Which political publications do you regularly read?

As far as that goes, personally, if I explain something as simply and articulately as I can, whether through direct statements or metaphors or whatever, if someone doesn't get it, it's not a big deal. I have never once found myself needing a spokesman for what I believe.

What's so great about "centrism"?
How is being in the "center" of the current (totally arbitrary) Overton window makes an idea any more valuable?

Well, and what DO you believe, then?

I'm more likely to have my mind changed and come to a conclusive judgment on an issue by fair, reasonable points on both sides of an argument, rather than hyperpartisan, emotionally-charged bias. As it stands, I'm center-right. I don't know what's so inherently special about being polarized so far to one side or the other, either, so there's that.
That's entirely subjective. What would you like to discuss?

Being "hyper-partisan" doesn't imply being emotional. Being emotional doesn't imply being wrong. Being non-emotional, actually, doesn't even imply "rationality" (a central point that keep eluding "YouTube skeptics").
Similarly, being biased isn't necessarily bad. I am "biased" against all forms of human cruelty and suffering, does it make it bad?
And, I mean, how the fuck do you expect ANYWAY to express and lay out their political opinions without being "biased"? Isn't the very notion of writing about a subjective issue inherently "biased"? People aren't conducting empirical observations while writing those pieces.
What would you even consider an example of a decent "not-biased" writing?

>That's entirely subjective. What would you like to discuss?
Well, you self-describe as a center-right, which sounds to be like a really waffley "excusing for the status quo, no matter how terrible" sort of deal.

You seem really upset for some reason. You're firing off a bunch of questions which all seem half rhetorical, and it seems like it's purely out of frustration. If you want to calm down and ask an actual question, I can answer it for you as best as I can, but if you're hoping to get some kind of radical response, well, I can't help you there.
You can call it waffley and say it's excusing the status quo all you want, but frankly, I've become so disillusioned with things, I don't give a shit what happens one way or another. I'm here to get mine and check out, and so long as nothing interferes with that, I'll be alright. If everyone else wants to flail and screech about things all the time, that sounds like their problem.

...how about actually addressing the points I'm raising instead of bickering over tone?

>I've become so disillusioned with things, I don't give a shit what happens one way or another. I'm here to get mine and check out, and so long as nothing interferes with that, I'll be alright. If everyone else wants to flail and screech about things all the time, that sounds like their problem.
People don't want to "flail and screech about things". They want to improve their own position in the world, to alleviate their own suffering, or, better yet, to alleviate the suffering and misery of others.

What even caused you to become so "disillusioned"?

>What's so great about "centrism"?
If it is real centrism,then article has to be objective, which is pretty good.

>genuinely sad
>that my tribe cannot dictate to you

Online -Daily Stormer
Print - White Voice, Occidental Quarterly, Candour, The White Rose, Conspiracy Digest, the list goes on...

Maybe if you could choose a point, settle on it, and state it, I could address it.
>What even caused you to become so "disillusioned"?
That's a loaded question, but suffice it to say that I'm too old to be so worried about what other people think and what they're doing that it drags me radically one way or another, to any notable degree. There's better shit to do. I'm not concerned with what people on Twitter or the Daily Stormer have to say. They're all miserable losers.

>Do not tell the kikes what outlets they need to subvert !

>It's not about news, it's about commentaries.
So your people can control the narrative?

Interesting that they are all kike related and funded you fucking oven dodger.

This. It's why I said I don't give a shit about commentaries. It's not really a secret that people who provide commentaries on news sites frequently utterly disregard facts to bang out a piece meant to deceive people into accepting things they wouldn't accept were all the facts there and equally observed. I'm not letting that kind of idiotic garbage shape my worldview.

Well, objectivity is a pretty nebulous idea. My "objectivity" may not be your "objectivity", which really defeats the entire point.
And more often than not, "real centrism" is about trying to wiggle this way or that inside the pre-established ("objective") social order, without daring to imagine real alternatives.

The past 30+ years have seen the gradual erosion of political dynamism and unprecedented depoliticization. This lead to the calcification of political, social and economic programs that many (even most) people disagree with. In turn, this explains the rise in "populist" backlashes against "the establishment". In this context, "objective centrism" only means an increasingly desperate defense of the the old status quo due to an inability and, more importantly, an UNWILLINGNESS to imagine alternatives (see: Brexit).
It is "objective" because it's rooted in the reality we live in, but the entire point is that people are getting tired of living in this reality and want to imagine a different, better one.

The New Yorker
NYT

>Maybe if you could choose a point, settle on it, and state it, I could address it.
Uhhh... my entire post ()?
Do you need it in like bulletpoint format?
• Being "hyper-partisan" doesn't necessarily mean being emotional.
• Being emotional doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. It doesn't means shit.
• Avoid emotion doesn't magically turn you into a flawless logic machine.
• We're all humans and always emotional all the time.
• Being biased isn't bad. Calling something "biased" doesn't automatically mean you can dismiss it.
• It's impossible to write political pieces without being biased. It doesn't make any goddamn sense. Holding a political position inherently implies bias by definition. Could you even provide an example of a "non-biased" piece?

Objectivity is being able to separate yourself from how you might feel about something emotionally to interpret both sides of it logically and decide which is correct, regardless of what your feelings are about it in the end. If your idea of objectivity is different, then you don't know how to be objective.

As for the rest of your word salad, which, by the way, is quite a verbose way of saying "I'm full of shit," you're trying to tell ME why I feel a certain way when you know nothing about me or what might have shaped my perspectives. Pretty closed-minded sort of thinking for someone so interested in commentaries, don't you think? Now, take it straight from the horse's mouth: I'm center-right because while I'm more conservative, I don't generally give a shit what anyone else does or thinks as long as it doesn't mess with my bottom line. You think it's a defense because you care way more about what other people think, and you can't possibly imagine the notion of anyone else taking a different position on it. You're regarding how you feel as fact. That's why it's retarded to be more invested in commentaries than plain, truthful statements; you begin to consider your social capital over what's correct. That you can't fathom the idea that some people simply don't care about what everyone else has to say one way or another says more about you than it does me. You can drown it in as many $5 words as you want, but at the bottom of the bottle, you're going to find a little baby eating its own shit.

Now look at your flag. Look at what you've posted. You don't seem like you're going to be happy unless I say something like GAS THE KIKES, RACE WAR NOW or PUNCH A NAZI. Does that help you understand at all why everyone on both sides seem to hate your kind? You're fucking instigators.

Stop pretending to be so obtuse that you can't count how many question marks were in that post. Pick a question and settle on it or keep crying about it.

Well, I guess we really have different opinions about objectivity. It is very hard to be centrist and many people like you simple wouldn't understand us.
When it come to publications, centrist has to analyze every valuable point of view from left and right and represent it without any bias.
>"objective centrism" only means an increasingly desperate defense of the the old status
Uhh..no. Conservatism means that.

Isn't it cute when people try to tell you that rationality is a cop-out? Wew fucking lad, lmao

What even is a "feeling" and what is a "fact"? I am sure it's nice to feel like your opinions come from cold, hard facts and everyone who disagrees with you is just an irrational baby throwing an emotional hissy fit over their sensitive "feeeeelings" (pretty fucking ironic that you claim I presume things about your line of thought and then immediately proceed to pull that exact shit on me), but it's not actually how things work. Even IF your worldview been based purely on "facts", I can assure you you've been unconsciously cherrypicking facts which confirm your pre-existing assumptions. I am not saying this out of a hubristic presumption of knowing how you think, but out of an understanding you are human, and that is how all but the most literally autistic of humans work.

>I don't generally give a shit what anyone else does or thinks as long as it doesn't mess with my bottom line
You live in a society. The way that society is structured is integral to your "bottom line". Had it been different, you would have lived a completely different existence.
Moreoever, this "I don't give a shit how anyone else is doing as long as I am doing fine" is the mentality of a psychopath. What if you WEREN'T doing fine? What if were one of the multitudes of get fucked in the ass by society's structures? Don't you have, like, empathy? Oh wait that is feelings and feeling are wrong. Sorry.

Oh jeez I can't even use rhetorical devices in my imageboard posts? Must every conversation be a sterile A -> B Logics 101 exercise?

"Rationality" is not being an unfeeling robot.
Inversely, pretending you don't have emotions doesn't magically make you "rational".

It just happens to be so. You know, some of you westerners including jews are ready to throw yourself into the fire for progress. This is why we are too conservative in his views, yet I'll be too progressive in eyes of my folk.

based

they are all crap
i read the intercept and the jacobin occasionally and i follow mark ames and the war nerd on twitter.

Attached: Columbia2.jpg (680x1020, 227K)

#Resistance
they both make me want to vomit

Attached: Columbia.jpg (1203x1600, 524K)

I think I understand. Funny how perceptions can change like that depending on where you are in the world, isn't it? I'd probably be looked at the same as you in your country, as much as that would irritate me. Oh well, can't be helped.
>What even is a "feeling" and what is a "fact"?
Most idiotic question I've heard all day.
>"Rationality" is not being an unfeeling robot.
>Inversely, pretending you don't have emotions doesn't magically make you "rational".
I save my feelings for the people and things which actually matter to me. Emotional outbursts over politics are for children.

Its genuinely sad that you think those shills you linked that you read dont lie about 100% of everything kike

This is definitely a cunt.

>When it come to publications, centrist has to analyze every valuable point of view from left and right and represent it without any bias.
Well that sounds dandy! Where can I find something like this?

>Uhh..no. Conservatism means that.
Small-c conservatism, maybe, but not capital-C Conservatism.
Capital-C Conservatism isn't even small-c conservative.

But yes, all "centrism" is just small-c conservatism by another name. This isn't even rhetorical trickery. Being a centrist BY DEFINITION implies being in the middle. If your careful objective analysis brought you to the conclusion that one side of a debate is better, you are no longer a centrist, but a partisan who (claims he) arrived at his positions through "careful objective analysis".
Hence, being a "centrist" really only means not leaning to either side in on either issue - i.e. keeping things the same as they are. Small-c conservatism.

The centrists' claim that they "always listening to both sides and weigh them carefully" isn't a unique virtue deserving its own -ism, it's a basic feature of being a decent politically-involved human being.

No one asking you for "emotional outbursts". But you should be pretty damn perturbed by seeing, for example, sweatshop labor.

>to alleviate the suffering and misery of others.
And this is horse shit. The more a person goes one way or another on the political spectrum, the less they care about the well-being of people on the other side of center. If communists really cared about alleviating the suffering and misery of others, they wouldn't have starved and shot 100 million+ people to death to stay in power.

>If communists really cared about alleviating the suffering and misery of others, they wouldn't have starved and shot 100 million+ people to death to stay in power.
Hence the whole "not real Socialism" business.

This is actually a good example.
Is the statement "Sweatshop labor is bad" a feeling or a fact?

A feeling. If there is sweatshop labor, there is someone profiting from it who believes it's a good thing.

also btw I don't buy the "extreme left doesn't care for people's lives" shit for a moment. There's a reason communist governments - especially Stalinist-Maoists ones - were (and still are) regularly called "Red Fascism" by leftists. Not caring about other people's lives is an integral feature of the right.

Then how do you determine whether sweatshop labor should be abolished or not?

>Which political publications do you regularly read?

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1016x1396, 146K)

Ok, so you're a leftist, got it.
Sorry, but the blood of those people is still on the hands of the left, no matter how many cheap words they throw at it to help them sleep at night.

That all depends on a society's culture, does it not? China doesn't seem to worry about it too much, for example.

occidental observer

Those are not cheap words. If a regime abandons all that defines leftism but some frivolous rhetoric and optics, in what way is it "left"?

Well, sure (but I am certain those poor chinese kids who get fingers chopped off by industrial machinery DO care about it. And so do their parents), but isn't culture inherently "emotional"? The entire discussion is over 's autistic assertion that feelings have no place in politics, and that his views are determined by "facts". The sweatshop example was brought up to demonstrate how poorly this framework actually works in practice.

What makes it right? That your feelings determine being left means being good? Do you realize that the most dangerous people are the ones who cannot be convinced they're wrong, no matter how many people they hurt, because they believe they're correct and morally justified at every turn? Communism is leftism taken to its most extreme conclusion, just like fascism is for the right. Trying to make people believe that the capacity for mass murder of dissenters is solely a right wing thing is paste-eating retarded, particularly when you see how so many leftist people offering their *commentaries* on Twitter just happen to be calling for conservatives and whites to be assaulted and killed in the name of communism.

It's clear at this point you don't want a discussion, but rather a confession. Which isn't happening. So to that end, we're done here.

Monde Diplo, NZZ, FT, FAZ, American Affairs indeed, NYRB, LRB and various blogs from competent people.

Fox news
The daily wire
Drudge report
Breitbart
The daily caller

If I want something more outside, on occasion:
Al Jazeera
Reuters
RT

>Well that sounds dandy! Where can I find something like this?
If only I knew.
Most of my knowledge I acquire throw collision reading. Basically read far-left and far-right propoganda publications. Then move to european source, they don't seem to be as populistic as american's.
>But yes, all "centrism" is just small-c conservatism by another name.
As I said before, it all comes to preception . For you, I'll be small-c conservative, but for Jow Forums - visa versa.
>Hence, being a "centrist" really only means not leaning to either side in on either issue
Not really. If you look at political spectrum, there are plenty of left and right centrists. For you that might sound absurd, but it is reality.

Left, at least for me, means empowering disempowered people, helping your fellow man, making people's lives generally more comfortable and meaningfully free. If you decide to view these principles as good (as you should), then yes, being left-wing DOES mean being good. But it's not a direct "left is good" connection, but rather a relation of logical progression "left is liberty equality fraternity, which are good".

If you are murdering people (or calling for the murder of people), you are not making them "meaningfully free".
Breaking eggs to make an omelette is perverse if the omelette you're trying to make says "Do Not Break Eggs" .

>particularly when you see how so many leftist people ... calling for conservatives and whites to be assaulted and killed in the name of communism
I have literally never seen a single person state such a thing. Some vague rumblings about "guillotining " from fringe Marxists corners, sure, but they are fringe and rare, and as already stated, I don't consider Marxists to be "real" leftists.

>there are plenty of left and right centrists
I don't think I get you, then.
What is your definition of a centrist?

>empowering disempowered people,
>helping your fellow man
>making people's lives generally more comfortable and meaningfully free
>flag
Pottery

Most Israelis would consider me a traitor for daring to see Palestinians as humans, yes.

Attached: 1426542043310.png (133x132, 45K)

It is obvious that you can't stand right in the middle between right and left. Depending on situations in politics, centrists shift towards sides they assume would suit the most for fixing current state of government.
>What is your definition of a centrist
Just ordinary one.Always try your best to approach the equilibrium.

But what are you building towards? What kind of world do you want to see?

I enthusiastically second American Affairs. Very great indeed. I would personally recommend the following:

www.bookforum.com/blog
>Aggregator of high-quality leftist and radical centrist political commentary.
Occidental Observer
The Unz Review
>middle-brow but often interesting
Thermidor Magazine
>Great and interesting, from a religious or reactionary angle (which is the correct angle).

Attached: 1492299261250.gif (625x626, 54K)

>Not Daily Stormer

Attached: 1498487271676.png (341x361, 101K)

>But what are you building towards?
For a better world. Generally, if any certain movement can provide alternative, we will take it to the assumption and implement by small chunks.
>What kind of world do you want to see?
Isolated from each other, but it will never happen because of economical structure that we are currently in.
I don't really like foreigners, besides those with whom we shared bred during hard times or lived with us for centuries.

>For a better world
Well, what KIND of "better", then?
I suppose all but the most sociopathic of reactionaries want a "better world". The difference in politics lies in what do we mean by "better".

>Isolated from each other
That's hardly a recipe for what I would consider "a better world". Not out of a "borders are arbitrary and evil, multikult is good" perspective (although I have sympathy for these views, I don't agree with them, and think cosmopolitanism is a very cheap form of "diversity"), but out of "well, what else?"
Sure, let's assume we're all "isolated from each other". On what level, though? Localism? Nationalism? On the individual level? Because that last one sounds depressing and atrocious.

>Isolated from each other
>Localism
Yes, but as I said it won't happen.
>For a better world
Isn't it comfy style? Everybody has that idea, but not all agree with it.
Basically create a better life for people according to their needs.

"To each according to to their needs, from each according to their ability"?

Attached: 1410470326268.jpg (376x430, 25K)

>to know a jew you must think like a jew.
Just one out of a many.

Attached: israel.jpg (200x285, 56K)

>antifa
Really? No, it might be a final goal but not necessary an approach.
>from each according to their ability
No, give more than everybody else, it is your task.

Go away kike.

I want to fuck her so much

Tom is that you?

>American Affairs
Same.

>The Atlantic
Like Current Affairs but more explicitly partisan and more widely read. Smarter liberals tend to have read The Atlantic's article on whatever it is, and familiarity with it means common ground.

>The Hill
Where I get a lot of my actual (political) news. It's right leaning but it has a sort of neutral tone to it and it doesn't really shy away from reporting negative stories either.

>My local newspaper
Non-political news. I couldn't give a shit about 'local news' type stories like heinous crimes that don't happen in or near my hometown. They mostly copypaste articles from AP but they write some of their own stories and I like knowing what's going on locally because that's actually useful information.

>ANNA news, al-Masdar, and other /sg/ related
Only to follow Middle Eastern wars. Gives me something to do.

>>The Atlantic
>Like Current Affairs
Jesus lord christ no

No that's me.

FUCK OFF KIKE FLAG

How isn't it? They're both left-wing thinkpiece outlets. The only real difference between the two is how often they put out a new issue and what precise stripe of pretentious upper class east coast liberal they cater to.

>her
KILL YOURSELF

Current Affairs is very radical socialist.

What

It's a cartoon you fag

And it is beautiful

Attached: 1528168315574-pol.jpg (5000x5000, 1.45M)

>and what precise stripe of pretentious upper class east coast liberal they cater to.

There isn't very much practical difference between the Atlantic-reading "intellectual left" and the CA-reading champagne socialist (as much as they like to pretend to be a working class outlet) except on the most esoteric ideological points. In terms of 'praxis' and social class they're practically indistinguishable.

ok you think the drawing is beautiful but it's not a she still.

Can you pls, not interrupt me while I am masturbating?

Ok Borat.

New Yorker, The Atlantic, Nat. Review, Weekly Standard. Quillette.

When I tried read it I just remember it coming off as some sort of "Social Liberal" Vox junk that keeps trying to Leftspain shit to you.
Like it's the type of publication that'd happily celebrate more black/women CEOs, and not bother asking why are unelected CEOs even a thing. CA make fun of the pretentious upper class east coast liberal and regularly criticize their intellectual hypocrisy.

Beyond that, Current Affairs just writes stuff that's nicer to read. The Atlantic feels like reading dogma and cherrypicked news stories, Current Affairs (especially Nathan Robinson's essays) feel like a grade school teacher carefully walking you through leftist arguments. And shiieeettt, the arguments make complete sense. I'll be completely honest in saying that discovering his stuff is what pushed me "over the edge" and completely into "leftist" territory. I mean - why SHOULDN'T we aim for utopia? Why SHOULDN'T there be workplace democracy? Why can't you be free BOTH from state coercion AND private coercion? Why SHOULDN'T we have legislatures that are randomly elected by lot? Why can't people in prison vote? Equality DOES matter. Modern architecture IS godawful. Being rich in a world of poverty IS immoral. Luxury Socialism IS the most appealing form of Socialism. Prison abolition IS an admirable goal.

I don't think you'd find these in The Atlantic.

Le Monde helped me learn French. Jacobin has nice mag covers.