|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Centrism
|
This Politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Dems[edit]
American Democratic Party "Centrist"? I think most of the world would see it as right of centre. Scream!! (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- The description is very fuzzy, I'd say they still qualify in the most basic sense that they'd like to have a market-based economy without throwing the poor under the bus. America is a bit of a special case since both parties have moved steadily to the right over the last 20 years - Clinton's Democrats would have easily qualified as "centrist" even when compared to their European counterparts, whereas Obama is basically Reagan reborn. There are a lot of Democratic base voters who are deeply dissatisfied with his policies and whose preferences are much further left, though, so I'd say the party as a whole is still centrist. Röstigraben (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- "They don't even support universal healthcare, and still favor private insurers, just as one example." Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, and the Netherlands would all be surprised to learn that universal health care and private insurers are apparently mutually exclusive.
- Awww, the Democratic Party writeup is gone. I thought they were perfect for the article following the New Democrats under Clinton (who repealed Glass Steagal and passed DOMA). Now, if you wanna say they're not even centrist and more center-right, all right, that's fine. Serocco 06:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- You'd be surprised how many Europeans think Obama was a left-winger, because he's black (no joke). Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Update[edit]
I've restarted this page and provided no one has any screaming hissy fits over it I'll remove the centrism section over on the political spectrum page around the same time I simplify and refine that page to dealing with the political spectrum (instead of the flailing ad-hoc taxonomy of all political opinions that its doing badly at the moment).
I would love to add a horse-shoe section to this, but I see we already have a horse-shoe theory page.. it looks like a mess tbh so I don't know how I'm going to proceed there. Tikitime2 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Horseshoe theory is academically depreciated, so if you do keep that in mind. Carthage (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, it's absolute bollocks. It is frankly embarrassing how much time and attention our article pays humouring it even though it clearly aknowledges from the start that it's a clumsy and failed attempt to equate socialists with nazis. Tikitime2 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- RW is seen as a "joke wiki" or at best useful in only certain areas (such as refuting pseudoscience or documenting the alt-right) for a reason. When it comes to areas like the humanities or the social sciences, this wiki is at best mediocre. Look at our articles on the Christ myth theory for another example of this. Carthage (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I resent that. The humanities articles I have contributed to are good.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- True, but not every article here was written or contributed to by you. Another problem is the relative lack of mainspace editors, which definitely contributes to it. Carthage (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I typically tell people in meatspace to take everything on the site with a grain of salt if it is not classed as a “cover story”/gold brain-star. An issue is that our content is broad with very little incentive to fact-check articles/check the cited sources so no one really bothers. There is also a certain tendency for some with access to reputable resources which are pay-walled to bank on no one being resourceful enough to verify their use of the source is proper. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- True, but not every article here was written or contributed to by you. Another problem is the relative lack of mainspace editors, which definitely contributes to it. Carthage (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I resent that. The humanities articles I have contributed to are good.
- RW is seen as a "joke wiki" or at best useful in only certain areas (such as refuting pseudoscience or documenting the alt-right) for a reason. When it comes to areas like the humanities or the social sciences, this wiki is at best mediocre. Look at our articles on the Christ myth theory for another example of this. Carthage (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, it's absolute bollocks. It is frankly embarrassing how much time and attention our article pays humouring it even though it clearly aknowledges from the start that it's a clumsy and failed attempt to equate socialists with nazis. Tikitime2 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Reactionary centrism[edit]
There must be some scope to include something on reactionary centrism in this article or others. It's closely related to the balance fallacy and the Intellectual Dark Web, and Martin Luther King Jr. described those who espoused it as "the white moderate" in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail in 1963.
- Paul Rosenberg (2024-01-14). "Reactionary centrism: The toxic force that could elect Trump — and kill off democracy". Salon.
- Aaron Huertas (2023-01-05). "Reactionary Centrism: a Response to Jonathan Chait". Aaron Huertas.
Kumararepublic (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)