The Fallacy of Centrism

[Runnymeede]

I am not implying anything. I said that black communities suffer from more crime.


And is the prevalence of police the cause of that? Or maybe it's just because urban areas with high populations of African-Americans have higher rates of crime than anywhere else.


I would not want to strawman you, so if you have the time I would appreciate it if you would give an explanation as to how this is relevant before I reply.


I understand that posting smug and condescending remarks towards others on the internet might make you feel better about whatever problems you have offline, but it does not get us anywhere in this discussion.

Aw pookums. Leave your psych 101 homework for class.

I will assume you just misread.

My claim: The police have a higher presence in black communities because there is more crime in black communities
Not my claim: That black communities have higher rates of crime because there are more police present.

You might want to re-read what you actually wrote then. You can either have more police=less crime or people are policed more because of more crime but you can't have both.

Believing that black people should not receive the services that they pay taxes for is an interesting position, but you are entitled to your own beliefs.

Do you feel good about that one? Weren't you the one who just said dismissive things about smug and condescending responses and then you trot out this nonsense?

Who hurt you?

[EuroStralia]

Still a plot point, and shouldn't be allowed in schools with kids.

I assume that you also believe in banning To Kill a Mockingbird.

Time is a flat fucking circle.

Yes I do.

[Wizlandia]

Still a plot point, and shouldn't be allowed in schools with kids.

I assume that you also believe in banning To Kill a Mockingbird.

"Banned" from Burbank Unified School District and Mukilteo School District. Not exactly run by Republicans.

Regardless, while I don't support removing To Kill a Mockingbird specifically, as a general principle curating books from public school libraries is not a ban or a violation of free speech principles. No-one has the right to demand certain books be bought and shelved for children on the taxpayer's dime, and no-one's speech is being restricted because of it. And there's no reason why the public is obligated in allowing predominantly left-wing teachers and librarians to dictate what books should or should not get stocked.

[James_xenoland]

Oof at the poll.. "Far Right - Republican"

Well that certainly is strike one for taking opinions seriously. With us or against us kinds of mentalities are the product of the most simplistic and uncritical of thinking imaginable. Having an absolutist opinion is easy.. don't need to think about anything. Truly thinking things through and looking critically is the most difficult. The mark of true wisdom and maturity.

I like "The Fallacy of The Fallacy of Centrism" even better.

[Wizlandia]

I challenge you to come up with one good reason to ban the book Antiracist Baby, wgich was banned by Clay County, Florida, and by all accounts seems harmless.

It's a useless book, as it teaches something reasonable people already know.

Plus the author is a renowned racist and supports racial discrimination as a matter of public policy. The book itself also tries to subtly give cover to a racist movement.

I'm sure there are much better books available criticising racism.

[Wizlandia]

I don't know what you want me to say. Police presence lowers crime. Should the police redirect their resources away from black communities?

Actually yes, the places with the highest crime have the highest concentration of cops, and the presence of police does little to actually stop crime. In fact, it makes the violence worse, as the presence of police is very threatening and cops don’t have the best track record of De-escalating violence. Plus institutionalized racism.

You're getting cause and effect wrong. High crime --> High police presence, not the other way around. The way you study the true effect is by using natural experiments, e.g. maybe after some black-swan event the government decides to increase policing in a certain area. This way you remove endogeneity.

[Gbogbo Eniyan Naijiria Gbajumo]

"Far Right (Regressive, Republican, etc.)"


Republicans aren't far right, they're moderate / centre right. Not many republicans are Proud Boys members or Neo-Nazi's, you see.

[Great Ornamentya]

The further away you are from relating to centrism the more crazy you are. I couldn't name a single extremist state that didn't end up killing people and/or collapsing on it's own rather quickly, except for North Korea, and honestly just look at them. Anarchy, Communism and Authoritarianism are objetively wrong government systems unless literally everyone agrees with them when and during they are being executed.

[The South Bloc]

Posting on my tiny 400 mil pop nation... what am I doing with my life these days?

ah well.

I'm proposing something really crazy. Fanatical, even. What if we decide to make political alignment simpler?

Look, I know you're like "FSC, that's crazy talk, I mean, where would we be today without all this nonsense?".

But hear me out. You make a system that bases political alignment based on what you think should be the amount of authority and power your ideal government possesses. Your political leaning is chosen based on authority. Anarchy (Anarcho-Capitalism, Tyranny by Majority) on the far Right, and Tyranny (Psychotic Dictatorship, Communist) on the far Left.

It may seem a little too simple. Straightforward. Effortless. Manageable. Easy as Curlyhoward's left toenail.

Basically, the benefits of this system add up to knowing exactly what someone means everytime they say 'Left' or 'Centrist'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but people have used the term 'Left' to mean everything from the Democrats supporting abortion to even someone who supports a 'collective' economic system, as in a Socialist. The language has always conformed to the whatever current political landscape may be afoot.

far Right would be 'as much power to the people as possible, and far Left to be 'as much power to the government as possible.' Its easy, clean, and transparent.

A 'Centrist' would than just be someone who searches for the perfect balance between the two extremes of Anarchy by the People and Tyranny by the Government. How does that appeal to your cortexes?


EDIT: Cannot think of a Name so what you are saying is that we should be encouraging less support for law enforcement officials to interact with, much less be in, Black communities?

[Wizlandia]

Posting on my tiny 400 mil pop nation... what am I doing with my life these days?

ah well.

I'm proposing something really crazy. Fanatical, even. What if we decide to make political alignment simpler?

Look, I know you're like "FSC, that's crazy talk, I mean, where would we be today without all this nonsense?".

But hear me out. You make a system that bases political alignment based on what you think should be the amount of authority and power your ideal government possesses. Your political leaning is chosen based on authority. Anarchy (Anarcho-Capitalism, Tyranny by Majority) on the far Right, and Tyranny (Psychotic Dictatorship, Communist) on the far Left.

It may seem a little too simple. Straightforward. Effortless. Manageable. Easy as Curlyhoward's left toenail.

Basically, the benefits of this system add up to knowing exactly what someone means everytime they say 'Left' or 'Centrist'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but people have used the term 'Left' to mean everything from the Democrats supporting abortion to even someone who supports a 'collective' economic system, as in a Socialist. The language has always conformed to the whatever current political landscape may be afoot.

far Right would be 'as much power to the people as possible, and far Left to be 'as much power to the government as possible.' Its easy, clean, and transparent.

A 'Centrist' would than just be someone who searches for the perfect balance between the two extremes of Anarchy by the People and Tyranny by the Government. How does that appeal to your cortexes?

The primary cleavage in politics, both in America and more generally, isn't between people who want freedom vs people who want authoritarianism. Changing the definition of left vs right as in your proposal isn't useful to describe the major ideological/political/tribal alignments that exist.

[Juansonia]

Posting on my tiny 400 mil pop nation... what am I doing with my life these days?

ah well.

I'm proposing something really crazy. Fanatical, even. What if we decide to make political alignment simpler?
Look, I know you're like "FSC, that's crazy talk, I mean, where would we be today without all this nonsense?".
But hear me out. You make a system that bases political alignment based on what you think should be the amount of authority and power your ideal government possesses. Your political leaning is chosen based on authority. Anarchy (Anarcho-Capitalism, Tyranny by Majority) on the far Right, and Tyranny (Psychotic Dictatorship, Communist) on the far Left.
It may seem a little too simple. Straightforward. Effortless. Manageable. Easy as Curlyhoward's left toenail.
Basically, the benefits of this system add up to knowing exactly what someone means everytime they say 'Left' or 'Centrist'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but people have used the term 'Left' to mean everything from the Democrats supporting abortion to even someone who supports a 'collective' economic system, as in a Socialist. The language has always conformed to the whatever current political landscape may be afoot.
far Right would be 'as much power to the people as possible, and far Left to be 'as much power to the government as possible.' Its easy, clean, and transparent.
A 'Centrist' would than just be someone who searches for the perfect balance between the two extremes of Anarchy by the People and Tyranny by the Government. How does that appeal to your cortexes?
EDIT: Cannot think of a Name so what you are saying is that we should be encouraging less support for law enforcement officials to interact with, much less be in, Black communities?

This wouldn't make sense, since authori/liber divide is less important in American politics. If you used new terms like "up/down" instead, this would still be a useful tool.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

>They Support freedom of speech.

>You being gender-fluid semibi demosexual should never be allowed.

>pick one

There is limits to everything.

[Ors Might]

>They Support freedom of speech.

>You being gender-fluid semibi demosexual should never be allowed.

>pick one

There is limits to everything.

Limits must be justified or they can justly be ignored.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

They Support freedom of speech. You being gender-fluid semibi demosexual should never be allowed. However, if you argue against us, you get ‘cancelled’ by the media and fired from your job.

I was always confused why being demisexual was such a bad thing to certain conservatives. Maybe there's a conservative value that I'm failing to see, but I thought getting to know a person before jumping in went along with traditional moral values.

To be fair, I’m using commonly associated ‘queer’ terms. I’ve got nothing against gays. ((But I do have a few issues with Trans. Sure, it’s natural in the animal kingdom, but for reproductive purposes, not… whatever it is now.))

[Necroghastia]

>They Support freedom of speech.

>You being gender-fluid semibi demosexual should never be allowed.

>pick one

There is limits to everything.

You say that as though policing gender and sexuality is at all a reasonable limit.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

Still a plot point, and shouldn't be allowed in schools with kids.

I assume that you also believe in banning To Kill a Mockingbird.

Time is a flat fucking circle.

And no fucking 5 year old is reading To Kill a Mockingbird.

[EuroStralia]

I assume that you also believe in banning To Kill a Mockingbird.

Time is a flat fucking circle.

And no fucking 5 year old is reading To Kill a Mockingbird.

I agree, that's way to young, as is anyone under 16,

[Ors Might]

I assume that you also believe in banning To Kill a Mockingbird.

Time is a flat fucking circle.

And no fucking 5 year old is reading To Kill a Mockingbird.

At eight my teacher read to us Where the Red Fern Grows, a tale that involves at least one death of a child and no small amount of child endangerment. I think you're coddling children as to what topics they can handle.

[Necroghastia]

I assume that you also believe in banning To Kill a Mockingbird.

Time is a flat fucking circle.

And no fucking 5 year old is reading To Kill a Mockingbird.

Who said anything about 5 year olds?

And no fucking 5 year old is reading To Kill a Mockingbird.

I agree, that's way to young, as is anyone under 16,

What a dumb take. I first read it at... 11? 12 maybe? What's the issue?

[Sultanate of Turkey]

There is limits to everything.

You say that as though policing gender and sexuality is at all a reasonable limit.

It is. If the majority of the population disagrees with such, is it not therefore their right to disagree with such?
Why shouldn’t doctors be able to refuse treatment on trans patients. They have opinions, private jurisdictions, and beliefs. Is forcing them to do something they do not want to do an optimal decision?

[Sultanate of Turkey]

There is limits to everything.

Limits must be justified or they can justly be ignored.

Please tell me one thing in which there is not limits. Ignoring such limits that you state can be justly ignored results in, typically, you not having the grandest of times with life in general.

[Ors Might]

Limits must be justified or they can justly be ignored.

Please tell me one thing in which there is not limits. Ignoring such limits that you state can be justly ignored results in, typically, you not having the grandest of times with life in general.

Please justify the limitations you wish to impose upon me and others.

[Communism 2 Electric Boogaloo]

I'm not even going to bother with addressing this, but the poll is absolutely hilarious.

Lol fr

I never thought I'd be agreeing with Floofybit. Also, Democrats are right wing compared to most developed countries, and do not truly care about the rights of minorities.

[Sultanate of Turkey]

And no fucking 5 year old is reading To Kill a Mockingbird.

Who said anything about 5 year olds?

I agree, that's way to young, as is anyone under 16,

What a dumb take. I first read it at... 11? 12 maybe? What's the issue?

I agree that banning books is utter stupidity ((and I’m republican, also why the fuck are we far right?)). There should be age-barriers, like for instance Game of Thrones. ((Rape, incest, extreme amounts of violence, you know the list goes on. At the very least 13 ((which is when I read it)).

[Vivida Vis Animi]

You say that as though policing gender and sexuality is at all a reasonable limit.

Why shouldn’t doctors be able to refuse treatment on trans patients. They have opinions, private jurisdictions, and beliefs. Is forcing them to do something they do not want to do an optimal decision?

Oh this is a fun rabbit hole to dive headfirst into.

Can a doctor turn away patients because of their race or religion? Personal freedom > rule of law, and all that.