Contemporary civilisation consists of hundreds of countries...

It's the subtextual authentic dialectic that matters not the pretense of positionality itself. Go read Hegel

Where in Hegel can I read about the subtextual authentic dialectic and positionality pretenses?

Philosophy of Right covers it well

>both right wing and left are progressively become more and more extreme and retarded every month
>still considered worse to be a centrist

why is this?

Because a Centrist is just an idiot who let's other people decide his opinions for him

The opposite is true. Centrists will try to look at each issue individually while left/right robots will force their ideological interpretations onto every single one.

Thanks, I actually have that book. Which section?

Doesn't make any sense, why would you a-priori assume after looking at each issue you would not end up at a Left or Right Wing position

The third section, runs a little into the fourth

>why would you a-priori assume after looking at each issue you would not end up at a Left or Right Wing position

Because both Leftists and right wingers are progressively become more and more extreme and retarded every month

> Being a centrist
> Not having a mixture of extreme right and extreme left positions that everyone else considers incoherent and insane

And? What if one of them is moving in the correct direction and the other the wrong direction to compensate

>What if one of them is moving in the correct direction and the other the wrong direction to compensate

And what if both are retarded? I don't want to take part in either.

And your solution is you're going to take part in both instead?

>>can't differentiate coming at something with prejudice from making an informed judgment based on a case

>>can't differentiate coming at something with prejudice from forming an informed judgment based on a case

How do you differenciate this? Seriously

Because that is what matters now to concrete problems. you can't use tradition to escape deciding if the State should regulate the economy or if immigration should be contained.
You have to decide.

That's not what centrism means. It's just a rejection of extreme idiologies that looks for common sense logical solutions rather than having political parties dictate what you think.

Thanks, I'll look into it.

use the brain

>That's not what centrism means.

Yes it does, because the moment your "common sense" leads you to and particular side you stop being a centrist. Literally the only way to be a committed centrist is to just balance your opinions based on other peoples

>because the moment your "common sense" leads you to and particular side you stop being a centrist

Well it hasn't so far. Sorry I'm not an oversensitive SJW libtard, nor a retarded nazi conservacuck.

>political ideologues can't handle the idea that being a radical is typically a bad thing
>worldview shattering
>"centerists don't have opinions REEEEEEEEE!!!!"

Maybe I'm not understanding you but why do you think it's important to have a same political bias for every issue?

No instead you're just a nothing, a flat lump of pussymeat waiting to be fingered and fucked in whatever direction others wish you to

>but why do you think it's important to have a same political bias for every issue?

Logical consistency for a start

>fingered and fucked in whatever direction others wish you to

How does refusing to join a group of retards make me that?

>I rape centrists

>"NUH-UH! YOU SUCK!"

This is fucking hilarious

and?

Because you're not refusing them, you're submitting to them.
A centrist in Nazi Germany was a half hearted Nazi, a centrist in the USSR only wanted to purge half the Kulaks.
Its more dignified to just have no opinions at all

...

Strategic alliance

You're talking about crises, most political contexts don't require such commitment.

........

We'll need an example, or do you mean in a context of war?

Centrists back then were probably so stupid they didn't think they were in a crisis either. Plenty of reasons to describe the current situation as a dangerous precipice

>he doesn't go to violent political protests and beat up people on both sides to demonstrate his radical political apathy

>Plenty of reasons to describe the current situation as a dangerous precipice
Why do you say that?
inb4 postmodernism is pure evil

No I mean simply, say you believe unborn babies shouldn't be killed arbitrarily, you vote right and you get support from people who care about their guns not being taken away. Your positions may not matter as much to each other but you vote together because your network overlaps more than the Leftists who want to kill babies and take your guns

The fact is in any situation where influence grows exponentially with cooperation it is straight up retarded to believe it sensible to try act as a free agent in which case you may as well be not acting at all

Well let's look around these days we have nazis on one side and feminazis on the other and I hate them both.

how does it feel knowing you didn't major in anything STEM?

What I get from your example is that a strategic alliance like the one you describe does nothing for the logical consistency you claim to value. It even seems unlogical.

>Why do you say that?

Because with the rate of technological, communication, resource and environmental change in this post-colonial post-Cold War post-secular world stage the future of any society is totally up for grabs. The amount of changes we're seeing generation ally dwarfs what occurred for several centuries. I struggle to think what could register a given situation as more of a crisis outside a literal world war.

>Hegel
>covers
>well

this has to be bait

I'm a CS major you stupid fuck.

Because you have to apply logical consistency on an super-rational landscape. Its schizophrenic and memey but thems the breaks, there's no other legitimate option unless a Napoleonic hero comes along but we can't hold out for that

It'd be nice if that was what reality was like in America, but that isn't where we are.
Politics is more of a fervent team sport here than football is. People take in whatever news already agrees with them and panders to what they want to hear, so they hear stories that support their team color and demonize the other all day every day with no exposure to the news that might make them stop to consider things.
You have echo chambers like Reddit where Trump's entire administration is days away from being arrested en masse and echo chambers like Fox and conservative radio where Hillary runs a shadow government that is trying to destroy the bold freedom fighters of the MAGA movement.
Both echo chambers result in such a skewed misrepresentation of reality that to say they're indoctrinating people is an understatement.

Then what would you say is the appropriate political response to the situation? Extremism?

>Extremism

Yep. Steve Bannon figured it out through very deleuzien wisdom.

>he doesn't believe we're entering into the Caeserian stage of civilization a la Spengler
It's civilizational superorganisms all the way down my friend

Now you write like you're just talking to yourself. Why is it imperative to apply this logical consistency on a super-rational landscape? What do you even mean by that?

Fuck backward political extremists everywhere. Every generation you faggots claim to have the best answers and next steps for humanity but you always end up buckling underneath your own bullshit. Half of you are probably in or just graduated college.

JFC, stop being so goddamn dense

>fuckin abolitionists why can't they just stop pushing for their rogue ideology!?

mouthbreather the argument traditionalists make isnt to reduce everything into 1322 feudal villages

I highly doubt you're majoring in CS

I don't understand why the situation in the USA would warrant extremism from right-wingers, who just had their candidate elected. Or is it about americans being extremists in a international context?

>Bannon
>Deleuze
>deleuzien wisdon

I had a chuckle friendo, thanks

This is so people not informed in a variety of subjects are conveniently boxed. E.g. "I consider myself right wing, but I haven't really looked into environmentalism. Fox says it's leftist drivel, so yeah, fuck the environment, let's make a profit". Of course there are also leftist equivalents, this is just the example that came to mind

>Why is it imperative to apply this logical consistency on a super-rational landscape?

Because its generally the only efficient means through which you can affect a change in the world you desire. What I mean by it is be a Nazi when you need to be a Nazi, be a moderate when you need to be a moderate be a Leftist when you need to be a Leftist. Analyze the current tensions and apply pressure to the points which will move the discourse in your preferred direction. Such as Napoleon did.

Not him but Deleuze is not the lefty you might think he is.

Well I am, so whatever. What do you want, me to explain the structure of a Linked-List?

Trump was just a rallying totem and as we've seen an ineffective one. While him as a project failed he was a proof of concept of what can be possible once a true leader takes the podium.

Autism speaks

nice job googling advanced CS first link that shows up lmao.

It seems to me now that you're probably an authoritarian, who thinks the end justifies the means, who would say anything to advance his agenda. With this mindset, it's not hard to be logically consistent, I must admit.

>Linked-Lists
>Advanced

simultaneously a backwards and extreme insult, at least it wasn't political. I'm willing to be told why I'm wrong, but I can't imagine anyone taking the position that abolition was anything but an extreme political position when it was first introduced. And I'm sure that pro-slavery proponents saw slavery as an advancement in human culture from the previous chaos of neolithic egalitarianism, so you could even say it was backwards, from their perspective.

>nobody who disagrees with me could ever be part of le STEM master race!
I study physics and probably disagree with you on pretty much everything, my friend

Not that guy, but ends justifies the means comes from all camps. For instance, Alinsky, a famous egalitarian, based his entire modus operandi on "ends justify the means."

again, doubtful.

The end justifies the means is an extremist idea.

extremists =/= authoritarian.

Ancaps are extremists.

Is this some weird attempt at trolling? Do you think every student that studies STEM shares your worldview?

Why the need to specify that?

I think he means
anarchism=bad
authoritarian capitalism=good

Did you not read your own comment? You called him an authoritarian, but he hasn't really written anything that makes me think he's authoritarian.

Also I'm not sure what he's advocating is quite the same as "ends justify the means". Imagine a completely different example than him. Say, a black person in the reconstruction era. Neither democrats nor republicans represented a black person particularly well in terms of all their beliefs lining up, or even the majority. Does that mean a black person just shouldn't vote? No, he should vote with what produces the best results for himself.

That seems to be what this individual above is saying.

>he hasn't really written anything that makes me think he's authoritarian
try again

what a purile remark. Saying rectangles are not squares does not mean
diamonds = bad
squares = good

Based on your failure to comprehend both what he wrote and what I wrote, I think it's more likely you need to try again, although we both know you won't.

This dude knows whats up

Are you me?

>yeah bros! having no serious convictions at all and just jerking off over how "individualist" and "free-thinking" you are is the ultimate political discourse!

Jews aren't white. You're probably a jew

>user calls for a Napoleon-like political hero figure
>he wrote nothing authrotarian
Veeky Forums is full of retards

there is no fourth part

me

What if you look at each issue individually but your conclusions are generally left or right wing anyway? Are you still a centrist?

based

...