Is centrism the dumbest political position possible?

Well according to your picture he's being shamed for being the only one who has not pissed in the pool.

>Centrist: Both sides have good and bad aspects.
Pff what faggots who doesnt want to go full GTKRWN?

The problem lies with understanding you are NOT 'already part of a group'. You are You. Therefore, consider You as a hub on a wheel. Your personal limits as they pertain to politics extend in whatever direction to a point. That point is a limit. How much of a thing/concept you care to care about. You were born dead center; the rest is a decision.
Stay off my lawn.

Attached: 1523551735762.jpg (1024x683, 65K)

>leftys are ugly and mean and they all are sad >:'(
alrighty

hear hear

"Centrists" are always leftists.
Always.
Press them hard enough, it'll come out. They're just the genuine chicken-shits that won't voice their opinion.

you know now that i look back at things i never thought about that but you are correct

well, they are. that's the funny thing. do you think there's no connection between for instance being a fat as fuck landwhale, increasesd anxiety and screaming your lungs out about 'white males'? of course there is.

Attached: sexyme.png (1011x379, 87K)

Fences' sitters. Variable moral integrity, jumping from one side to the other looking for what is more beneficial to them.

Attached: 1525885131490.jpg (1200x1057, 316K)

I actually read that paper and they use a negligible connection without controlling for the majority of socioeconomic factors (despite what is claimed in the abstract) to make a claim for a small tendency to vote right in general, though they only define attractiveness using a few of the things known to be considered attractive, and not any metric for general attractiveness.

What there is a much better scientific support of is the notion that people who vote right are a lot more likely to be mentally incapable of processing information as logically. That is, if someone is stupid, they are more likely to end up with right wing views like anarcho-capitalism (which is an oxymoron).

Attached: ancap.jpg (640x800, 91K)

Sure, unlike you left/right tards we don't let a book and a narrative rule our thinking

>I actually read that paper

you really spent the time to read something that is so obviously flawed? why?

To tell people like you why it's wrong.

u jelly?

Attached: centrist pepe.png (657x527, 251K)

Imagine being so stupid that you think this particular point in time has yielded the perfect society that shouldn't be changed, yet the past was wrong

That is what a centrist fundamentally believes

you're wasting your time, moran

I think you mix philosophical principles and means to get them.

Everyone wants rules, this is how we manage our interactions, and regardless of what is one's political leaning is.

The difference between right/left is in what kind of rules they want to set. Right wingers will generally go towards rules that ensure growth of society and will accent obligations a citizens have toward the state. Left wingers will go for rules that ensure 'freedoms' and 'self expression' and will accent obligations of the state towards the citizen.

You will not find a right winger saying that 'group x' are entitled to, say welfare, and you will never find a left winger on the side of 'having enough children to remain above replacement is an obligation each woman has, as a citizen of the state'.

Meritocracy is not really related to left/right divide.

You dont have a study like that because I read all of those you lying fucking retard

The closest thing to what you're talking about puts libertarians at the top and most of these studies are incredibly flawed anyway

Kill yourself

You: Gas the kikes race war now.
Them: Submit to globalism race reparations now
Me, an intellectual: Expel the jewish fellows race realism now.

Centrists don’t believe nothing should be changed. They may be a centrist because they advocate for gradual change or because they have a mix of right and left beliefs.

>confuses what leftists state their beliefs are with what they really are
Sasuga pollack

having a mix that big you should be hanged

Centrism doesn't mean not having a position or always looking for a balance. Centrism is traditional liberalism.

Gradual change toward what?
>they have a mix of beliefs
Fundamentally it's a dichotomy or you're just stupid, centrists are just stupid

You either believe in equity or equality as a governing principle or you're stupid

The r/K analogy is apt here

>Has no arguments, resorts to insults
The protocol states that you should call be a retard now.

I implied an argument dipstick

centrist get a bullet too. i mean, only half of it. or maybe we should aim for non-fatal injuries? hurt but not kill? the fuck should we do?? sargon pls respond

Change for the sake of change is grade A lefty retardation.

>continues an to insult, because reasons

I know, you're not interested in changing your views when faces with logic and reason. It's why you're an ancap.

>Right wingers will generally go towards rules that ensure growth of society
Right wingers generally have rigid, inflexible rules that they are unwilling to consider changing even when faced with evidence that those rules aren't having the desired effect. This is why right wing societies and economies will often stagnate unless they parasitically oppress other people/s to benefit themselves.

>Left wingers will go for rules that ensure 'freedoms' and 'self expression'
You're correct, left wingers tend to care about the individual, and are against the policies that cause great harm to a few and confers a slight benefit to the majority. What you're wrong about is that right wingers necessarily care about society at the expense of the individual. It's often the very opposite, like in the US where the right is constantly trying to funnel money into the hands of fewer and fewer citizens. Any economist will tell you this is terrible for an economy, and will lead to mass stagnation as most money won't be spent so most buying power will deteriorate.

>You will not find a right winger saying that 'group x' are entitled to, say welfare
Most regular joe republicans sitting at home you might be right, but the people they vote for you're completely wrong. Wal-Mart is the biggest welfare beneficiary in the nation, and also the biggest abuser since they need none of it. They pay their own employees so little that they need food stamps/other taxed benefits just to survive, and they use local police forces instead of having a competent security personnel. They drain money from the economy and the taxpayer and right wing politicians and critics don't have any problem with that.

> when faces with logic and reason.

no, because you're talking out of your ass and I'm not interested in tard wrangling today

I'm rejecting your analysis of left vs right on the grounds that you are using stated preferences rather than practically applied ones

Principally your assertion that leftists are capable of enforcing meritocracy and freedom. The logical conclusion of a fundamental belief in equity rather than equality yields beliefs that manifest as opposition to meritocracy and thus restrictions to freedom. Their stated goals are of course these things but they are platitudes

It possibly stems from a mistaken belief that everyone is the same, because they cannot grasp outside of their box as confirmed by research of their understanding of the right's political beliefs

We live in utopia.

>and you will never find a left winger on the side of 'having enough children to remain above replacement is an obligation each woman has, as a citizen of the state'.
Of course not. No one is required to do live their life in any particular way. No one is required to be friends with anyone they don't like, to have any particular job or drive any particular car, and no one is required to raise children if they don't want to. This is good not only for the individual, but also society, as the children raised by parents who never wanted them would be much worse off and much more likely to be a drain on everyone.

Meritocracy is related in that both sides claim to want meritocracy but righties support policies that go against it. They are against inheritance tax, for example.

Gradual change to the right or left is still technically right or left, just delusionally so.

Traditional liberals are scum fuck pieces of shit who fight against meritocracy with their dying breath.

*relative to animals that aren't even sapient

Nihilism is related to centrism for sure

>They drain money from the economy and the taxpayer
Regular joes on both side are against that whole scam while the actual politicians on both sides are funded by it. Polarisation through the media allows them to get away with it while the joes are focused on trivialities.

Where does Jow Forums stand on the political spectrum of the future?

Attached: modernpoliticalcompass.png (1095x1118, 64K)

ancap has always been the political arm of science fiction.

>The logical conclusion of a fundamental belief in equity rather than equality yields beliefs that manifest as opposition to meritocracy
What? Why?

Giving people who work equally hard the same benefit even though one is less capable is a form of meritocracy, dumbass.

>It possibly stems from a mistaken belief that everyone is the same
It's annoying that so many righties believe their own propaganda about left wing views but it's especially weird that you could simultaneously be aware of the left wing desire for equal capability to succeed and still believe lefties think everyone is the same. That's an extreme sort of cognitive dissonance.

That's true, but the right wing media specifically defends/ignores it while the far left media tries to bring it to the forefront and show poor white and black laborers that they are being duped by centrists and right wingers.

"There is a left wing and a right wing, but those are mostly for flapping. The bird brain lies in the center."
Crosley Bendix

localism/libertarianism
doesn't make much sense desu senpai

Actually, centrism aka pragmatism aka realism aka third way, is the most intelligent political belief in existence. The average IQ of a centrist is 200, which is way beyond that of the common right wing or left wing plebeian. The centrist believes in a balance of left wing and right wing beliefs, creating a synthesis that is most beneficial to society. Rather than arbitrarily choosing the label of left or right and taking all beliefs that come with it, efficient and non-efficient, a centrist uses pragmatism to analyse each belief and select only the most rational.

Attached: chart (1).png (480x400, 17K)

This. All zealotry is misguided and tends to miss the point of a civil society.

Attached: 1479572927774.jpg (265x249, 46K)

>Right wingers generally have rigid, inflexible rules that they are unwilling to consider changing even when faced with evidence that those rules aren't having the desired effect.

Yes. This is the issue of the entrenched right wing politics. At certain point their devotion to the 'rules' becomes just an empty ritualism. However - along the principle of "if it worked, don't fuck with it" rules they defend are, at least in their mind, for the benefit of the society.

But yes - rules for the sake of rules is the extreme right wing.

>What you're wrong about is that right wingers necessarily care about society at the expense of the individual.

I respectifully disagree. I have yet to find a right wing ideology that would not accent that as a citizen you have an obligation to the state. Lengths to which those obligations are expected of you differ, but nonetheless, trend remains.

Regarding what happens in the US, and in just about any democratic country - modern politics has become a safe haven for charismatic opportunists and power always mixes badly with money. Neither republicans, nor democrats are truthful to their names. They posses no real idological basis and are, essentially, two brands of opium of the masses. Politician is always a whore first and statesmen are very, very few these days.

I mean - US spends $hojillion dollars on useless shit, funnels money into a few private pockets, society is crumbling down while the masses bicker about the same shit ad-infinitum - abortion / guns / homos.

Compared to what the left does defending corporate crimes is not that horrible, it's just money really. The left wing media puts a far worse spin on things to create controversy, they undermine the structures that maintain our societies and hype up dissent as much as possible. Maybe even on purpose so the corporate crime seems the preferable option.

Centrists have no opinions or arguments
They are resources, not agents of politics

>. I have yet to find a right wing ideology that would not accent that as a citizen you have an obligation to the state.

libertarianism you imbecile.

They are the cattle for which most people fight. Do not hate them.

>who work equally hard
You see this is what I mean when I say stated vs practical application. A leftist will say dumb shit like this and think it would work, but in reality they wouldn't implement it because its facially stupid. An individual who works his ass off digging a hole and refilling it over and over agaim, working harder than say a cashier would never be rewarded equally in a society long term. It's not about hard work it's about value and results. Even communism is more practical than your stupid theory.

>cognitive dissonance
First of all those are not mutually exclusive beliefs, and the more modern retard leftists DO in fact think both of those things and that it is society that takes the equal starting point and then makes it unequal through injustice. Its essentially the linchpin of critical theory.

But giving you the benefit of the doubt you dont deserve, I'll explain the rest. I was using hyperbole when I said the left believes everyone is the same. I didnt want to go into nature vs nurture but I suppose I'll have to. The left fundamentally believes nature is not as important as nurture at best and at worst that nature is a mere starting point. In that sense they believe everyone can get to a similar point and that it is the environment that is responsible for progression or lackthereof. "If a group of peoples is ahead or behind, an injustice has been done". Even more early than this is the belief that it is only the state can orchestrate society ~fairly.

And this isnt even going into the rejection of genetic differences among sexes and races

Libertarianism is not right wing, pleasant person.

These retards fell for the Jewish trick of putting nazis on the right wing so the dichotomy wouldn't make any sense whatsoever

>It's just money
>They undermine the structures that maintain society

The economy is a structure that maintains our society and participation in it is necessarily to live.

Do you think something like the definition of marriage is somehow important when compared to something like whether or not someone who works a full time job can afford to pay rent?

Until we can eat centrists I will view them as less than cattle.

Define left and right wing without appealing to vague notions

What fundamental belief is mutually exclusive to left and to the right?

Am I allowed to post here?

Attached: chart.png (480x400, 17K)

>do you think the definition is important
Have you considered that all of these issues are part of the same offensive and each one a pillar (no matter how small) holding society up?

Marriage has been incredibly important, by the way

No that's the "I'm a newfag and need to lurk more rating". You need to be in the top right or bottom right to post here

Also that political compass test is garbage and the questions are a poisoned well

The polarisation that keeps the economy under control by criminals is a product of the left wing media assaulting core values like marriage instead of focusing on real problems. In the long term maintaining productive values and ideals like marriage is more important than making money today.

>An individual who works his ass off digging a hole and refilling it over and over agaim
Then don't reward people for performing useless labors. How hard is that?

>Even communism is more practical than your stupid theory.
Marxism IS meritocratic you moron.

>the more modern retard leftists DO in fact think both of those things
Show me one leftist thinker (not a crackpot everyone dismisses) who thinks everyone is the same.

>The left fundamentally believes nature is not as important as nurture
Wrong, the left believes nurture is important. That doesn't mean they ignore nature or see it as less influential. The right ignores both and only looks at the end result with no consideration of how it got there.

>And this isnt even going into the rejection of genetic differences among sexes and races
Lefties don't reject genetic difference among sexes. Yet again you fall victim to your own retarded propaganda. As for differences between races, the overwhelming majority of beliefs you dumbasses have that you think are backed up by science are easily explained by varaibles you don't consider. You know... nurture.

Yes it is.

Nazis are right wing too you fucking dumbass.

Where'd you find this copypasta?

>hurr durr i know what left and right are from vice and buzzfeed

economical right is capitalism
economical left is communism
social left is equality
social right is hierarchy
left is relativity
right is objectivity
left is collectivism
right is capitalism

friendly reminder che guevara was racist and killed faggots, but wasn't right-wing

fascism is center authoritarian with a traditionalist worldview and pragmatic nationalist economy

Nope. The definition of marriage has been changing for a while now and only meant what you guys think it's always meant for about a century.

It's absolutely not a pillar of society.

Marriage isn't a core value, it's a dumb ritual that produces nothing meaningful. Its usefulness disappears as women receive rights and no longer need to appeal to a particular man to borrow some chunk of the freedom he is granted.

*right is individualism

the whole left-right concept is a shitshow. it only serves to create division. There's different ideologies, with elements of convergence and divergence. The idea that the spectrum of political ideology can be reduced to two opposed concepts, plus authoritarian/libertarian is massively retarded.

>Nazis are right wing too you fucking dumbass.

Attached: wojak2.jpg (235x215, 7K)

I actually agree with pretty much all of what you said, except where you called right objectivity as opposed to relativity, as both left and right are relativity.

reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/7v01pb/there_is_nothing_rightwing_or_capitalist_about/

inb4 I am reddit scum, so are all of you

In your opinion. Most people don't agree with you. Marriage is important to them subjectively so they will argue with you and you will spend your time arguing instead of solving the problem of being slaves by (((megacorporations))). Also btw marriage is a fundamental part of society and a sacred bond between a man a woman and God.

>then dont reward people for not producing value
Then you need another metric other than hard work dont you?
>Marxism is meritocracy
In what sense?
>show me one leftist
I'm not going to debate such a dishonest point with you. People routinely cite environment as the sole reasons groups of people aren't doing as well as others.
>that doesnt mean they see it as less influential
Wrong. If nature were considered just as influential there would be no need to explain disparities among people. Its only after a rejection of nature do you find theories of relative inequality in society popping up
>the right ignores both
If anything the right ignores only nurture. How can you be so deluded to think the right ignores nature?
>with no consideration
Explain further, because I suspect you would consider something like social darwinism to be a lack of consideration
>lefties dont reject genetic differences among sexes
Yes they do, you do in a moment
>you think are backed by science but are explained away by other variables
Give me some examples, I'm starting to get hard lmao
>nazi's are right wing
In what sense? The public school one?

I just made it up bro

>socialist party
>right wing
you people are a barrel of laughs

you're both retarded

A centrist is just a comformist.
50 years ago these "centrists" would have been considered hardcore leftists.
There is no centrist, they will move together with the oberton window.
centeist = political normies
They will follow the winners like they always did

Being a centrist, atleast acording to political compass charts, mean that you don't blindly follow a certain ideology.

>if you think that immigration is bad you must also oppose gay marriage and think earth is flat

lmao cucks

Even the most naive and politically clueless of liberals realize that the far-left will not just stop once they "smash [insert right-wing scapegoat here]".

"Those people in black hoodies and masks who destroy private property every year at G7 summit and then blame it on undercover cops, who squat in warehouses and use their welfare co-ops as a trap house, that tell businesses to put leftist propaganda in their windows or they'll get smashed.... oh yeah those guys are just against Nazis."

I prefer the far-right as a comfy buffer between you and us, so you two can keep killing eachother forever, and stay a comfortable distance away from us.

political compass puts me almost dead center for being an incredibly, openly racist democrat.

>second example is a cherry picked strawman and glossing over a welfare state because its racist

The thread is full of cherry picked battles with little rebuttal at all

It's also a great example of leftists confusing states belief with practical beliefs. These retards (you) believe if industry survives in a similar form as today (as it HAS to practically), it's not socialism.

>inb4 I am reddit scum, so are all of you
Lmao fucking go back, jesus christ

Yeah, they are. But extreme capitalist right-wingers believe that their ethics are objectively right - NAP, objectivism, private property rights. They TRY to follow some truth, while the left outright denies it's existence and creates words such as "post-truth".

>marriage has been changing for a while not
In the Christian western tradition it has not fundamentally ever deviated from the purpose of procreation until recently

>it is absolutely not a pillar of society
Yea it is, though we live in a decaying society so you're excused for your stupidity

Politics isn’t fucking sports. Don’t need to pick your faggot team and stick with everything they do. Have opinions for yourself.

Left and right aren't teams holier than thou dunning Kruger brainlet

Well I'm glad we can agree that the argument over the importance of marriage is not an important one.

>Then you need another metric other than hard work dont you?
No. If a task is imporant enough that someone should be hired to do it then that person should be paid a reasonable wage for doing that task, even if the task is less important than or easier than other tasks.

>In what sense?
Those who participate in society (merit) are given what they need and want (reward).

>I'm not going to debate such a dishonest point with you. People routinely cite environment as the sole reasons groups of people aren't doing as well as others.
I think the real problem is that we were miscommunicating. You said "leftists think people are the same" when you meant "leftists think blacks aren't inferior" which, yes, most leftists think blacks aren't inferior.

>Wrong. If nature were considered just as influential there would be no need to explain disparities among people. Its only after a rejection of nature do you find theories of relative inequality in society popping up
That makes no sense. Nature could be significantly more influential while nurture still influences, so to describe differences you would need to understand and explain nurture. How are you incapable of understanding the idea that someone is affected by both?

>If anything the right ignores only nurture. How can you be so deluded to think the right ignores nature?
Actually you're right. The center-rights ignore both and only look at the result. The far rights look at nature and think any difference is necessarily attributable to nature.

>Explain further
I mean they are only interested in enacting policies based on the idea of answering the result. So if two people from different situations commit the same crime, when their situations would have an extreme effect on both their propensity to have commited that crime and their chance of committing it again, the right treats both the same.

>marriage is just the ritual
Missed this gem

>court judgements are just a ritual
>elections are just a ritual
Imagine being this stupid. I cannot.

Attached: sin of tolerance.jpg (1255x1034, 378K)

>tasks
Your mental gymnastics are glossing over paying people the same thing for less work, or paying people in a way that is not tied to their usefulness or output (merit)
>participation in society is merit
I cant take you seriously anymore. You don't even know your own sides talking points and rebuttals so we cant even go through the proper motions before getting to the meat and potatoes

How disappointing

id be a centrist in this model

Centrism is not the same as achieving balance. Centrism is avoidance. You applied the horeshoe theory within a specific context that a censtrist would normally employ.
>they're both bad, so I'm better.

Leftists are trying to undermine traditional pillars of society.
>we would never, btw what you consider a pillar of society is an outdated construct

We agree that you don't think it's important so you should shut up about it.

>Yes they do, you do in a moment
Again I challenge you to show me a serious left wing thinker who doesn't think men and women are physically different.

>Give me some examples, I'm starting to get hard lmao
Examples of bad far right science or examples of possible variables they ignore?

>In what sense?
Nazis weren't socialist. Just like how the DPRK isn't democratic.

No it means you follow whatever ideology is enacted currently. It means you think everything is A-ok.

I wish the far left was as violent as you think it is.

They gave rebuttals to common arguments but they also gave reason that nazis are right wing. Do you have a response to that?

Everyone believes their ethics is right. If they didn't they wouldn't believe it.

>while the left outright denies it's existence and creates words such as "post-truth".
That's a load of shit. Stop swallowing the propaganda you see on Breitbart.

Fucking creates babies, not marriage.

True Communism is for whites only.

Only white-Anglos living under secular, capitalist, nihilist/atheist post-enlightenmemt societies have been so neglected by & divorced from their cultural traditions & traditional authorities that in revenge, they want to destroy their culture, authority/hierarchy and identity itself.

Non-white leftists don't want this: they don't actually want to destroy society, they just want to control it so they can get 'muh reparations'. Non-white leftists don't want to give up their cultural identity, religions and traditions.

White leftists want to destroy all religion, it's just more convinient for them to go after white religion/tradition/culture right now and leave the non-whites for last.

But make no mistake, communists do not love minorities any more than they love a nail hammered into the wall, the simple fact is it's useful to their goals at the current moment.

Once white and non-white leftists realize they want two completely different things, this is where the left will get really interesting.

>a 'lefty' is one that desires freedom at a cost of order.
dumbest shit i've heard.