"Radical centrism" is killing this country

[Themius]

Centrists:

1 - Look how crazy liberals are, how can you not vote conservative?
2 - Look how crazy conservatives are, how can you not vote liberal?

Independent:

1 & 2 - Look how crazy this guy is, why would you vote for him?

The majority of "centrist" on this forum are conservatives mocking liberals and saying how the left is crazy. Independents tend to fall in the same camp, on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

Christ. Back to this crap again. Word to the wise - If you start trying to belittle and bully all centrists because they're just as bad as Trump supporters and are "Killing the country", you're not going to be doing your own party any favours in the next elections.



Pretty much this.

Here's the way I see being in the centre, when applied to most of the dumb bullshit identity political "discussions" around here...

An African American woman wants a job at your company -

Alt Right - Definitely don't give her the job. She's probably an immigrant and probably only got her qualifications because of Affirmative Action. She'll probably#metoo you so you'll get fired.

Ctrl Left - Definitely give her the job. She's had a lifetime or so of opression because of her race, and the patriarchy. There are enough white men in the company so you should employ her to add diversity and new opinions and thoughts to the company.

Centrist - I'll see how her skills and qualifications compare to the other candidates and give them all a fair chance. If she's the best candidate for the job then she'll have it.

And if you have 3 people that are the best candidates and one of them offers more diversity of opinions which has been proven improves profits and stops echo chambers you hire the who who offers that, which means, if there are 95% men you probably hire the qualified woman to introduce a different perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

So either you are a racist douchebag or a triggered and butthurt liberal? Yeah, no. Some of us keep our opinions in the middle because we believe in moderation when it comes to social and political issues.

Somethings can be moderated some just shouldn't be.

Health care is one of those, America is literally the only western country where universal healthcare is seen as an ultra left liberal welfare shitty thing, meanwhile rest of the world doesn't see healthcare is a left or right issue, but just something people should have.

in this country everything is turned into a divisive issue.

[Felya]

So either you are a racist douchebag or a triggered and butthurt liberal? Yeah, no. Some of us keep our opinions in the middle because we believe in moderation when it comes to social and political issues.

A centrist would then be a little bit douchebag and a little bit triggered and butthurt liberal? I don’t see how that’s an argument to be in the middle... that sounds like an argument to walk out of the room.

[Deleted]

So you shouldnt blame the democratic party on their loss but everything else like berners and centrists and shame them with a condescending tone?
You are right. This strategy will prove fruitful for the democratic party in upcoming elections. Keep it up !

[rogueMatthias]

And if you have 3 people that are the best candidates and one of them offers more diversity of opinions which has been proven improves profits and stops echo chambers you hire the who who offers that, which means, if there are 95% men you probably hire the qualified woman to introduce a different perspective.

And what would this different perspective be, that a woman would automatically have but no man would? How to make a good sandwich in the kitchen?

You're assuming that "diversity of opinions" equates to diversity in race and gender. It doesn't. The idea that people will automatically have different viewpoints, opinions and ideas, just because of their gender and race is sexist and racist. I'm pretty sure it's the kind of thinking that we're meant to be fighting against.

Do tell me what different opinions and ideas a black man would bring, that a white man wouldn't, without making huge assumptions about their life and history.

[Themius]

And what would this different perspective be, that a woman would automatically have but no man would? How to make a good sandwhich in the kitchen?

You're assuming that "diversity of opinions" equates to diversity in race and gender. It doesn't. The idea that people will automatically have different viewpoints, opinions and ideas, just because of their gender and race is sexist and racist. I'm pretty sure it's what we're meant to be fighting against.

Do tell me what different opinions and ideas a black man would bring, that a white man wouldn't, without making huge assumptions about their life and history.

Without assuming black and whites people have difference experiences growing up? You want to gut an argument that is proven to be against yours before the argument has started?

As fed as proof we have a study looking at the comparison of boards by diversity and performance of those boards

[PC2]

@Wvvtayy

Nonpartisans are often critical of both sides. That's a good thing, criticism makes both sides better and more reasonable.

[GennGreymane]

@Wvvtayy

Nonpartisans are often critical of both sides. That's a good thing, criticism makes both sides better and more reasonable.

If only this forum had that

[rogueMatthias]

Without assuming black and whites people have difference experiences growing up? You want to gut an argument that is proven to be against yours before the argument has started?

Now you're conflating all black people and their individual experiences into one group experience. We can't assume the life and experience of a black individual by patterns in experiences of the group.

You could argue statistical likelihood... but that's the same argument people make for stop-and-searches targetting black people.

[Themius]

Now you're conflating all black people and their individual experiences into one group experience. We can't assume the life and experience of a black individual by patterns in experiences of the group.

You could argue statistical likelihood... but that's the same argument people make for stop-and-searches targetting black people.

Statically stop and search in new York found whites over represented in crimes, this due to whites being stopped due to being suspicious and blacks being stopped to meet quotas or be punished (according to officers who were brave enough to speak out).

We can assume that... just like we can assume the life of a woman is different than that of a man, or the life of a person who is African is different from that of a person is a black American. Why can't you assume that?

companies have done accidental race insensitive things towards indians.... blacks.... asians... due to mostly just lack of diversity in the company and the company just not catching the issue before hand which a person who was part of one of those races may have.

It is like a company say selling a shirt in Japan that says "yellow monkey" going ahead with it which then say causes at outrage... if they had a japanese person on the board perhaps they would be like "maybe we should rebrand it, yellow monkey was a racist term after ww2."

Simple things that like, unintentional, but very important.

[PC2]

If only this forum had that

Is there any Democratic policy stance you disagree with? Or do you 100% agree on everything?

[rogueMatthias]

We can assume that... just like we can assume the life of a woman is different than that of a man, or the life of a person who is African is different from that of a person is a black American. Why can't you assume that?

And we can assume that the life of a white man is different to the life of another white man. To argue that we should take race in to consideration when hiring, because of the diversity of thouht it brings is to argue that the difference in experience of a black person and white person is always larger than the difference in experience of a white person and any other white person.

This idea that there's one generic white experience is bordering on euro-centric. It reinforces the idea that "white" is the generic default "universal" race, and that other experiences are just deviations off this.

companies have done accidental race insensitive things towards indians.... blacks.... asians... due to mostly just lack of diversity in the company and the company just not catching the issue before hand which a person who was part of one of those races may have.

It is like a company say selling a shirt in Japan that says "yellow monkey" going ahead with it which then say causes at outrage... if they had a japanese person on the board perhaps they would be like "maybe we should rebrand it, yellow monkey was a racist term after ww2."

Simple things that like, unintentional, but very important.

We can't just be hiring people on the hopes that it will avoid very specific cases of cultural insensitivity.

So, lets say you're a New York company, you've hired one white guy from Brooklyn and you need to hire another person -

Person A) African American, grew up on the same street and went to the school as the person you've already hired.

Person B) White person, grew up in Malaysia and came to America to study.

Who do you hire now? What would be the "diverse" hire here? Are we still going to argue that the African American, by skin colour alone, will have had a greater difference in life experience and different thoughts and viewpoints that he can bring?

[GennGreymane]

Is there any Democratic policy stance you disagree with? Or do you 100% agree on everything?

What makes you think im a democrat?

[PC2]

What makes you think im a democrat?

I thought you said you worked for a Democratic candidate or Democrat politician at some point?

[Themius]

And we can assume that the life of a white man is different to the life of another white man. To argue that we should take race in to consideration when hiring, because of the diversity of thouht it brings is to argue that the difference in experience of a black person and white person is always larger than the difference in experience of a white person and any other white person.

This idea that there's one generic white experience, is bordering on euro-centric. It reinforces the idea that "white" is the generic default "universal" race, and that other experiences are just deviations off this.



We can't just be hiring people on the hopes that it will avoid very specific cases of cultural insensitivity.

So, lets say you're a New York company, you've hired one white guy from Brooklyn and you need to hire another person -

Person A) African American, grew up on the same street and went to the school as the person you've already hired.

Person B) White person, grew up in Malysia and came to America to study.

Who do you hire now? What would be the "diverse" hire here?

The life of two german ancestry white men in the north east is going to be more similar.

The life of two black americans within an area will also be similar

the life of two black women

two gay white men from the south

two gay men from the north east

will be more or less similar.

Person B is truly a fringe person who doesn't often pop up in practice. While person A may have grown up on the same street and went to the same school his experience will be very different.

If this is an American based company that is looking to connect with more people in their sphere of influence person A is the better choice due to differing local experiences. If they're looking to expand into Malaysia then person B would have valuable knowledge for expansion in that area.

[GennGreymane]

I thought you said you worked for a Democratic candidate or Democrat politician at some point?

I live in NY. There are only 2 senators. Not much of a choice.

[PC2]

I live in NY. There are only 2 senators. Not much of a choice.

Okay so you don't have any nonpartisans views or partisan views that do not align with the party you last supported?

[GennGreymane]

Okay so you don't have any nonpartisans views or partisan views that do not align with the party you last supported?

I am on my side. Im not one of the people here who die on the sword of others for the sake of making a fake point. Too many here seem to defend everything one side does while being critical of the other while claiming to be center. AKA its an incorrect statement to call themselves center

[Nihilanth]

What is a "radical centrist", you ask? Why, they're the people who try to act holier-than-thou and claim both major parties are equally bad to make themselves seem "above" the two party system. They're not capable of realizing that voting for a third party for anything outside the local level is a complete waste of time and is essentially the same as not voting at all. Trumps base alone isn't enough to get him reelected, but with the huge amounts of radical centrists throwing away their votes, those two factors combined are. Rather than pick the lesser of two evils, these geniuses opt to pick nothing at all and end up having the greater of two evils chosen for them. It's a shame how many of these people don't see the consequences of their inaction.

Would you have made the same thread chastising centrists and independents if Crooked Hillary had gotten elected?

[PC2]

I am on my side. Im not one of the people here who die on the sword of others for the sake of making a fake point. Too many here seem to defend everything one side does while being critical of the other while claiming to be center. AKA its an incorrect statement to call themselves center

Would you die on a sword for any idea or principle?

[GennGreymane]

Would you die on a sword for any idea or principle?

My own. Why should I do it for others who only use me or *the actual case* have no idea I exist, yet benefit from me defending anything they do.