Centrism

Made a better thread here (OP)

Fuck off nigger

>Political theory
>Not Veeky Forums
It's only when someone starts sperging out about contemporary politics it will become /pol/.

While I generally despise the idea of "muh invisible hand of the free market will sort everything out", I'm not sure I identify as a socialist. I think a good model states should shoot for is the State Capitalist/"Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" system China practices (although I think China needs to allow a larger private sector and downsize more state-owned enterprises) where the government always has greater power than business, and where firms are expected to be patriotic and serve the nation.

I'm not sure if that's socialist or not. I think I would need to read more socialist theory before I felt comfortable calling myself a socialist.

But you're not talking about it in a historical context. There would be no problems if I, say, made a thread talking about the most successful sports team of the 1950's, but if I were to just create a thread saying "what do you think about _____ team?", that clearly would be an off-topic thread.

>But you're not talking about it in a historical context.
You don't have to. Veeky Forums isn't solely history.

I'm aware, taking humanities into consideration doesn't change my point

There's literally nothing wrong with not being an extremist

Let me tell you this way without sounding like /pol/ I can have centrist views, be a classic liberal and not be an extremist and at the same time I can also oppose George Soros and the Koch Brothers as well. I can hate extremists and George Soros at the same time.

Remember, anons, all political debates literally come down to your opponent saying that we should throw kittens into a belnder! Your side is always objectively right, and anybody who says the answer lies somewhere in the middle is a fucking retard!

>that pic
>Centrists hold borderline middle opinions for every political instance

If someone holds both definitive "right" and "left" views, what does that make them?

this

A Nazi, literally

...

>argue with /leftypol/tards
>get called a /pol/tard
>argue with /pol/tards
>get called a /leftypol/tard
there's no winning

you forgot that
>& humanities
is allowed here

Thank you for your sacrifice anons, Now go participate in local politics and leave this forsaken place

Even if those views are moderate? or are you implying that holding views from both sides of the political spectrum makes you a radical?

Centrism eventually leads to fascism so yall should be grateful

>If someone holds both definitive "right" and "left" views, what does that make them?
A person who understands that "left" and "right" are completely meaningless terms. It does not mean "between them", but rather "not acknowledging the spectrum".
>Is Centrism a meme?
Yes.

Both, platforms change for the opportunity and if you oppose it tgen let's say, the Democrats declare you a Nazi. Without that, even wanting universal healthcare and controlling immigration in order to sustain it, that too makes you a Nazi. Valuing free speech objectively instead of just when it's convenient, makes you a Nazi. Taking several core platforms from both sides, makes you a Nazi.
Without these people labelling you comes the issue that, being a nationalist who advocates social welfare programs, aligns you very closely with the Nazis actual platform.

Then again you can however take the detrimental platform and be a corporatist liberal instead.

>being a nationalist who advocates social welfare programs, aligns you very closely with the Nazis actual platform
Alright, now you're just exaggerating. I'm unsure of what political climate you're living in whereby supporting classical liberalism makes you a nazi

petey pete gets called a nazi quite frequently

Classical liberalism is the most rational ideology.

Yes

When the points of the detractors boil down to "extremists r dumb!!!11" there isn't much to argue about.

If you genuinely believe the right answer is always in the middle of two extremes and base all your opinions on that you're pretty dumb, but nobody does that and for some reason political discussion in 2017 holds that you are a meme-centrist if you're not literally either a Stalinist or an AnCap.

>political discussion in 2017 holds that you are a meme-centrist if you're not literally either a Stalinist or an AnCap
only if you spend a considerable amount of time on the politics section of a certain Taiwanese handbag repair tutorial forum

It's not just /pol/ though. Left-leaning communities on Reddit, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. also spout the "centrists have no convictions" meme.

Good for them, why should anyone conform to the political regulations set out by anonymous strangers on the internet? If you want to believe in a political ideology, believe in it.

There was a big Askreddit thread a while back asking people on each side what convictions they held from the "other" group. It boiled down for the most part to conservatives that are okay with gay marriage and harmless drugs, and liberals who liked owning guns and disliked PC culture. Seems like most people in this generation would vote for a "Leave Me Alone" candidate if they gained traction in an election

>Seems like most people in this generation would vote for a "Leave Me Alone" candidate if they gained traction in an election
Everyone votes for the most "leave me and my shit alone" candidate.

>Seems like most people in this generation would vote for a "Leave Me Alone" candidate if they gained traction in an election
The problem is that most of those candidates are globalists, like the Libertarian party of America is.

>conservatives that are okay with gay marriage and harmless drugs

Just shows you how meaningless that kind of conservatism is desu

It's not meaningless. They want more personal responsibility and less government handouts. I don't know a single conservative that thinks the welfare state is a good thing, it's a pretty commonly held belief across the conservative spectrum that the welfare state should be at the very least severely reduced, if not outright abolished.

serious convictions or beliefs are for utter brainlets. everyone should be a radical pragmatist. ideology is for monkeys.

"Conservatism" in the US is a nonsensical mixture of economic libertarians, religious fundamentalists, and military loving pseudo-fascists.

I don't know. Most conservatives I know outside of government jobs are comfortable with a libertarian political stance that lets them live their own lives and advocate for conservative morals in a non-binding way. It's just the ones who get absorbed into a big institution - usually government, but megachurches and huge multinational corporations too - that get a taste for authoritarianism and want to fight unwinnable wars on poor drug-runners and college kids. The former group I can get along with, but the latter sets my teeth on edge.

Globalism should be separate and distinct from desiring a more free, open society within a country's borders. If you believe in high standards for consumer protections, worker protections, environmental conservation, and public safety, why would you deregulate movement into and out of places that prioritize none of those things? The answer, of course, is a desire to optimize profit margins or obtain desirable voting constituencies.

It's one thing to believe that the welfare state is inefficient to the taxpayer and creates a culture of dependency and political rent-seeking, but another to believe that letting children with abusive or drug-addicted parents starve is supported by a modern code of ethics.

Centrists are pussies that think they're above it all and don't pick a side because they're indecisive cunts.

It exists that way because Ronald Reagan forged a "big tent" party of those exact constituencies, correctly understanding them to be 1) pillars of the self-image of American masculinity (self-sufficiency, faith, and courage) and 2) the demographics most likely to vote in a post-party bosses electoral setting. That's why so many Republican elected officials refer to the GOP as the "party of Lincoln and Reagan", because they recognize him as the architect of their very existence.