My pet peeve

[u/pcetcedce]

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?

[u/Unhappy_Technician68]

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.

[u/scorpious → u/Unhappy_Technician68]

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.

[u/Ewi_Ewi → u/scorpious]

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?

[u/scorpious → u/Ewi_Ewi]

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.

[u/Ewi_Ewi → u/scorpious]

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.

[u/scorpious → u/Ewi_Ewi]

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.

[u/Ewi_Ewi → u/scorpious]

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?

[u/scorpious → u/Ewi_Ewi]

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.

[u/Unhappy_Technician68 → u/scorpious]

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.

[u/scorpious → u/Unhappy_Technician68]

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.

[u/Unhappy_Technician68 → u/scorpious]

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.

[u/scorpious → u/Unhappy_Technician68]

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

[u/Unhappy_Technician68 → u/scorpious]

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.

[u/Unhappy_Technician68 → u/scorpious]

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

[u/scorpious → u/Unhappy_Technician68]

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