Radical Centrists Unite!

Great Debates
21

BTW, Lib. I read the link you provided to a “sound slippery slope argument”, and it has left me confised. The title does mention “slippery slope”, but I see no sound argument. I see multiple references to the “Clinton Doctrine”. I see no citations to support the Cato Institute’s formulation of said doctrine. I see sentences like, “Fortunately, the United States resisted that pressure . . . .” Is that the slippery slope? How about, “the limited support role the United States has undertaken in the peacekeeping operation in East Timor could gradually lead to wider and more dangerous American military and diplomatic commitments.” Is that what you consider a sound argument? A could lead to B. “The United States could also find itself becoming the “stabilizer of last resort” on the Indonesian archipelago . . .” Wow, there’s another iron-clad argument. I like this style of discourse. I say, “it could happen,” and my burden is satisfied. Debate is so much easier when you move beyond the necessity for supporting evidence.

Of course, they do say “the number of U.S. military personnel involved is more than twice the original estimate.” They do not, however, provide such contextual informations as: what was the original estimate, how many troops are involved, was the estimate changed before deployment, have assumptions used to create the initial estimate proven incorrect, has the scope of teh mission changed, has the method of counting troops altered from that used in the estimate. You know, the kind of information that might actually allow one to draw an informed conclusion.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

22

And it needs to be pointed out that Lib has not even tried to demonstrate that there’s a valid slippery-slope argument with respect to guns. He just kind of throws assumptions around like confetti: most criminals are seasoned criminals. (Yeh, sure; seen studies on their age brackets?) Gun registration would cause more crime than it prevents. MOst criminals will steal a gun to commit a crime, rather than using whatever gun is handy. Centrism would never be able to recognize that it’s headed down a path that had produced unintended consequences. (He didn’t state that one openly, but it’s implicit, and it’s the biggest laff.) Hence centrism is poison in a fruit drink box. Centrism is the slippery slope. Government is evil. Government regulations are responsible for the ballooning of the price of an Impala. Most people are peaceful and honest. Dumb crooks are a UL. (OK, that last is an exaggeration, but still.) Centrism looks at things from an appeasement perspective. Compromise is appeasement.

Have I missed any?

The real question here, though, is one we haven’t even begun to deal with. And that’s the Dave Barry question:

"Would ‘peaceful honest people’ be a good name for a rock band?

I doubt it. :wink:

23

I’m not disagreeing with any part of your assessment here Spiritus. However, I was merely pointing out that it was unfair to single out Lib for criticism over the fact that this thread has, as so many others have before, waded into another Libertarianism morass. It takes two to tango, and if someone does not like the fact that Libertarianism is being debated on this thread they shouldn’t single out only one participant in the debate.

24

How can a person be ‘radically’ centrist??

New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary

25

Little Nemo:

Yes.

If you will kindly specify the debates from which you wish me to withdraw, I’ll do as you ask. I presume, a priori, that it includes this one on Centrism. I’ll return to read your response, but I’ll withhold any further unsolicited comment.

26

Libertarian, I felt that this was the pattern that emerged in this thread. The OP started a discussion about a political issue (what would be an acceptable middle ground on a number of controversial issues?). The second post was a short quip from you which did not specifically address the issues of the OP. The third and fourth posts were responses to your post. The fifth post was your longer response to the second and third post. Then Guadere responded to you and you responded to Gaudere (and back and forth). Then Spiritus Mundi responded to you and you back. Then Satan responded to you and you back. Meanwhile no one has really responded to PTVroman’s original post.

Now I realize that topics wander, but I feel that in this case your off-topic response in the second post of the thread was a blatent hijack. You of course have the right to discuss whatever issues you choose, but I feel you should have started a new thread on whether political moderation is an inevitable path to tyranny rather then take over someone else’s. Your thread could have been for the people who wanted to debate the merits of political compromise as a whole. This thread could have been for people who agree with the principles of political compromise and wanted to discuss how it applied to specific issues.

27

Of course, I suppose I should also apologize for my own actions before others point out the hypocrisy of my hijacking a thread on libertarianism in order to raise the issue of thread hijacking.

28

Little Nemo

With all due respect, that is factually incorrect.

The thread title is Radical Centrists Unite!, you know, like Workers of the World? The Opening Poster considers himself a “Radical Centrist”. He claimed a “vast silent majority” to be in agreement with him. He tossed out a litany of typical Centrist pap, and asked for the views of others on Centrism.

I then gave mine:

I don’t mind being called to task for what I have done. I consider that justice. But I consider it an injustice to call me to task for something I have not done.

I gave my opinion of centrism, and then was asked by John Corrado to “expound a little bit”. I did. And so it went. I answered questions as they were asked. Usually, I am accused of evading questions. Now, I stand accused of answering them.

But, you know. I never mentioned the philosophy that dare not speak its name in SDMB threads. You did. Yep, that’s right.

The first person to mention libertarianism in this thread was YOU.

Go ahead. Do a word search.

29

As a matter of fact, Lib, Lucky and Spiritus Mundi had both used the word “libertarian” before I did on this thread.

And the OP did not ask for “the views of others on Centrism”. What he asked was “any other good centrist views?” It’s akin to someone starting a thread discussing who will win the World Series and getting a first response that major league baseball should be abolished.

30

It’s silly to discuss who first used the word ‘libertarian.’ Despite Lib’s treating that word as some sort of magic talisman (“the philosophy that dare not speak its name”), who used the word first has nothing to do with anything.

Nemo is much closer to the point when he says, “It’s akin to someone starting a thread discussing who will win the World Series and getting a first response that major league baseball should be abolished.”

I’m going to critique the discussion a bit. We’re agreed on two things here:

  1. The thread has been hijacked.

  2. The hijacking was either due to Lib’s response to the OP, or to the responses to Lib’s post.

Lib’s post was classic Lib - cryptic, enigmatic, and outrageous. “Centrism is the lubricant of tyranny.” We have a few hundred active posters here. If we consider the hypothesis that the hijacking was due to the responses to Lib (nebuli’s view), we have to ask, was there a realistic possibility that no one would respond, “Huh? WTF? What the hell do you mean by that?” Which is what John Corrado did, only much more politely. But if it hadn’t been him, the chances are good that someone else would have said more or less the same thing, and gotten the ball rolling. It may take two to tango, but when there’s hundreds of potential dance partners, chances are good you’re going to find one if that’s what you’re looking for.

So it comes back to Lib. Let me be upfront in admitting that I’m making him the issue here; to me, there’s no question but that he is the issue here. We have his enigmatic, off-the-wall first response to the OP. There’s also something else about it that’s worth pointing out, because it’s a recurrent Lib theme.

Most of us, when encountering another point of view, figure that if we disagree, we have to show what’s wrong with the other guy’s argument. Lib doesn’t start off like that; he leads by asserting, without any sort of backup, that the other guy’s POV is totally and completely invalid: “Centrism is the lubricant of tyranny.” And when asked to respond, he gives more of the same: “Which is more dangerous, a box that is clearly marked “Poison” or a box that is marked “Fruit Punch Mix”, but that contains poison all the same?” Now if we Dopers were a static community, after awhile we’d all learn to let this stuff go by. But we have new people coming in all the time, and inevitably, some of them are going to jump at this sort of bait.

The other thing about Lib’s post - the thing that Little Nemo picked up on, if I read him right - is that most of our discussions assume a certain context. For instance, a discussion about the World Series assumes that the participants in the discussion all like baseball; if they don’t, they can talk about something else.

Generally, a discussion (among mostly Americans) about an aspect of the American political system - flat tax v. graduated rates, more v. less gun control, what should we do about the environment, how should we fix our educational system - assumes a certain acceptance of the outlines of that system. Undoubtedly, that was the case with PTVroman here.

Lib never respects that implicit assumption, which is the factor that turns every discussion he’s in into one about his particular brand of libertarianism. He starts off with the assumption that our government is an evil, tyrannical monstrosity, without feeling obliged to make any sort of point-by-point case to that effect.

We respond to him - and to the extent that the responsibility is on us, here’s the place - as we’d respond to anybody else, by feeling obliged to make the case, point by point, that his assertions are incorrect. This turns out to be as difficult as trying to crush a mosquito with a baseball bat, because the sands of what he’s willing to assert about a libertarian society continually shift. And we wind up back in the usual morass, trying to show that Lib’s version of libertarianism hasn’t a prayer of working, but getting increasingly frustrated because we can’t figure out WTF he’s selling.

That’s how I see this recurring conversational dynamic, based on increasing familiarity with it dating back to last November’s flat tax thread.

I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’m convinced that we’ve got to find a way to keep from going down the same path, over and over again. It’s getting damned hard to talk about anything around here anymore without its turning into a debate about Libertarianism, the Noncoercion Principle, and how democracy equals thuggery. :frowning:

31

You don’t know what to do about it? Well, I suppose if I were used to thinking in terms of other people making my decisions, I wouldn’t know what to do about it either.

See how conveniently Straight Dope has indicated the poster in the left margin? If your eyes are moving across these words, then you have decided to read them, unless a man with a gun to your head is giving you a reading comprehension test.

Do you think this is the first message board where I have debated Centrists? Yes, the thread has been hijacked, but not by me. I oppose centrism summarily. I believe that right principle ought never to be compromised, and that’s what centrism is all about. I never mentioned libertarianism here; I only assailed centrism.

My world view deals with how people relate to one another, whether voluntarily or under duress. I’ve tried everything reasonable to accomodate you as you have stalked me from thread to thread, even making whole new threads for the purpose of bashing me and supressing my opinions. I’ve tried not saying the word “libertarianism”. I’ve tried reasoning with you, and explaining why my views are no less germane than anyone else’s. I’ve even tried leaving altogether, only to receive requests that I return.

Maybe this isn’t a “we” problem, as a majoritarian is so wont to see everything. Maybe this is an RTFirefly problem. After all, there must be a reason you claim that I have equated democracy with thuggery despite the fact that I have said this

in one form or another throught these threads, as I have summarized here.

I can understand if you don’t like me, don’t like what I stand for, and don’t want to hear anything from me.

What I don’t understand is why you feel like you must take it on yourself to analyze other peoples’ discussions, for God’s sake, and then turn your fetish with me into a general cause celebre, summoning the multitudes to stand behind you against me.

If you don’t like me, why don’t you just leave me alone, and let others decide for themselves whether they want to hold discussions that include me or not? Are you so shaky in your convictions that you need massive feedback to confirm your own analysis?

I came into this thread about a political matter, stated my opinion, and then left. But you have turned it into another one of those, “See? RT was right about Lib!” threads.

I am only grateful that I was not the prostitute, and you were not a stone holder. The entire course of Christianity might have been changed.

32

DSYoungEsq wrote:

DS, I believe the phrase ‘radically centrist’ was intended to be humorously ironic.

33

Oh, go blow, Lib. You had become the topic of discussion in this thread - and aptly so - before I came here. I had expected to find a discussion of Ross Perot and whatnot, but you’d elegantly hijacked that discussion before I even arrived.

By your standards, if anything I say bothers you, that’s your problem, not mine:

So kwitcherbitchen, or take it up with yourself.

BFD. Do a ‘find in page’ search for the word ‘talisman’.

See Little Nemo’s criticisms, above, and my elaborations on them. You haven’t bothered to answer them, I see.

Let’s see: Libertarian, Libertarian…second post, fifth post, eighth, 10th, 11th, 13th, 17th, 25th, 28th, 31st…if you can’t get even that right, why should we take your word about anything else?

Speaking of which:

You bet - it’s because you did it in the first thread you linked to in your last post.

Anyhow, I’ve posted a description of the dynamic of your thread-hijacking, Lib. If you have any specific criticisms of it (besides the more general ‘help, help, I’m being repressed’), I’d welcome them.

34

Gentlemen, the hijack is complete.

Now, I understand that Libs style can be frustrating, even infuruating, but this really is not the correct place to discuss it. Actually, I see an interesting metaphor emerging in this discussion.

On the one hand, there is the ideological position that OPs should never be coerced. Good and honest people, then, should never post off-OP and they should never allow themselves to be pulled into a hijack. We might even al agree to this principal, but what should we do if a less enlightened poster begins a hijack? Any response we mack to said poster drags the thread further off OP. We become, then, hijackers ourselves. If we do not respond, though, it allows potentially inflamatory comments to go unchallenged. It might even give the impression that the content of the hijacker’s post was accepted by the other participant’s of the thread. At the very least, it allows the unenlightened hijacker to continue practicing his methods without challenge, perhaps without even understanding the eror of his ways.

On the other hand, there is the position that the OP has no special position in a thread. True, it expresses the intent of the thread’s creator, but nothing obligates others to respect that intent. The desires of the active posters are all that matters. If hijackers want to take over a thread, why should they be codemned? They have every right to express their ideas, and every right to post them in whatever thread they feel appropriate. True, at some point it is likely that such behavior will violate the “don’t be a jerk” rule, but when a poster crosses that line he becomes the administration’s problem, not ours. As posters, we should feel free to express any thought at any time in any thread. Titles, boards and OPs are simply starting points. They might be helpful in organizing a discussion, but if peple want to turn the conversation to a new subject – deal with it. Join in the fun, or if you don’t like the new direction, start another thread on the original topic. Maybe that one will escape the hijackers.

To me, neither of these approaches seems satisfactory. Neither extreme seems likely to encourage an atmosphere of debate that is focused enough to be valuable but open enough to challenge the outrageous or off-OP post. I propose a centrist solution:

If you feel a post is a hijack, then respond to it, but do not allow your response to be the whole of your post. Answer the outrageous, but only if you have something on-topic to say at the same time. If all you wish to do is respond to the hijack, then take it to another thread (most likely in the PIT). Wait – I’m slipping down the slope into board tyranny! All posters who fail to follow my decree will be forced to read the earth is flatthread in its entirety before submitting any post.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

35

Steady advice, Spiritus.

I offered to vacate whatever threads Little Nemo cared to list. He didn’t list any. If even that offer will not satisfy a particular man, then what does he want — blood?

36

RTFirefly: you see why it was a mistake to apologize to Libertarian’s Nazi-istic ass in your thread about whether just posting links was a valid form of response?

37

Oops! My mistake, Slimatarian – I shouldn’t have called you Nazi-istic; it would have been more accurate to compare you directly to HITLER.

As for a good Centrist view – bring one up and I’ll know if I agree with it. But, bear in mind, just about anything you mention will turn out to have some connection with libertarianism.

Peeewww --! Behold the Power!

38

Ok, you silly people enough. Take the anti-Libertarian (the person, not the philosophy) rant to the Pit where it belongs.

Lib’s views are hardly my own. However, the OP asked for views on centrism. Admittedly, he didn’t ask for hostile views, but, after all, this IS Great Debates, not General Questions. If you can’t stand some negative commentary about your ideas in this particular forum, you don’t belong here.

As for hijacking a thread, let’s face it, folks, you don’t HAVE to respond to something that you don’t think is germain.

::eyeroll::

39

[Moderator Hat ON]

Yeesh! We’ve lost some posts here (in particular, my post telling HeadCheese to cool it). Just so people won’t get confused, I’ll reiterate: personal insults belong in the Pit. “Why Lib Pisses Me Off” is not really a Great Debate.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

40

I am posting this to apologize to Gaudere for ‘getting redneck’ in this thread. This forum is much to well-run to risk it because someone <strike>bites my</strike> – uh, gets my goat.

Yep, I misspoke myself, for sure. Anybody got a metal detector they want guarded? Ya visited Havana lately? Bought yer flight insurance?