Where can I find centrist discussion?

[asterion]

I think that one issue is that everything on both sides is now a shibboleth when it comes to online discussion. The notion that “I believe in X, X has to be right, and your disagreement with X means you’re a [insert pejorative disclaimer]” quickly results in echo chambers that are simply not worth dealing with. Especially online, outrage and anger is easy to stoke, easy to respond with, and is corrosively addictive. Frankly, I’ve pretty much stopped reading a number of sites because they can’t stop with the outraged clickbait.

So I’m not sure there is a good place. I think the SDMB used to be better, but a combination of self-selection by users (not all of it bad) and some poor moderation has hurt it.

[Max_S]

Be the change you want to see, as they say.

I certainly don’t think the Politics & Elections forum on this site is a left-wing echo chamber. Neither do I think it is a right-wing echo chamber.

~Max

[asterion]

I didn’t say it was. I said I don’t think it’s as good a place to have a discussion as it used to be, and that it’s both changes in users and changes in moderation. Others will obviously disagree.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@BrickBat

These dems have moved right and thus filled the void of the missing Rockerfeller/William F Buckley republicans.

The same Willliam F. Buckley who founded National Review, which promulgated birtherism, claims that Obama’s mother must have been a Communist if she was having sex with a black man, denies climate change, claims climate scientists are liars, compared client scientist Michael Mann to child molester Jerry Sandusky, published Ann Coulter’s post-9/11 call for invasions of Muslim countries and murders of their leaders, and less that a year ago was still publishing Dinesh d’Souza? That kind of moderate Republican?

[DeadTreasSecretaries]

I think r/PoliticalDiscussion might be close to what you’re looking for. I still like going on there even though it’s got a bit worse over the last year or two.

[puzzlegal]

@HMS_Irruncible

@bump

The problem is that in today’s climate, there’s no room for being in the middle; it’s a “you’re with us or you’re against us” situation with both parties, and there’s not much room in between for moderates/centrists on either side of the aisle to collaborate.

The problem is that half the country went over a cliff, so the “center” is now dangling off a branch on the side of the cliff. It seems irrational to determine your political sensibility relative to others in that way.

My perception is that most people who call themselves ‘centrists’ really want to be philosophical rationalists but aren’t sufficiently acquainted with it. Perhaps look into rationalism and you might find what you’re looking for. They’re every bit as annoying as centrists, but with better philosophical and intellectual grounding.

Guys, this is a thread to discuss suitable fora for discussion, not a thread to beat up on either side. The first bolded bit is too partisan, and the second is too dismissive.

@Rick_Kitchen

The same Willliam F. Buckley who founded National Review, which promulgated birtherism, claims that Obama’s mother must have been a Communist if she was having sex with a black man, denies climate change, claims climate scientists are liars, compared client scientist Michael Mann to child molester Jerry Sandusky, published Ann Coulter’s post-9/11 call for invasions of Muslim countries and murders of their leaders, and less that a year ago was still publishing Dinesh d’Souza? That kind of moderate Republican?

This post is also off topic, IMHO.

Please try to stick to the topic at hand in this thread. Feel free to start other threads for partisan bickering.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@DeadTreasSecretaries

I think r/PoliticalDiscussion might be close to what you’re looking for.

Nice! Thanks.

I like the rules on that sub. The topics on the front page look pretty good, very topical. There’s a transgender thread where people are arguing pretty nicely, has over 1500 comments, hasn’t been closed and doesn’t look like it went off the rails. Amazing!

[Max_S]

Sorry, that wasn’t a reply to you specifically.

~Max

[bump]

He’s essentially making my point… the implication is that we are weak-willed or indecisive because we haven’t chosen a side and gone all-in with it.

But that’s absurd; someone can for example be a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter AND be a staunch LGBTQ rights supporter as well. There’s nothing fundamentally oppositional about those two positions, except where the political parties have drawn their ideological lines. Or someone can be for racial equity AND want a strong military and muscular foreign policy. Same idea- no fundamental contradiction there, except where the parties have drawn their lines.

Or you can literally have a position in the middle. This is often more fraught with accusation though; you can believe in something like immigrant rights, without being on board with the more left positions espoused by some in the Democratic party, and without having the fearful, racist and persecutive position that the Republican party says. But both sides will tell you that you’re wrong and need to change.

[cincinnatus]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

That leads to the question. . If on that neutral politics forum, you feel people are saying nothing, what do you want people to say on a centrist forum?

Maybe I should have offered more detail about the type of discussion that would actually be fun.

I see myself as center-left, but there are some conservative positions I have supported over the years. I forget what they are now.

My early-morning coffee buddy was center-right, and maybe just a bit further right, but reasonable.

One morning before work, over coffee as was our routine, we got onto to some political topic. The discussion lasted 20 minutes maybe, accompanied by loudish, but not hostile, voices. We each made our points resolutely. There was finger pointing.

At the end, we reaffirmed our routine coffee date for the following morning, and went to work.

That following morning, we each got our coffee and sat, and I was the first to start the conversation. I said I had thought about our argument from yesterday, and that I changed my mind and now agreed with him.

He grinned and said, “Me, too.” We had each convinced the other.

And off we went again for another 20 minutes. I can’t recall how it ended.

We had each convinced the other and we enjoyed the hell out of it.

Those kind or honest political discussions is what I seek. People will not always be changing their mind, but I would like them to be at least open to argument. Notice I said argument, not quarrel.

[jtur88]

“Cebtrist” means neither right nor left of ME. So it depends on who “me” is.

[Roderick_Femm]

@Jackmannii

You might want to have a look at politicsforum.org

I did not find this very encouraging, in a fairly brief view of the Morals and Ethics forum. One poster, for example, had four threads about how atheists are evil among the top 20 threads, and there are also several anti-abortion threads. There is a lot of poisoning the well in the OPs, and no-one seems to notice or care. The level of debate seems, I don’t know, unfocused and non-linear. I realize it was a pretty brief trial visit, but it did not encourage me to come back.

[puzzlegal]

@jtur88

“Cebtrist” means neither right nor left of ME. So it depends on who “me” is.

Only if you think you are centrist. I think I’m liberal, so I expect moderates (and, i guess, centrists) to be a bit to my right.

I, too, enjoy political discussions with people who don’t agree with me, but aren’t too far off in a political extreme, to either side. So I’ve been following this thread.

I’m still not clear if there’s a difference between “centrists” and “moderates”, though.

[What_Exit]

@puzzlegal

I’m still not clear if there’s a difference between “centrists” and “moderates”, though.

I’m not either. When I considered myself a moderate, I don’t remember Centrist being used much. But if we go by the dictionary a Centrist is

1. a person who holds moderate political views.

So not too helpful.

I do think there isn’t a simple definition.

There are plenty of people that found themselves not easily aligned with either party.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@cincinnatus

Those kind or honest political discussions is what I seek. People will not always be changing their mind, but I would like them to be at least open to argument. Notice I said argument, not quarrel.

I think that has more to do with the rules, the culture of the forum and the modding than it has to do with the specific people or even the topic. Honest discussion of any kind with people open to argument is always a desired commodity, for me at least.

[Ulfreida]

Is it possible that what the OP is looking for is nuance? That is, a discussion which has a foundational premise that there are few right/wrong answers to fraught questions, but instead a variety of reasonable viewpoints which depend on one’s cultural assumptions etc.?

Is that “centrist”? It certainly sounds a bit more interesting than I am pro guns but anti abortion, pro immigration but anti tax, so I’m right in the middle.

[Max_S]

This is what cincinnatus is looking for, in his own words:

@cincinnatus

That following morning, we each got our coffee and sat, and I was the first to start the conversation. I said I had thought about our argument from yesterday, and that I changed my mind and now agreed with him.

He grinned and said, “Me, too.” We had each convinced the other.

~Max

[Mijin]

@Horatius

Alas, I think there’s likely nowhere you’ll find such reasonable discussion from the current “conservative” movement. Ten years ago, I would have labelled myself a reasonable conservative, but even then, I could see the trends towards more unreasonable, more racist, more stupid positions taking over the conservative parties in almost every country.

Unfortunately, this.

In many countries you can have a debate between the left and right. You can have a war of ideas.

Not so much in current US politics. It’s a war over reality. Either you believe in silly conspiracy theories and misinformation, or you don’t. And if you don’t, then you’ll probably want to condemn the current GOP, which naturally makes most people think of you as a Dem / liberal.

[jtur88]

Maybe there is no centrist position, only a tolerance for opposing views if they are reasoned. What is the centrist position on nuclear war? On capital punishment? On slavery? On monotheism? The switch is either On or Off. “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is the most non-centrist declaration I’ve ever heard. It tolerates no dissent at all.

[Mijin]

Firstly the point is that you can hold “left wing” positions on some things, and “right wing” positions on others. A person might be in favor of low regulation on businesses, but better healthcare provision, say.

Secondly, not everything needs to be associated with one side of the aisle. There is no reason that climate change needs to split into two camps, and, outside of the US, you can have a good debate involving people on all sides of the political spectrum on this issue. Only in America does it become “right wing” = denial, “left wing” = do something.