'Centrists' don't help much either because they too hold the left to a higher standard than the right and always seem to be looking for any excuse to whip out the ol' "so much for the tolerant left" so that they can feel better about themselves when they vote for who they really wanted to vote for anyway.

People on the right can say in plain English "I want to dismantle women's rights and put all gay people into camps" and the 'centrist' will be like "hmmm yes that seems like a valid political opinion". But the moment someone on the left drops the high road shit for once and bites back, the 'centrist', clutching pearls is like "See? This is why I'm supporting the bigots that hate everyone, because you SWORE and that's unacceptable!"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)

That's not a Centrist viewpoint at all. That's a solidly right viewpoint.

The Centrist would, however, say "look, if you're going to make your whole vibe about tolerance, that's cool. I love it. But my homie, that's a slippery slope you haven't fully negotiated yet. So when your less disciplined people start to be big picture tolerant through on-paper intolerance, don't expect me to do the same mental gymnastics to defend it that you do with your mom at Thanksgiving. How about you solve the problem before you create it by not being sloppy and bumbling your way into an obvious trap every bully has pulled since the dawn of time?"

But hey, as a Centrist, the Left can't discern me from someone like Bush 43 or a raging MAGA freak because anything right of far left is a legit fascist. Which is why I cant hang with you all, your labels are weird. But the Right usually wants to hang me for being a traitor, so one of y'all is far more worth dealing with occasional cringe.

[–] LengAwaits 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm still always surprised when people say "slippery slope" in earnest, as though it isn't a well-known logical fallacy to be avoided. As though, at no point along the slope, would we be able to reverse course. "This thing must necessarily lead to that thing over time!"

Okay Nostradamus.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's only a fallacy when there is not evidence given that each step leads to the next. A slippery slope argument is perfectly valid when evidence is provided.The fallacy is in the implicit and unexamined assumption that a must lead to b.

E.g

Taking heroin once is obviously a slippery slope to becoming a heroin addict because taking it once causes you to crave taking it again.

[–] LengAwaits 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

100% agreed. I used the graphic to illustrate the point but really should have just linked to the Wikipedia article, which explains the difference.

In the instance I replied to, the slippery slope is invoked but the steps are not described, and no evidence is provided.

Besides, I'd argue (in good company) that centrism is and has been a cloak for fascism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

Here, it's what I hoped was obvious shorthand for a subjective value set with no clear, well-defined boundaries of what is or is not defined for the practice of tolerance.

Most descriptions of tolerance are set by simply being allowed to exist, or a set of principles which are a bit nebulous in practice, like how the UN tries to define it.

Do you have a favorite courtroom-ready definition of the words "tolerance" and "intolerance" that would apply in every state equally to show anyone what they can and can't say with perfect objective clarity? I would love to hear it.

So when people are defining the term with the absence of the opposite of the term, it means the term is ultimately being used to define itself.

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)