I am centrist, what are my shortcomings?

[Hansu]

I have been wondering this for a while. I judge the leftist and right politics all the time while I dont see a problem with my centrist views. I firmly believe that the centrist ideology is superior to left and right leaning ideologies. I realized that this is how the left must see right and how the right must see left, which means that I am blind to the shortcomings of my own politic ideology. If centrism was perfect, wouldn't everyone be centrist?

I was going to post some examples of what I hate about left and right ideology, but I think that is just my ego trying to justify the centrist ideology. I think centrism is the biggest part of my ego since I am so offended of the politics that left and right do.

I would greatly appreciate your views on centrism and if you could tell me what the ideology lacks from your point of view

[tsuki]

@Hansu Does your centrist ideology offer any tangible solutions, or does it avoid the problem by judging everybody around you instead?
It would be illustrative if you sketched a problem, gave a leftist, rightist and a centrist solution.

6 minutes ago, Hansu said:

If centrism was perfect, wouldn't everyone be centrist?

No, because most people have no interest in perfection despite their neurotic perfectionism.

[Forestluv]

@Hansu Rather than constraining yourself to a left/right horizontal axis, you may want to explore a vertical axis. 

[Hansu]

1 minute ago, tsuki said:

@Hansu Does your centrist ideology offer any tangible solutions, or does it avoid the problem by judging everybody around you instead?
It would be illustrative if you sketched a problem, gave a leftist, rightist and a centrist solution.

I think a part of it could be judging other parties. One of the biggest factor why I believe in the centrist ideology is how it takes the right-side style of obsessive statistics analysis and the left-side obsessive empathy and merges these two into more rational ideas when it comes to things such as immigration. I can elaborate if you have no idea what Im trying to say

 

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Hansu Rather than constraining yourself to a left/right horizontal axis, you may want to explore a vertical axis. 

This is a difficult one for me. I have always believed in democracy and the equal treatment of others to the point of obsession, but lately I have been pondering how democracy is dying, whether it is a good or bad thing. As result I've understood that I do have authoritarian beliefs in me, and that authoritarianism has its place just like democracy and equality has its place. For one, not every voice and opinion is equal to the other, while every voice and opinion deserves an equal opportunity to shine and be heard. Honestly I have no idea where I stand on the authoritarian-libertarian scale, how does one explore it?

[tsuki]

9 minutes ago, Hansu said:

I can elaborate if you have no idea what Im trying to say

Please do. I do have some idea, but I want to see if I understand you correctly.
Centrism may be a way of trying to survive with taking no stance, or it can be an expression of the middle way.
Would you say that centrist ideas can be radical?

Edited September 17, 2019 by tsuki

[Forestluv]

@Hansu I would say the "vertical axis" would be more like "rising above" the horizontal axis and doing things like questioning assumptions. What does "authoritarianism" and "libertarian" even mean? Also, looking through the lens of other people. What is "equality" from the perspective of other people? Not just imaging what another perspective might be like while I am grounded in my own perspective/conditioning - yet really getting into that other perspective. For example, I imagined what might be the perspective of poor people living in a village in Honduras. Then I spent a month living with a local family in a poor village in Honduras. I lost the grounding of my perspective and this allowed space for expansion.

[Yog]

@Hansu

This might lead a way.

Just a small exercise while you are exploring this subject:
You may do it as long as you want.

Go make a list of lets say 20 right and 20 left wing videos or websites. Watch them with complete presence. Try to see what they see. Why it is important to them, why does it make sense to them, what did they see so that particular thing clicked with them, what do they love, what hurts them. What are the healthy chunks, what are the neurotic ones. Do it with depth, sink into them, forget what or who you are, sink into them, be present 100%.

You'll notice that these people will become extremely weird, even alien to you. That is the point where you have heard them. And will understand them.


It will than be easier or even automatic for you to reflect on the shortcomings of your current political stance.
I'd say it is better to move away from it and see it from another point. You cant really see it if you are standing on it.
I also think it is better to just see it, than to analyze it. Its based on things people feel deeply about after all, so its a good start.
Too much thinking can tie you in a knot

It clicked with me, it might with you.

Hope it helped.



 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Yog

[Leo Gura]

@Hansu So what you're saying is, before the Civil War you would have been pro slavery.

Centrism just means you're basically going with the status quo, adding a little lipstick to a pig.

You have no vision for how great mankind could be.

And, see... as an centrist you're extremely easy to fool. All one has to do is stack the argument with extremist positions and you'll reflexively just adopt the half-way point.

So one side says: Abolish slavery. The other side says: let's get even more slaves. And you say: let's be reasonable and just keep the slaves we have.

Or one side says: global warming is a serious threat. The other side says: global warming is a hoax. And you say: who really knows? Let's wait and see.

All I have to do to fool you is fund a think tank which generates whatever serves my agenda, and you'll always split the difference because you don't evaluate anything on the merits of it by simply take the mid-point. So I just manipulate you by making sure to put forth such extreme positions that your mid-point ends but being exactly what best serves me and my interests. So if it serves me to own 50 slaves, I will set my position to be: I should be able to own 1000 slaves. And you as the centrist will go, "Okay, 1000 is too many slaves. Let's be reasonable. You can have 100." Deal!

What you're missing is that truth and rightness are not the average of any two positions.

You can't take a multiple choice exam, mark every answer "C", and expect to ace the class. If only life were so easy. Rarely is the answer "C".

[Hansu]

@tsuki

These views reflect on Finland's political discussion on refugees that has been raging for well over 5 years now. It may or may not apply to the political discussion going on in USA.

Leftist view on immigration: "We need to take in everyone who wants to come here for better life, no matter their background or the danger that the situation could escalate like it has in Sweden and Big Britain!"
Right view on immigration: "We need to stop everyone who wants to come here illegally, look at the statistics! All they do is fight and steal, they dont work and for this reason we need to bring back borders no matter if people die!"
Centrist view on immigration: "We need to help people coming here as refugees, but we also need to regulate and take in only those in need of help. We don't want things to escalate like they has in Sweden and Big Britain, and they wont as long as we regulate"

@Serotoninluv

I think you have a good point when it comes to the perspective of others. The perspective of right I have some understanding of because I believed strongly in the right ideology when I was a kid, but I have little understanding of the leftist point of view. I guess I should follow more leftist media (Currently I only follow Tim Pool who is closer to libertarian centrist-right)

@Yog

Not a bad idea. Do you suggest videos specifically on politics? One's with controversial topics or one's with milder topics, or a bunch of both?

@Leo Gura

Man, you always know how to stir my emotions.

 

"You have no vision for how great mankind could be."

I actually don't. I have no vision for better government than socialist-democracy, which we already have. So I don't have any vision for the better, only for worse. I guess this is a huge ego defense?

I also agree with the "easy to fool" part. As centrist I'm always looking for a way to compromise to promote de-escalation, and I see how this trait can easily be exploited. This is the same reason why I despise how the leftist lie in order to gain support for their ideas.

 

"Or one side says: global warming is a serious threat. The other side says: global warming is a hoax. And you say: who really knows? Let's wait and see."

This, again, is true. I believe that we should work actively on preventing global warming, however not on the scale we do today. To me it seems like the right wants to protect their business while the left is nitpicking on small things that are miniscule when it comes to preventing global warming. But my view? I have always though that we should wait for technology that collects pollution to prevent global warming, so Im literally thinking "Lets wait and see"

 

"What you're missing is that truth and rightness are the average of any two positions."

I always thought that great government is equal combination of left and right, as they tend to reduce the stupid decisions made by their opposition. Is this what you mean? The average is found through the arguments of two opposites, not the one "almost close to the truth" ?

 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Hansu said:

 

@Leo Gura

Man, you always know how to stir my emotions.

That's what I'm here for

Quote

"You have no vision for how great mankind could be."

I actually don't. I have no vision for better government than socialist-democracy, which we already have. So I don't have any vision for the better, only for worse. I guess this is a huge ego defense?

It's not an ego-defense per se. It's just a lack of vision, leadership, and empathy.

Lots of people in society are suffering due to exploitation by those in power. Yet you don't care much about addressing that because you're in a relatively comfortable position yourself. If your daughter was raped, enslaved, or poisoned by some giant corporation dumping toxic chemicals in your water supply, you'd sing a different tune. All the sudden you'd take this stuff seriously because it now impinges on your survival agenda whereas before it was an intellectual abstraction.

You would feel very differently about global warming if you bought a $1 million house and it was sunk under water in 5 years. But so long as it doesn't personally cause you suffering, you don't care much.

Quote

I have always though that we should wait for technology that collects pollution to prevent global warming, so Im literally thinking "Lets wait and see"

That's perfect for the big oil companies. That's exactly what they want. While you sit around and wait, they will rake in $100 billion. Millions of people in 3rd world counties will be dislocated, famine and desertification will get real bad, wars will be waged, and new terrorist groups will form. But none of that will matter to the guys who rake in $100 billion.

And it won't matter to you until one of those terrorists blows up your daughter's school. But even then you'll probably just get angry at the terrorist group rather than connecting the dots and seeing how the terrorist group was merely an outgrowth of the global warming problem which lead to geopolitical stress in impoverished parts of the world.

In this way, root problems are never seriously understood or addressed.

Quote

"What you're missing is that truth and rightness are the average of any two positions."

I always thought that great government is equal combination of left and right, as they tend to reduce the stupid decisions made by their opposition. Is this what you mean? The average is found through the arguments of two opposites, not the one "almost close to the truth" ?

That's precisely a recipe for disaster. The correct path forward is never an average of all the possible paths. Finding the right path requires careful judgment, research, contextual awareness, awareness of exploiters and manipulators, and ultimately wisdom and consciousness.

Finding the correct path requires a visionary. One who can look 100 years into the future and think in a non-self-biased way, aligned with Truth, Consciousness, and Love. Such a person must be selfless enough to sacrifice himself to show people the correct path, because he will be vehemently demonized and resisted by self-biased devils defending their self-interest.

Progress and innovation requires deep questioning of status quo positions and traditions. Nothing can be taken for granted. What's "normal" must be questioned and challenged without any concern for social norms. In a society where slavery is considered normal, it takes a radical to stand up and say, "This is not normal at all! This is devirly! You guys are selfish fucking devils."

Seeking to always be nice, peaceful, and "moderate" paradoxically leads to the rise of radicalism. When 100s of millions of people around the world are deeply suffering and deeply exploited, and you ignore this because you want to be "moderate" and congenial (because you are in a position of comfort), don't be surprised when those oppressed people organize and come after you with pitchforks. When they burn down your house, maybe you'll reconsider your moderate position.

Everything is intellectual until someone burns down your house or rapes your kids. Then you start paying attention.

[Hansu]

Sorry for late answer

I never realized that I could be using my political view of the world as some kind of shield to not think and to create false feeling of safety, but slowly Im beginning to think that I do just that.

"Well, we already live in perfect society when it comes to governing so I dont have to think how to change it!"
"Well, we already have equal opportunity so what do we need feminism for?"
"This particular candidate lies on some issues, so I dont have to listen to them at all!"
"Sure they believe in fascist ideology, but they are incapable of ever growing threatening numbers. No need to worry!"

Its like the centrist ideology is perfect way to think yourself out of having to do anything. You can always find a middle ground between everything and then play like you are the intellectual one for "finding resolution that takes everyone in account". Its like throwing your baby into the kennel to play with your dog because its the dog's turn to choose how they spend their afternoon playing.

Quote

Lots of people in society are suffering due to exploitation by those in power. Yet you don't care much about addressing that because you're in a relatively comfortable position yourself.

You would feel very differently about global warming if you bought a $1 million house and it was sunk under water in 5 years. But so long as it doesn't personally cause you suffering, you don't care much.

True, I feel happy that I have the knowledge to buy my first house closer to inland. I recently joined the workforce (On the sidenote, Im doing my dreamjob and you have been a great part in helping me to struggle through to it) and now Im waiting for the housing bubble to burst so I can get a cheap first time house. Rationally thinking Im then one of those who are exploiting with my opportunistic thinking. Then again, why would I knowingly take huge blow on my house's value by buying now and not after the bubble? Huge part of my enormous debt would be air!

Quote

That's perfect for the big oil companies. That's exactly what they want. While you sit around and wait, they will rake in $100 billion. Millions of people in 3rd world counties will be dislocated, famine and desertification will get real bad, wars will be waged, and new terrorist groups will form. But none of that will matter to the guys who rake in $100 billion.

And it won't matter to you until one of those terrorists blows up your daughter's school. But even then you'll probably just get angry at the terrorist group rather than connecting the dots and seeing how the terrorist group was merely an outgrowth of the global warming problem which lead to geopolitical stress in impoverished parts of the world.

In this way, root problems are never seriously understood or addressed.

I never thought of it that way. Sure! We can sit in first world countries merrily waiting for technology to save our asses (And in the end, I think technology is what will save the earth) but those people in third countries will continue to struggle under the oil companies exploitative ways.

Like what is the root reason for the 2015 refugee crisis? People are blaming Americans recent (5-10 years) military actions, but could it actually be the first world hunger for oil in eastern countries that started a hundred years ago?

Quote

Progress and innovation requires deep questioning of status quo positions and traditions. Nothing can be taken for granted. What's "normal" must be questioned and challenged without any concern for social norms. In a society where slavery is considered normal, it takes a radical to stand up and say, "This is not normal at all! This is devirly! You guys are selfish fucking devils."

I think I finally understand what you meant with "You cant mark C on every question on multiple answer exam"
It'd be easy to not demand abolishing slavery, but maybe to try and help the most exploited slaves. There wouldn't be as much opposition to your idea because you were just helping those who are being exploited, because those who are slaves in household that respect their slaves "are not suffering, they are fed, clothed and respected! They are doing fine!"

Also, now I understand the term "wage slave"

Quote

you want to be "moderate" and congenial (because you are in a position of comfort)

This is probably the core of my political ideology.

 

This is a lot to think about. I always thought Im the rational one in the bunch, but in fact I could be the lazy one, the one evading responsibility with the perfect 20/20 hindsight always trying to one up the another.

Thanks!

[Apparition of Jack]

@Hansu I just wanna say you're doing a great job at growing politically and your willingness to do self-reflection is very admirable! Keep at it man!

[Hansu]

@Apparition of Jack

Thanks!

[CreamCat]

On 9/18/2019 at 6:05 PM, Leo Gura said:

so long as it doesn't personally cause you suffering, you don't care much.

It's not just centrists who don't care much. The vast majority of people don't care about what doesn't threaten their own survival.

[CreamCat]

On 9/18/2019 at 6:05 PM, Leo Gura said:

Seeking to always be nice, peaceful, and "moderate" paradoxically leads to the rise of radicalism. When 100s of millions of people around the world are deeply suffering and deeply exploited, and you ignore this because you want to be "moderate" and congenial (because you are in a position of comfort), don't be surprised when those oppressed people organize and come after you with pitchforks.

Why do they not go after exploiters? Because exploiters found a way to deflect blame onto innocent bystanders? Because exploiters are good at hiding in plain sight?

Angry radicalists are easy to fool because people have low IQ and cannot think properly when they are angry. Becoming radical out of anger and becoming radical out of love are two different things. Love makes you smart. Anger makes you stupid.

I've read about many radical people who ended up resorting to cannibalism due to lack of food caused by killing food providers. Some politicians told poor people that their rich food providers were oppressing them. The same politicians ended up telling those people to stop eating each other. Both politicians and angry people were incredibly stupid and didn't take responsibility to connect the dots properly.

By describing angry people as robots, you forget that responsibility belongs to everyone unless they are NPCs of the game.

Right now, not many people take responsibility. They don't even take responsibility for their own lives.

Edited September 21, 2019 by CreamCat

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, CreamCat said:

Why do they not go after exploiters? Because exploiters found a way to deflect blame onto innocent bystanders? Because exploiters are good at hiding in plain sight?

Angry radicalists are easy to fool because people have low IQ and cannot think properly when they are angry. Becoming radical out of anger and becoming radical out of love are two different things. Love makes you smart. Anger makes you stupid.

I've read about many radical people who ended up resorting to cannibalism due to lack of food caused by killing food providers. Some politicians told poor people that their rich food providers were oppressing them. The same politicians ended up telling those people to stop eating each other. Both politicians and angry people were incredibly stupid and didn't take responsibility to connect the dots properly.

By describing angry people as robots, you forget that responsibility belongs to everyone unless they are NPCs of the game.

Right now, not many people take responsibility. They don't even take responsibility for their own lives.

Centrists are the ammo that regressive extremists load their guns with. Extremists (by definition) are fairly small in number, and would never get their agendas put in place without the help of uninformed feckless Centrists that they can easily confuse and trick into validating their worldview. And thus, Centrists are always easy to radicalize once they believe that's normal. They are the easiest people in society to weaponize by those with regressive intentions because they have no personal code of ethics beyond appeasing both sides.

It's really nothing other than herd mentality dressed up in a respectable diplomats clothing.

And this is because Centrists have nothing they fundamentally stand for, other than being in the center of whatever the most socially acceptable viewpoints of the day happen to be. So, all you have to do to trick large swaths of Centrists into greenlighting and supporting harmful agendas is to convince them that one side of the political spectrum believes in it and that it's normal. And you can look at a history book to see how easy it is to convince humanity that barbaric, war-mongering, exploitative, genocidal social patterns are normal.

So, he who has control of the Overton Window, has control over the Centrists... which are like 70% of the population. And most of them pat themselves on the back for being so even and fair to everyone. Centrists think themselves in the enlightened position by being 'neutral', and this compounds their lack of real values and their lack of education on political topics. They stand for nothing, and thus fall for anything... because their fundamental agenda deep down is to avoid conflict and be accepted by everyone. 

But this rather shows a lack of courage and vision. And really just outright laziness.

And all regressive radicals have to do is pat them on the head and make them feel accepted and enlightened for them to cozy up to them and see regressive radical viewpoints as more normal. This is why you find so many people on the far right end of the spectrum now-a-days being very strategic in their branding and trying to appear as normal as possible to seem legitimate to the Centrist eye.

So, in many regards Centrists are far more dangerous than any other political group, as they hold all the power by shear number. And there is the saying to "Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people." They are so easily weaponized.

Important Note!!!

Just like the term Centrist, the term Extremist is also a relativistic term... just like big and small. You can't say anything is inherently big or small because it's a comparative metric and not an absolute metric. The same way, you can't say any viewpoint is inherently Centrist or inherently Extremist. It all depends on the context and societal structure they exist within.

So, Centrism is defined by whatever happens to be the average of the most common viewpoints in a particular society. So, Centrism has no ideology that's solid and universal. Centrism is always shifting with the tides of the society that the Centrism is laden within. So, in a Nazi society, Nazi-ism is Centrism. In a Communist society, Communism is Centrism. In our society, Capitalism and Neo-Liberalism is Centrism. etc.

Extremism is also a relativistic term in that it's defined as whatever is on the fringes ideologically. So, it's on the outer edge of what society considers normal. So, in a Nazi society, anti-Nazi-ism is Extremism. In a Communist society, Capitalism is Extremism. In our society, any and all changes to the status quo is Extremism.

So, with Centrism and Extremism, neither can (in and of themselves) be a measure of having a good or bad viewpoint. There can be Extremists with ideas that will benefit humanity, and there can be Centrists that have ideas that will harm humanity.

So, all views have to be examined on their merits and not how moderate or extreme they're considered in the eyes of society. So, all a commitment to Centrism does is take society's current viewpoints as gospel and poo poos any changes. To be Centrist is to be attached to the status quo and to avoid any critique of unhealthy social structures.

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Emerald

[CreamCat]

Ultimately, it boils down to laziness and gullibility and self-deception...

Thus, the importance of personal development.

Just by going through Leo's Life Purpose course, you can get some vision.

If you realize your own vision for your life, it's very difficult for global elites to manipulate you into stupidity.

If you are busy working on your labor of love, you don't waste time on facebook feeds and TV shows through which global elites manipulate you into inactivity or stupidity. They want you to be inactive or stupid so that they can grow faster than you do.

Realize your vision for your life. Don't let global elites implement their plans through you.

Edited September 21, 2019 by CreamCat

[Knock]

@Hansu Great questions and your honest self-reflection is quite remarkable

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

They stand for nothing, and thus fall for anything... because their fundamental agenda deep down is to avoid conflict and be accepted by everyone. 

But this rather shows a lack of courage and vision. And really just outright laziness.

So true Emerald! In fact, you can could say the same thing about 'nice guys' and why they are fundamentally unattractive, but I guess this is the wrong part of the forum for that!

I find I really enjoy talking to people with 'radical views', if they can back up their stance with understanding of both sides, but then chooses the one that resonates with their higher values. Those that I come across that always hold Centrist views are boring as they usually demostrate a lack of defined values (other than people pleasing).

[CreamCat]

Lazy people can do better by raising their standard.

[Claymoree]

Both sides have interesting arguments, still find centric to be superior, I understand need of vision, but then again I understand need of flowing with events, centric understand that pushing to far to left can set back process more then move it forward, you can't just ignore current situation, well you can , but it can lead to all kinds of problems that can be devastating.