JVNO posted:

Are you a centrist because you believe in a mish-mash of ideas across the spectrum

Groovelord Neato posted:

there are no good ideas on the right. there aren't even ideas really.

Al-Saqr posted:

lol Carl of Sad is getting sued for using Akilah Hughes video and not transforming it, and it looks like she's got a winning case loool


https://youtu.be/Vd16eGCocRE

Martian Manfucker posted:

idgi, did he really just take her video and upload it on his channel? is he that stupid?

Pembroke Fuse posted:

Technically a pragmatist could be considered a "rational" centrist. If you support some aspects of the free market for say consumer goods and also support some aspects of a social safety net to prevent insane accumulation of wealth and power, you could be considered and economic centrist. In fact, most Keynesians could be considered economic centrists, letting the free market function under powerful regulatory control and fiscal guidance. There is nothing wrong with this approach in principle, given that all economic models, whether propertarian or communitarian are lacking to some extent.

Kjoery posted:

The problem I more see with the term "Centrist" is that it has no real definition; it doesn't actually describe anything about a person.

If you describe yourself as an "Economic Conservative" or "Progressive" or whatever, it does define a set of policies that you can probably use as a starting point for discussion.

Like, I could, technically, describe myself as a "Centrist", because I do believe we must politically operate within a capitalist system, and any policies we make must therefore conform to some degree to free market bullshit. But it's not useful, because every internet MAGA chud I've had discussions with also describe themselves as centrists, despite having a massive range of beliefs that are antithesis to my vision of what the world could be. Hell, one person I was having an argument with described themselves as a centrist, then another person PMed me, called the both of us radicals, and then described themselves to be the centrist-est.

I really do think the term is only useful for identifying smug idiots with no real understanding of politics or policy.

JVNO posted:

Are you a centrist because you believe in a mish-mash of ideas across the spectrum and defend them with equal passion? If so, you're perfectly ok in my books. I can respect some people are centrist because of a non-traditional mixture of policies across the left/right spectrum.
Are you a centrist because you believe in some milquetoast philosophy about the truth always being in the middle? If so, you're the kind of toxic moderate that MLK Jr lambasted. You're an enabler of toxic philosophies more interested 'in the negative peace which is an absence of tension than a positive peace which is the presence of justice'.

rkajdi posted:

Problem is I'm a liberal, I just don't worship at the altar of the white working class. Apparently wanting a consensus Democrat with an Ivy League education and liking Obama is centrist to center right as far as some people are concerned now, which is pants on head insane. I mean, the crazies are even out in this thread, with somebody calling anyone who makes more than a low end professional salary ($60K) a disease on society. I don't know how that lines up with your political compass, but I have a huge issue with suggesting that everyone who isn't willing to trash the professional class is a Nazi hugger, especially when I'm specifically down with getting them punched or even better economically dispossessed to the point that nobody is willing to rally to the Nazi cause.

OwlFancier posted:

"Radical Centrist" is far more useful as it very definitely means someone who is an idiot.

OwlFancier posted:

"Radical Centrist" is far more useful as it very definitely means someone who is an idiot.

Falstaff posted:

Radical Centrist is a contradiction in terms. Centrists, by definition, want to maintain the status quo, while Radicals, again by definition, want to address not just the symptoms but also the sources of problems. (Radical comes from the latin radix or root.)

A better term for what you're talking about would be "Extreme Centrist," aka, an idiot.

Regarde Aduck posted:

It's good that you don't like nazis but they are one problem of many.

rkajdi posted:

Apparently wanting a consensus Democrat with an Ivy League education and liking Obama is centrist to center right as far as some people are concerned now, which is pants on head insane.

Falstaff posted:

Yeah, I've seen that, too. I guess I just don't see why the left should let idiots co-opt a perfectly good term like radical.

rkajdi posted:

Yeah, but "problems" like globalization is just entitled people thinking they have special value because they were born in the first world.

rkajdi posted:

Yes. The disappointments are things like the million Avengers books and the X-Men. Which with the latter not being allowed to do all that much new I don't see why they even bother to publish it. Some of the minority character books haven't done well, but things like a Wasp or Nova comic don't exactly seem designed to be best sellers. DC is doing well because their relaunch is a zero chances one with all the oldest and most boring white dude characters they can find. Things like Moon Girl & Devil Dinosaur or Ms. Marvel are selling decently well, just not through the traditional nerd dungeon model. Turns out an audience of younger girls/women don't want to go into a small smelly LGC and get gawked at by a bunch of permavirgins. Bookstore trade sales and digital comics both seem to do well for these titles, and seem to represent a widening of the comic audience beyond the basement dwellers and people like me who are at best basement adjacent.

OwlFancier posted:

That... depends on what you think "globalization" is...

BENGHAZI 2 posted:

They're still pushing X-Men because they tried to shift rails to Inhumans because they fill the same narrative role and Marvel can use them in movies and poo poo, and it flopped

rkajdi posted:

Globalization is the regime of free trade that will even the value of employment across nations. I'm both in favor of free trade and open immigration.

OwlFancier posted:

I mean, uh, that's a very optimistic view you've got there.

Ytlaya posted:

While I agree that the sort of psychological process you mention happens with the vast majority of people who make a lot of money (and I'm considering anything above like ~60k a lot*, because, well, it is), it doesn't change the fact that it makes people actively toxic to society as a whole. Like, I have a social group that consists of a bunch of really well off people, and they're not stereotypes or anything; they're generally perfectly nice people. But they're just fundamentally incapable of caring much about poverty/inequality on an emotional level. This isn't to say they don't care at all (I'm sure many/most of them would like to see poverty decrease), but it's more that it's just too easy for them to keep living their awesome lives and not invest themselves in fixing those problems (and generally there's no way they'd be willing to sacrifice their quality of life to achieve these goals). So I guess my feeling about well-meaning wealthy (or upper middle class or whatever) people is that I don't hate them on a personal level, but that (to use a goofy analogy) they're still like viruses within the human body that is society. Wealthy people who aren't well meaning and actively believe they're better than the poor are just animals who aren't even human, but I imagine that's a thing most reasonable people would agree about.

Guavanaut posted:

Nah, check the last sentence. He's just doing the "did you know Nazis were National Socialists" shtick to brand any left wing criticism of the treatment of the developing world by the IMF etc. as somehow antisemitic.

Guavanaut posted:

Nah, check the last sentence. He's just doing the "did you know Nazis were National Socialists" shtick to brand any left wing criticism of the treatment of the developing world by the IMF etc. as somehow antisemitic.

rkajdi posted:

Incorrect. I know Nazis and the left are different animals. I just support the kind of immigration that's made the US successful in the past (i.e. lots of unskilled people who are more highly motivated that our native citizens) and that's directly in opposition to the protectionist stuff I see from the white working class (left or right). I'm also strictly talking about legal immigration too, or at least legalizing our current illegal workforce so that the wage disparity decreases. But entitled assholes acting like they get to be the last guys off the boat and gain some special benefit from winning the womb lottery piss me off, since it's holding back a whole country because they are too pathetic to get beyond the first rung on the ladder despite dramatic advantages.

rkajdi posted:

Incorrect. I know Nazis and the left are different animals. I just support the kind of immigration that's made the US successful in the past (i.e. lots of unskilled people who are more highly motivated that our native citizens) and that's directly in opposition to the protectionist stuff I see from the white working class (left or right). I'm also strictly talking about legal immigration too, or at least legalizing our current illegal workforce so that the wage disparity decreases. But entitled assholes acting like they get to be the last guys off the boat and gain some special benefit from winning the womb lottery piss me off, since it's holding back a whole country because they are too pathetic to get beyond the first rung on the ladder despite dramatic advantages.

Harrow posted:

I'm kind of curious what the "cure" is for that virus, given that it seems like your cut-off for whether a person isn't slowly destroying society is pretty low from a "lives in a city and has student loans" standpoint. Like, it's still more than I make, but not by a ton.

quote:

the "rise" of the "fourth reich"

quote:

alleged "anti-scemitism"

quote:

Lightning Lord posted:

Ok, but how do you feel about the Washington Consensus?

Kjoery posted:

i personally just think it'd be cool if the g7/g20/whatever all collectively taxed the ultra-wealthy and used it to fund global humanitarian (specifically education, health & birth control) & climate change adaptation measures to the less wealthy nations, but we appear to be doomed to "gently caress you got mine" as a species

OwlFancier posted:

Do you... perhaps think there might be a reason why immigrant labour is "more highly motivated" than people who were born in the US?

Because this too may be a case where "economically disposessing" people might be relevant!

OwlFancier posted:

And also all of that sweet ethnic underclass to do all the menial labour that forms the foundation of society and whose work ethic is motivated by their continued poverty, that's pretty great too.

OwlFancier posted:

Look don't come blaming us when our historical and current attempts to destabilize everywhere that isn't here result in poor conditions in your country, it's your fault for allowing your best and brightest to emigrate to here and do work for us instead, you're never going to bootstrap your way out of poverty as a country if you don't embrace liberalism and force people to stay where they were born instead of emigrating to wealthier nations you stupid nativist. Don't you know that eventually the wealth will trickle back internationally and then we'll all be equal??

OwlFancier posted:

Why should a society not take advantage of the poverty of other nations to enrich itself?

quote:

How do you feel about economically coerced prostitution, out of curiosity?

OwlFancier posted:

My argument is that you aren't making much sense, it's other countries' faults if people want to leave rather than working to enrich there, but nativism is clearly bad because....?

quote:

The only way I can read it is tha you think anything that enriches the US is good and that other places are just inherently inferior.