Especially since because your FB posts are public, whenever one of my FB friends comments on it, I see it in my feed. I think you're far enough on the left that you're not able to see the merits of things on the right.This is why moderates are needed - they can see both sides.
The value in centrism (and if you want to know what it is you need to look at foreign politics or historical politics in the US) is that it offers a viable alternative to the winner take all politics of the extremes (which I do consider you to be a part of within the context of US politics). I think the US needs more than two parties. Or at least parties that offer something for the Social Liberals/Economic Conservatives - the former Northeast Republicans. Maybe once the social issues are settled a viable third party and return to moderation will occur. But until such time as there is a FDP party (Germany) or Liberal Democrat party (UK) or En Marche! (France) in the US, then centrist views will remain unrepresented at the national level. The Greens and Libertarians here don't count.
There's this bizarre sentiment so many people have where they think that because disagreement is forceful, it stems from lack of understanding. I understand most of what I oppose, much like Tom understands the things I say which he opposes. We happen to disagree. The myth of the enlightened centrist is largely just that; centrism is not the logical result of understanding.
Certainly I fall much closer to the conservative side of things on non-economic issues of personal liberty, especially free speech. But our mutual Facebook friends generally don't comment on my non-inflammatory posts, so you're suffering from a bit of selection bias here.
I am an existentialist. Pick up Kierkegaard and you'll see what kind.
The idea that slavery was not always an evil is simply repulsive. And I see no way you can have the viewpoint you do without either reducing "truth" to a social construct (in which case slavery can easily be argued to be only currently an evil in some, but not all, societies) or relying on some sort of reasoning that is going to lead to a sorites paradox issue--at what point does sufficient consensus trigger a new truth?
EDIT: I appreciate that you at least appropriately label me fringe left, unlike everyone else here who wants me to defect. 
~Camilla
Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel
*MySmiley*
- 25/08/2017 03:57:37 PM
596 Views