You Say You’re Centrist – I Say Centre-Left Always Moves Further Left

Intro

I was talking to some guy on discord who claims he’s a liberal or a centrist but he claims that what I claim a liberal is, isn’t really that, that they hijacked it, that they’re a progressive and that he’s a true liberal. I asked him to define what he believes in and he couldn’t so I asked him who says things that he agrees with. I saw the 2 commentator youtubers he gave, who claim they are CENTRIST

I then got my opinion after a few videos.

I just find the diplomat type people annoying. They’re always playing devil’s advocate in conversations. They never want to “take sides” in any argument or dispute with anyone else. They always have to sugarcoat their words beyond belief, like some PR speak, that goes beyond how most people would speak, like it’s some kids tv show where everything is sugarcoated and mollycoddled

They believe in the Big Tent theory, that if you exclude all the extremists, that you can get everyone under a Big Tent They believe in the Horseshoe Theory, that both sides are more similar than they are different, and if they had discussions, they’d realise that they’re more similar than they realised.

They always try to maintain diplomatic relations with both sides, as its their diplomatic imperative to never do or say anything that would make them lose an ally, to turn an ally into an adversial or even a distant deserter.

I just find the diplomatic people so annoying, and they always try to middle groudn things.

I can just copy and paste what I said to the guy LOL

Sometimes countries act diplomatic when they have their suspicions

It’s like a country that tries to keep diplomatic ties with 2 opposing countries, who thinks that it’s better to keep both countries at allies, than to have 1 remaining ally after losing 1, as the lost 1 will just change to switch to becoming an adversary.

My Analogy

Imagine that someone is offended by something, either by something someone said, did, their attitude, something they displayed or just a general overall attitude that they find annoying.

They then express their hurt to being the recipient of such an action, towards the agent (or actor) who committed the action towards them or the current room.

The conversation, at its most base level, as a matter of the principle of it, would pretty much go like this.

Chastised agent: If it’s such a trivial and petty thing, why do you care so much about it?
Offended recipient If it’s such a trivial and petty thing, why do you care so much about me caring about it?
Chastised agent: If it’s such a trivial and petty thing, why do you care so much about it?
Offended recipient If it’s such a trivial and petty thing, why do you care so much about me caring about it?

The agent will then try a different approach
Chastised agent: Didn’t you hear what I said 2 hours ago or have you forgotten? Think about what I said again.
Offended recipient: But it doesn’t really affect you, does it? But it affects me. Don’t you see how hurt I am by this?
Chastised agent: You don’t get it, do you? I can’t believe I have to explain things properly, after you didn’t understand my short and snappy answer, the 3/4/5th time earlier today and a few weeks ago and a few weeks before that. I’ll explain blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Then someone else, sees that there’s a quarrel going on, to then walk over to the two people, to then act as the mediator. to try to diffuse the situation.

The mediator’s logic, will pretty much, if you break it down, it’ll work something like this.

  1. They’re not asking for the earth.
  2. They’re not asking for your free time.
  3. They’re not asking for you to debase your personality so you become homogenised.
  4. They’re not asking you to wear some victorian style chattel so you can no longer speak anything of substantial meaning and value
  5. They’re not trying to take anything away from you, so you can still remain privileged as a X/Y/Z person.

In short, to make it some pithy maxim….
They’re not asking for the earth and they’re not asking for your shoelaces on a rainy day

Hence, the person who is offended, will end up getting what they want, within the quarrel style dispute, that’s friendly and below the severity level of an argument. Therefore the chastised recipient will of appeased the offended recipient, whether by genuine intentions, a goodwill gesture or from feeling obligated to do so by any third parties (typically friends or peer pressure).

If you look at what the person with the modus operandi of being the diplomatic person, would actually do in the REAL world, they would not take a neutral position (like those 2 commentary youtubers claim) but they’ll INSTEAD shift it further and further left.

The diplomatic standpoint will be to say

“They’re not asking for the earth and they’re not asking for your shoelaces on a rainy day“

Hence, the liberal gets what they want.

This is why being the middle ground person and the diplomatic person is an oxymoron.
You can’t have both at the same time. You have to pick a side.
It’s either one or the other.

And voila!

This is why you cannot be the middle ground and the diplomat at the same time. Because the diplomat will gradually and inadvertently shift things, further and further left.

You can’t have both at the same time. You have to pick a side. It’s either one or the other.

I can give you some examples of oxymorons

  1. Window shopping
  2. Everyone is unique
  3. Singing contest
  4. Try before you buy
  5. New and improved
  6. 0% APR
  7. I sincerely regret
  8. Idemnity clauses
  9. Diplomatic immunity
  10. Good luck (for lotteries, competitions and gambling)
  11. So I just find those diplomatic people VERY ANNOYING

How could I possibly have a conversation with them? What would I talk about? We would run out of things to talk about. There would be no common ground and I don’t mean topics. I mean like a shared understanding like sharing the same sense of humour.

The type of person I am, my sort of personality and the type of things that I talk about, how could I be friends with a diplomatic type person, if we’d run out of things to talk about?

Two example youtube channels

Prime example of center-left diplomatic channels, always expressing opinions as meekly and harmoniously as possible, as if they’re skinny dipping in the water

I don’t like them

Those 2 channels try to claim the middle ground while also trying to be diplomatic. Their imperative is to always be diplomatic at all costs. Everything has to be worded and proposed in a way, to keep diplomatic ties with 2 different parties, at all costs, 2 different parties which disagree with each other, at all costs.

If there is any opinion or proposal which will cause offence, uncomfortableness, outrage or dissent by any one party, the diplomatic person (those 2 channels) will never express it and never propose it.

It’s like a country that tries to keep diplomatic ties with 2 opposing countries, who thinks that it’s better to keep both countries at allies, than to have 1 remaining ally after losing 1, as the lost 1 will just change to switch to becoming an adversary. In my opinion, those 2 channels being the middle ground and the diplomat, is wrong and dangerous and is creeping in liberalism (that you say isn’t real liberalism) by the backdoor.

So to get to the end of my point.

If you watch those 2 commentary youtube channels that the guy on discord showed me, ShortFatOtaku and AdamAndSitch, people would be under the impression that the person who is both the middle ground and the diplomatic standpoint of an ideologue, that they would either….

1) Take the neutral position
2) Allow a healthy debate of both sides of the argument (pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages)
3) Come to a compromise by picking the best of both worlds

However that is not what’s going to happen.
The mediator who takes both the middle ground standpoint and the diplomatic standpoint, will INSTEAD say

I'm not here to take sides.
I'm not here to hear any debates about who is right and who is wrong.
I'm not here to hear all the philosophical arguments about preaching and postulating like some Oxford University Debate Society on youtube

That reminds me of being a child and how adults solve arguments between children in the school playground, after some child alerts the teacher to solve it.

Good memories, fun times LOL

I'm not here to take sides
I'm not here to take sides
I'm not here to take sides

The diplomat is NOT going to do any of those 3 things.

So yeah, I just see it as an oxymoron, you can’t be the middle ground and the diplomat at the same time, either one or the other, as the diplomat slowly moves in one direction, to creep things in through the backdoor.

Conclusion

I just think in my opinion.

Being the middle ground person and the diplomatic person, at the same time is an oxymoron.
The diplomatic person will ALWAYS shift things, further and further left, even in the absence of any authority role or leadership role (eg. police, teachers, managers)

You can’t have both at the same time. You have to pick a side.
It’s either one or the other.
There’s no two ways about it, no inbetween.

My classic memes prevail again!

Related Posts