What are your political views?

[YourNeighbor]

Taking the individual example of slavery away, the fundamental point here is that the ruling classes rarely give us anything through sheer generosity, and that dissent rather than agreement with the established status quo has historically been the driver of progress.

Saying that dissent with the status quo has historically been the driver of progress is a relatively meaningless circular statement. Support of the status quo historically supports...the status quo, so no change.

Dissent with the status quo has historically driven progress, and also reaction and regression.

 

[Chinaski]

Saying that dissent with the status quo has historically been the driver of progress is a relatively meaningless circular statement. Support of the status quo historically supports...the status quo, so no change.

Which is exactly why l made this point, in reply to discussion about why people who hold consistent personal political beliefs which don't align with those on the right may find agreeing with those same people to be an extremely rare event. This is clear, surely.

 

[Someone123]

Centrists aren't smarter or more rational simply because they always sit out.

A centrist doesn't always sit out necessarily, they just decide each issue on their own. One person may think the government should provide more funding to deal with child abuse, mental health care, and domestic violence, and this would be a stance from the left. From the right they would generally want less funding for these things to lower taxes. Then a person may have a stance on abortion- I don't want to start an abortion debate here, though- but it could be on either side on this issue- left would be pro-choice and right would be pro-life, obviously. SO they may be to the left on one issue and to the right on another. A centrist may simply make up their mind on each issue for themselves.

 

[YourNeighbor]

Which is exactly why l made this point, in reply to discussion about why people who hold consistent personal political beliefs which don't align with those on the right may find agreeing with those same people to be an extremely rare event. This is clear, surely.

I guess your point about the status quo was not at all clear. Your prior comments suggested something like (to paraphrase) "centrists are really rightists, and so support rightist entrenchment of the status quo." Dissent with the status quo is not the domain of "the left." The flip side is any political group can support a status quo and thwart progress.

A pragmatist will ask, "what about the status quo can be improved, and how can that improvement be made." Dogmatists of any stripe are driven by emotion and faith, and are just as likely to espouse destructive opposition to the status quo as progressive opposition.

It boils down to the fundamental question of "how do we know what works?" Science is one way to find answers to that question. Faith and dogma is another. One method is far more effective.

 

[Chinaski]

I guess your point about the status quo was not at all clear. Dissent with the status quo is not the domain of "the left." Any political group can support a status quo and thwart progress.

A pragmatist will ask, "what about the status quo can be improved, and how can that improvement be made." Dogmatists of any stripe are driven by emotion and faith, and are just as likely to espouse destructive opposition to the status quo as progressive opposition.

It boils down to the fundamental question of "how do we know what works?" Science is one way to find answers to that question. Faith and dogma is another. One method is far more effective.

This is wonderful centrist boilerplate, l would generally have more faith in the argument that politics should be about big-brained pinstriped technocrats being very Moderate and Sensible as they go about resolving problems in the interests of all parties if l hadn't literally lived through the past twenty years and seen this to mean Thatcherism with better PR.

 

[Istanbulite]

Social liberal

 

[user_name_here]

SO they may be to the left on one issue and to the right on another. A centrist may simply make up their mind on each issue for themselves.

Yeah but they rarely side with progressives on things like identity politics.

You are talking about examples of hot button issues and political extremism, there are many other ideas that can be discussed without the extreme polarization that this topic brings.

Yeah I intentionally used slavery and racism because I was trying to hammer my point that, sometimes, there really is a right and wrong side of some topics. There are some topics where you're either on the right or wrong side of history. Some topics that no centrist can logically be neutral on. Hence why I used these hot button topics.

It's very unfair to immediately associate racism with right leaning ideologies.

But which political side is more famously known for defending and perpetuating racism? Great replacement theory? Putting the batteries into the backs of right wing shooters? Remember when Tucker Carlson's head writer stepped down because it was uncovered he was an active member of Stormfront.. the biggest white supremacist forum on the net. Now would you call Tucker left, centre or right wing?

Also, being left leaning doesn't necessarily means not racist. I've received my fair share of slurs coming from "right side of history" leftists.

And those people are shitty people but they pale in comparison with the amount of racists on the right. It's only ever right wingers screaming about how they should be able to say the n-word.

Besides, these are US-centric conversations. The racial topic is nowhere near as prevalent where I come from.

Their not US centric, black people exist in much of western Europe and racism exists there too. Also, with the internet being so wide spread, a lot of young people go to YouTube and podcasts for politics, often from American commentators.

 

[emptyjokes]

Presented without comment

 

[user_name_here]

You're completely distorting what I said so I suggest you read again your response and my whole answer to it because I think you didn't understand it.

I was not talking specifically about slavery, it was just one of the examples given in a more ample situation so the specificities of it may have been left out.

Right. But I was trying to make the point that sometimes you can either be on the right or wrong side of history. Like there really are certain topics that are indefensible unless you're a rich racist who stands to loose money if change is implemented.

Also, I believe it was made very clear in my arguments that when I mention "ample debate between opposite sides" I was referring to those in society who were prominent in the public discussions of their times and, as consequence, somewhat responsible for the change of perception in the general population (that carries out to this day) in a variety of subjects.

I think Chinaski vocalised what I would have said to this much better than I. But essentially, the majority would rarely be generous and understanding on every topic when the minority is demanding drastic change. History doesn't seem to support your claim that ample debate has always worked.

If you want to start a debate specifically about slavery we could do that but I warn you that are other countries outside the US (shocking information, I know) and we may have dealt with the subject in different manners.

Sure.
Let's talk about slavery and the ample debate that abolished it in South America.
Oh wait... Brazil, Suriname, Guyana, French Guiana all had armies of escaped slaves (maroons) living in the rainforests arming themselves and training with stolen weapons so that they could carry out violent attacks on plantations/slave masters and set free other slaves. The white westerners didn't want to debate abolishment so the minorities had to take action. It got so bad that it eventually forced the debate to be had about abolishing slavery. And for the record, Brazil held onto slavery the longest! And had the largest population of indentured slaves in the western hemisphere. They (the Portuguese) weren't trying to have any ample debate.

Okay let's talk about slavery and ample debate in the Caribbean.
Grenada, Dominica, Haiti all had bloody uprisings with the Haitian revolution being the only successful revolution. And that was BLOODY! Ample debate wasn't an option, then when France requested the new Haitian leader to come to Paris for a negotiation (ample debate), he was captured, imprisoned and died in a jail cell. It was a trap right from the jump.

Oh, then in the early 1900s the US invaded Haiti and STOLE over 6m worth of the country's gold. Which the US still has to this day. They (western powers) didn't care about ample debate, they simply wanted to punish and set an example to other slave nations.

Now I get the feeling back then, centrists would have definitely shunned and shamed the slaves for their violent attacks, and definitely defended the slave owners because it was the capitalist thing to do. Just like today.

Saying that dissent with the status quo has historically been the driver of progress is a relatively meaningless circular statement. Support of the status quo historically supports...the status quo, so no change.

Dissent with the status quo has historically driven progress, and also reaction and regression.

I read this 15 times and I still have no idea what point your trying to make.

 

[hungry_ghost]

Difficult to say.

I haven't done extensive research into anarchy, and communism seems horrible in practice, though theoretically well-intended (supposedly).

I've spent the bulk of my time the past few years within libertarian/conservative circles just because most of the people there align with my own beliefs about current events/society.

But even they are just as much of an echo chamber as folks on the left/far-left.

One thing I could never get on board with - how conservatives dickride cops, yet claim to champion liberty, when all cops do is violate people's rights.

 

[milkginger]

I'm a leftist, a feminist and I believe that capitalism is a fucked up system that imprisons minorities and promotes this shitty social inequality! I'm Brazilian and living in a third world country that is flirting with a military dictatorship in an extreme right-wing government has been very difficult! unfortunately many Brazilians have colonialist views and do not see our potential and the beauty we have as a nation! in our brief democracy, never has a right-wing government helped the poor by giving dignity to life.

 

[YourNeighbor]

This is wonderful centrist boilerplate, l would generally have more faith in the argument that politics should be about big-brained pinstriped technocrats being very Moderate and Sensible as they go about resolving problems in the interests of all parties if l hadn't literally lived through the past twenty years and seen this to mean Thatcherism with better PR.

Circular logic never ends (or begins). If you think Thatcherism is pragmatism (or empirically driven) that says more about you than anyone who approaches politics pragmatically. Really, Thatcherism/Reaganism is a faith-based approach to policymaking, as is blindly following 19th century philosophers to derive one's 21st century politics.

 

[Chinaski]

Circular logic never ends (or begins). If you think Thatcherism is pragmatism (or empirically driven) that says more about you than anyone who approaches politics pragmatically. Really, Thatcherism/Reaganism is a faith-based approach to policymaking, as is blindly following 19th century philosophers to derive one's 21st century politics.

I'm not sure what about my point it is that you're missing but to to reiterate, in every instance of a supposed "centrist" taking office over recent decades they have gone on to govern from the right, again this is quite clear in the post. It's also been illustrated quite starkly n recent times that those who consider themselves to be Sensible Pragmatic Centrists have shown a greater enthusiasm for crushing popular movements to their left than they have for challenging any established power to their right. It's ultimately right wing, it just sounds nicer.

 

[YourNeighbor]

I'm not sure what about my point it is that you're missing but to to reiterate, in every instance of a supposed "centrist" taking office over recent decades they have gone on to govern from the right, again this is quite clear in the post. It's also been illustrated quite starkly n recent times that those who consider themselves to be Sensible Pragmatic Centrists have shown a greater enthusiasm for crushing popular movements to their left than they have for challenging any established power to their right. It's ultimately right wing, it just sounds nicer.

I'm not missing anything. When it comes to politics, you're a Believer in the One True Faith espoused by the 19th century bearded and/or mustachioed philosopher of your choice. Anyone who is not of the Faith is right wing. Praise be.

 

[Chinaski]

I'm not missing anything. When it comes to politics, you're a Believer in the One True Faith espoused by the 19th century bearded and/or mustachioed philosopher of your choice. Anyone who is not of the Faith is right wing. Praise be.

This is empty and patronising and entirely in keeping with the positioning of the self-described centrists, who see their own weak sauce politics as a badge of superior insight and maturity and anyone who has any politics of conviction and integrity is quickly boxed off as either some kind of cultist or a self-indulgent intellectual. The reality is l came to my politics through lived experience and not via book-learning or indoctrination, just like most people. Even the situation l currently find myself in, and what brings me to this godforsaken hell hole of a website, is directly linked to my social class. I didn't need to read Capital to recognise that thirty years of Thatcherism, even when dressed as milquetoast centrism, has absolutely failed to deliver for me, my friends, my loved ones, my community and beyond.

It's also worth pointing out that for all the Aaron Sorkin acolytes who pride themselves on being too smart for ideological positions this is not consistent with the political figures to whom they lend their support, who repeatedly reveal their own underpinning ideology the second they enter office, and it's never pretty.

 

[YourNeighbor]

This is empty and patronising

Wait, are you for or against empty patronising posts on politics?

and entirely in keeping with the positioning of the self-described centrists, who see their own weak sauce politics as a badge of superior insight and maturity and anyone who has any politics of conviction and integrity

(of course yours is the position of integrity, it is the One True Faith--praise be)

is quickly boxed off as either some kind of cultist or a self-indulgent intellectual.

Got it, you're for empty patronising posts on politics.

The reality is l came to my politics through lived experience and not via book-learning or indoctrination, just like most people.

And what other areas of your understanding of the world is based on your lived experience? Biology? Astronomy? History? Physics? Mathematics? Why do you think your anecdotal experiences, viewed through whatever bias your experience allows you to view them, are a reliable primary way of gaining an understanding into politics amd economics, or any field of inquiry?

Even the situation l currently find myself in, and what brings me to this godforsaken hell hole of a website, is directly linked to my social class. I didn't need to read Capital

And yet you keep referring to 200 year old tropes constantly. Update your knowledge base.

to recognise that thirty years of Thatcherism, even when dressed as milquetoast centrism, has absolutely failed to deliver for me, my friends, my loved ones, my community and beyond.

Not sure what this means. I understand you're probably not in a good place to be here (doubt many here are), and that sucks. Hope things can improve for you.

It's also worth pointing out that for all the Aaron Sorkin acolytes who pride themselves on being too smart for ideological positions this is not consistent with the political figures to whom they lend their support, who repeatedly reveal their own underpinning ideology the second they enter office, and it's never pretty.

I mean, your foil is a playwright. And we're talking politics. How absurd is that? Learn a bit about the scientific method. Then explore a bit what we have learned over the past 75 years from political scientists, political economists, economists, sociologists, etc., beyond your personal anecdotal perceptions about the Truth as revealed to you through your Prophet.

 

[mediocre]

A few years ago I would have said close to the center.. but recent events have pushed me much further left namely a lying shameless full of shit Tory conservative government that we have in the U.K. Now I'm just waiting for the revolution to come!

 

[Sibyl Vane]

Right. But I was trying to make the point that sometimes you can either be on the right or wrong side of history. Like there really are certain topics that are indefensible

That's quite an obvious statement. I believe we all agree on it. I just found it valid to point out the dangers of characterizing someone as a racist or as being on the wrong side of history simple for disagreeing with you since there are subjects with a higher degree of complexity than "right" or "wrong". Especially when talking about the past.

I think Chinaski vocalised what I would have said to this much better than I. But essentially, the majority would rarely be generous and understanding on every topic when the minority is demanding drastic change. History doesn't seem to support your claim that ample debate has always worked.

Not one would be generous and understanding in every topic not even if they belong to a same minorital group. I never claimed an ample debate always worked in solving all the issues of humanity. I simply stated that the discussion between opposing views ends up acting as a propulsor on the further investigation of a topic since the intention to prove your point impulses you to do a more profound analysis and research of a theme.

Sure.
Let's talk about slavery and the ample debate that abolished it in South America.
Oh wait... Brazil, Suriname, Guyana, French Guiana all had armies of escaped slaves (maroons) living in the rainforests arming themselves and training with stolen weapons so that they could carry out violent attacks on plantations/slave masters and set free other slaves. The white westerners didn't want to debate abolishment so the minorities had to take action. It got so bad that it eventually forced the debate to be had about abolishing slavery. And for the record, Brazil held onto slavery the longest! And had the largest population of indentured slaves in the western hemisphere. They (the Portuguese) weren't trying to have any ample debate.

With all due respect, what you said is not entairaly accurate. You should stick with the U.S. and if you feel like sharing a little bit of how things were for you guys I'll love to read.

I'm not a historian or anything like that but I'll try to share a little of what I know.

Imagine you're born in a place, and the landscape of the country consists of the existence of free people and slaves. If you make an effort to do so, you'll realize that this scenario was natural, and the idea it wasn't would not even go through people's minds. Even the bible had slaves, and as it did not vehement condemn slavery, many used the texts to defend it. There was an extremely limited moral and imaginative scope to go by (we didn't even have the idea of salary as we know it today), so the questions about the unethically of it took a while to arrive - the french revolution played a big role on it.

The most popular brazillian abolitionary movement had between their most proeminet members, André Rebouças, José do Patrocínio, Luiz Gama and Joaquim Nabuco (they were all black, by the way, Nabuco I can't remeber but I think he was white). Rebouças had a terrible experience on a trip to the U.S. He wrote in his diary he couldn't shower, go inside places, and didn't eat for 2 days. I believe experiencing segregation at that level definitely helped him find even more motivation in trying to solve things around here. Prior to that, he was already trying to help, being involved as an intellectual in certain "semi abolition" laws (don't feel like explaining this right now) we had before the complete abolition and stuff like that, but he was by himself, the group wasn't formed yet.

The movement didn't have support from the church and most of the politicians so they decided to cause noise among the society by getting a theater and having concerts with music and poetry declamations. In the middle of the entertainment, they would convocated slaves to the stage and give "freedom letters" (not sure what would be the name of this letter in English) releasing them from their masters. So you could only imagine the frenzy all that show would create in the population, the theaters were always full, and with that, they started to gain the support of the people towards the abolition.

After a couple of years, the idea slavery was wrong and should come to an end was cemented in the people. Slaves started to rebel and run away from the farms, and in some stances, even the masters would willingly release them.

Anyways, the story doesn't end here but I'll. That's a very extensive and complex subject. A LOT was left out, and some things might have been confusing due to lack of details, but I believe my answer was already long enough. I'm not trying to write a whole book here.

I didn't even have the chance to get to the imperial family, but just so you know, they were not those monsters some people paint them to be. Princess Isabel (the woman who sign the abolition) would actively participate and finance protests against slavery and would shelter slaves in her home. She also was seen using the camelia (a flower that represented the abolitionist movement).

 

[Hate you]

BOMB THIS ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET

 

[user_name_here]

With all due respect Sibyl, your post is informative but it's also not entirely accurate. And I do think you've cherry picked facts to back up your point ignoring others that contradict you. But I've probably done that too.

But the Maroons in South America played a huge part, and the Brazilian rebel slave leader, zumbi, was quite pivotal too.

You also mentioned how the French Revolution played a big part in the abolition of slavery, but the Haitian revolution pre-dated that, and the Haitian revolution was a big deal, it definitely had the western world very concerned.

I also notice you left out my comment about the Carribbean entirely. Maybe it's not a topic your familiar with which is fine, but it's relevant.

 

[again_noidea]

I'm a reactionary (not a conservative since there's nothing to conserve) that despises religions and tradition but no more than modern culture.

I believe in eugenics as a viable pathway to rapid human progress (in a materialistic sense), but a sofocratic democracy where your voting power was defined by a rigorous examination would have the same effects over time.

A realistic and humane way to implement eugenics would be to only let people physically and mentally sound to procreate, decreasing suffering, bad parenting and the genes of suffering. I'm a partial antinatalist, only a few people should be born, those with the optimal environment.

Basically a political worldview based on efficiency (drastic solutions, quick results) over emotions.

But then I also have an spiritual side that probably is exactly the opposite of the above, so some kind of mystical world government that preached pacifism, monism, meditation, accepting others as part of yourself, accepting that we are all One, exploring our psyche, that would work for me too. Both of these timelines would be much more interesting than this flaccid dystopia.

I couldn't care less about the economic part of how we organize our society, I've always cared more about ideals and culture than specifics. But it's true that is very interesting to discover how much you want the government to impose things to the population. This was revealed as very relevant during the plandemic. People have been softened up to accept incredible levels of coercion and interventionism. Some of my ideas are authoritarian but freedom has it's benefits too. On the Internet I'm more of a free speech guy so I might be less authoritarian on the whole. But during an actual pandemic I would accept draconian rule, so I also believe in coercion and a big state when needed.

i think the term you are looking for is opportunism. i'm joking, half way. did you ever read the political view that was developed out of daoism, it might bring all of it together in a harmonious way. Cheers

BOMB THIS ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET

that seems a bit radical

Social liberal

a classic, until it isn't any more.

 

[whatevs]

i think the term you are looking for is opportunism. i'm joking, half way. did you ever read the political view that was developed out of daoism, it might bring all of it together in a harmonious way. Cheers

that seems a bit radical

I don't even know what daoism is. Can you explain what's that about and what political 'proposition' arose from it?

 

[again_noidea]

I don't even know what daoism is. Can you explain that so we derail the thread a bit away from insipid and predictable political bickering? I prefer unusual political bickering, not the boring garden variety.

i agree, a garden should always be interesting.

Tao Te Ching

Chapter One

Tao (The Way) that can be spoken of is not the Constant Tao'
The name that can be named is not a Constant Name.
Nameless, is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The named is the Mother of all things.
Thus, the constant void enables one to observe the true essence.
The constant being enables one to see the outward manifestations.
These two come paired from the same origin.
But when the essence is manifested,
It has a different name.
This same origin is called "The Profound Mystery."
As profound the mystery as It can be,
It is the Gate to the essence of all life.

Chapter Two

As soon as beauty is known by the world as beautiful, it becomes ugly.
As soon as virtue is being known as something good, it becomes evil.
Therefore being and non-being give birth to each other.
Difficult and easy accomplish each other.
Long and short form each other.
High and low distinguish each other.
Sound and tone harmonize each other
Before and after follow each other as a sequence.
Realizing this, the saint performs effortlessly according to the natural Way without personal
desire, and practices the wordless teaching thru one's deeds.
The saint inspires the vitality of all lives, without holding back.
He nurtures all beings with no wish to take possession of.
He devotes all his energy but has no intention to hold on to the merit.
When success is achieved, he seeks no recognition.
Because he does not claim for the credit, hence shall not lose it.

 

[Chinaski]

Wait, are you for or against empty patronising posts on politics?

(of course yours is the position of integrity, it is the One True Faith--praise be)

Got it, you're for empty patronising posts on politics.

And what other areas of your understanding of the world is based on your lived experience? Biology? Astronomy? History? Physics? Mathematics? Why do you think your anecdotal experiences, viewed through whatever bias your experience allows you to view them, are a reliable primary way of gaining an understanding into politics amd economics, or any field of inquiry?

And yet you keep referring to 200 year old tropes constantly. Update your knowledge base.

Not sure what this means. I understand you're probably not in a good place to be here (doubt many here are), and that sucks. Hope things can improve for you.

I mean, your foil is a playwright. And we're talking politics. How absurd is that? Learn a bit about the scientific method. Then explore a bit what we have learned over the past 75 years from political scientists, political economists, economists, sociologists, etc., beyond your personal anecdotal perceptions about the Truth as revealed to you through your Prophet.

It's not a 200 year old trope to observe the reality that the quality of healthcare l have received is directly related to my social class is it, idk why you're wheeling Marx out as if those who arrived at their politics for better healthcare, welfare, housing etc are all in some kind of religious cult, it's totally absurd, particularly when I've made clear reference to the fact that my distaste and distrust of your politics of the commentariat is formed through witnessing it in action and my own politics have been arrived at through lived experience. This is not uncommon for centrists, who generally dislike any old scrote making an argument from the left more than they dislike their powerful and established opponents to the right.

As for "patronising", the entire centrist position is underpinned by a contempt towards the mob and a personal sense of superiority and it drips from every post, each self-described centrist presents themselves as "above" politics somehow, as too smart to be doing silly things like taking a position, and instead applies their higher understanding and superior insight to politics and does the sensible thing each time. The reality is the whole premise is based on the notion that *better things are simply not possible*, and anyone who makes the case otherwise is simply *not understanding grown up politics*. Recent history has shown that centrists are right wing, fail to deliver in office, and are absolutely the enemies of progress.

 

[whatevs]

 

[Chinaski]

View attachment 93397

Classy

 

[Goghaway]

I'm a reactionary (not a conservative since there's nothing to conserve) that despises religions and tradition but no more than modern culture.

I believe in eugenics as a viable pathway to rapid human progress (in a materialistic sense), but a sofocratic democracy where your voting power was defined by a rigorous examination would have the same effects over time.

A realistic and humane way to implement eugenics would be to only let people physically and mentally sound to procreate, decreasing suffering, bad parenting and the genes of suffering. I'm a partial antinatalist, only a few people should be born, those with the optimal environment.

Basically a political worldview based on efficiency (drastic solutions, quick results) over emotions.

But then I also have an spiritual side that probably is exactly the opposite of the above, so some kind of mystical world government that preached pacifism, monism, meditation, accepting others as part of yourself, accepting that we are all One, exploring our psyche, that would work for me too. Both of these timelines would be much more interesting than this flaccid dystopia.

I couldn't care less about the economic part of how we organize our society, I've always cared more about ideals and culture than specifics. But it's true that is very interesting to discover how much you want the government to impose things to the population. This was revealed as very relevant during the plandemic. People have been softened up to accept incredible levels of coercion and interventionism. Some of my ideas are authoritarian but freedom has it's benefits too. On the Internet I'm more of a free speech guy so I might be less authoritarian on the whole. But during an actual pandemic I would accept draconian rule, so I also believe in coercion and a big state when needed.

Pfft lol

What if there's a topic where the right is correct? Side with it wouldn't be the reasonable thing to do instead of disagreeing just for the sake of it? I think the issue is that most people don't want solutions they just want to curse at each other and are so stuck in their ways that anything that even remotely confronts their views is taken as a very personal attack, a threat that needs to be eradicated by any means possible.

Is this true though? I hate fighting with people over differing opinions. I'm so sick of the fighting. Think there are a lot of people that get off on this kind of thing but I bet there is a good percentage more that wishes thing were not this way.

Wait, are you for or against empty patronising posts on politics?

(of course yours is the position of integrity, it is the One True Faith--praise be)

Got it, you're for empty patronising posts on politics.

And what other areas of your understanding of the world is based on your lived experience? Biology? Astronomy? History? Physics? Mathematics? Why do you think your anecdotal experiences, viewed through whatever bias your experience allows you to view them, are a reliable primary way of gaining an understanding into politics amd economics, or any field of inquiry?

And yet you keep referring to 200 year old tropes constantly. Update your knowledge base.

Not sure what this means. I understand you're probably not in a good place to be here (doubt many here are), and that sucks. Hope things can improve for you.

I mean, your foil is a playwright. And we're talking politics. How absurd is that? Learn a bit about the scientific method. Then explore a bit what we have learned over the past 75 years from political scientists, political economists, economists, sociologists, etc., beyond your personal anecdotal perceptions about the Truth as revealed to you through your Prophet.

Wow you must be a really important person or something lol
Anticapitalist, leftist, antinatalist. I honestly think the internet was the worst technological development in history and has irreparably damaged our global society and (although awful to even type) I think that the concern over the environment is a moot point because I doubt mankind will outlive the planet itself.

 

[YourNeighbor]

It's not a 200 year old trope to observe the reality that the quality of healthcare l have received is directly related to my social class is it, idk why you're wheeling Marx

You reference Capital and keep writing about labor v. capital, an outdated paradigm.

out as if those who arrived at their politics for better healthcare, welfare, housing etc are all in some kind of religious cult, it's totally absurd, particularly when I've made clear reference to the fact that my distaste and distrust of your politics of the commentariat is formed through witnessing it in action and my own politics have been arrived at through lived experience. This is not uncommon for centrists, who generally dislike any old scrote making an argument from the left more than they dislike their powerful and established opponents to the right.

I don't discuss politics with far-rightists because, in addition to being hopelessly lost in dogma and driven by faith (exactly like self-styled far-leftists) and so relatively immune to reason, they also tend to be hateful and have little interesting to say. They also tend to be more fervent in their fundamentalism.

As for "patronising", the entire centrist position is underpinned by a contempt towards the mob and a personal sense of superiority and it drips from every post, each self-described centrist presents themselves as "above" politics somehow, as too smart to be doing silly things like taking a position,

You keep going on this path and ignoring all evidence before you. "Centrism" is a meaningless statement, but a pragmatist takes many political positions with conviction, because the best information supports those positions. Things like:
- private enterprise is generally the greatest driver of economic progress and vitality
- some goods are best seen as public goods and cannot be effectively provided by the market, so should be provided publicly (national defense, education, health care, infrastructure, public safety and law enforcement, etc.)
- unfettered private enterprise leads to many negative consequences, like negative externalities, and so requires effective regulation
- money corrupts politics and subverts the popular will.
There is nothing unprincipled in recognizing that more government intervention is necessary in some spheres, less in others, and that evidence instead of faith can help us find the best solutions to social problems.

and instead applies their higher understanding and superior insight to politics and does the sensible thing each time.

See below, and your claim that everyone who doesn't share your politics is an enemy of progress. You basically impugn your own reasoning with every statement, yet can't see it. It's laughable.

The reality is the whole premise is based on the notion that *better things are simply not possible*, and anyone who makes the case otherwise is simply *not understanding grown up politics*.

No evidence for this. Most pragmatists are consistent in their views that things can be *much* better with evidenced-based policy making, and are unlikely to get better any other way.

Recent history has shown that centrists are right wing, fail to deliver in office, and are absolutely the enemies of progress.

Back to your religious dogma. Those who are not Believers of the One True Faith are infidels. You're really little different from far-right wingers. It's funny you don't see it.

 

[Chinaski]

You reference Capital and keep writing about labor v. capital, an outdated paradigm.

I don't discuss politics with far-rightists because, in addition to being hopelessly lost in dogma and driven by faith (exactly like self-styled far-leftists) and so relatively immune to reason, they also tend to be hateful and have little interesting to say. They also tend to be more fervent in their fundamentalism.

You keep going on this path and ignoring all evidence before you. "Centrism" is a meaningless statement, but a pragmatist takes many political positions with conviction, because the best information supports those positions. Things like:
- private enterprise is generally the greatest driver of economic progress and vitality
- some goods are best seen as public goods and cannot be effectively provided by the market, so should be provided publicly (national defense, education, health care, infrastructure, public safety and law enforcement, etc.)
- unfettered private enterprise leads to many negative consequences, like negative externalities, and so requires effective regulation
- money corrupts politics and subverts the popular will.
There is nothing unprincipled in recognizing that more government intervention is necessary in some spheres, less in others, and that evidence instead of faith can help us find the best solutions to social problems.

See below, and your claim that everyone who doesn't share your politics is an enemy of progress. You basically impugn your own reasoning with every statement, yet can't see it. It's laughable.

No evidence for this. In fact, most pragmatists I know are consistent in their views that things can be *much* better with evidenced-based policy making, and are unlikely to get better any other way.

Back to your religious dogma. Those who are not Believers of the One True Faith are infidels. You're really little different from far-right wingers. It's a funny you don't see it.

The fact that politics is about who holds power and who does not, rather than about fluffy soundbites and empty rhetoric around "hope" or "values" is not necessarily a reference to Karl Marx, you're doing that very centrist thing of painting those who find neoliberalism unappealing and feel arguments for social justice in any form are probably not best advanced by corporate shills to be some kind of cargo cult, it's very much a commentariat theme and it's hardly a rebuttal to the objective fact that anyone elected on a platform of "centrism" has failed to deliver anything beyond actually right-wing governments in shinier suits. It's a premise which electorally depends upon being the *least worst* offer on the table and is based fundamentally upon how you would like a government to manage, rather than what you would like them to implement. The recent revival of high profile democratic socialist challenges to the absolutely dominant technocratic centrist approach to politics over recent decades did not come about in a vacuum. This wasn't a baying mob injected with marxist dogma as much as it was people, like myself, who simply wanted *better things* from their politicians than the hollow pragmatism which always seemed to work against them but very much in favour of the powerful, these were people who had voted for "pragmatic centrists" previously and found themselves sold an absolute pup, and if you wish to kerp this fascinating discussion going it's probably worth acknowledging the position I'm coming from rather than talking puerile shit about religious dogmas and the like.

 

[YourNeighbor]

The fact that politics is about who holds power and who does not, rather than about fluffy soundbites and empty rhetoric around "hope" or "values" is not necessarily a reference to Karl Marx

If you're going to respond to a post, you may want to read it. I don't suggest politics is about "hope," nor did I ignore that it matters who is in charge. But this thread is about political preferences, so the issue becomes "what policies should be pursued by those in charge."

you're doing that very centrist thing of painting those who find neoliberalism

You keep using isms without defining them, and ascribing them to me. Let's set them aside. Should policy be driven by the best evidence available to us, or by faith in an ideology?

unappealing and feel arguments for social justice in any form are probably not best advanced by corporate shills to be some kind of cargo cult, it's very much a commentariat
theme

Do you even understand the jargon you're using here? I mean, it does come off as cultish.

and it's hardly a rebuttal to the objective fact that anyone elected on a platform of "centrism" has failed to deliver anything beyond actually right-wing governments in shinier suits. It's a premise which electorally depends upon being the *least worst* offer on the table

Evidence-based policymaking is the best option, always. Every pragmatist will tell you the same.

and is based fundamentally upon how you would like a government to manage, rather than what you would like them to implement.

Again, I'm not interest in isms. As I mentioned, my own politics can be described with many of them, depending on who is doing the labeling. The main question for me in politics is whether policies are being pursued based on evidence versus faith.

The recent revival of high profile democratic socialist challenges to the absolutely dominant technocratic centrist approach to politics over recent decades did not come about in a vacuum. This wasn't a baying mob injected with marxist dogma as much as it was people, like myself, who simply wanted *better things* from their politicians than the hollow pragmatism which always seemed to work against them but very much in favour of the powerful, these were people who had voted for "pragmatic centrists" previously and found themselves sold an absolute pup, and if you wish to kerp this fascinating discussion going it's probably worth acknowledging the position I'm coming from rather than talking puerile shit about religious dogmas and the like.

Happy to stop discussing religious dogma in politics. Stop acting like a fanatic and labeling everyone who doesn't share your views an "enemy of progress" and you may come off as less dogmatic. Or don't, it's your choice. As long as you and your Brethren of the Faith keep equating moderates to fascists, don't be surprised that no one will view you and your correligionists as sufficiently serious or grounded in reality to be trusted with policymaking. That's a conscious choice on your part. If you think your policy prescriptions are actually good and they in fact are, you can convince pragmatists easily. Bernie had tons of moderate support, you may not understand it. Had he won the primary, centrists would have voted for him over Trump with no hesitation. I know many people who voted for him, and for perfectly pragmatic reasons.