Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
PREFACE
Let me start by saying that I am not a centrist. I am not arguing that you should be a centrist or independent. I am arguing against mischaracterization of others.
Much of what I see here in Lemmy against centrism or Independents is made up of bad strawman arguments largely consisting of: “There are three types of people: reasonable people who agree with me, crazy fascists, and lily-livered wimps who can’t pick a side (and are also fascists)!”
The other (also poorly thought out and blatantly strawmanned) argument I see over and over here when discussing this topic consists of:
Left Wing: “Let’s not kill trans people.”
Right Wing: “Let’s kill all trans people.”
Centrists: “Let’s kill some trans people.”
THE CRUX
If someone says that they are “centrist” they are not telling you that they base all of their opinions on being dead-centre in the middle of any two positions. That would be an astoundingly stupid position to undertake.
They are telling you that they agree with neither major party on everything, and find that both parties have views that they don’t agree with. It’s pretty easy to come to that conclusion because the US two-party system packs in an almost incoherent mishmash of beliefs into exactly two sides (or 2.5 sides if you’re from Canada).
There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days. There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting massive limits on them. There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services including universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets can be made effective. There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded properly.
The idea that there are only two sides in politics is a strange delusion created by the two-party system.
Now, I have been trying on Lemmy for months. I have frequently encountered wilful misunderstandings about centrists / independents. I have frequently seen discussions state that they feel these groups are all secretly right wing and just won’t admit it, which is wild to me.
AND ONE MORE THING
In my estimation, the reason Lemmy members often run into situations like this is because they don’t witness the centrist also vehemently argue with right-wing policies frequently.
The posters only see the arguments with them and therefore have a skewed view of centrists / independents and their politics. In short, if you are left wing, and argue for left-wing policies in every case, that means you will also be argued with by somebody who believes political nuance and not just waving a party flag.
Remember, the right wing also shits on centrists because they think they are secretly left-wing since they argue with their stupider points as well. So no, these people are not secretly right-wing and just don’t have the balls to say it. That is a horrendous take no matter where you fall on the political spectrum and only serves to limit conversation.
I find the whole ideological pigeonholing of opinions abhorrent. That is not to dismiss ideology nor to dismiss the discussion of ideology, but the conflation of opinion with some external, formalized, all-encompassing, rigid ideology.
Expressing an opinion is too often assumed to be (and, frankly, too often is) some kind of oath of allegiance to whatever ideology that opinion has come to the associated with.
I am very specifically not a centrist. Too many of my opinions are too extreme for that, and I find too many ideologies promoting too many things I vehemently disagree with. When push comes to shove, I’d have to say I lean left overall, but that doesn’t mean everything I think is in alignment with the left.
Although it’s logically an oxymoron, I sometimes think of myself as “post-ideoligical”. In fact I do have an ideology: we should be doing what is demonstrably effective while minimally restrictive, not what conforms to a formal belief system that ignores the realities of nature, including human nature. We should not be seeking to make others in our image, but finding ways to accommodate diversity and elevate satisfaction with a chosen life, not an imposed one.
Well articulated! I tend to describe it as people adhering to labels instead of thoughts. Labels tend to mean that you can eject the thinking part of choosing an ideology and simply cling to the fuzzy feeling of it being the “good” thing as dictated by the people around you.
I strongly feel like labels are one of the massive issues causing many of the negative things we see today involving discourse.