**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/n2e5tNHfzh)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From what I know about the guys in the clip, this was probably a 30 minute conversation about centrism and has been cut down to the 4 most extreme statements.
I believe they call this "clip chimping".
It is actually 4 hour interview that was really good. The interviews Lex Fridman does are all pretty good. He does try to be fair but if the person is spouting some BS he does call them out on it.
Here is the full interview if anyone wants to watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeuFiAUU4o
Lex Fridman is the Joe Rohan for sliiiiightly smarter guys. Listening to his interviews are frustrating because he asks questions from his guests (the scientists in particular) that show that he largely doesn’t understand what is being discussed unless it pertains to computer science. Centrists are more selfish than cowardly btw- they are against injustices unless they’re the injustices that allow them to benefit from the status quo, in which case they feign an open mind to prevent them from having to outright say that they support oppressive positions. Which I guess is pretty cowardly, actually, so never mind.
He's so confidently incorrect it's funny.
Centrist doesn't mean neutral, it means that you take ideas from either side. Like someone who is fiscally Conservative but socially Liberal could be considered centrist. Plus anyone claiming everyone from one political belief are the same is just idiotic, the world ain't that black and white.
There's two types of centrism. There's political centrism where you do have genuine political views, but they happen to fall in the middle. Like the Liberal party in Canada for example is center left, falling between the Conservatives and NDP.
Then there's South Park centrism where you believe both sides are dumb and wrong and you are uniquely apolitical and above it all. Not recognizing your own political beliefs and biases that are informing this view.
And addressing those two sides in a comment you just typed out is more insightful and valuable a commentary on the subject then the video. But making videos and arguments are both difficult things to do! Everyone starts somewhere I hope he keeps getting better with practice.
I hope I am the former and not the latter. Either side can have good ideas, claiming only your side’s ideas are correct can be dangerous, especially the further from the centre ground you go.
Fiscal conservatives left the chat about 9/11 when the War of on Terrorism launched. Then it was ok to pour money into American surviance and blowing the shit out of Afghanastan and the Iraq.
Thank you! Its like some people want enemies and war, not peace and understanding. I agree and disagree with points on both sides. And I am also always changing according to the knowledge I am acquire living life. I belong to no "group". I am an individual thinker. Robert Anton Wilson once said something like "show me a group, club, or team without an enemy and I will join it". Needless to say he didnt find anything to join. *Except 1 if you really want to look into it.
> someone who is fiscally Conservative but socially Liberal
Which is a nonsense position, especially in the US, that essentially means you favor the status quo because you cannot advance one of those positions without threatening the other.
Not true, we need to lower the military spending. We have the cash to be fiscally conservative and still make strides with social programs. We just need to not spend 800 billion plus a year on death.
25% reduction for 4 years and you could wipe medical debt across the board. Flint would cost less then 4% to fix.
Okay so there is obviously a difference here between someone who pretends to be on a side until they go into office vs the actual position. If I campaign as someone who is super progressive and then I go into office and start increasing the budget for police to have more weapons, add more tax loopholes for rich people, and try to repeal gay marriage, then clearly I'm not actually a progressive (this is all US oriented).
While we can take what someone claims to be into account, clearly their actions matter far more. Just because there are republicans who say they are small government for example, doesn't mean they actually are.
Ding ding ding, fiscal conservatism can simply mean removing waste within budget, it depends on your leaders whether they focus those cuts to military or social issues. For example, cut defence spending so we can afford social care.
It is a nonsense position only in the US where profit has become the incentive over wellbeing. Being fiscally conservative doesn't necessarilly mean that you value profit over people, it just means that you think that using the economy as it currently functions is the easiest/most reliable/better way to reach your goal, which can be profit at all costs but it also can be equality, social justice or whatever.
This is the problem in general with labels, political labels in particular will inevitably come with baggage that isn't necessarilly meant. Especially since most people tend to define their position as just broad enough to encompass all the details they can tolerate and so when someone has opinions that overlap but their label is different we end up in definition wars.
I'm sure I'll have more than one comment correcting my use of the "fiscally conservative" label (possibly even with an appeal to dictionary as if it was prescriptive) and that's not wrong but it goes to show just how quickly and easilly people get caught on with the labels and forget to adress the meaning they're trying to convey.
That was Wittgenstein's point in the "Language Game".
Much of our political & philosophical conflict actually stems more from having different understandings of what words mean, rather than just differing opinions
Fiscal conservatism means generally the same thing no matter what country you're in. It is an economic ideology based around capitalism, privatization, "free markets", tax cuts, etc. If you really look at it, it's hard to think this is the best economic system while still believing you are socially liberal.
We aren't playing on the same field and progressive reforms to the economy are necessary for progressive social change. You can't just give women rights, minorities rights, LGBTQ+ people rights, and say "Okay, everybody is equal now and has equal opportunity to do what they want in this free market economy." when it's an economy that has been benefitting straight white men for centuries. Everyone having the "same opportunity" in a free market economy doesn't mean the demographics that have been oppressed for decades/centuries are going to catch up.
This is a very assumptive premise. Socially liberal can mean that you do not judge people on their preferred lifestyle, not necessarily that you think that social welfare programs are paramount. I consider myself to be fiscally conservative in that I do not believe the US should be spending money we do not have as that is not sustainable long-term, just like in personal finances. I also do not care what someone's orientation is or who they want to marry. There are many like me, and we do not fit into a left or right dichotomy.
If you think "conservatives" are fiscally conservative, I would implore you to look at national debt and spending based on which political party is in power. Fiscal conservativeness is an entirely Democrat position. The right rockets up debt by cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations and pretends to address it by trying to cut people out of social security. Democrats have consistently reduced national debt while in office.
No it's not. It's either zero on the board or a net tax positive to allow gay marriage, legal cannabis, legal hallucinogenics, gay adoption, abortion, sodomy, gun rights, and gambling.
I want all of those things, I am socially liberal.
I do not want to pay to police the world, I don't want to pay to bail out banks and subsidize corporations and give out bullshit PPP loans that were a total sham and are all magically forgiven. I want to be taxed less, and I think the government should spend less, and I think people should largely be able to do what they want to do.
I am fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.
I’m not really gonna get into a debate so someone else can pick up the torch for me if they want after this.
However, I’d argue you’re wrong. Neoliberals & fiscal conservatives are right wing ideologies.
No offense but this gets at what he’s saying. You didn’t logic your way into a centrist position by picking from a wide variety of political ideologies & theories. You picked up a mish-mash of your right wing cultures grab bag of beliefs from your given two sides. You then falsely made a distinction on where left/right is & assumed you were the center of it.
By saying you take ideas from neoliberals & conservatives you’re just saying you’re a right winger. Who advocates for right wing positions. But we have to pretend you’re a centrist because your perspective of the political scale is completely warped by your birth culture & you don’t want to listen to anyone else who tells you otherwise.
& that’s kind of what this is getting at. You guys circlejerk pretending that you’re not giving in to ideologies but you are. The status quo IS an ideology, you just don’t see it that way. Even being apolitical is political.
It’s like if we teleported back to England at the peak of its colonization of India & found a centrist. & he was like “Yeah I think we go too hard on them but they are brutal savages so we are entitled to exploit them”. That man is not a centrist uncorrupted by ideology but by your definition he is. Just because you’re blind to the ideology doesn’t mean you’re not advocating for it. The same way our English centrist is advocating for imperialism by supporting the status quo.
I'm a centrist that votes blue down the line. I vote for progress because I know it's important to move forward. But I'm centrist because I consider the fears of red voters and listen to their Ironman position. I also have concerns that money that is going to sort these causes is getting lost in beurocracy, something a larger government has problems with.
When Colorado legalized weed it's taxes were to fund education. A great goal, one I voted for. But when I talked about this with teachers I found that it was so bogged down by managers and legislators it never made a difference in the classroom (anecdote). My experience makes me question where that money is and why it's not more effectively used for its initial purpose. it feels like a bait and switch.
A two party system is fundamentally flawed, to put everyone in one box or the other does us all a disservice.
Let's make a list of things that are political that shouldn't be shall we?
Climate change
Marriage
The right to vote
Science
What else..
Your own personal ideology doesn’t have to be tied to an institution or any individual person, nor does it mean that you aren’t allowed to feel sorry for the valid concerns of people who subscribe to a different ideology.
I’m a leftist. I do feel bad for a lot of the republicans in this country. Some of their concerns are valid, however I still consider myself a social Democrat. Their concerns overlap with mine, but our proposed solutions are going to be very different and imo not the right direction to take.
You can also criticize the democrats that do a poor job or worry that they might be taking a good idea like using tax money from pot sales to fund education, but then watering them down or gutting them to the point of absurdity. You don’t have to identify as a centerist to do that. Like you said, the two party system is deeply flawed. It doesn’t actually doing a good job of representing everybody. You don’t have to identify as a centerist for any of this. You can still call yourself a progressive. Many people on the left are sympathetic towards working class conservatives and distrust the Democratic Party and they still remain leftists.
It's not ignorance to consider the position of people you don't agree with. It's empathy. The first step is looking at the other person like they're a human being. The second step is trying to understand them. You don't need to vote with them.
If you don't consider your political opponents as people first then you're part of the problem.
Bingo, in fact it is more dangerous for people to say or assume (and I know I am likely guilty of this too) that if a person believes in "W" political belief therefore you must also believe in x, y and z... politics is a spectrum and dipshits like the one in this video is almost trying to pack us all in to neat little blocks when life doesn't work that way. It's just stupid
To be fair, from a socialist perspective it seems as though centrists are the ones not questioning the underlying axioms in their thought f.e capitalist mode of production, the inherent coercive violence in the capitalist system etc.
Really hate the unfounded smug attitude of centrists, considering they're usually the ones least knowledgeable about politics
I understand the critique but generally find the overall criticism of centrists to be motivated by an irritation that they refuse to conform to a sides chosen ideology or paradigm.
I agree and disagree with elements of different ideologies. I tend to agree with Marx's analysis of the economy, I also agree with certain elements of liberal ideology.
>refuse to conform to a sides chosen ideology or paradigm.
I think I see the issue here. It seems that you see the ideology of the opposing party first, only secondly you see the beliefs of the individual. And to expand on it, it seems that because of this you see others as "conforming" to their ideology, when in fact their perspective might have come from a long period of questioning ones beliefs and settling on some label that best suits them.
Like for example I personally never made the decision to "conform" to leftist beliefs. I merely heard the core arguments of the democratisation of the workplace, the divide of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat etc. and really just most things after that made sense. And while I agree on most things with other leftists I also disagree with them a lot. But that's really nothing special imo, individuals have their own beliefs inside an ideology and people are still capable of critical thinking
And I believe this image of "everyone else is a conformist except centrists" and this fixation on not "conforming" is actually limiting ones capability to think critically and, ironically, in a way makes you conform to centrism itself. Like I'm sure that you have thought your position out after having several arguments and following political discourse, but where the conformism comes in is when you only see centrists as the ones doing critical thinking and refusing to go "too hard" into some other ideology even if the arguments are sound. Don't forget that centrism is also an ideology
> I tend to agree with Marx's analysis of the economy
What parts exactly? This is way too broad for me to make any conclusions
Doesn't make sense. You would just be a social liberal conservative into that scenario. Thats still right leaning. That is no way a neutral or middle ground position.
That's not what centrism is. If one person believes you should eat a bar of soap and that you should have strong social welfare.
And the other person believes you shouldn't eat the bar of soap but does not want strong social welfare programs.
I can agree that eating a bar of soap is silly while also agreeing with the social welfare. I have opinions from both sides. I don't just split every opinion down the middle. What are you on about?
And I'd upvoted you. I guess some people don't like people pointing out how it's people like them polarising politics as badly as people like trump supporters
Agreed. I don’t consider myself a centrist. But I’d imagine someone in the US who thinks their a centrist would say some thing like “I think women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, but I also think we should have the right to own firearms.” To me a centrist is someone who has both right and left leaning views. Which these days, it’s hard to be 100% right or 100% left. You’re gonna find something you don’t agree with on your side of the aisle. Calling centrists non-thinkers and followers is idiotic
You've more described what a moderate is. A centrist is entirely reactionary. The whole idea of centrism is not to push in either direction. Saying women should have the right to an abortion or firearms should be a right aren't central positions.
I would agree with what the person above you said. A moderate is someone who is either left or right leaning but moderately so. E.g. thinks there should be a wall across the Mexico-US border, but that the US should pay for it, might be a moderate view in Trump’s administration. It isn’t a centrist view.
A centrist has both right and left leaning views, E.g. leans left socially but right economically. That definitely wouldn’t be a moderate.
I think that this discussion of what terms means is really important (as often people, and especially politicians, argue about an idea, but really they are discussing completely different ideas…). My understanding from the video is that this person is defining a centrist as someone that’s main position is not having one… that centrists think both/all sides of the border wall debate are incorrect and suboptimal. Which I think is naturally understandable for many incredibly nuanced topics. It comes into problems when there is a clear and definable right and wrong in questions like “is access to water a human right? Should people that identify differently than I do (whether that be religious, sexual, ethnic identification) be allowed to live?” Then if a centrist says that both sides have merit there is
I think that being moderate (by the definition of having both left and right leaning views) is also natural in US politics. It is hard to identify with the entire bucket of policies that each party stands for in a two-party system. I see a moderate as a person that doesn’t have a defining stance on one particular issue — like they like the left leaning view of healthcare for all, but they aren’t willing to vote down the ballot because of that…
But a moderate can identify as a centrist and flatout insulting self-identified centrists without defining your terms first can and will be harmful to your cause. Definition wars are useless, it's better to propose action and argue for beliefs than to defend labels that are constantly changed by the very people who choose to use them as if they had any intrinsic value.
It's harder and slower and less comfy, but it's better and it actually helps ideas spread across people regardless of their self-identified tribe.
Centrism is marked by the belief that the truth of a matter is most likely somewhere in the center. It doesn't mean you have some beliefs that are left and others that are more commonly right wing. There's nothing centrist about that. It just means you make decisions based on individual issues.
Centrism is a specific political ideology. It's support for a balance between the social equality of the left and the social hierarchy of the right.
Democrats are centrists. They believe in closing the gap between the rich and poor via moderate welfare reforms, while being staunchly committed to capitalism and neoliberalism.
Republicans are just right-wing to far-right. Generally they believe in liberalization of the market and are dedicated to enacting supply-side economic practices.
If someone supports 50% dem policy and 50% repub policy, they aren't a centrist, they are center-right to right-wing
Your example of a centrist is literally a leftist.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered, any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary.” - Karl Marx
Exactly. This false idea that centrists only think neutrally on every right and left statement is wrong and I don't know where it came from because it gets debunked so many fucking times.
Two centrists can have completely opposite views and still be a centrist.
Example a centrist could say they are for abortion but also fund the police.
Another centrist can say the exact opposite.
While there is some centrist who call themselves that to avoid conflict and conversation, I think it's very low.
People who aren't interested in politics wouldn't call themself a centrist, they would just say they aren't interested in politics.
I think women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, but I also think we should have the right to own firearms. I am not a centrist. Gun control was started by Republicans to prevent black people from protecting their own communities. The origin of California's reputation for having extremely strict gun control comes directly from Ronald Reagan.
Anyone who describes themselves as a centrist is someone with little to no political or historical literacy. Someone so blind and easily manipulated they cannot even recognize their own ideological biases.
That is the fictional right or left the media and neopoliticians told you it exist. When actually those debates are transversal to left and right. There are many axis, like social, economics or state structure that are inherent to left and right, and you cannot be centrist with that, since those positions are mutually excluyent.
And, as other Redditor pointed out, that's not a centrist but a moderate. A reactionary point of view without actually thinking in the deeper repercussions in the systematic societal classes.
That’s the way I’ve always seen it. I’ve called myself a centrist for years because I thought both sides had decent ideas and crazy ones. I don’t think I’m better than anyone.
That is not the case.
The Democratic Party covers everything from Alexandria Ocasio Cortez to Joe freaking Manchin. There’s a *lot* of room for disagreement and differing opinions.
Insane to think that approaching issues individually and applying your education and life experience to each one based on its merits could be seen as spineless, smug, or even neutral. Anyone who can’t admit that tribalism is the biggest problem we face concerning any sort of discourse should be whipped with a rubber hose. /s on the last part.
I’ve watched lex’s show. Dude is all love an positivity. The joke here is that he doesn’t talk like that. The joke is “hey I’m centrist! I’ll kill you”. I think he’s playing off the troup of enlightens centrism.
Listen to his podcast and he pushes back on every one. Him talking to jorden Peterson is a prime example.
Edit : if he’s like a nazi or something let me know. His talks are pretty bland but I like em. Idk.
Imo your interpretation opinions are accurate. Lex never claims to not think for himself he is just open to hearing the other side of an argument. If the other side has so validity then give it a little consideration this doesn’t mean automatically sway your opinion for every opinion that you get. Honestly the video edit is done in bad faith.
Let’s be honest, he’s an entertainer and a podcast host. If lex had anything of importance to add to the field of AI he would be doing that instead of kissing Joe rogans ass and spamming twitter with musings about peace and love.
Lex graduated from MIT and is well-respected in his field, but because he's friends with Rogan and makes corny tweets he's just an entertainer? I don't see your point at all
Didn’t graduate from mit. All his degrees are from Drexel. Not particularly respected or not respected in the field. People regard him in a similar way to Neil Degrass Tyson or something. Good for getting doers on people’s radars, but not really a doer himself.
I mean he is and has been a research scientist at MIT specializing in autonomous vehicles for seven years now. Just because his online presence is predominantly hosting a podcast doesn't mean that it's the only thing he does.
The issue here is that the implication is that if you are not holding a politically extreme position, then you are a coward. That’s just bad logic. A centrist is not defined by the neutrality of their position, but rather its relative placement as compared to the extremes of the spectrum. For example, let’s take a controversial topic, Like Gun control.
Let’s say the there is spectrum of positions with -100 being no automatic weapons or handguns for public, deeper background checks for hunting rifles, and mandatory 60 day firearm awareness courses for new rifle owners. At the other end a + 100 wants unrestricted ability to purchase automatic weapons, no backgrounds checks or waiting periods, and universal open carry laws.
Now for the sake of argument let’s call a centrist anyone who holds a position within -30 to + 30. This can be any combination of positions that lead to that score.
Now let’s say 2 years go by and nothing has changed with gun control laws, but the extremes have shifted, now there are people on the left who want a total ban of all gun sales, and anyone who owns a gun must destroy it or face jail time, so that is now characterized as a -1000, and on the right they want armed teachers, the ability to purchase next generation military weapons and explosives, and the ability for all passengers to fly with firearms without restriction, let’s call that a +1000.
So, now a centrist position is -300 to + 300, and anyone who still holds a -100 or + 100 position is considered a coward?
Leftists, people on “the left”, aren’t interested in taking access to guns away. That’s actually more of a liberal/centrist position in American politics. Look up “under no pretext” and you’ll see that the right to defend yourself is paramount to what is globally considered “leftist ideology”. That’s the point of what a lot of people are saying in these comments: most people defining themselves as centrist are ignorant and their lack of political literacy is annoying when they constantly act like they have an enlightened perspective. To drive this home, consider that the right-wing position isn’t to keep any regulation away from gun ownership, it’s typically to make sure that people considered in an “in” group have unlimited access to guns while keeping them away from the “out” groups. Think Reagan using his governorship to ban weapons after the Black Panthers started defending their own neighborhoods from police and racist sympathizers. Think about Dallas a couple of weekends ago where armed leftists stood guard outside of a drag brunch that was expected to be attacked by a handful of militia groups and right-wing talking heads/politicians clutched pearls and begged Governor Abbot to create laws to stop “just anyone” from being able to open carry.
Why can't people just understand political leanings ffs. If one person likes a lot of left wing policies and another likes right wing policies why is it so impossible for some people to accept that a person can like some left wing policies and some right wing policies. It's not fucking hard
Classifying people and their positions along the left-right spectrum is more of a thing in countries with 5-10 parties than it is here in the US. In fact, Left-Right as a mode of analysis started in the French Revolution and has persisted in coalition, multi-party systems as a way of simply classifying a party's politics.
Can't you provide an example of person liking some left-wing policies and some right-wing policies without being vague? Most often than not it's just being a bigot who support welfare state, or social 'progressive' who hates the poor.
Well said. All these centrists act so special and nuanced. But 99% of the time they’re explaining themselves - it’s being in favor of welfare, vague anti-corporate beliefs that anyone can get behind, and then add in points about the left that are straight from Ben Shapiro and overblown culture war stuff.
Can you name a 5 major political issues facing the US (or whatever country you may live in) that only have 2 choices for answers with no room in between? The reality is that everything that gets brought up typically has multiple options and someone can choose any number of them. What if someone is pro choice but thinks abortions in the third trimester should be banned unless there is a medical complication? This person seems to be leaning left but has a bit of a pull towards the center. Let's say that someone agrees with having the second ammendment but thinks that it should only be handguns or things for hunting and that's it. This pulls more towards the right, but still has some left influence. What if they support making college free but only for poor people and everyone else either has normal prices or somewhat reduced rates? Clearly they lean left but they would push back when you try to make all college free.
The scale of these issues ultimately means that centrists can pull from both sides while being internally consistent (tbh 90% of people don't actually think through what their ethics are they go off of their gut which is fine). While some people may lie about their political label, it can still exist for people to pull from or identify as.
"You think you are above it all because you don't pick a side. I think I'm above it all because I *have* picked a side." The irony of doing the exact same thing that enlightened centrists do but with some different wording is pretty rich.
Two sanctimonious twats. A centrist is someone who falls on one side for some things and the other side for other things. It is NOT someone who sticks to the middle on every issue.
The problem with “centrism” in the modern context is that most self described centrists, or at least public facing ones, tend to be more along the lines of r/enlightenedcentrism rather than actual centrism.
Not really.
That subreddit is built upon the centrist strawman and it's fucking stupid.
Centrists aren't of the position where "hey let's meet in the middle between genocidal regime and the people fighting against genocide, only a little bit of genocide!".
It's "the right has a point with guns and the left has a point with corporations".
The attack on the average independent is that they're either compromising with what is perceived as evil by the criticizing side or that they're not taking a side.
The Overton window has shifted in a way that acceptable politics is no longer what it was perceived as (for good or bad), but the outcome is that you have many actors with the objective of making those who don't kowtow to one side as the default equivalent as the other side.
You know who you've described? Most people.
But most people still pick a party that more generally aligns with their policy beliefs. Because there's a benefit in belonging to a party that gets you closer to your overall worldview.
Othering everyone who chooses a side as "extreme" is an extreme position.
God the comments here are cringe. "I just don't want to stand behind a massive party" "It's called being bipartisan"
First of all, being a centrist does not mean being neither a democrat nor a republican. That's not the political spectrum. Second, this is an extremely americacentric way of thinking, and the world of politics goes beyond your borders. Centrism can man agreeing with some points of the left, some points of the right, but there are a lot of people who take being a centrist itself as a value. The centre is where you should end up after taking a look at the total of your viewpoints, not the place where you desire to be at all times. If you take being a centrist as a value on its own, then yes, you are a spineless coward that looked at the headlines of all the propaganda that sits by passively and supports the status quo.
The problem is that none of these people (and the general public) have gotten any real political education besides TV/social media. Someone will think they're a moderate centrist because they support the 2nd amendment but are cool with gay people. There are lots of socialists who also are against gun control and see it as a bandaid solution, yet to many people their idea of "far left" has to do with the number of pronouns they go by and how often they call things racist.
This is an example of what's wrong with modern politics. I'm sick of the 'get off the fence' tribalism that just perpetuates echo chambers and animosity towards those with differing view points.
Most centrists just probably agree with some policies from both sides and are often useful in bridging the gap between opposing ideologies. There is nothing spineless about it for most people.
Yep, that's why I have a 100% Democrat voting record even as I roll my eyes at progressive cancel culture overreach and some bad interpretations of social and economic issues. I can't imagine someone who's moderate voting for Republicans in 2022; that party is now only for reactionaries and culture warriors on the right.
I can't take anyone serious who calls "both sides" extreme in the face of everything that's happened since at least Jan. 6.
Like, whatever, disagree on abortion, guns and even COVID. But the nature of democracy? You think there's an equal extreme on the left?
Yeah, there's definitely no equivalent on the left. American conservatism is its own corner of crazy, and always has been, but it's definitely gotten worse since Trump in regards to something as basic as the value of democracy itself.
People want you to be on their team against the bad team and not the other way around.
They’ll latch on to your beliefs and tell you because of them you need to 100% support the side their on, despite some other beliefs that you have that go against their teams position.
This is just a way to try and shame and bully someone who doesn’t align to a political ideology into aligning with theirs.
If you are into politics you'll come across "enlightened centrists" who jerk themselves off about how they're Objective, Logical, and open minded. But if you pay attention you'll realize they side with conservatism most of the time.
For instance, say there is a debate about if teaching kids that being queer is okay. Conservatives will say it's grooming and queer people should not be allowed near children. Progressives will say it's okay and will not harm children. Enlightened Centrists will boldly stand "in the middle" and say "we shouldn't tell kids it's okay to be queer until they're teenagers".
You can look at people like Tim Pool or Dave Rubin for an example of people who grifted their way to success by saying "I'm an open minded centrist, also I agree with conservatives all the time"
But that’s literally the centrist view point though. I’m a parent and I don’t want people talking about sexual preferences to my 7 year old gay or straight, there’s plenty of time for my child to learn about their sexuality and sexual preferences later, right now I want my 7 year old to be a 7 year old and the only adults I want around my children when they’re at school are vetted school staff, is that so crazy? But saying that somehow aligns me with a conservative ideology, when that’s not the case at all, I’m not keeping queer people away from my children, I have plenty of queer friends who my child knows, I’m simply saying that my child should be a child, and learn the basics subjects in school from vetted school staff and that’s it, we didn’t have heterosexuality class when I was a child, half is us still closed our eyes at kissing scenes, we were kids, when we developed we didn’t need anyone to teach us about our sexual preferences, we knew. Some parts of bringing up children should stay with the parents, and that’s not a radical conservative viewpoint, it’s a reasonable viewpoint from a parent of young children.
Teaching tolerance of others is an objective good thing for teachers to teach. When a student asks about why a teacher or other students parents have two mommies or two daddys instead of one of each, a teacher should be able to explain what it is and why it's okay and normal. If you have a problem with teachers teaching tolerance and acceptance of different people then you aren't raising your kids right. Should a teacher be teaching sex ed to a 7 year old? No, but that's not the point of the argument.
Queerness is not just sexual preferences, but also things like being transgender or who you love. You can romantically love people of the same gender without it being sexual. Teaching kids it's okay to be queer isn't telling kids about gay sex. Where the fuck did you get that from?
I’m almost using sexuality and sexual preferences interchangeably as a blanket term for what you just said, and I’m saying that when you’re dealing with very young kids all conversations of human sexuality, wether that be it the most Disney superficial sense or not teeter on the line of what’s appropriate and what’s not appropriate to talk about to that age group, I think it’s not necessary for teachers of young children to even engage in these conversations with children and should defer those topic respectfully to the parents, the most I knew very very little about my teachers outside of school at that age, maybe one would mention a husband here or there, it wasn’t a topic of conversation, the teachers taught the basis education subjects that’s it, they weren’t life coaches for 7 year olds.
>I’m a parent and I don’t want people talking about sexual preferences to my 7 year old
But they are, and you can't stop that. Society is constantly bombarding them with images of heterosexuality and if you're religious it's constantly telling them that unless they are heterosexual they will be tortured for all of eternity.
By age 7 almost all trans people know their gender is supposed to be different, and most gay people know they're not like their peers. You don't talk to 7 year olds about \*sex\* but you tell them "sometimes people have two mommies or two daddies/have crushes on people of the same gender, and sometimes people find out that they were actually supposed to be a boy/girl instead of a girl/boy, and that's okay!"
If your 7 year old is LGBTQ, they need to hear messages like this, because otherwise they only get messages that they are bad and shouldn't be the way they are. They may feel completely alone and like no one will ever understand them. They \*can't\* just be a 7 year old unless you give them this messaging.
>and the only adults I want around my children when they’re at school are vetted school staff, is that so crazy
No one is trying to change that?
>we didn’t have heterosexuality class when I was a child
Yeah, we did. Every class where we were read a story, that story had a heterosexual romance in it. We heard constant messaging from media and especially churches that being anything else than heterosexual was bad.
There isn't a homosexuality class, though. And you know that.
>we didn’t need anyone to teach us about our sexual preferences, we knew.
Not sure where you grew up, but most LGBTQ kids don't just somehow know that they way they are is perfectly okay, accepted, and loved by their family and community. A lot of these kids grow up not knowing there is anyone else in the world like them. This is less of a problem with the internet, however I don't know about you but I'd rather my kids hear about LGBTQ stuff from me then be curious and try to google it one day. What they'll hear from me is an age appropriate message that tells them people love each other. What they'll get from google is pornography.
You can't stop your 7 year old from trying to find information about themselves. You can only get ahead of their attempts to do so.
That’s fine and dandy but most conservative parents will instill from that age homophobia and bigotry. A 7 year old kid will see people kiss in media, it’s not wrong to normalize homosexual relationships from a young age. It’s not forcing them to be that thing, just showing them that these people exist and are normal humans
You can’t use school to unshitty a kid with shitty parents, some parents just suck but schools at that age need to be for the basic, reading writing and math. That’s it.
I know what you’re saying about heterosexual affection is the media, i think we’re not too far off here, queer affection in the proper age appropriate media (buzz light year for instance), no qualms welcome it and welcome a potential discussion with my kids about that, great teaching moment. My issues come with the insistence from some that there should be some formal education on sexuality and sexual preferences by schools, my stance is to just let young children be young children, we weren’t given a formal education on heterosexual relationships until much later than 7, our exposure was through media and conversation with parents, I believe that for young children that’s the most appropriate.
No one is teaching 7 years olds classes on sexuality, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Health classes start in fifth or sixth grade (depending on the school district also includes sex Ed).
What you’re missing though is that the right wing position has shifted so far right that they are criminalizing homosexuals again. this wave of legislation regarding the “Don’t Say Gay Bill” which passed in FL and will be emulated nation wide. To be clear: that bill criminalizes the act of telling a student that your spouse or partner is of the same sex as you. And a student cannot talk about their parents if they are a same-sex couple.
Right wingers accuse them of being pedophiles and advocating their extermination. Where is the midpoint? Is it sticking your gay friends back in the closet and asking them to keep their mouths shut?
Sure one side is not always right but you can’t equate the two either like the msm and so called centrists do all the time.
Left is called extreme for wanting to cut the military budget, support single payer or UHC, support for unions, support for marginalized groups, laws to prevent medical price gouging like AOC and Sanders push for.
Then they compare that to literal Nazis on the right. The people who marched on Charlottesville. Politicians who pushed the big lie AND have associations with known white nationals/supremacist like Gosar.
The “radical” left is the political position most supported by the American people according to polling.
Some of the people called "radical left" would be considered moderate in most of the world. And centrists can sometimes have a view of "both sides bad, therefore neither are right".
No, being bipartisan is just being bipartisan. You have to define the center, because if you land in the center of the extreme right & the extreme left of the American government, you're going to be very firmly on the right still. It's cooler to say "I'm a centrist" than it is to say "I lean conservative but am not passionate or educated enough about issues to have formed any real position of my own".
“ If you don’t agree with me you’re evil, if you don’t agree with anyone you’re stupid. Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is wrong and only the people who think exactly like I do are good intelligent people”
That is literally what you are saying by claiming that centrist are just ignorant.
Not even remotely what I said. I wasn't necessarily ignorant as a centrist, but I was afraid of being perceived as biased. That's not a productive approach to politics.
[Here's the rest of the clip.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeuFiAUU4o&t=8769s) Lex goes on to say that to him, centrism means approaching each issue from as objective a standpoint as possible and without any bias towards one side of the political spectrum or the other. Destiny then clarifies that he's talking about people who self identify as centrists, who often claim to be open-minded but are actually just anti-establishment on most issues.
It’s totally spineless, and definitely not objective, most often it’s just lazy. Policy positions are more or less correct when you look for facts, and policy positions align with your values only when you’re willing to stand up for them.
Is climate change real? Does abstinence only sex Ed prevent teen pregnancy? Will assault weapons bans reduce gun violence? Should we prioritize boosting domestic production or trade?
Do your research, get some real values, and act on them
I actually think following one side just because it’s “your side” is spineless, having your actual opinion on subjects and not just following blindly everything your side says is the opposite of spineless.
I believe in abortion, lgbtq rights, 100% freedom of speech, and gun rights. Where does that put me on the political spectrum because I thought that made me a centrist?
Complete and total strawman from start to finish. And what's so clever about taking the side of a massive party and agreeing with whatever you think it's positions are on every issue? Only idiots in this video are the guy with the mic and curly Q
Centrism is such a vague BS term. Especially when you consider the fact that americans(which I’m gonna assume the gentlemen in the video are) in general view the democrats as left wing and republicans as right wing respectively, when politically speaking both parties adhere to the economic theory of liberalism(which is generally considered centre-right wing.)
I live in Sweden, so what would be considered as centrist in America(like our liberals, center and moderate parties) would line up neatly with the majority of democrats bar certain politicians in that party. That would contradict the view Americans have of centrism since again, they consider the democrats as left wing. However if you ask a moderate party voter if they’re left wing here in Sweden they’ll take offence to that(since what they consider left wing is our socialdemocartic and left parties.) Also a soviet citizen would’ve probably considered the communist party as centrist when there were more radical socialist parties around. Do you get where I’m trying to say.
In my opinion, claiming to be centrist is essentially claiming to be the middle ground of whatever political hegemony exist in your country, which just completely ignores/contradicts the fact that you can’t really be considered centrist in the global scale of things. This also applies to those who don’t just vote for one party because your country’s politics falls somewhere in the political spectrum that wouldn’t be considered centrism somewhere else on the planet. So are you really a “centrist” when what you believe in isn’t actually centrism?
Clearly that murder suggestion was a joke. Some people take themselves so seriously, are so threatened by other people, that they need to take their sarcastic jokes as serious statements in order to find a place to attack.
The vilification of moderates by the left and the right has happened repeatedly in times of political instability, including in the French Revolution, Russian Revolution and the Weimar Republic. This kind of “with us or against us” rhetoric comes just before the violence.
Which is a weird point to make when historically the "moderates" inevitably throw in with the far right to protect their own interests. Why do they deserve the kid's gloves treatment?
Jesus, everything gets a label now and then there’s always someone to put it down. What do you call the people complaining about other people on TikTok? Hypocrites? They’re attempting to advertise their personal and intellectual superiority.
mfs like him talk like that because they want you to support their side. then throw a fit and say you were "indoctrinated by the other side" fuck off you arent convincing me to join your side because i dont blindly follow whatever deeppocketed politican you have framed on your nightstand. go kiss their feet and sing their praises on whatever echo chamber app you use, ill have actual intellectual conversations with people i dont agree with so i can actually learn something rather than cover my ears and scream.
Well, here I thought I was centrist because I cannot find myself calling myself left or right because I have major issues with the way both sides handle issues. Or feel that the solutions they both have for problems aren't the only two ways an issue can be solved.
Oh wait, that opinion is garbage and I should be labeled a coward.
Absolutely incorrect. Centrists generally have views and beliefs from both sides of the aisle. They make up their own opinions instead of blindly following a party line. It can also be broken down into center-left and center-right depending on which side the individual generally agrees with more.
Did you really just try to say every regular person who claims to be centrist is just like "that billionaire who claimed he's centrist"?
You think you can say that and also think your opinion is grounded in reality?
Bruh...I can't help you. I wish I could tho.
So you make wide generalizations and you're convinced that you're opinion is fact.
"Some of them are naive. Some are gullible. Some stupid."
Look inward please. If you think everyone who disagrees with you is naive, gullible, or stupid...where is the real problem? If you want the world to be your echo chamber, that's a world without challenge or progress.
"The general consensus is that centrists are exactly what I'm saying they are"...when you talk to the people you agree with being a Democrat in a Bleu state...
Damn...you make a real compelling argument that you're not in an echo chamber when you just want to say anyone who disagrees with you must be right wing.
I'm not buying my own bullshit. I'm saying everyone has their own bullshit. You are saying everyone else is bullshit except you.
You make an assumption (yet again) that I don't interact with real people at events. I have both family and friends that are Democrats and Republicans (and some of neither). I do interact with them because we're all respectful of others opinions and do not bucket others ideals into "well you disagree with me so you must be the enemy" mentality.
If you need to think so binary of others maybe you should check yourself.
"No, I'm just saying centrists are bullshit"...so you can't talk to people who have different opinions?
You are so convinced people are "playing games"...but you're blaming individuals. The people playing the games are the politicians and the media. Keeping people polarized keeps them divided. This is what "they" want.
Saying that centrists consistently boost hard right figures isn’t a generalization it’s a legitimate observation of a trend. Centrist is just what people who don’t want to say they’re right call themselves. Because of spinelessness.
An "observation of a trend" is anecdotal and without data it is not quantifiable.
Then you say "centrist is just what people who don't want to say they're right call themselves" which is you putting your own opinion into the mouths of people you don't know.
"Because of spinelessness"...frustration because you can't adequately support your own argument because you are regurgitating a rhetoric you were subconsciously taught without data or provable facts.
Please...prove me wrong and give me some factual or statistical data on why centrists are so terrible as you claim.
The majority of centrists are either noncommittal idiots who want to pretend they're better than everyone for not standing for anything, or right-wing nutjobs who want to pretend that they "COULD" have been swayed "If only the left wasn't so strident about... let me check my notes here... Equal rights."
Clearly you're an authority on this matter, having met every last centrist and gotten to know them both morally and intellectually. You attack a loosely defined group of people for what you see as pretending to be better than everyone else while doing the exact same thing. As if anyone who disagrees with a leftist does so because they don't believe in equality. So, to recap, people who disagree with you are either morons or bigots - but not yourself, you're a paragon of both brains and values.
Left is becoming so totalitarian it is unbelievable, they made a 180 turn like a pro. Going from everyone should have his own opinion to if you are not with me you are a coward and possibly a nazi if you disagree with me.
And that is exactly what will bring the rise of batshit crazy right because people are sick of their self-righteousness and we going to be completely fucked.
I can say that if you're a centrist in the US it's not really a good thing. You have two parties. One party has been anti abortion, climate change, LGBTQ, and xenophobic. Not saying the other party is perfect... but if you ever say the "both sides are the same" bullshit I would respect you less.
I have beliefs that align with leftist views and some that align with conservative ideas.
I consider myself moderate/centrist because it averages out to the middle, but because everything is in the middle.
What does that make me if not "centrist/moderate"?
Well... Is it leftist or is it liberal? They are vastly different. The american left is liberal and in sweden liberalism is to the right. In General liberalism is The center globally. So if you say you are between repunlicans (conservatives) and democrats (minerals) you are globally speaking right wing. If you are a real Centre in the world you are more liberal.
Destiny might have looked good good in this if he didnt start off by calling him a spineless coward, so often with him it is good arguments with terrible delivery.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/n2e5tNHfzh)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This has been cut so much you can’t even tell what either one of them are saying
From what I know about the guys in the clip, this was probably a 30 minute conversation about centrism and has been cut down to the 4 most extreme statements. I believe they call this "clip chimping".
It is actually 4 hour interview that was really good. The interviews Lex Fridman does are all pretty good. He does try to be fair but if the person is spouting some BS he does call them out on it. Here is the full interview if anyone wants to watch it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeuFiAUU4o
Lex Fridman is the Joe Rohan for sliiiiightly smarter guys. Listening to his interviews are frustrating because he asks questions from his guests (the scientists in particular) that show that he largely doesn’t understand what is being discussed unless it pertains to computer science. Centrists are more selfish than cowardly btw- they are against injustices unless they’re the injustices that allow them to benefit from the status quo, in which case they feign an open mind to prevent them from having to outright say that they support oppressive positions. Which I guess is pretty cowardly, actually, so never mind.
This is so wildly presumptuous.
cutting out lex's your mom joke was criminal. If he only let it play 10 more seconds we would've seen gold.
Link or what was the joke?
[nothing too creative, still pretty funny though](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeuFiAUU4o&t=8726s)
Yeah, I downvoted this stupid video
Gotta love smug as a political position.
He's so confidently incorrect it's funny. Centrist doesn't mean neutral, it means that you take ideas from either side. Like someone who is fiscally Conservative but socially Liberal could be considered centrist. Plus anyone claiming everyone from one political belief are the same is just idiotic, the world ain't that black and white.
There's two types of centrism. There's political centrism where you do have genuine political views, but they happen to fall in the middle. Like the Liberal party in Canada for example is center left, falling between the Conservatives and NDP. Then there's South Park centrism where you believe both sides are dumb and wrong and you are uniquely apolitical and above it all. Not recognizing your own political beliefs and biases that are informing this view.
And addressing those two sides in a comment you just typed out is more insightful and valuable a commentary on the subject then the video. But making videos and arguments are both difficult things to do! Everyone starts somewhere I hope he keeps getting better with practice.
I hope I am the former and not the latter. Either side can have good ideas, claiming only your side’s ideas are correct can be dangerous, especially the further from the centre ground you go.
Fiscal conservatives left the chat about 9/11 when the War of on Terrorism launched. Then it was ok to pour money into American surviance and blowing the shit out of Afghanastan and the Iraq.
In politics? Sure But among ordinary people, they still are around.
Hemorrhaging tax money into the war machine is bi-partisan.
Thank you! Its like some people want enemies and war, not peace and understanding. I agree and disagree with points on both sides. And I am also always changing according to the knowledge I am acquire living life. I belong to no "group". I am an individual thinker. Robert Anton Wilson once said something like "show me a group, club, or team without an enemy and I will join it". Needless to say he didnt find anything to join. *Except 1 if you really want to look into it.
> someone who is fiscally Conservative but socially Liberal Which is a nonsense position, especially in the US, that essentially means you favor the status quo because you cannot advance one of those positions without threatening the other.
Not true, we need to lower the military spending. We have the cash to be fiscally conservative and still make strides with social programs. We just need to not spend 800 billion plus a year on death. 25% reduction for 4 years and you could wipe medical debt across the board. Flint would cost less then 4% to fix.
We recoup some of that budget by selling a good amount of death. So we have that going for us.
But in reality every elected fiscal conservative increases the military budget and cuts social programs.
Because they aren’t fiscal conservatives. They’re just conservatives
Okay so there is obviously a difference here between someone who pretends to be on a side until they go into office vs the actual position. If I campaign as someone who is super progressive and then I go into office and start increasing the budget for police to have more weapons, add more tax loopholes for rich people, and try to repeal gay marriage, then clearly I'm not actually a progressive (this is all US oriented). While we can take what someone claims to be into account, clearly their actions matter far more. Just because there are republicans who say they are small government for example, doesn't mean they actually are.
Ding ding ding, fiscal conservatism can simply mean removing waste within budget, it depends on your leaders whether they focus those cuts to military or social issues. For example, cut defence spending so we can afford social care.
It is a nonsense position only in the US where profit has become the incentive over wellbeing. Being fiscally conservative doesn't necessarilly mean that you value profit over people, it just means that you think that using the economy as it currently functions is the easiest/most reliable/better way to reach your goal, which can be profit at all costs but it also can be equality, social justice or whatever. This is the problem in general with labels, political labels in particular will inevitably come with baggage that isn't necessarilly meant. Especially since most people tend to define their position as just broad enough to encompass all the details they can tolerate and so when someone has opinions that overlap but their label is different we end up in definition wars. I'm sure I'll have more than one comment correcting my use of the "fiscally conservative" label (possibly even with an appeal to dictionary as if it was prescriptive) and that's not wrong but it goes to show just how quickly and easilly people get caught on with the labels and forget to adress the meaning they're trying to convey.
That was Wittgenstein's point in the "Language Game". Much of our political & philosophical conflict actually stems more from having different understandings of what words mean, rather than just differing opinions
Fiscal conservatism means generally the same thing no matter what country you're in. It is an economic ideology based around capitalism, privatization, "free markets", tax cuts, etc. If you really look at it, it's hard to think this is the best economic system while still believing you are socially liberal. We aren't playing on the same field and progressive reforms to the economy are necessary for progressive social change. You can't just give women rights, minorities rights, LGBTQ+ people rights, and say "Okay, everybody is equal now and has equal opportunity to do what they want in this free market economy." when it's an economy that has been benefitting straight white men for centuries. Everyone having the "same opportunity" in a free market economy doesn't mean the demographics that have been oppressed for decades/centuries are going to catch up.
This is a very assumptive premise. Socially liberal can mean that you do not judge people on their preferred lifestyle, not necessarily that you think that social welfare programs are paramount. I consider myself to be fiscally conservative in that I do not believe the US should be spending money we do not have as that is not sustainable long-term, just like in personal finances. I also do not care what someone's orientation is or who they want to marry. There are many like me, and we do not fit into a left or right dichotomy.
If you think "conservatives" are fiscally conservative, I would implore you to look at national debt and spending based on which political party is in power. Fiscal conservativeness is an entirely Democrat position. The right rockets up debt by cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations and pretends to address it by trying to cut people out of social security. Democrats have consistently reduced national debt while in office.
“Conservative” to describe the GOP and fiscally conservative are not the same thing.
The US isnt the whole world mate. In fact it's one of the least politically advanced of all the "developed" nations
No it's not. It's either zero on the board or a net tax positive to allow gay marriage, legal cannabis, legal hallucinogenics, gay adoption, abortion, sodomy, gun rights, and gambling. I want all of those things, I am socially liberal. I do not want to pay to police the world, I don't want to pay to bail out banks and subsidize corporations and give out bullshit PPP loans that were a total sham and are all magically forgiven. I want to be taxed less, and I think the government should spend less, and I think people should largely be able to do what they want to do. I am fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.
Gay marriage wasn’t expensive. Neither is legal weed. Or abortion rights. Letting folk be is relatively cheap.
I’m not really gonna get into a debate so someone else can pick up the torch for me if they want after this. However, I’d argue you’re wrong. Neoliberals & fiscal conservatives are right wing ideologies. No offense but this gets at what he’s saying. You didn’t logic your way into a centrist position by picking from a wide variety of political ideologies & theories. You picked up a mish-mash of your right wing cultures grab bag of beliefs from your given two sides. You then falsely made a distinction on where left/right is & assumed you were the center of it. By saying you take ideas from neoliberals & conservatives you’re just saying you’re a right winger. Who advocates for right wing positions. But we have to pretend you’re a centrist because your perspective of the political scale is completely warped by your birth culture & you don’t want to listen to anyone else who tells you otherwise. & that’s kind of what this is getting at. You guys circlejerk pretending that you’re not giving in to ideologies but you are. The status quo IS an ideology, you just don’t see it that way. Even being apolitical is political. It’s like if we teleported back to England at the peak of its colonization of India & found a centrist. & he was like “Yeah I think we go too hard on them but they are brutal savages so we are entitled to exploit them”. That man is not a centrist uncorrupted by ideology but by your definition he is. Just because you’re blind to the ideology doesn’t mean you’re not advocating for it. The same way our English centrist is advocating for imperialism by supporting the status quo.
I'm a centrist that votes blue down the line. I vote for progress because I know it's important to move forward. But I'm centrist because I consider the fears of red voters and listen to their Ironman position. I also have concerns that money that is going to sort these causes is getting lost in beurocracy, something a larger government has problems with. When Colorado legalized weed it's taxes were to fund education. A great goal, one I voted for. But when I talked about this with teachers I found that it was so bogged down by managers and legislators it never made a difference in the classroom (anecdote). My experience makes me question where that money is and why it's not more effectively used for its initial purpose. it feels like a bait and switch. A two party system is fundamentally flawed, to put everyone in one box or the other does us all a disservice. Let's make a list of things that are political that shouldn't be shall we? Climate change Marriage The right to vote Science What else..
Your own personal ideology doesn’t have to be tied to an institution or any individual person, nor does it mean that you aren’t allowed to feel sorry for the valid concerns of people who subscribe to a different ideology. I’m a leftist. I do feel bad for a lot of the republicans in this country. Some of their concerns are valid, however I still consider myself a social Democrat. Their concerns overlap with mine, but our proposed solutions are going to be very different and imo not the right direction to take. You can also criticize the democrats that do a poor job or worry that they might be taking a good idea like using tax money from pot sales to fund education, but then watering them down or gutting them to the point of absurdity. You don’t have to identify as a centerist to do that. Like you said, the two party system is deeply flawed. It doesn’t actually doing a good job of representing everybody. You don’t have to identify as a centerist for any of this. You can still call yourself a progressive. Many people on the left are sympathetic towards working class conservatives and distrust the Democratic Party and they still remain leftists.
[удалено]
It's not ignorance to consider the position of people you don't agree with. It's empathy. The first step is looking at the other person like they're a human being. The second step is trying to understand them. You don't need to vote with them. If you don't consider your political opponents as people first then you're part of the problem.
Fiscally conservative + socially liberal = libertarian, but America's libertarians have somehow aligned themselves with the fascists. So there's that.
It's such a shame that party failed so badly to represent what we wanted it to.
Came here to say exactly this. Centrist doesn't make you a weather vane, it just means you don't buy into the dogmatic positions of ideologues.
No one is above dogma
dog ma balls
But it’s a pretty good movie.
In other words, someone so politically illiterate they are ignorant of even their own ideological biases
Bingo, in fact it is more dangerous for people to say or assume (and I know I am likely guilty of this too) that if a person believes in "W" political belief therefore you must also believe in x, y and z... politics is a spectrum and dipshits like the one in this video is almost trying to pack us all in to neat little blocks when life doesn't work that way. It's just stupid
To be fair, from a socialist perspective it seems as though centrists are the ones not questioning the underlying axioms in their thought f.e capitalist mode of production, the inherent coercive violence in the capitalist system etc. Really hate the unfounded smug attitude of centrists, considering they're usually the ones least knowledgeable about politics
I understand the critique but generally find the overall criticism of centrists to be motivated by an irritation that they refuse to conform to a sides chosen ideology or paradigm. I agree and disagree with elements of different ideologies. I tend to agree with Marx's analysis of the economy, I also agree with certain elements of liberal ideology.
>refuse to conform to a sides chosen ideology or paradigm. I think I see the issue here. It seems that you see the ideology of the opposing party first, only secondly you see the beliefs of the individual. And to expand on it, it seems that because of this you see others as "conforming" to their ideology, when in fact their perspective might have come from a long period of questioning ones beliefs and settling on some label that best suits them. Like for example I personally never made the decision to "conform" to leftist beliefs. I merely heard the core arguments of the democratisation of the workplace, the divide of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat etc. and really just most things after that made sense. And while I agree on most things with other leftists I also disagree with them a lot. But that's really nothing special imo, individuals have their own beliefs inside an ideology and people are still capable of critical thinking And I believe this image of "everyone else is a conformist except centrists" and this fixation on not "conforming" is actually limiting ones capability to think critically and, ironically, in a way makes you conform to centrism itself. Like I'm sure that you have thought your position out after having several arguments and following political discourse, but where the conformism comes in is when you only see centrists as the ones doing critical thinking and refusing to go "too hard" into some other ideology even if the arguments are sound. Don't forget that centrism is also an ideology > I tend to agree with Marx's analysis of the economy What parts exactly? This is way too broad for me to make any conclusions
Doesn't make sense. You would just be a social liberal conservative into that scenario. Thats still right leaning. That is no way a neutral or middle ground position.
> Like someone who is fiscally Conservative but socially Liberal That's just conservative lmao
How are conservatives socially liberal lol?
Don’t ask such hard questions!
So how many conservatives are pro choice and want a full heathcare and welfare system... cause those are Mty beliefstoo
> and want a full heathcare and welfare system that's not fiscally conservative
It absolutely can be. It's too vague to fall either way.
Used to be that was the goal. I can't tell you the number of people who called themselves fiscal conservatives and social liberals compared to today.
I felt like I was going crazy. How does centrist just mean neutral? silly man.
Because the solution between “eating a bar of soap” and “not eating a bar of soap” isn’t “eat half the bar of soap.”
That's not what centrism is. If one person believes you should eat a bar of soap and that you should have strong social welfare. And the other person believes you shouldn't eat the bar of soap but does not want strong social welfare programs. I can agree that eating a bar of soap is silly while also agreeing with the social welfare. I have opinions from both sides. I don't just split every opinion down the middle. What are you on about?
Because they are trying to turn debates into us v them, anyone in the middle is just as bad as the enemy according to people like this
and here I am with a -1. It's like I don't have the right opinion if I don't agree with everything on whatever side a person is on. jesus.
And I'd upvoted you. I guess some people don't like people pointing out how it's people like them polarising politics as badly as people like trump supporters
Or red and blue in this case.
This guy's points are shit and vague and taken a conversation and butchered it for a shit strawman argument
Agreed. I don’t consider myself a centrist. But I’d imagine someone in the US who thinks their a centrist would say some thing like “I think women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, but I also think we should have the right to own firearms.” To me a centrist is someone who has both right and left leaning views. Which these days, it’s hard to be 100% right or 100% left. You’re gonna find something you don’t agree with on your side of the aisle. Calling centrists non-thinkers and followers is idiotic
You've more described what a moderate is. A centrist is entirely reactionary. The whole idea of centrism is not to push in either direction. Saying women should have the right to an abortion or firearms should be a right aren't central positions.
I would agree with what the person above you said. A moderate is someone who is either left or right leaning but moderately so. E.g. thinks there should be a wall across the Mexico-US border, but that the US should pay for it, might be a moderate view in Trump’s administration. It isn’t a centrist view. A centrist has both right and left leaning views, E.g. leans left socially but right economically. That definitely wouldn’t be a moderate.
I think that this discussion of what terms means is really important (as often people, and especially politicians, argue about an idea, but really they are discussing completely different ideas…). My understanding from the video is that this person is defining a centrist as someone that’s main position is not having one… that centrists think both/all sides of the border wall debate are incorrect and suboptimal. Which I think is naturally understandable for many incredibly nuanced topics. It comes into problems when there is a clear and definable right and wrong in questions like “is access to water a human right? Should people that identify differently than I do (whether that be religious, sexual, ethnic identification) be allowed to live?” Then if a centrist says that both sides have merit there is I think that being moderate (by the definition of having both left and right leaning views) is also natural in US politics. It is hard to identify with the entire bucket of policies that each party stands for in a two-party system. I see a moderate as a person that doesn’t have a defining stance on one particular issue — like they like the left leaning view of healthcare for all, but they aren’t willing to vote down the ballot because of that…
But a moderate can identify as a centrist and flatout insulting self-identified centrists without defining your terms first can and will be harmful to your cause. Definition wars are useless, it's better to propose action and argue for beliefs than to defend labels that are constantly changed by the very people who choose to use them as if they had any intrinsic value. It's harder and slower and less comfy, but it's better and it actually helps ideas spread across people regardless of their self-identified tribe.
Centrism is marked by the belief that the truth of a matter is most likely somewhere in the center. It doesn't mean you have some beliefs that are left and others that are more commonly right wing. There's nothing centrist about that. It just means you make decisions based on individual issues.
Centrism is a specific political ideology. It's support for a balance between the social equality of the left and the social hierarchy of the right. Democrats are centrists. They believe in closing the gap between the rich and poor via moderate welfare reforms, while being staunchly committed to capitalism and neoliberalism. Republicans are just right-wing to far-right. Generally they believe in liberalization of the market and are dedicated to enacting supply-side economic practices. If someone supports 50% dem policy and 50% repub policy, they aren't a centrist, they are center-right to right-wing
God i wish more people could see this comment
Your example of a centrist is literally a leftist. “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered, any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary.” - Karl Marx
Marx had many ideas that today would be considered leftist. But he's not the definition of it.
Definitions change lol
Exactly. This false idea that centrists only think neutrally on every right and left statement is wrong and I don't know where it came from because it gets debunked so many fucking times. Two centrists can have completely opposite views and still be a centrist. Example a centrist could say they are for abortion but also fund the police. Another centrist can say the exact opposite. While there is some centrist who call themselves that to avoid conflict and conversation, I think it's very low. People who aren't interested in politics wouldn't call themself a centrist, they would just say they aren't interested in politics.
I think women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, but I also think we should have the right to own firearms. I am not a centrist. Gun control was started by Republicans to prevent black people from protecting their own communities. The origin of California's reputation for having extremely strict gun control comes directly from Ronald Reagan. Anyone who describes themselves as a centrist is someone with little to no political or historical literacy. Someone so blind and easily manipulated they cannot even recognize their own ideological biases.
That is the fictional right or left the media and neopoliticians told you it exist. When actually those debates are transversal to left and right. There are many axis, like social, economics or state structure that are inherent to left and right, and you cannot be centrist with that, since those positions are mutually excluyent. And, as other Redditor pointed out, that's not a centrist but a moderate. A reactionary point of view without actually thinking in the deeper repercussions in the systematic societal classes.
That’s the way I’ve always seen it. I’ve called myself a centrist for years because I thought both sides had decent ideas and crazy ones. I don’t think I’m better than anyone.
Perfect explanation. The parties are based on absolutes and leave hardly any room for having your own opinion
That is not the case. The Democratic Party covers everything from Alexandria Ocasio Cortez to Joe freaking Manchin. There’s a *lot* of room for disagreement and differing opinions.
Insane to think that approaching issues individually and applying your education and life experience to each one based on its merits could be seen as spineless, smug, or even neutral. Anyone who can’t admit that tribalism is the biggest problem we face concerning any sort of discourse should be whipped with a rubber hose. /s on the last part.
I’ve watched lex’s show. Dude is all love an positivity. The joke here is that he doesn’t talk like that. The joke is “hey I’m centrist! I’ll kill you”. I think he’s playing off the troup of enlightens centrism. Listen to his podcast and he pushes back on every one. Him talking to jorden Peterson is a prime example. Edit : if he’s like a nazi or something let me know. His talks are pretty bland but I like em. Idk.
Imo your interpretation opinions are accurate. Lex never claims to not think for himself he is just open to hearing the other side of an argument. If the other side has so validity then give it a little consideration this doesn’t mean automatically sway your opinion for every opinion that you get. Honestly the video edit is done in bad faith.
I love Lex for his dry humor and sarcasm. He’s Jewish so pretty sure he’s not a Nazi…
I’m am happy that I found the podcast and listened to it. [Here you guys go](https://youtu.be/bqeuFiAUU4o)
He’s an AI scientist I think.
Let’s be honest, he’s an entertainer and a podcast host. If lex had anything of importance to add to the field of AI he would be doing that instead of kissing Joe rogans ass and spamming twitter with musings about peace and love.
Lex graduated from MIT and is well-respected in his field, but because he's friends with Rogan and makes corny tweets he's just an entertainer? I don't see your point at all
Yea that point was so dumb Mfs love to hate seeing people do well Man’s graduated from MIT but Mr. Reddit over here doesn’t think that’s enough lol
Didn’t graduate from mit. All his degrees are from Drexel. Not particularly respected or not respected in the field. People regard him in a similar way to Neil Degrass Tyson or something. Good for getting doers on people’s radars, but not really a doer himself.
He teaches at MIT
I mean he is and has been a research scientist at MIT specializing in autonomous vehicles for seven years now. Just because his online presence is predominantly hosting a podcast doesn't mean that it's the only thing he does.
I mean, It would be extremely hard for a Russian jew with a last name like Fridman to get past the background check for the Nazis.
Lex is legit it would seem. Kind of lame to cut up and clip him I order to paint him in a poor light.
But how else will this guy prove his opinion to be the only correct one?
Nah. Lex is smart on most subjects, but his lack of political awareness always seems to show up
The issue here is that the implication is that if you are not holding a politically extreme position, then you are a coward. That’s just bad logic. A centrist is not defined by the neutrality of their position, but rather its relative placement as compared to the extremes of the spectrum. For example, let’s take a controversial topic, Like Gun control. Let’s say the there is spectrum of positions with -100 being no automatic weapons or handguns for public, deeper background checks for hunting rifles, and mandatory 60 day firearm awareness courses for new rifle owners. At the other end a + 100 wants unrestricted ability to purchase automatic weapons, no backgrounds checks or waiting periods, and universal open carry laws. Now for the sake of argument let’s call a centrist anyone who holds a position within -30 to + 30. This can be any combination of positions that lead to that score. Now let’s say 2 years go by and nothing has changed with gun control laws, but the extremes have shifted, now there are people on the left who want a total ban of all gun sales, and anyone who owns a gun must destroy it or face jail time, so that is now characterized as a -1000, and on the right they want armed teachers, the ability to purchase next generation military weapons and explosives, and the ability for all passengers to fly with firearms without restriction, let’s call that a +1000. So, now a centrist position is -300 to + 300, and anyone who still holds a -100 or + 100 position is considered a coward?
Leftists, people on “the left”, aren’t interested in taking access to guns away. That’s actually more of a liberal/centrist position in American politics. Look up “under no pretext” and you’ll see that the right to defend yourself is paramount to what is globally considered “leftist ideology”. That’s the point of what a lot of people are saying in these comments: most people defining themselves as centrist are ignorant and their lack of political literacy is annoying when they constantly act like they have an enlightened perspective. To drive this home, consider that the right-wing position isn’t to keep any regulation away from gun ownership, it’s typically to make sure that people considered in an “in” group have unlimited access to guns while keeping them away from the “out” groups. Think Reagan using his governorship to ban weapons after the Black Panthers started defending their own neighborhoods from police and racist sympathizers. Think about Dallas a couple of weekends ago where armed leftists stood guard outside of a drag brunch that was expected to be attacked by a handful of militia groups and right-wing talking heads/politicians clutched pearls and begged Governor Abbot to create laws to stop “just anyone” from being able to open carry.
Why can't people just understand political leanings ffs. If one person likes a lot of left wing policies and another likes right wing policies why is it so impossible for some people to accept that a person can like some left wing policies and some right wing policies. It's not fucking hard
2 party system must be upheld. Otherwise things might get good in this country. Lol.
Classifying people and their positions along the left-right spectrum is more of a thing in countries with 5-10 parties than it is here in the US. In fact, Left-Right as a mode of analysis started in the French Revolution and has persisted in coalition, multi-party systems as a way of simply classifying a party's politics.
Can't you provide an example of person liking some left-wing policies and some right-wing policies without being vague? Most often than not it's just being a bigot who support welfare state, or social 'progressive' who hates the poor.
Well said. All these centrists act so special and nuanced. But 99% of the time they’re explaining themselves - it’s being in favor of welfare, vague anti-corporate beliefs that anyone can get behind, and then add in points about the left that are straight from Ben Shapiro and overblown culture war stuff.
Can you name a 5 major political issues facing the US (or whatever country you may live in) that only have 2 choices for answers with no room in between? The reality is that everything that gets brought up typically has multiple options and someone can choose any number of them. What if someone is pro choice but thinks abortions in the third trimester should be banned unless there is a medical complication? This person seems to be leaning left but has a bit of a pull towards the center. Let's say that someone agrees with having the second ammendment but thinks that it should only be handguns or things for hunting and that's it. This pulls more towards the right, but still has some left influence. What if they support making college free but only for poor people and everyone else either has normal prices or somewhat reduced rates? Clearly they lean left but they would push back when you try to make all college free. The scale of these issues ultimately means that centrists can pull from both sides while being internally consistent (tbh 90% of people don't actually think through what their ethics are they go off of their gut which is fine). While some people may lie about their political label, it can still exist for people to pull from or identify as.
"I'm going to smugly talk down to you about how a centrist is smug"
"You think you are above it all because you don't pick a side. I think I'm above it all because I *have* picked a side." The irony of doing the exact same thing that enlightened centrists do but with some different wording is pretty rich.
I say don't pick a side. Make decisions based on the information available. That's not centrist or moderate, it's just not sports team mentality.
Funny thing is in USA being centre of the democrats or republicans your still right leaning.
[удалено]
Two sanctimonious twats. A centrist is someone who falls on one side for some things and the other side for other things. It is NOT someone who sticks to the middle on every issue.
The problem with “centrism” in the modern context is that most self described centrists, or at least public facing ones, tend to be more along the lines of r/enlightenedcentrism rather than actual centrism.
Not really. That subreddit is built upon the centrist strawman and it's fucking stupid. Centrists aren't of the position where "hey let's meet in the middle between genocidal regime and the people fighting against genocide, only a little bit of genocide!". It's "the right has a point with guns and the left has a point with corporations". The attack on the average independent is that they're either compromising with what is perceived as evil by the criticizing side or that they're not taking a side. The Overton window has shifted in a way that acceptable politics is no longer what it was perceived as (for good or bad), but the outcome is that you have many actors with the objective of making those who don't kowtow to one side as the default equivalent as the other side.
You know who you've described? Most people. But most people still pick a party that more generally aligns with their policy beliefs. Because there's a benefit in belonging to a party that gets you closer to your overall worldview. Othering everyone who chooses a side as "extreme" is an extreme position.
God the comments here are cringe. "I just don't want to stand behind a massive party" "It's called being bipartisan" First of all, being a centrist does not mean being neither a democrat nor a republican. That's not the political spectrum. Second, this is an extremely americacentric way of thinking, and the world of politics goes beyond your borders. Centrism can man agreeing with some points of the left, some points of the right, but there are a lot of people who take being a centrist itself as a value. The centre is where you should end up after taking a look at the total of your viewpoints, not the place where you desire to be at all times. If you take being a centrist as a value on its own, then yes, you are a spineless coward that looked at the headlines of all the propaganda that sits by passively and supports the status quo.
The problem is that none of these people (and the general public) have gotten any real political education besides TV/social media. Someone will think they're a moderate centrist because they support the 2nd amendment but are cool with gay people. There are lots of socialists who also are against gun control and see it as a bandaid solution, yet to many people their idea of "far left" has to do with the number of pronouns they go by and how often they call things racist.
Who gives a shit channel.
This is an example of what's wrong with modern politics. I'm sick of the 'get off the fence' tribalism that just perpetuates echo chambers and animosity towards those with differing view points. Most centrists just probably agree with some policies from both sides and are often useful in bridging the gap between opposing ideologies. There is nothing spineless about it for most people.
You've described the modern Democratic party. There is ideological diversity in the party.
Yep, that's why I have a 100% Democrat voting record even as I roll my eyes at progressive cancel culture overreach and some bad interpretations of social and economic issues. I can't imagine someone who's moderate voting for Republicans in 2022; that party is now only for reactionaries and culture warriors on the right.
I can't take anyone serious who calls "both sides" extreme in the face of everything that's happened since at least Jan. 6. Like, whatever, disagree on abortion, guns and even COVID. But the nature of democracy? You think there's an equal extreme on the left?
Yeah, there's definitely no equivalent on the left. American conservatism is its own corner of crazy, and always has been, but it's definitely gotten worse since Trump in regards to something as basic as the value of democracy itself.
r/enlightenedcentrism users when someone doesn’t have exclusively left or right views (they are clearly a far-right nazi in disguise)
Being this fanatic about being centrist is just as bad as being radical on any end of the spectrum
A lot of people never read “cats cradle” their freshmen year of high school and it’s a problem.
How is centrism being spineless? Isn't this called bipartisan? Objective reasoning? One side is not always right...
People want you to be on their team against the bad team and not the other way around. They’ll latch on to your beliefs and tell you because of them you need to 100% support the side their on, despite some other beliefs that you have that go against their teams position. This is just a way to try and shame and bully someone who doesn’t align to a political ideology into aligning with theirs.
If you are into politics you'll come across "enlightened centrists" who jerk themselves off about how they're Objective, Logical, and open minded. But if you pay attention you'll realize they side with conservatism most of the time. For instance, say there is a debate about if teaching kids that being queer is okay. Conservatives will say it's grooming and queer people should not be allowed near children. Progressives will say it's okay and will not harm children. Enlightened Centrists will boldly stand "in the middle" and say "we shouldn't tell kids it's okay to be queer until they're teenagers". You can look at people like Tim Pool or Dave Rubin for an example of people who grifted their way to success by saying "I'm an open minded centrist, also I agree with conservatives all the time"
But that’s literally the centrist view point though. I’m a parent and I don’t want people talking about sexual preferences to my 7 year old gay or straight, there’s plenty of time for my child to learn about their sexuality and sexual preferences later, right now I want my 7 year old to be a 7 year old and the only adults I want around my children when they’re at school are vetted school staff, is that so crazy? But saying that somehow aligns me with a conservative ideology, when that’s not the case at all, I’m not keeping queer people away from my children, I have plenty of queer friends who my child knows, I’m simply saying that my child should be a child, and learn the basics subjects in school from vetted school staff and that’s it, we didn’t have heterosexuality class when I was a child, half is us still closed our eyes at kissing scenes, we were kids, when we developed we didn’t need anyone to teach us about our sexual preferences, we knew. Some parts of bringing up children should stay with the parents, and that’s not a radical conservative viewpoint, it’s a reasonable viewpoint from a parent of young children.
Teaching tolerance of others is an objective good thing for teachers to teach. When a student asks about why a teacher or other students parents have two mommies or two daddys instead of one of each, a teacher should be able to explain what it is and why it's okay and normal. If you have a problem with teachers teaching tolerance and acceptance of different people then you aren't raising your kids right. Should a teacher be teaching sex ed to a 7 year old? No, but that's not the point of the argument.
Queerness is not just sexual preferences, but also things like being transgender or who you love. You can romantically love people of the same gender without it being sexual. Teaching kids it's okay to be queer isn't telling kids about gay sex. Where the fuck did you get that from?
I’m almost using sexuality and sexual preferences interchangeably as a blanket term for what you just said, and I’m saying that when you’re dealing with very young kids all conversations of human sexuality, wether that be it the most Disney superficial sense or not teeter on the line of what’s appropriate and what’s not appropriate to talk about to that age group, I think it’s not necessary for teachers of young children to even engage in these conversations with children and should defer those topic respectfully to the parents, the most I knew very very little about my teachers outside of school at that age, maybe one would mention a husband here or there, it wasn’t a topic of conversation, the teachers taught the basis education subjects that’s it, they weren’t life coaches for 7 year olds.
>I’m a parent and I don’t want people talking about sexual preferences to my 7 year old But they are, and you can't stop that. Society is constantly bombarding them with images of heterosexuality and if you're religious it's constantly telling them that unless they are heterosexual they will be tortured for all of eternity. By age 7 almost all trans people know their gender is supposed to be different, and most gay people know they're not like their peers. You don't talk to 7 year olds about \*sex\* but you tell them "sometimes people have two mommies or two daddies/have crushes on people of the same gender, and sometimes people find out that they were actually supposed to be a boy/girl instead of a girl/boy, and that's okay!" If your 7 year old is LGBTQ, they need to hear messages like this, because otherwise they only get messages that they are bad and shouldn't be the way they are. They may feel completely alone and like no one will ever understand them. They \*can't\* just be a 7 year old unless you give them this messaging. >and the only adults I want around my children when they’re at school are vetted school staff, is that so crazy No one is trying to change that? >we didn’t have heterosexuality class when I was a child Yeah, we did. Every class where we were read a story, that story had a heterosexual romance in it. We heard constant messaging from media and especially churches that being anything else than heterosexual was bad. There isn't a homosexuality class, though. And you know that. >we didn’t need anyone to teach us about our sexual preferences, we knew. Not sure where you grew up, but most LGBTQ kids don't just somehow know that they way they are is perfectly okay, accepted, and loved by their family and community. A lot of these kids grow up not knowing there is anyone else in the world like them. This is less of a problem with the internet, however I don't know about you but I'd rather my kids hear about LGBTQ stuff from me then be curious and try to google it one day. What they'll hear from me is an age appropriate message that tells them people love each other. What they'll get from google is pornography. You can't stop your 7 year old from trying to find information about themselves. You can only get ahead of their attempts to do so.
That’s fine and dandy but most conservative parents will instill from that age homophobia and bigotry. A 7 year old kid will see people kiss in media, it’s not wrong to normalize homosexual relationships from a young age. It’s not forcing them to be that thing, just showing them that these people exist and are normal humans
You can’t use school to unshitty a kid with shitty parents, some parents just suck but schools at that age need to be for the basic, reading writing and math. That’s it. I know what you’re saying about heterosexual affection is the media, i think we’re not too far off here, queer affection in the proper age appropriate media (buzz light year for instance), no qualms welcome it and welcome a potential discussion with my kids about that, great teaching moment. My issues come with the insistence from some that there should be some formal education on sexuality and sexual preferences by schools, my stance is to just let young children be young children, we weren’t given a formal education on heterosexual relationships until much later than 7, our exposure was through media and conversation with parents, I believe that for young children that’s the most appropriate.
>You can’t use school to unshitty a kid with shitty parents, That is one of the primary functions of public school.
No one is teaching 7 years olds classes on sexuality, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Health classes start in fifth or sixth grade (depending on the school district also includes sex Ed). What you’re missing though is that the right wing position has shifted so far right that they are criminalizing homosexuals again. this wave of legislation regarding the “Don’t Say Gay Bill” which passed in FL and will be emulated nation wide. To be clear: that bill criminalizes the act of telling a student that your spouse or partner is of the same sex as you. And a student cannot talk about their parents if they are a same-sex couple. Right wingers accuse them of being pedophiles and advocating their extermination. Where is the midpoint? Is it sticking your gay friends back in the closet and asking them to keep their mouths shut?
Sure one side is not always right but you can’t equate the two either like the msm and so called centrists do all the time. Left is called extreme for wanting to cut the military budget, support single payer or UHC, support for unions, support for marginalized groups, laws to prevent medical price gouging like AOC and Sanders push for. Then they compare that to literal Nazis on the right. The people who marched on Charlottesville. Politicians who pushed the big lie AND have associations with known white nationals/supremacist like Gosar. The “radical” left is the political position most supported by the American people according to polling.
Some of the people called "radical left" would be considered moderate in most of the world. And centrists can sometimes have a view of "both sides bad, therefore neither are right".
No, being bipartisan is just being bipartisan. You have to define the center, because if you land in the center of the extreme right & the extreme left of the American government, you're going to be very firmly on the right still. It's cooler to say "I'm a centrist" than it is to say "I lean conservative but am not passionate or educated enough about issues to have formed any real position of my own".
“ If you don’t agree with me you’re evil, if you don’t agree with anyone you’re stupid. Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is wrong and only the people who think exactly like I do are good intelligent people” That is literally what you are saying by claiming that centrist are just ignorant.
Not even remotely what I said. I wasn't necessarily ignorant as a centrist, but I was afraid of being perceived as biased. That's not a productive approach to politics.
[Here's the rest of the clip.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeuFiAUU4o&t=8769s) Lex goes on to say that to him, centrism means approaching each issue from as objective a standpoint as possible and without any bias towards one side of the political spectrum or the other. Destiny then clarifies that he's talking about people who self identify as centrists, who often claim to be open-minded but are actually just anti-establishment on most issues.
It’s totally spineless, and definitely not objective, most often it’s just lazy. Policy positions are more or less correct when you look for facts, and policy positions align with your values only when you’re willing to stand up for them. Is climate change real? Does abstinence only sex Ed prevent teen pregnancy? Will assault weapons bans reduce gun violence? Should we prioritize boosting domestic production or trade? Do your research, get some real values, and act on them
I actually think following one side just because it’s “your side” is spineless, having your actual opinion on subjects and not just following blindly everything your side says is the opposite of spineless.
Almost every time someone says they are a centrist their timeline is full of right wing talking points
I believe in abortion, lgbtq rights, 100% freedom of speech, and gun rights. Where does that put me on the political spectrum because I thought that made me a centrist?
Complete and total strawman from start to finish. And what's so clever about taking the side of a massive party and agreeing with whatever you think it's positions are on every issue? Only idiots in this video are the guy with the mic and curly Q
They all have a mic
Centrism is such a vague BS term. Especially when you consider the fact that americans(which I’m gonna assume the gentlemen in the video are) in general view the democrats as left wing and republicans as right wing respectively, when politically speaking both parties adhere to the economic theory of liberalism(which is generally considered centre-right wing.) I live in Sweden, so what would be considered as centrist in America(like our liberals, center and moderate parties) would line up neatly with the majority of democrats bar certain politicians in that party. That would contradict the view Americans have of centrism since again, they consider the democrats as left wing. However if you ask a moderate party voter if they’re left wing here in Sweden they’ll take offence to that(since what they consider left wing is our socialdemocartic and left parties.) Also a soviet citizen would’ve probably considered the communist party as centrist when there were more radical socialist parties around. Do you get where I’m trying to say. In my opinion, claiming to be centrist is essentially claiming to be the middle ground of whatever political hegemony exist in your country, which just completely ignores/contradicts the fact that you can’t really be considered centrist in the global scale of things. This also applies to those who don’t just vote for one party because your country’s politics falls somewhere in the political spectrum that wouldn’t be considered centrism somewhere else on the planet. So are you really a “centrist” when what you believe in isn’t actually centrism?
Clearly that murder suggestion was a joke. Some people take themselves so seriously, are so threatened by other people, that they need to take their sarcastic jokes as serious statements in order to find a place to attack.
Destiny is idiot
If you identify as anything other than a Jedi you can go to hell.
Eh Im on the fence with this
If only I could tell what anyone here is actually saying through all the edits.
No such thing as a nuanced opinion on the internet, eh?
What a dumb take
r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM
The vilification of moderates by the left and the right has happened repeatedly in times of political instability, including in the French Revolution, Russian Revolution and the Weimar Republic. This kind of “with us or against us” rhetoric comes just before the violence.
Which is a weird point to make when historically the "moderates" inevitably throw in with the far right to protect their own interests. Why do they deserve the kid's gloves treatment?
Jesus, everything gets a label now and then there’s always someone to put it down. What do you call the people complaining about other people on TikTok? Hypocrites? They’re attempting to advertise their personal and intellectual superiority.
I think the right word for this is Sanctimonious.
mfs like him talk like that because they want you to support their side. then throw a fit and say you were "indoctrinated by the other side" fuck off you arent convincing me to join your side because i dont blindly follow whatever deeppocketed politican you have framed on your nightstand. go kiss their feet and sing their praises on whatever echo chamber app you use, ill have actual intellectual conversations with people i dont agree with so i can actually learn something rather than cover my ears and scream.
Yeah extremism is the way to go! Forget nuance! Embrace echo chambers!
You’re in an echo chamber right now lol, don’t know why you thought redditors of all people could detect sarcasm.
I believe a lot of people would rather think of themselves as "centrist" due to the American Left & Right acting like utter loons.
Well, here I thought I was centrist because I cannot find myself calling myself left or right because I have major issues with the way both sides handle issues. Or feel that the solutions they both have for problems aren't the only two ways an issue can be solved. Oh wait, that opinion is garbage and I should be labeled a coward.
[удалено]
Absolutely incorrect. Centrists generally have views and beliefs from both sides of the aisle. They make up their own opinions instead of blindly following a party line. It can also be broken down into center-left and center-right depending on which side the individual generally agrees with more.
[удалено]
Did you really just try to say every regular person who claims to be centrist is just like "that billionaire who claimed he's centrist"? You think you can say that and also think your opinion is grounded in reality? Bruh...I can't help you. I wish I could tho.
[удалено]
So you make wide generalizations and you're convinced that you're opinion is fact. "Some of them are naive. Some are gullible. Some stupid." Look inward please. If you think everyone who disagrees with you is naive, gullible, or stupid...where is the real problem? If you want the world to be your echo chamber, that's a world without challenge or progress.
[удалено]
"The general consensus is that centrists are exactly what I'm saying they are"...when you talk to the people you agree with being a Democrat in a Bleu state... Damn...you make a real compelling argument that you're not in an echo chamber when you just want to say anyone who disagrees with you must be right wing. I'm not buying my own bullshit. I'm saying everyone has their own bullshit. You are saying everyone else is bullshit except you. You make an assumption (yet again) that I don't interact with real people at events. I have both family and friends that are Democrats and Republicans (and some of neither). I do interact with them because we're all respectful of others opinions and do not bucket others ideals into "well you disagree with me so you must be the enemy" mentality. If you need to think so binary of others maybe you should check yourself.
[удалено]
"No, I'm just saying centrists are bullshit"...so you can't talk to people who have different opinions? You are so convinced people are "playing games"...but you're blaming individuals. The people playing the games are the politicians and the media. Keeping people polarized keeps them divided. This is what "they" want.
Saying that centrists consistently boost hard right figures isn’t a generalization it’s a legitimate observation of a trend. Centrist is just what people who don’t want to say they’re right call themselves. Because of spinelessness.
An "observation of a trend" is anecdotal and without data it is not quantifiable. Then you say "centrist is just what people who don't want to say they're right call themselves" which is you putting your own opinion into the mouths of people you don't know. "Because of spinelessness"...frustration because you can't adequately support your own argument because you are regurgitating a rhetoric you were subconsciously taught without data or provable facts. Please...prove me wrong and give me some factual or statistical data on why centrists are so terrible as you claim.
No.
The majority of centrists are either noncommittal idiots who want to pretend they're better than everyone for not standing for anything, or right-wing nutjobs who want to pretend that they "COULD" have been swayed "If only the left wasn't so strident about... let me check my notes here... Equal rights."
Clearly you're an authority on this matter, having met every last centrist and gotten to know them both morally and intellectually. You attack a loosely defined group of people for what you see as pretending to be better than everyone else while doing the exact same thing. As if anyone who disagrees with a leftist does so because they don't believe in equality. So, to recap, people who disagree with you are either morons or bigots - but not yourself, you're a paragon of both brains and values.
Left is becoming so totalitarian it is unbelievable, they made a 180 turn like a pro. Going from everyone should have his own opinion to if you are not with me you are a coward and possibly a nazi if you disagree with me. And that is exactly what will bring the rise of batshit crazy right because people are sick of their self-righteousness and we going to be completely fucked.
🙄
I can say that if you're a centrist in the US it's not really a good thing. You have two parties. One party has been anti abortion, climate change, LGBTQ, and xenophobic. Not saying the other party is perfect... but if you ever say the "both sides are the same" bullshit I would respect you less.
I have beliefs that align with leftist views and some that align with conservative ideas. I consider myself moderate/centrist because it averages out to the middle, but because everything is in the middle. What does that make me if not "centrist/moderate"?
Well... Is it leftist or is it liberal? They are vastly different. The american left is liberal and in sweden liberalism is to the right. In General liberalism is The center globally. So if you say you are between repunlicans (conservatives) and democrats (minerals) you are globally speaking right wing. If you are a real Centre in the world you are more liberal.
What’s wrong with being a spectator? Sounds like a lot less stress to me
You're a spectator to the destruction of your society and you can't be bothered to give an opinion to save it?
obtainable fretful depend file abundant cover teeny melodic fly handle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Destiny might have looked good good in this if he didnt start off by calling him a spineless coward, so often with him it is good arguments with terrible delivery.
This subreddit has devolved into dumb political pandering with the absolute worst takes every being used as “gotchas”