How Does One Stop Being a Centrist?

Is being a Centrist all that bad?

How does one who commits to a particular political ideology not feel like a charlatan? You have to tow the same moral line all the time and if you ever change your opinion, you become associated as a traitor.

Surely this is stupid? I have many a time held an opinion on something and had it flip entirely the other way after reading an essay or a book as I'm sure many people have experienced.

Despite this, I feel as though I should probably have opinions on these matters without always having to sit on the fence and see the merit to both sides.

One I find great difficulty in is the topic of Abortion.

How the bloody hell does someone form an opinion on that?

On the one hand, I believe the mother should be able to cast out something lesser than child if it brings the mother greater ill. Certainly the anti-natalist has a point that existence is suffering and bringing an unwanted child into the world would only exacerbate such a thing. What if a woman is raped? Could one really bring oneself to force another to do that? And even in the case of non-rape, what business does a state have in an individual's affairs with a child that has not even been born? What manner could that state protect that child without forcibly subjugating the mother? This would only be hypocritical and rather nonsensical as in terms of work potential and physicality, the mother is clearly superior to the unborn child.

On the other hand, where does one determine the metaphysics of life? Either it exists at a particular point or it exists always, and seeing as people are divided upon when, then I am closer to believing always. Is it really 'right' to cast out something which causes you pain? Would someone do the same thing to a vegetable human who had no family and was friends with no one? If you would not pull his plug, why would you pull the plug of a child/potential child? Surely this scientific conception of life is far too reductive.


Any books recommendations on Centrism or Anti-Centrism?

Read Zizek's Violence. It has some great criticism of fence sitters.

>How the bloody hell does someone form an opinion on that?

By reading J.J. Thompson's essay and realize pro-lifers were eternally and irrevocably blown the fuck out intellectually almost half a century ago.

Could you summarise the arguments?

This has nothing to do with Veeky Forums

>tow the same moral line
It's "toe the line".

One thing you can do is try to focus on "the real". On the issue of abortion we are often debating the fate of an abstract notion of a child not an actual child, the actual child hasn't been born and raised. Because of this abortion should be a non-issue but the "pro-life" argument has confused the debate by changing definitions of life to be the potential of life.

Read some stuff by Orwell, I suggest his essay on the degradation of language. Something else would be Marx's philosophical essays and Deborg's Society of the Spectacle as well as some Lacan (if you don't want to go into depth the summaries that can be found online capture the essence of their arguments).

My own theory is that centrists aren't ideologically centrists they are just confused and restricted by a limited vocabulary which confines their world view into often contradictory positions (Orwell's NewSpeak).

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

By abandoning your reliance on the categories of "left" and "right" to identify political affiliations.

You should really ask - who is paying this person?

because I hate democrats and liberals, that's why I'm a hardcore republican.

There's literally nothing wrong with being centrist.
If it works for Clausewitz, it works for me.

Being a true centrist in America woulf mean to be slightly left of the democrat party, whatever the fuck that means.

Anyways, take your spooks and fuck off Veeky Forums.

Living in New Hampshire is fucking great. The government, left and right, has been elected on the basis of bothering you as little as possible. Government in New Hampshire is formulated so as to provide funding for schools, police, and fire departments. That is it. Otherwise "government" is local elections and zoning boards. There are so few coloreds outside Manchester and Concord, and they are usually foreign nationals on H-1B visas as doctors and are respectable. The forests and mountains are beautiful and insular. Truly, it is the best place in America. I laugh at the other locations tied up in their spooks.

Take the redpill, cuck

You shouldn't ask yourself a question of left/right orientation on the political spectrum.

Your spectrum needs to be much broader than this, you need to evaluate your morality on a fundamental level. To do this you need to evaluate knowledge and existence itself.
Luckily we have centuries of philosophy to aid us in this, I firmly believe that starting at the beginning is drastically helpful for people struggling to evaluate something in a modern context.

You need to go through an existential crisis, it's something that many people do at a young adult age but it's crucial for developing your world view later in life.
Do you believe in God or any concepts of divinity/spirituality? Do you believe in a universal sense of morality? Do you accept Nietzsche?

If you can answer these questions then you wont have any trouble evaluating your political beliefs, the answer should be simple

this

user, about the centrist bit, first realize it's not just binary, this way or the other. The source of this is anyone in either side themselves. Ask 10 people what it means to be left or to be right and you'll have 10 different answers, given that they recognize themselves as left or right. These words are relative, you can only go so far with them. Secondly, I advise you to acknowledge and cut with this pressure to position yourself about everything, not only that, but to position yourself with this certainty that you think you should have. There is no problem with not having an opinion, or having an opinion and changing it. Don't worry about where you stand, worry about what you are looking at, what you see and what ways you see to change it, maintain it, shape it, etc. It's what you say about the world that will position yourself in it and, believe me, because of the first point, people will say a lot of different things about you (that you are radical or easy, that you are true or phony and so on).

On your matter of abortion, you seem to have fallen for a very common issue in this discussion, which is to confuse the debate on abortion for a moral universal debate about life. No one is in favour of abortions (even when people phrase it that way themselves), no one wants more abortions, or thinks it is a good thing to be having. Abortion is an extremely traumatic event that involves messy personal situations. The question that is brought up is a legal question only, that is, if abortion should or should not be punished by law. Focus on that. Instead of asking yourself if the mother is right or wrong, or to which particular situation these terms would apply, think about what effects punishing the mother for having an abortion may have, not only for a given mother in question, but for the possible rise of clandestine abortions, or if abortions are sought after only because the punishment is not severe enough. Is it a health issue or a security issue? Could it be discussed in other terms? Etc. Some places where abortion was legalized, the number of abortions diminished.

Be careful, not only for this question, but for others, not to confuse a legal matter for a moral one. When the catholic church was against condoms, they were defending in a very logical and non-contraditory way that they think sex should happen between married couples and let the possibility of having a baby to God. But in a very practical and down to earth way, the effect this message has is an increase of the spread of stds, and prejudice against those who acquired it.When someone is arrested, it is not a natural and logical reaction to something that he has done that is "bad" and that would put us in a position to discuss what is bad and what isn't. It has more to do with what we believe we will get with arresting that person (isolating to avoid reccurrence, or punishing by example, etc). Anyway, read Foucault.

Centrism is a legitimate political ideology in and of itself. Calling it a "compromise" between left and right and acting like centrists are just too meek to have a strong opinion on either side of the political compass is pretty foolish imo

Hmmm read books?

this. I didn't realize how aggressively centrist I was until this last election.
What a fucking shitshow.

if half of the people want to get shot in the face and the other half want to get stabbed in the back they can all go to hell.

Start
With
The
Greeks
,
Embryo

Wrong.

There are many valid critiques of that essay.

Ask or /pol/

being apolitical is a thing. the reason politically aligned people get so triggered by it is that they're pretty much just loons and it becomes really hard to miss that if you don't treat them as alternatives to each other.

you know how the only convincing (relatively) argument by /pol/ is things the "YOU'RE FUCKING WHITE" people have said? the only reason those think they have a point is that genuine racists exist. if one of those stopped existing the other would die too. extremists have a very large need of each other.

centrists are the nigger hitlers of poltics also not litutre

Abortion, I grant you, is a tricky one, however on the wider question of centrism/extremism, i would say you are starting from the endpoint. On each political issue, simply ask yourself what seems to you to be the best way of handling it, based on your more fundamental ideas about humans and why we do things and what is worthwhile etc.. Once you have informed opinions about various aspects of government, then you can see if they all have a common theme or seem to fit a label or ideology, rather than starting with the name and working backwards.

Don't fall for the "rational moderate" meme. All societies can be improved and "extremism" is not bad.

you voted hillary though

Reminder that frogposters should be shot in public executions.

Centrism is a terrible political position, OP, because it itself does not propose a concept of justice, it is only relative to current oposing tendencies. If you are a centrist, then you probably haven't found out a principle of justice. Political ideologies are formulated and derived from principles. If you acknowledge justice, then, as a moral agent, you would suposedly want complete justice, not half justice, so there would be no point in being a centrist. Moderation is itself a negation of compromise toward justice, especially if the current political paradigm finds itself between two terrible tendencies. My tip for you is to try to find out the correct principle of justice, which itself requires epistemological ground, and then compare it to others to see how it stands out. Also, don't come asking Veeky Forums for political literature if you want anything other than orthodox marxist garbage or post-modern non-knowledge.

The question of abortion, for instance, rests ultimately on the ontological-moral-and-then-legal status of the being conceived. If he is subject to rights, then it is unethical to abort, if he isn't, then it is not unethical to do so. (Tip: It is.)

That essay is very weak, if you think that has blown the fuck out pro-lifers then you probably don't read much moral philosophy.

This post is laughable.

Adding to that, you don't need to be an ideological activist just because you are philosophically "extremist" and not centrist. You actually shouldn't, since activists are usually the most despicable people around.

>yeah man, stop trying to make your beliefs a reality, that's so fucking lame
>just be apathetic and vaguely condescending like me

You sound pretty defensive. The problem with activists, beside the proselytism, is that it is an inheritly bothering position, taking positive action towards converting people who want to be left alone, living their lifestyles, or worse, trying to impose your own political beliefs on them through governmental coercion. I myself am a ethical absolutist, and yet I absolutely despise activists on my side of the spectrum, even more the ones on the other side. Besides, much of the political structure is based upon common sense belief, therefore activism is usually not very effective, much less if done in the wrong manner, which happens most of the time.

>not trying to impose your will on others
Limp-wristed cuck. If everyone was like you we would have no great men.

>/pol/ boogeyman

I'm not against that. Morality is itself a question of choice, so, philosophically, adopting a might-makes-right position is logically a negation of morality, which itself requires universalization, so, it's a choice between morality and non-morality, and the only person who makes a case for non-morality internally (but not externally) consistent is Stirner. In that sense, no conception of justice can be non-contradictory if it is based on a subjugation between equal moral agents. If you believe in non-morality, then you may not complain when your instinctive moral conception gets offended.

Practically though, there are a lot of evil moral agents in the world. Their practices offer danger to justice as their acts are precisely dedicated to the destruction of objective justice, so physically removing them from civil society is perfectly acceptable.

>I'm not against that. Morality is itself a question of choice, so, philosophically, adopting a might-makes-right position is logically a negation of morality, which itself requires universalization, so, it's a choice between morality and non-morality, and the only person who makes a case for non-morality internally (but not externally) consistent is Stirner. In that sense, no conception of justice can be non-contradictory if it is based on a subjugation between equal moral agents. If you believe in non-morality, then you may not complain when your instinctive moral conception gets offended.
Faulty logic. Why do you assume that everybody's moral choices are fundamentally equal? Why believe in a "right" and not want to impose those morals on others? Why let them lose their way?
>Practically though, there are a lot of evil moral agents in the world. Their practices offer danger to justice as their acts are precisely dedicated to the destruction of objective justice, so physically removing them from civil society is perfectly acceptable.
There is no such thing as "objective justice". There is only my justice. You're a bit too deep into value judgement.

Both sides are so easily offended by the opposing side it makes being a centrist the obvious choice.

>Why do you assume that everybody's moral choices are fundamentally equal?
Didn't say that.

>Why believe in a "right" and not want to impose those morals on others?
Didn't say that. The very conception of a right is that it can be enforced. Therefore, it should be enforced in order to make justice. Even though in practice a perfect justice can never be achieved, we can get closest to justice if it is enforced as often as possible. The problem lies precisely in the monopoly of "justice-providing" found in a state, because it itself is outside of the universality of justice, and therefore cannot provide justice because it exists through injustice. On that point, justice can be more closely achieved through complete decentralization of justice, where moral agents are indeed separate entities capable of making moral choices that are not previously determined thought legislation, which tends to deteriorate justice, but subject to universal categories of justice.

>There is no such thing as "objective justice". There is only my justice.
That brings me to the second point, which is that you are arguing for moral solipsism (which is itself an oxymoron). Justice is necessarily a question of which actions can be justifiably pursued and which ones cannot. Ethical questions only come up when at least two agents are involved in a conflict, therefore ethical questions are always aimed at the resolution of conflicts between agents. As such, a morality cannot depend its structure on the mere will or opinion of one agent (or both), because in that case might would make right, and coercion would be equal to justice, but coercion is not a logical justification of what actions can and cannot be justified, it is simply coercion. Justice is based on the transcendental structure of epistemology and action, or it can be abandoned in preference of non-morality. But you cannot refuse universal justice and oppose a particular conception of justice without falling into a practical contradiction, since you are yourself arguing for a conception of justice in that same act.

It's all just one big assblast

What a fucking stupid thread
Centrist doesn't mean "ehhh I can't decide on anything... help I'm stuck in the middle"

It means not adhering to certain standpoints just because of the other people who adhere to them. It means deciding on each issue individually regardless off the two sides think about them. It means not basing your entire world view on an easy-to-digest template

What is wrong with you people, I thought Veeky Forums of all boards would understand that

So it basically means pick-and-choosing beliefs on the hot political topics and not developing a coherent worldview?

...

You really think that the only coherent world views are the ones that have power and/or have already been developed to fruition?

You are an absolute moron advocating for having your political beliefs spoonfed to you

Anyone else here redpilled and against women and minorities?

>Didn't say that. The very conception of a right is that it can be enforced. Therefore, it should be enforced in order to make justice. Even though in practice a perfect justice can never be achieved, we can get closest to justice if it is enforced as often as possible. The problem lies precisely in the monopoly of "justice-providing" found in a state, because it itself is outside of the universality of justice, and therefore cannot provide justice because it exists through injustice. On that point, justice can be more closely achieved through complete decentralization of justice, where moral agents are indeed separate entities capable of making moral choices that are not previously determined thought legislation, which tends to deteriorate justice, but subject to universal categories of justice.
Can you elaborate? You seem to have a very narrow conception of "justice".

>That brings me to the second point, which is that you are arguing for moral solipsism (which is itself an oxymoron). Justice is necessarily a question of which actions can be justifiably pursued and which ones cannot. Ethical questions only come up when at least two agents are involved in a conflict, therefore ethical questions are always aimed at the resolution of conflicts between agents. As such, a morality cannot depend its structure on the mere will or opinion of one agent (or both), because in that case might would make right, and coercion would be equal to justice, but coercion is not a logical justification of what actions can and cannot be justified, it is simply coercion. Justice is based on the transcendental structure of epistemology and action, or it can be abandoned in preference of non-morality. But you cannot refuse universal justice and oppose a particular conception of justice without falling into a practical contradiction, since you are yourself arguing for a conception of justice in that same act.
So basically you're advocating for "justice" as some sort of separate, ideal, inhuman idea and not as a product and creation of the struggle between agents. No matter what any philosopher thinks, in judicial questions might ALWAYS makes right, and our societies are all based on coercion to an extent. Coercion IS justice, there is nothing beyond coercion.

You seem to not understand your own post. So basically you think "centrism" is having opinions on issues that aren't either Democrat or Republican? Why are we discussing this in that case? In any case, most "centrists" you meet in real life are even more drones than the most extreme right or left-wingers.

No, centrism is forming your opinions on every issue without paying mind to what "side" each answer to that issue is associated with. If you think that's unreasonable you are absolutely daft.

For instance, I agree with the left in many ways, but I completely disagree with the left on issues like welfare, communism, Islam, and affirmative action. Sometimes I agree with the right, but I completely disagree with the right on issues like environmentalism, climate change, private property, and a completely unregulated market.

So it's an American politics thing? Why not build a principled worldview instead of haphazardly forming opinions based on whatever the talking heads on TV think is important?

It's kind of hard not making it an American-politics based thing when I live in America and it's all anyone's been talking about for my entire life but I'm trying

>Can you elaborate?
I suggest you to read Stephan Kinsella's essay, "New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory", specially this passage:

What would it mean to have a right? Whatever else rights might be, certainly it is the case that rights are legitimately enforceable; that is, one who is physically able to enforce his right may not be prevented from doing so. In short, having a right allows one to legitimately punish the violator of the right, or to legitimately use force to prevent another from violating the right. The only way one could be said to not have a right would be if the attempt to punish a violator of the right is for some reason unjustifiable. But clearly this problem itself can arise only when the alleged criminal objects to being punished, for if criminals consented to punishment we would not face the problem of justifying the punishment. (Journal of Libertarian Studies, 12:2, 1996, p. 307)

Even if you are not a libertarian (of any sort), this is a valid reading.

>So basically you're advocating for "justice" as some sort of separate, ideal, inhuman idea and not as a product and creation of the struggle between agents.
No, I'm advocating for the only option of objective justice, which is based on the transcendental structure of action and justification. Kant started this enterprise but did not fully end it. Justice is not a product of the struggle between agents, it is the application of a principle capable of determining what actions can and cannot be pursued, and thus justifying which agent is right and which is wrong in said conflict. It is a construction, but that requires universalization, so it is not at all what legal positivists propose when they reject morality in exchange for sovereignty. You are using coercion, which is the practice through which justice materializes, as the starting point of morality, but it is the other way around. Whether or not coercion can be used to make justice depends first on justice, not coercion. Coercion itself doesn't justify the conception of justice, because it is not even an argumentative enterprise, which, as you I said, is the starting point for ethical questions. You are inverting things. That's why there is only absolute justice OR injustice, you can't have both. If coercion is justice, then anything is justice, or, better put, nothing is justice. From the same short essay, which can be found online, I suggest you to read the "Rights-Skepticism" section, it adresses your objection.

And by the way I do have some principles I always try to hold myself to
-Do not speak for anyone and do not listen to anyone speaking on the behalf of anyone else unless they are a genuine authority to those people
-Only judge people based on their individual actions, and never give anyone the benefit of the doubt
-Approach the objective objectively and the emotional emotionally