The prevalence of the Enlightened Centrism meme shows just how many people think the world is black and white. They can’t imagine a tertiary opinion that isn’t a ridiculous compromise between 2 extremes (e.g. Let’s give gay people half of their rights) so they characterize open-minded people that way
I think you pretty fundamentally misunderstand what people mean when they say “enlightened centrist”. Because it’s not actually demonising having an open mind. It’s referring to people who adopt a smarter-than-thou attitude while insisting that listening to bigotry is of vital importance.
I don’t think people really mean that when they say we should allow for other opinions. If the message is clearly coming from a mean spirited place you shouldn’t need to listen to that person. From what I’ve seen, bigotry often gets defined as literally any deviation from the exact list of opinions one must hold to be considered left wing. The people attacking “centrism” seem to think half the population is irredeemably evil and has nothing good to contribute to a conversation. “Centrists” to me are people from a wide range of views who decide not to be at each other’s throats and actually talk things out. To me the people who are willing to be civil (with those who are also civil and genuine about their views) are the ones making real progress instead of essentially hoping for civil wars to break out
If the message is clearly coming from a mean spirited place you shouldn’t need to listen to that person.
Except centrists say we should. All the time. As long as bigotry is dressed up in “civil” language, centrists will say that it’s fair game.
I am constantly told, by centrists, that my right to exist in society is open for debate. Whether or not I can get my healthcare, or if it is criminalised, is an open question. And that’s not rare, I see it almost every day, from people who think of themselves as “center”.
From what I’ve seen, bigotry often gets defined as literally any deviation from the exact list of opinions one must hold to be considered left wing.
No. That’s just right-wing rubbish.
There are a tiny handful of opinions deemed bigoted. It’s just that the right-wing is utterly obsessed with them, and wants to talk about them all the time.
People can hold conservative and right-wing opinions about taxation or spending or foreign policy without being called bigoted. Progressives would probably disagree vehemently with them. But it’s not bigotry.
The people attacking “centrism” seem to think half the population is irredeemably evil and has nothing good to contribute to a conversation.
That is you strawmanning people, if that is what you think.
“Centrists” to me are people from a wide range of views who decide not to be at each other’s throats and actually talk things out.
Talk what out? Be specific. It matters.
Again, many topics are perfectly open for debate.
People’s inclusion in society as equals, is not.
To me the people who are willing to be civil (with those who are also civil and genuine about their views) are the ones making real progress instead of essentially hoping for civil wars to break out
Civil tone does not a civil idea make, is all I’d add to that.
Clearly we have both frequently seen behavior the other hasn’t. I’m not sure how to reconcile that but I know I’m not just spewing right wing rubbish or strawmanning. I just think most of the real progress is made through conversation and not mashing the “You’re a terrible person” button. If everyone thought the same way we wouldn’t need to fight for progress, but that’s not reality and so we need to choose between conversations and tribalism. You’re free to choose tribalism more often if you prefer, it probably feels better to do that and maybe in your case you need to do that. It can’t be easy to talk to people who on the surface appear to disagree with your very existence. But the people actually talking it through are not the bad guys, they’re the ones getting shit done, changing minds instead of escalating and further entrenching people in their existing views.
You’re free to choose tribalism more often if you prefer,
Oh bite me. I’m not “choosing tribalism”. Direct your ire to the people slinging abuse at minorities, not at minorities who are tired of endlessly debating their own existence.
It can’t be easy to talk to people who on the surface appear to disagree with your very existence.
Not just on the surface. Don’t downplay.
But the people actually talking it through are not the bad guys, they’re the ones getting shit done, changing minds instead of escalating and further entrenching people in their existing views.
Historically speaking, you are dead wrong. Societies have fallen to fascism precisely because of moderates and “centrists” making room for fascism to flourish, and impeding efforts to shut it down before it entrenches itself, because they were convinced that “civil conversation” was the only way forward.
You might feel superior to those of us actually doing the work, but you are standing in the way of actually getting things done. And you will be treated accordingly.
Well the most important thing is that you feel morally superior to other people, and create spaces that minoritised people don’t feel welcome in because allowing bigots to voice their nonsense is more important than actually listening to those minoritised people.
You talk of being reasonable but posit the most unreasonable position and claim it’s as proof that others are unreasonable.
You’re completely full of shit.
Meanwhile, please show me a truly centrist path to the battle for rights. I would love to hear what a person like you sees as a reasonable outcome that somehow pleases those who deserve something unalienable and those who wish to obliterate those who fight for something unalienable.
The prevalence of the Enlightened Centrism meme shows just how many people think the world is black and white. They can’t imagine a tertiary opinion that isn’t a ridiculous compromise between 2 extremes (e.g. Let’s give gay people half of their rights) so they characterize open-minded people that way
I think you pretty fundamentally misunderstand what people mean when they say “enlightened centrist”. Because it’s not actually demonising having an open mind. It’s referring to people who adopt a smarter-than-thou attitude while insisting that listening to bigotry is of vital importance.
I don’t think people really mean that when they say we should allow for other opinions. If the message is clearly coming from a mean spirited place you shouldn’t need to listen to that person. From what I’ve seen, bigotry often gets defined as literally any deviation from the exact list of opinions one must hold to be considered left wing. The people attacking “centrism” seem to think half the population is irredeemably evil and has nothing good to contribute to a conversation. “Centrists” to me are people from a wide range of views who decide not to be at each other’s throats and actually talk things out. To me the people who are willing to be civil (with those who are also civil and genuine about their views) are the ones making real progress instead of essentially hoping for civil wars to break out
Except centrists say we should. All the time. As long as bigotry is dressed up in “civil” language, centrists will say that it’s fair game.
I am constantly told, by centrists, that my right to exist in society is open for debate. Whether or not I can get my healthcare, or if it is criminalised, is an open question. And that’s not rare, I see it almost every day, from people who think of themselves as “center”.
No. That’s just right-wing rubbish.
There are a tiny handful of opinions deemed bigoted. It’s just that the right-wing is utterly obsessed with them, and wants to talk about them all the time.
People can hold conservative and right-wing opinions about taxation or spending or foreign policy without being called bigoted. Progressives would probably disagree vehemently with them. But it’s not bigotry.
That is you strawmanning people, if that is what you think.
Talk what out? Be specific. It matters.
Again, many topics are perfectly open for debate.
People’s inclusion in society as equals, is not.
Civil tone does not a civil idea make, is all I’d add to that.
Clearly we have both frequently seen behavior the other hasn’t. I’m not sure how to reconcile that but I know I’m not just spewing right wing rubbish or strawmanning. I just think most of the real progress is made through conversation and not mashing the “You’re a terrible person” button. If everyone thought the same way we wouldn’t need to fight for progress, but that’s not reality and so we need to choose between conversations and tribalism. You’re free to choose tribalism more often if you prefer, it probably feels better to do that and maybe in your case you need to do that. It can’t be easy to talk to people who on the surface appear to disagree with your very existence. But the people actually talking it through are not the bad guys, they’re the ones getting shit done, changing minds instead of escalating and further entrenching people in their existing views.
Oh bite me. I’m not “choosing tribalism”. Direct your ire to the people slinging abuse at minorities, not at minorities who are tired of endlessly debating their own existence.
Not just on the surface. Don’t downplay.
Historically speaking, you are dead wrong. Societies have fallen to fascism precisely because of moderates and “centrists” making room for fascism to flourish, and impeding efforts to shut it down before it entrenches itself, because they were convinced that “civil conversation” was the only way forward.
You might feel superior to those of us actually doing the work, but you are standing in the way of actually getting things done. And you will be treated accordingly.
Yeah… it really is a thankless job changing people’s minds
Well the most important thing is that you feel morally superior to other people, and create spaces that minoritised people don’t feel welcome in because allowing bigots to voice their nonsense is more important than actually listening to those minoritised people.
May the best ideas win. If your views don’t hold up to criticism, so be it. I think they do, you’re just too exhausted to defend them
That you think of this as the example of compromise really explains where you mind is.
Bruh did you even read what I said?
Yes, did you?
You talk of being reasonable but posit the most unreasonable position and claim it’s as proof that others are unreasonable.
You’re completely full of shit.
Meanwhile, please show me a truly centrist path to the battle for rights. I would love to hear what a person like you sees as a reasonable outcome that somehow pleases those who deserve something unalienable and those who wish to obliterate those who fight for something unalienable.
What do you think “centrists” believe about gay rights? Have you met one? Because I haven’t. I think they’re made up to shut out new opinions
Right so my take on you is made up but your strawman isn’t?
Meanwhile, I’m waiting on your reasonable apprpach.