Category talk:Centrist stupidity

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Myth of the Middle[edit]

Centrist stupidity explained. Good article -- not sure where to put it, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Who's deleting all the entries?[edit]

I think Harry Reid and Bill Clinton are pretty good examples of "centrist stupidity", as well as some of the other entries. Why all the deleting all of a sudden? ClothCoat (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'd label Reid and Clinton, along with the likes of Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Al Gore, Chuck Schumer and the rest of their ilk as well to the right of center. They're only "centrist", much less "liberal", in the context of the ignorant worldview of Boobus Americanus. Centrist to me means Ralph Nader. Noam Chomsky is genuinely left of center, but only just. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The stupidity part fits them to a T, though. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
""I'd label Reid and Clinton, along with the likes of Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Al Gore, Chuck Schumer and the rest of their ilk as well to the right of center" I fully agree with that statement. However they fit under "centrist" more than the they do "wingnut" or moonbat" and they stay close enough to the center to go under this category.
"in the context of the ignorant worldview of Boobus Americanus Ouch but you should keep in mind that you should consider that different countries have different spectrums, though I would agree that an international spectrum is usually more accurate.
"Noam Chomsky is genuinely left of center, but only just" That's where I have to disagree with you. He is a "Leftist", a radical, and he is quite proud of it. Not even he considers himself left of center. Nader is one of the few American politicians who fits the center-left label, along with Elizabeth Warren and the progressives. Could you add all those people back please? This category can apply to people close enough to the center and this is the definition of centrist put forward by most people. Thank you. ClothCoat (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought this was a category for "scams and delusions peculiar to those of a centrist/moderate/Third Way mindset," not people. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah that too. That's why Brooks is here, because some centrists love him for being a "reasonable conservative", even though he's a hack. This category, if it's like extreme moonbattery and extreme wingnuttery, can apply to stupid centrists or stupid things/people centrsits fall for. ClothCoat (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, it was, before a certain textile item fond of sorting people into political pidgeonholes showed up. :(--ZooGuard (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Just trying to help. I just assumed that the category was like Extreme wingnuttery or extreme moonbattery, which is kind of loose with these terms. However if you'd really like for me to be that way I'll create categories "Center-right silliness, firmly right-wing silliness, left of center siliness, centrist achievers, etc.". Stop being a prick when I'm trying to fit people into categories that were already here and I'm trying to follow the rules your own wiki set up. I mean seriously the categories pages are embarrassing some have only like 4 subjects in them we're not goddamn Wikipedia which has so many pages it can be more precise with it's categories. I mean seriously fuck you, unless you actually want to do something to help. ClothCoat (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was too harsh, but I don't think that your categorization efforts are useful or meaningful. And please don't cite "rules" - this wiki has very few written rules, and I don't remember anything about sorting politicians by categories. You did create Category:Right of reason so my assumption was not baseless. :) RW's category tree has grown idiosyncratically, with people adding new cats on a whim, that's why it's somewhat confusing for people who crave order in one form or another.
As for the categories themselves, identifying the fringes is always more easy than drawing shades of gray between the moderates. So having categories for "extreme moonbattery/wingnuttery" is compatible, but not having stuff like "right of reason" makes perfect sense. Putting articles in cats like that one is inherently subjective, because it involves determining how much someone deviates from some ideal line of "reason", and in what direction. In such situations, the articles would be either the subject to edit warring about the cat, or their catting would reflect only the view of the most persistent catter - in this case, you.
(Not to mention that what counts as "left" and "right" is different in the US and Europe, so pegging some universal "center" is a bit difficult.)
As for this particular category, I tend to agree with Nebuchadnezzar - it should be limited mostly to concepts, with minimum people.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok then. I only created the "right of reason" because we had a lot of pages written like "Oh, this guy leans to the right but he's not crazy. Woah!" and there were so many of those pages I just figured they should go under some sort of category. The name is taken from the "pundits" page by the way. I do think it's important to have decent categories so that people can easily jump between pages they're interested in but if you don't want to fine. However what if the "concept" is a person. Brooks and Krauthammer for example are people centrists adore for being "reasonable" even though they're consistently wrong, so should they go here or not. And I thought a lot of people liked the right of reason page. ClothCoat (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Also one of the main reasons I created the Right of Reason page was because Weaseloid (or however it's spelled) complained about the way I wrote the William F. Buckley (I broke it up into Good/meh/bad, like the Chris Christie/Stephen Harper/Huey Long pages) because it made us sound like a liberal rag or something of the like. So I thought that it would help counter such accusations against Rationalwiki if we had a page of sane conservatives. Basically if I make a page of sane conservatives I get yelled at, if I sound too liberal I get yelled at, if I follow the format in other pages I get yelled at, etc. I'm basically getting yelled at by different people for acting the way someone else wants me to act. It's quite confusing. ClothCoat (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)