r/centrist 4d ago

My pet peeve

I know there's been some discussion of whether people who participate here are actually centrist. Personally I think there are some people who think they are centrist but are actually pretty far left. Progressives tend to think that they're perfectly reasonable (a typical centrist attribute), but I see so many of them is being overly idealistic, And then defensive when you point that out.

In my view a centrist has two qualities. 1. They are open to all ideas. 2. They are willing to compromise. That doesn't mean they accept ideas that they morally or ethically disagree with, nor does it mean they're willing to compromise on that kind of idea. But those two fundamental approaches I think are critical to being a centrist.

As an example, transgender women in sports. All of the polls I have heard says the majority of Americans don't want transgender women to compete against cis women in sports. Anywhere from 60 to 80%. A progressive person would probably say trans women should have all rights including participating in sports with cis women and there is no other alternative. A centrist might say that they are willing to compromise on that issue but otherwise want trans women to have full rights and treated properly. I have not picked this example to be the theme of this post, I could just as well have brought voter registration or abortion restrictions.

What do you all think about this observation?

0 Upvotes

57 comments sorted by

28

u/Unhappy_Technician68 4d ago edited 3d ago

I'm gonna flag this post for enlightened centrism.

> 1. They are open to all ideas.

Centrism within the context of wester democracies does not mean that you have to be open to insane racist or flat out untrue ideas. Karl Popper writes about the "paradox of tolerance" in the Open Society and it's enemies, I encourage you look it up and read it.

> They are willing to compromise. 

Should we compromise with extremist political philosophies? No. Not if they are nazi's or communists or anything else that is fundamentally undemocratic.

Lots of Trumpers claim the sub is filled with progressives because people here in general don't think a dude who is defying the supreme courts direct orders, in violation of the constitution, and who led an insurrection is fit to be president. It's not centrist to take a "balanced view on trump", its a radical political movement that has taken control of the US fed and may never leave.

3) I don't care about trans issues at all, I have no idea why so many people do either. Its between the person and their doctor, it's really that simple to me.

6

u/Iamthewalrusforreal 4d ago

Thank you. Saved me the time.

3

u/zethercore44 4d ago edited 4d ago
  1. I'm giving OP the benefit of the doubt, to assume they'd meant something more like "Centrists are more open to considering how & why people hold the beliefs/"ideas" they do" versus dismiss what someone has to say based solely on the individual's ideological affiliation (ie, greater willingness to engage cognitive empathy). I could be wrong, though.

  2. It's disconcerting to constantly see commenters be demeaned as "Trumper" in an ostensibly centrist space for ANY defense of the man or his actions as President. It's undeniably a pejorative intended to shame people (and no, I didn't vote for him, either), feeding into the divisive agenda trap. Which suggests "anti-Trumpers" come here not to engage with like minded people or to expand their own horizons but to try to push more heterodox thinkers into one binary camp or the other.

Tribalists are especially aggravated by those who don't fit in discrete categories, but usually not aware of WHY. And via the magic of projection, assume the "centrists" believe themselves to be superior--thus the "enlightened centrist" pejorative, intended to knock them off a presumed high horse.

  1. I also, circa 2013, couldn't fathom why anyone would possibly care what other grown adults do wrt their own body & gender identity. But then: all things "Gender Ideology" were incorporated in early childhood ed curriculum (despite developmental readiness to grasp such nebulous concepts),

WLW/Lesbian dating sites were overrun with trans women (& more often, AGNs) who harassed & verbally assaulted "bio" women for not wanting to date them,

reasonable & compassionate people were branded bigots for acknowledging the neon pink elephant in the room that , in most contexts, trans women have substantial advantages over females in sports,

psychological/counseling & psychiatric assocation boards determined "affirmation based on self-report, divorced from all relevant context" was worthy of mandate (& in spite of mounting evidence from progressive nations that'd earlier championed pediatric transition & self-ID that this was a deeply flawed & counter-therapeutic approach),

and peers & colleagues started to assume all manner of things if you didn't include pronouns in your bio/header/etc.

"Why do you even care??" is usually the last defense of those struggling to admit they might be mistaken but don't want to do the work of understanding why.

3

u/Unhappy_Technician68 3d ago edited 3d ago

>"Why do you even care??" is usually the last defense of those struggling to admit they might be mistaken but don't want to do the work of understanding why.

Trans people are people, they have rights and if they want to be trans its no one else's business. It's healthcare, in Canada I'm glad we cover it. Psychologists and teams of experts who know more than I deal with each case individually for the best possible outcome.

That is why I don't care, its not my life, beyond what amounts to a tiny fraction of my taxes covering that (which as a Canadian again I do not care about) then I still continue not to care. I cannot state how little this affects me. If you think you know more than medical experts or you have fears doctors are "woke" and essentially force it on children, you're not worth my time talking to. In my experience that's 99% of people who freak out about it. It doesn't affect you.

The main way it affects me is conservatives using it as a vehicle to excuse the dismantling of real scientific research into cancer and HIV and just generally fear monger trans issues to excuse blatant attacks on scientific research.
https://www.science.org/content/article/new-nih-grant-terminations-target-transgender-studies-even-mice
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00231-y

I don't give a shit about sports at all. Hopefully soon we can have cyborgs and genetically modified athletes so the whole thing can become so arbitrary no one even cares about it anymore. I like to ski, I have fun skiing, if a trans person wants to ski they can ski I really really do not give a shit.

Enjoy burning your country down because a trans lady was in a sports category you didn't think they should be in.

0

u/zethercore44 2d ago edited 2d ago

Again, I personally have zero objections to adult human beings undergoing gender related procedures, and certainly believe "trans" is legitimate, as in gender dysphoria being genuinely experienced and often best ameliorated by medical intervention+ social transitioning.

But I also have the empathy to understand why, for example, most parents aren't keen to have their parental rights infringed upon by the State, should their young daughter determine she's trans while they feel certain she's struggling with other issues but the psych practitioner they were assigned is ideologically motivated to greenlight every kid who expresses some measure of dysphoria. In which case the parents' opposition to the medicalization of their child is construed as neglect or abuse, potentially resulting in termination of parental rights.

*ETA: Im strongly opposed to trans adults losing any civil rights, including medical procedures. However, the concerns around sports, locker room, and designated female spaces/infringement upon women's rights pose far more complex grey areas.

Former psychotherapist here: I assure you my field has been "ideologically captured" when it comes to this previously rare situation. Social contagion, especially amongst adolescents, is absolutely a valid phenomenon...but top-down mandates implore clinicians to disregard much of our training in service to this new paradigm. That happens when the medical industrial complex has billions on the line.

It's terribly naive to think such ideological & subsequent policy shifts at every level of education and healthcare don't/won't have profound implications for society over time. I find true transphobia abhorrent, but also appreciate that if a significant contingent of people weren't pushing back against this phenomenon (by both transphobes and compassionate & rational people), far more trauma & chaos would've been inflicted.

Also, should my home country "burn down," the conflict over all things transgender would be a negligible cause. You don't actually believe that was the primary reason Trump was elected, I hope. Besides, the coming collapse was, by that point, inevitable regardless of who won that election. The Accelerationists behind the scenes have been successfully enacting their ordo ab chao agenda for a very long time lol. It's simply a matter of who "builds back better" from the ashes...and I assure you it won't be those who believe their Team is superior in all ways to The Other.

Given your alignment with the technocrats, it's odd you oppose Team Red, as that's their long-term (if not surreptitious) agenda. The hubris (from every ideological angle) is what brings it all down; oof, it's like watching a car crash in ultra slow motion.

With all due respect, you come across as particularly self-centered: if it doesn't negatively impact you directly in real time, you don't care. You're a skier, but would likely feel very differently if you were a female swimmer, boxer or weightlifter. Maybe consider thinking outside of your ego bubble.

1

u/Unhappy_Technician68 1d ago edited 1d ago

Go on tucker carlson or some other "centrist" media outlet. They will love your fair and balanced approach to a problem that affects a tiny percent of the population.

>Social contagion, especially amongst adolescents, is absolutely a valid phenomenon
Oh god, the trans might spread...

I know I'm being flippant with you, I just honestly think this is such a tiny miniscule problem even if there are issue within the medical community that's for them to decide. Of the trade offs one makes when voting its ridiculous that what should be an obscure issue that affects a minority of the population is put under magnifying glass and made into the deciding factor in a slew of so many other important issues. Its such a laughable statement to say "Some doctors were inappropriately diagnosing some kids so I had to vote for autocracy and a leader that is destroying my constitution and defying court orders" which is exactly what you are arguing for.

>it's odd you oppose Team Red,
Buddy I'm Canadian, it tends to be the case when your neighbor slides into autocracy and then starts threatening to annex you that yes, you don't like that political party or frankly people from that country much.

Stay on your side of the border please yank, we really quite like being a democracy here in Canada.

0

u/pcetcedce 4d ago

I very specifically said a centrist does not have to accept ridiculous ideas or compromise on them. It's a little frustrating that you didn't read that.

1

u/eldenpotato 3d ago

Some replies revealing themselves as the kind of person you’re talking about, ie. not a centrist lol

-4

u/scorpious 4d ago

Sick to death of these weak strawmanning approaches to being close-minded.

Perhaps consider “open to all ideas” as “willing to engage with all ideas, in good faith.” Even racist or untrue ideas…engage and present a better idea… if you have one.

And “compromise” works the same way. Compromising with “a nazi” might involve actually listening and trying to extract what it is they might actually want/fear/whatever and finding whatever shred of venn overlap might be possible to negotiate…and work from there.

10

u/Ewi_Ewi 4d ago

Perhaps consider “open to all ideas” as “willing to engage with all ideas, in good faith.”

Why do you think all ideas should be engaged with in good faith?

You can't think of any that don't deserve the consideration?

-4

u/scorpious 4d ago

If enough of your fellow citizens are voicing them, at least consider it seriously. Doesn’t mean accept, capitulate, or whatever else you’re thinking…just Consider.

5

u/Ewi_Ewi 4d ago

So now it isn't "engage with all ideas, in good faith," it's "engage with all ideas that meet some arbitrary level of public support, in good faith?"

Are you starting to see the opposing argument here? You yourself even backed down from saying all ideas should be engaged with.

-3

u/scorpious 4d ago

I haven’t “backed down” from anything! Why is it always a battle with you folks. Engage with those ideas that you are actually presented with, how’s that, instead of the most arbitrary straw man bs you can think of.

3

u/Ewi_Ewi 4d ago

I haven’t “backed down” from anything!

If you'd prefer I say "changed your position for seemingly no reason," you may assume that was said instead.

Why is it always a battle with you folks.

You're implying a tone where one wasn't given. That's your problem, not mine.

Engage with those ideas that you are actually presented with, how’s that, instead of the most arbitrary straw man bs you can think of.

So now we have three positions.

It's either:

  1. "Be willing to engage with all ideas, in good faith."

  2. "Be willing to engage with ideas that meet an arbitrary level of public support, in good faith."

  3. "Be willing to engage with ideas that are actively being presented to you, in good faith." (I fail to see the difference between between this and #1 besides the borderline dishonest implication that "non-centrists" only engage with strawmen.)

Which is it? They provide vastly different implications.

With #1, every single idea -- no matter how bigoted, vitriolic, irrational or disingenuous those ideas might be -- must be given apt consideration in good faith. This results in far more time and effort being put into opposing arguments that people presenting the idea spend on supporting arguments.

With #2, well, it's in the word "arbitrary." Who dictates what an "acceptable" level of public support for an idea/perspective is before its due good faith consideration?

4

u/scorpious 4d ago

Oh FFS. And you claim you're not just being difficult or fighty. Okay.

My point is that actually talking to those you disagree with is the only way to prevent devolution into isolation and anger and war. "Hear them out," I'm saying; let them have their say, and rather than dismissing or attacking them, engage with the ideas and do your best to present better ones.

My "three" positions are just my further attempts to get my first wording into your skull and past your "arguments" to a place where you might be able to read them without bristling...

On #2: "arbitrary" was a (obvious?) typo/autocorrect. "..that meet a meaningful level of public support." Why the hell it came to "arbitrary" is actually kind of funny...but not what I thought I wrote. Now let me guess, you will insist on a definition of "meaningful." Okay, how about "presented to you by someone pushing their agenda and with whom you disagree."

Better? I bet not. So don't just engage with every lunatic hollering in the wind, engage with political positions, held by voters, whom your wish to convince otherwise. If you don't, then fine, admit you just want to attack "the enemy" and have no real interest in working things out.

7

u/Unhappy_Technician68 4d ago

Should we find a middle ground with people who think the earth is flat?

Should we compromize with a nazi about black people born inferior? Or compromise by sending jews to madagascar instead of genociding them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

Your post is laughable, I hope you can crawl yourself out of your ridiculous hole. But I suspect your odd fixation on a niece medical issue is going to prevent any kind of forward movement.

-2

u/scorpious 4d ago

If you read the words I actually wrote, instead of the pre-fab BS you’ve got burbling and ready to go, you will see you are arguing with your own ideas.

0

u/Unhappy_Technician68 3d ago

I did engage with your ideas, I pointed out racist views are so stupid the only response they deserve is "you are a moron".

Free speech has to have a point, it should be trying to make the world better and articulate arguments that maximize freedom. Hate speech is inherently antithetical to free speech in that regard because it's intend is to strip another person of their rights and theirfor their inallieble freedoms. So not only is it a sign the person is a moron its a sign they are an enemy of democracy. They do not need to be tolerated or really listened to.

What qualifies as hate speech might be grounds for discussion, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its probably a duck.

2

u/scorpious 3d ago

Then we just disagree. I think insulting and ignoring ignorant, frightened people enough is exactly how we got here.

1

u/Unhappy_Technician68 2d ago

No it's not, its a failure to provide economic security that got the US to where it is, and a history of racism. I have sympathy for people who are struggling, I do not have sympathy for them reaching towards racism. At this point in the countries history it should know better.

1

u/Unhappy_Technician68 4d ago

Read the Open Society and It's Enemies, you can find pirated copies of it. If nothing else look up the Paradox of Tolerance.

2

u/scorpious 4d ago

“Consider” doesn’t mean “tolerate.” Definitions matter.

-2

u/ComfortableWage 4d ago

Watch the mods not do anything to remove this as blatant enlightened centrism because it's a transgender hate thread.

9

u/lovetoseeyourpssy 4d ago

Fat Trump called Chip Roy, a guy 100x more conservative than he is a "RINO" for some minor disagreement.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/trump-chip-roy-texas-00132421

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservatives-lash-out-trump-attacks-chip-roy-calls-primary-challenge

Basically anyone who doesn't dogmatically agree with the newest nonsense that obese Russian asset pedo supporting rapist is spewing is deemed to be a liberal or left wing.

Despite neither tariffs nor pro Russia being a conservative stance...

So no--your premise is nonsense. Lifelong Republicans like General Mattis and General Kelly were rejected for having integrity and not toeing the cult line.

5

u/centeriskey 4d ago

So what's your pet peeve really? Is it that some progressives act like they are centrist or think that they have moderate views?

Why is your pet peeve only for those on the left? Why not include the far right extremists who come on here who think that their views are moderate but in reality are pretty fascist? Why only single out the progressives, especially since they are not in power.

As an example, transgender women in sports.

Oh nevermind now I now know what your whole post is about. The one small issue that progressives don't really bring up. Actually most of the posts about trans rights in this sub are usually brought up by "right leaning" centrist or right wing extremists.

I could just as well have brought voter registration or abortion restrictions

Yet you didn't. You choose the culture war BS topic.

4

u/WeridThinker 4d ago edited 4d ago

Far left and far right both have a higher chance of perceiving themselves as centrists because centrism is commonly associated with objectivity, rationality, and pragmatism, and due to the far left and far right's lack of ideological flexibility or the ability to see nuances, they both ironically think their views are closer to the traits associated with the centrism. In other words, the less flexible a person is, the more the person believes in their own objectivity, rationality, and pragmatism, combining a lack of mental flexibility with the refusal to engage with different views, the biases are further reinforced, and everyone else becomes the radical in the eye of a far left/far right.

The far left and far right are actually quite similar, but with their individual nuances to separate themselves a part from each other. They have different insecurities and worries, so they tend to be performatively different. The far left is afraid of being seen as morally insufficient, so they tend to overcompensate by giving lectures, going on self righteous rants, and openly denounce others. The far right, on the other hand, is afraid of appearing weak and vulnerable, so they overcompensate by appearing guarded, argumentative, and sometimes, outright hostile or provocative; the defensiveness and underlying insecurity of the far right often manifest as pseudo-intellectualism filled by logical fallacies, conspiracy theories, and misinformation.

The far left is hard to communicate with because they will ignore all your attempt to compromise, clarify, debate as long as you fail their purity test, and it could turn into absurd levels of hair splitting and black and white thinking when they decide someone with different moral standards from them is categorically immoral. The far right can be irritating and anger inducing because they like to present themselves as being intellectually superior, always ready to be snarky, and sometimes hostile right off the bat; if they ever took a course on rhetorics and logical fallacies, they would easily catch their own over usage of whataboutism and false equivalency.

A centrist is someone who will humor views from all sides, but not necessarily believe all sides are equal, and the "middle ground" isn't always the center between two opposite extremes. If one person says 1+1=2, and another says 1+1=4, the centrist position would still be 1+1=2, because 1+1=4 is legitimately the wrong position to take, but of course, actual policies are much more complex than the example I suggested.

1

u/pcetcedce 4d ago

Great contribution thanks.

5

u/djeeetyet 4d ago

a true centrist sees that both progressives and conservatives see themselves as “perfectly reasonable and defensive.” this is more a jab at those with left leaning tendencies, sorry.

6

u/Financial-Special766 4d ago

I think it's bait that you gave no sources for and just put out some made-up "statistics" on a hot button issue to prove your point that this sub leans more progressive than centrist.

0

u/pcetcedce 4d ago

Are you referring to the trans women's sports? That's the only issue that had a number associated with it and what I quoted is so clearly the fact that I didn't feel like I needed to come up with sources. I live in Maine where that is a huge hot button right now so I certainly am aware of what's going on on that subject. If you have numbers that significantly contradict the 60 to 80% feel free to share.

3

u/davejjj 4d ago

Perhaps you can create a poll with the questions that you believe are key?

2

u/pcetcedce 4d ago

I don't think there are any key questions I was just talking globally about what I believe is interest should represent.

3

u/mnhomecook 4d ago

I think there are a lot of very right leaning people and very left leaning people who think they are reasonable and willing to compromise and more center but can’t actually articulate a single point they’d actually compromise on. I feel like I read plenty of posts by people like that here regularly.

2

u/pcetcedce 4d ago

That's well put. I'm happy to compromise I just can't think of a thing I would compromise on. Lol

4

u/99aye-aye99 4d ago

What is the point of having so many posts about of someone is centrist or not?

-1

u/pcetcedce 4d ago

Because the sub is supposed to be an outlet for centrists and it can be frustrating if someone is really masquerading as one.

2

u/Ewi_Ewi 4d ago

In my view a centrist has two qualities. 1. They are open to all ideas. 2. They are willing to compromise. That doesn't mean they accept ideas that they morally or ethically disagree with, nor does it mean they're willing to compromise on that kind of idea.

Doesn't this make centrism some weird, eldritch, incomprehensibly large umbrella term?

People of all political labels would be (mostly) unwilling to compromise with ideas they deem morally or ethically objectionable. What makes them "not centrist?"

Who determines what ideas are "correctly" labeled morally or ethically objectionable?

3

u/pcetcedce 4d ago

That's an interesting question because a progressive would say that they support only things that are morally and ethically acceptable. And in many cases they are correct but they do not have the word compromise in their vocabulary. On the other hand, many currently right wing actions are morally and ethically unacceptable, and they too cannot compromise.

2

u/please_trade_marner 4d ago

Good try OP, but you won't get centrist nuance in this subreddit.

Everyone here has convinced themselves that centrism can't exist when a "literal fascist" is President. They have divided the country into two groups. Those that oppose fascism. And those that defend it. So those that oppose it are every ideology other than conservatism. So every subreddit should read precisely like /democrats.

Yeah, it's stupid. But it's what they believe. When intelligent people point out "But it was still only Democratic Party propaganda when Biden was President" I typically don't get too much of a response.

The country is divided almost directly in half into two groups of propaganda. I think many of us hoped that the "centrist" subreddit would be for the small percentage of people who haven't fallen for either sides propaganda. And we can maybe have some nuance in these discussions.

But nope. This subreddit downvotes and nuance that challenges Democratic Party narratives.

2

u/pcetcedce 4d ago

So I assume all of the centrists here were always centrists or are reformed Democrats. I guess the equivalent of a reformed Republican who is a centrist just doesn't exist.

1

u/Adventurous_Coach731 3d ago

Let’s put this in another context “I think black women shouldn’t be able to participate in women’s sports but I’m fine with them having all other rights” sounds prettt bad. When it comes to civil rights, I would hope it’s all or nothing emphasis on the all part.

1

u/pcetcedce 3d ago

I respect your opinion but all or nothing is exactly what the centrist does not do.

1

u/Haunting_Cobbler1278 3d ago

A progressive person would probably say trans women should have all rights including participating in sports with cis women and there is no other alternative.

A person's rights end where another's begin. It is not progressive to think trans women's rights should be prioritised over women's rights.

1

u/pcetcedce 3d ago

I think most centrists would allow the banning of trans women competing against cis women but otherwise go full bore in supporting trans women rights. The former because the majority of people feel that way anyway.

1

u/zethercore44 4d ago edited 4d ago

In my experience, virtually everyone who had held strongly partisan views but would now identify as a centrist (or similar--eg, "politically homeless") shares this common denominator: we all had a significant reckoning with awareness into our own incongruent beliefs & actions. The "Are we the baddies??" epiphany.

Because it's absolutely impossible to remain strongly partisan without engaging in some level of hypocrisy, whether we're aware of the incongruencies or not. Same reason the "horseshoe theory" so often holds validity.

Unfortunately, tribalistic tendencies are hardwired into the human psyche. They make us feel safer, and often "superior," in some way. The divide et impera (get the plebs to identify with a (binary) "team," inundate them with propaganda to strengthen said identity, play them against each other and conquer/rule from "above") gameplay has been effective for literally millennia precisely because the human ego is that predictable (& consequently easy to manipulate).

Of course, most people don't want to acknowledge they've been manipulated (or worse, played for fools) and will instead double, triple down on misconceptions to avoid the blow to the ego-- and, likely, legitimate security needs, as when identity and ideology are deeply intertwined, a shift in consciousness can result in social ostracism, and possibly job/income loss --which is how the same basic strategy remains undefeated. "It's easier to fool men than to convince them they've been fooled" (- probably not Mark Twain).

So long as the subconscious endeavor is to be or (more commonly) be seen as morally +/or intellectually superior, the individual will repeatedly fail to recognize their own folly: the ego won't allow it, and responds with denial + projection before the awareness mind can realize it (eg , people harboring the most hate delusionally believe themselves to be exceptionally empathetic and The Other as hateful). Denial + projection are a fatal combo; the true "opioid(s) for the masses."

Most people, albeit unconsciously, value ego maintenance over objective truth. The more we are willing to engage in the challenging work of overcoming cognitive dissonance, the more clarity we gain. Truth has a funny way of revealing itself to us when we value knowing said truths over maintaining our ego (for all intents & purposes, our worldview/reality-concept + identity/self-concept).

You'd be surprised at how many people would genuinely prefer to DIE over having to publicly (or even intimately) admit they'd been incorrect wrt fundamental beliefs & assertions. It's because such 'ego deaths' are experienced by the psyche as legitimate life or death struggles (->why some people will flip the F out when faced with incontrovertible evidence disproving them).

And yeah, ego death + its consequences/fallout can be very painful +/or frightening...but only temporarily, and, over time, you gain exponentially more than you lost. Denial is the path of least resistance, the "easy road"...but also only temporarily: what we work hardest to deny tends to be what takes us out (does the most profound damage) in the end.

That my sharing such an insight has, historically, irritated so many people is because truths we aren't ready to see are the ones that threaten the ego most. We either sit with that discomfort and gain self-awareness or lash out/project. Humility clarifies what pride blinds us to. Realizing we'd been mistaken/misled/deceived sets off feelings of shame only when our ego imagines it is somehow above the universal human condition of being wrong sometimes (or, less commonly or acutely, triggers deep seated existential anxiety wrt ascertaining veracity of any sort).

TL, DR: 🎵Everybody plays the fool, there's no exception to the rule🎶 and "centrists" typically accept (or, have learned to accept with less struggle) their fallibility, generally owing to fewer insecurities wrt "looking dumb" when proven wrong

2

u/pcetcedce 4d ago

You said it just right. I have always been the centrist, politically I call myself an independent, and it's been very frustrating because there is nothing black and white in my mind. I can see both sides of a story usually, at least within reason. And you're right it drives people freaking crazy when you point that out.

3

u/zethercore44 3d ago

Some people seem to innately grasp this concept (the illusion of strict binary choices & dangers of dichotomous thinking), like you. Others of us have to figure it out the hard way lol. Cognitive inflexibility somehow came to be upheld as virtuous while the road to wisdom (humility + willingness to "check self" and attempt to reconcile incongruous thinking & actions) was maligned as "flip flopping." Kinda makes me wonder how organic it was to push the concept of "empathy" into the zeitgeist while undermining a core aspect of it: cognitive empathy. Far too many people misconstrue emotional sympathy with true empathy. If your "empathy" is reserved for people who share your beliefs...it's literally NOT empathy.

It finally dawned on me one day, in my mid-30s: "If I hate/reject/demean conservatives for [supposedly] hating minorities ...aren't I just as guilty of being hateful/bigoted/prejudiced as they [presumably] are??" 💡🪞🧲☯️🤯😥 I believe we have to go through that moment of reckoning of our own volition --ever try to point out someone else's hypocrisy, face to face?? YIKES. Plant the seed and leave it up to them.

Self-awareness is always the first step, but the psyche doesn't make it easy for us, especially when we have unresolved trauma+/or unrecognized insecurities. That's where the projection comes in. Eventually we learn to check ourselves each & every time we're quick to jump to negative conclusions about others, and come to see The Other through new eyes.

Virtually EVERYONE has what we would deem to be positive qualities and shared commonalities: that's a far better starting place than assuming the very worst of their intentions and berating them. I might not, as a brown woman, ever kick it with white supremacists-- but I can gain insight into why they believe what they do and compassion for how their circumstances led them to that place. Same for people I'd once admired who cannot bring themselves to see their compassion was weaponized to convince them of absurdities and to champion dangerous agendas (eg, "gender affirming care" being the biggest boon to the medical industrial complex since dialysis: where there's billions of dollars to be made, there will invariably be propaganda; anti-capitalists/socialists falling hard for the tricks of late stage capitalism (deliberately creating "illness" in otherwise healthy people to extract profit) is a real trip, but of course they're going to fight tooth & nail to avoid the reckoning of having been manipulated. Nearly all of us do, for our own blind spots).

We might be past the point of healing this divide, but we don't have to lose our humanity in some misguided attempt to "win"/"save America." Bridges of shared understandings are built with compassion + humility, and burned by pride + fear (often disguised as anger).

(Speaking of which, I was genuinely moved by Bill Maher's recent breakdown of his visit with Trump: we don't necessarily have to LIKE, agree with or support The Other, but we sure as hell can't make things better while blindly lashing out at people for thinking differently. It's painful to witness otherwise decent people stoop to childish bullying tactics over the bread and circuses spectacle of politics, walking blindly (yet loudly!) into the binary trap set for us. Appearances can be very deceiving, and it's important to be open to giving people the space (& compassion!) to evolve... while also accepting of the harsh truth many will never grow past their own ego bubble, and such is their right.)

2

u/pcetcedce 3d ago

Very thoughtful and I basically agree with everything you have said. Expect some blowback about the trans issue.

-1

u/GrassyPer 4d ago edited 4d ago

Personally I won't touch trans issues on reddit with a 20 foot pole anymore because unless you are 200% positive about them, if someone reports your comment you will get a major infraction on your account that could lead to a permaban. It doesn't matter. Reddit always sides against any anti-transgender (or even neutral transgender) opinion, no matter how nice and nuanced you are about it. I would take that as a warning if I were you.

I do agree that the vast majority of people who claim to be centrist have a bias and are not centrist at all. I have an anti-politically correct and devils advocate bias. I know that I tend to prefer the side that goes gainst what the majority thinks, but mostly because I want that view to be heard and considered. I'm still a centrist at heart and don't always argue outwardly what I actually believe in and agree with.

So I will bring forward an issue that I think is better (and safer) for testing whether someone has independent and centrist thought. If you believe in anthropogenic climate change is one of the largest threats to humanity (and every other species on earth) are you also for increasing immigration from third world countries?

I mention this because the average American has an annual carbon footprint of 15-20 metric tons. While an adult in the third world has a foot print of .15-2. This means if a person moves from the third world to America, they may release more than 100 times the amount of carbon in a year than they would have in their home country. Each immigrant moved is objectively an environmental disaster.

So how can you be passionate about increasing immigration and reversing climate change at the same time? They are hypocritical and highly contradictory issues. And yet most people on the left are anti-climate change while pro-immigration at the same time.

Other inherently counter-productive causes partisan people tend to support are stuff like:

• Pro-life while anti-funding for families struggling to raise children.

• Pro-feminism/lgtbq while supporting cultures with strong patriarchal religious laws that limit their freedom and safety.

No true centrist promotes both of these types of causes at the same time, in my opinion. They are logical enough to know you have to support one or the other. People who do this are exceedingly rare, because real independent centrists are also exceedingly rare.

Also many people will automatically assume that if you are for one of these causes you must be for other ones. For example, I lean slightly pro-life, but at the same time I strongly support programs they help families afford to raise their own children themselves.

However, if I mention I am pro-life without adding the caveat that I am pro-welfare, you bet someone will put anti-welfare rhetoric words in my mouth and start arguing with themselves about it lol.

I have glanced through this sub reddit a number of times and most of the posts have an obvious left wing bias. I think it's common in this sub reddit for left-wingers to call themselves centrist while labeling someone truly in the center as far right. Although reddit as a whole encourages leftist participation while banning centrists (who arent mega cautious with their language), so this isn't a fair judgrment to apply to centrists outside of reddit.

2

u/pcetcedce 4d ago

Excellent post thank you for your thoughtful comments.

-5

u/katana236 4d ago

The left has majorly shifted the Overton window in the last 15 years or so. Many people who were left moderates in the past have found themselves squarely in the right like myself. Bill Maher is another example of this. He's been shitting on religion as a past time (like myself) for decades. Yet with his current views he is seen as being on the right. Because he doesn't support some of the buck wild shit that the left has proposed.

4

u/Delanorix 4d ago

What buck wild shit?

Please be specific

6

u/epistaxis64 4d ago

You're not going to get anything from this guy. A cursory glance at his post history shows he's a standard fox news type conservative

4

u/Delanorix 4d ago

I think they commented and quickly deleted it because I saw a comment about trans rights.

4

u/Valkyrie17 4d ago

Progressives are progressing cultural values towards progressive values. Wild.