Centrist positions are inherently unstable (think top of the hill) because they require active efforts to maintain the balance between factions prone to polarizations (left->far-left, right->far-right). It requires consistently good statesmanship or strong external challenge for opposing factions to act in united manner.
While setting proactive centrist initiatives might be hard, centrist sentiment with passive inaction is very very easy. All you need to do is tut-tut occasional "excesses."
In other words, the centrism of taking risks is very different from the centrism of avoiding them.
It depends on how the populace feels. It could also technically be a valley with the extremes on either side. Honestly though I think the centrists can never find positions people can get rabid about because by definition it calls for moderation.
That analogy does not make sense. You are assuming political spectrum is a left to right gradient which you just move along, when in reality it is a constantly shifting multi dimensional spectrum that shifts on different issues. However if we apply today’s centerist to the end of the 1990’s they would be more a Bush conservative.
Being a centrist is a cowardly position, inevitably on the wrong side of history, serving the ruling class while backstabbing your fellow workers and citizens. You'd rather pretend to be asleep and let it all happen to us than open your eyes and fight with humanity.
The bystander effect in a nutshell. You too are eventually accountable and culpable and when the wheels of fascism turn far enough you'll find yourself as part of an outgroup.
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. - D.A.
Centrist positions are inherently unstable (think top of the hill) because they require active efforts to maintain the balance between factions prone to polarizations (left->far-left, right->far-right). It requires consistently good statesmanship or strong external challenge for opposing factions to act in united manner.
While setting proactive centrist initiatives might be hard, centrist sentiment with passive inaction is very very easy. All you need to do is tut-tut occasional "excesses."
In other words, the centrism of taking risks is very different from the centrism of avoiding them.
It depends on how the populace feels. It could also technically be a valley with the extremes on either side. Honestly though I think the centrists can never find positions people can get rabid about because by definition it calls for moderation.
Funny things about that though, if you're centrist today, you'd be considered far left in the 2000s
That analogy does not make sense. You are assuming political spectrum is a left to right gradient which you just move along, when in reality it is a constantly shifting multi dimensional spectrum that shifts on different issues. However if we apply today’s centerist to the end of the 1990’s they would be more a Bush conservative.
Historically, people like that become known as collaborators.
Being a centrist is a cowardly position, inevitably on the wrong side of history, serving the ruling class while backstabbing your fellow workers and citizens. You'd rather pretend to be asleep and let it all happen to us than open your eyes and fight with humanity.
The bystander effect in a nutshell. You too are eventually accountable and culpable and when the wheels of fascism turn far enough you'll find yourself as part of an outgroup.
Work for it.
Woke only exists in the mind of the far right.
I don’t know, I’m grouping runaway feminism and high LGBT visibility and celebration as woke.
So what's your position on trans people? Persecute them, or let them be? Persecute half of them perhaps?
1 reply →
"I don't like the Jews and hate the Nazis."
Peace in our time.
You can't have centrist fascism. To have any kind of fascism, you would first need to commit to a specific ideological position.