This is worth a read:
Reasonably reflects my own views.
That really does about sum it up.
Can’t say I chased the author down the Antifa rabbit hole, though. If you’re on their bad side, you’ve probably earned it. Additionally, if the right wing can pull out ALL the stops and revert to a chief tactic of ‘do whatever makes libtards mad’? Screw ‘em and their sense of calm. If getting chased around with air horns all day long is what happens, then it’s a price I’m enthusiastic to watch them pay.
Thank you for posting this essay, which generally reflects my views as well.
Being a centrist/moderate does not mean that one should not take a strong and unequivocal, non-violent stand against that which is truly abhorrent such as White Nationalism. We should not become distracted by side issues to such an extent that they achieve success in dividing their opposition. We must be united in saying, loud-and-clear, that these views are intolerable.
We should not become distracted by side issues to such an extent that they achieve success in dividing their opposition.
Sam, every time he brings up ‘the horror’ of something like Milo being uninvited from his rabble-rousing speaking engagements. Sometimes those minor distractions can do severe harm to 2 sides working to achieve the same goal IE SLPC’s misguided labeling of Ayaan and Majid. Maybe don’t get up on a soapbox and alienate your allies, MAYBE just open a line of communication to absolve the offended party? But one you declare war over these little things, all you ever do is entrench them and make them bigger deals than they ever had business being.
Sure is a lot of throwing the baby out with the bathwater lately.
Can’t say I chased the author down the Antifa rabbit hole, though. If you’re on their bad side, you’ve probably earned it.
To me Antifa are far more dangerous. Marxist based states seemed to have had a longer and more brutal lifespan than facist based states last century.
I look at what Antifa actually does, not at what they claim to do.
Despite the author’s intentions of placing himself in the center, it is not really convincing. It feels like there is some dog-whistling going on here.
The ugliness and extremism on display in Virginia should not provoke blind praise for equally extreme movements on the Left. Just because Antifa claims to loathe Nazis, it doesn’t make them ipso facto noble. They are not, as some have suggested, the moral equivalent to soldiers storming Normandy to fight Nazis. And, in fact, many of their actions are repellent and deserve to be condemned.
The author does a bad job of hiding his true intentions. For example, here we have a murder of a left-wing protester and the first thing the author does draw a false equivocation. I mean, he could not even wait one or two sentences, condemning the murderous nazis first. Nope, he immediately jumped into this false equivocation fallacy.
If there is one thing that should define a centrist, it is this: Nuance. The author does not seem to have any.
Moving on, this stands out:
Centrism accepts that humans are flawed: tribal, aggressive, hungry for status, and often prejudiced.
And here is how he concludes:
Perhaps this is what centrism really is: a tolerant smile at the recognition that we are human, all too human.
I look forward to hearing about this “tolerance” when a white, right-wing person is brutally murdered.
Even better, I look forward to our friendly centrist here having his daughter or wife killed while the whole world is watching, so that I can email him and tell him that his dead relative is “just as bad as the nazis” just because she dared to protest.
Until then, I do not trust this kind of centrism which rings very hollow.
Centrism is an unfortunate designation. It suggest the middle of a flat something but it is the peak of a bell curve. Central to centrism is a heightened level of reasoning. Extended reasoning is euphenistically called ‘nuance’.
I routinely have discussions or arguments that peter out over nuance. It ends with remarks like, “There is no reason to pile on a lot of unnecessary nuance” or “You shouldn’t over-intellectualize things. It is really quite simple”.
Is it possible to over-intellectualize something? Can there be too much nuance or too many details considered? What sort of space are we running out of when there are too many details? What do we figure AI is going to do? Stop when it’s happy? When have things ever turned out to be simple? Why do some of us want them to?
Assuming a position on the far right or far left also assumes that things are simple and the reasons why are straightforward. When has that ever turned out to be true? Our historical foibles are usually attributed to overlooked nuance.
What street-roaming Natzi can fully explain their philosophy without exposing a barely contained desire to punch you in the face so you will stop asking for nuance? What FoxNews initiate can completely flesh out their cherised views without including vague threats of sanctions in the convincing or a flushed face or frequent mentions of a gun collection? The Triumph of Will is the only kind of triumph they could have.
We should not be wrestling over who’s IQ makes them too stupid to participate in charting our mutual course. This is about stamina. Nearly everyone can be intelligent for ten or twelve seconds. Being smart for longer than that takes practice and discipline. We euphenistically call that critical thinking skills. It is more than a procedure. It is a mental muscularity that many folks all over the world are culturally denied. It takes strength to be a centrist.
If we are going to war, then let’s get the polarity right. The far left and right will beat each other with clubs anyway, and we would be overlooking nuance to enshrine their differences as that which divides us. Both ends are stupid. The real division and the actual contest is between the top of the curve (the center) and the bottom (the far sides).
Shall it be nuance or will?