lost in context however is that centrism can be a powerful moral force in its own right, so long as it embodies opposition to socio-political extremes; the archetypal Left and Right may bicker over which side of the political spectrum is better overall, but by and large they generally don't care to what lengths -however extreme, violent and self-destructive - their constituent demographics are willing to go to prove themselves right.



There's a little bit of a trap here of course. It's easy for people who perceive themselves as centrists to ignore criticisim of their positions by dismissing other perspectives as extreme. 

I think that's why a lot of people who actually hold very extreme ideas themselves are keen to self identify as centrists.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Oct 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> There's a little bit of a trap here of course. It's easy for people who perceive themselves as centrists to ignore criticisim of their positions by dismissing other perspectives as extreme.
> 
> I think that's why a lot of people who actually hold very extreme ideas themselves are keen to self identify as centrists.


Such is the effect of self-righteousness on the human psyche; it makes for poor arbitration of one's own cause.


----------



## KimberVaile (Oct 8, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Perhaps political centrism is dead, who knows... given the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings (here in the U.S.) - and the angry, bitter, and nasty tone of the entire affair - it's very clear (to many of us) that the population (these days) is much more divided, angry, and polarized - than perhaps we initially thought.
> 
> When we now have a sitting Justice - (now on the bench of our highest Court) who was the most controversial appointment in recent memory, that is also a possible sexual predator, and who possibly perjured himself at the hearings, as well - but was still approved anyway on a near party-line vote, it tells me that the times of political moderation are (perhaps) coming to an end, (if they haven't already).
> 
> ...



We are given very few outlets to express a centrist leaning to be more precise. The candidate pool is very woeful.


----------



## Saiko (Oct 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> There's a little bit of a trap here of course. It's easy for people who perceive themselves as centrists to ignore criticisim of their positions by dismissing other perspectives as extreme.
> 
> I think that's why a lot of people who actually hold very extreme ideas themselves are keen to self identify as centrists.


This is why I've developed the opinion that most people who proclaim themselves as centrists are not actually centrists. In my experience, real centrists pick a core label based on their primary issues but then pick a lot of things from the other side. They prefer to talk about their precise brand of centrism rather than summarize it as centrism.


----------



## idkthough120 (Oct 8, 2018)

Just came here to say... what is centrism?


----------

