Wikipedia calls Centrism a “political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy,” which is an alright definition. It’s true that the word “of” pops up a bit too often, but what other preposition would someone use? “Across”? “Minus”? “Underneath”? Your lightning fast collegiate mind might be skeptical of anything that comes from Wikipedia, but does the Encyclopedia Britannica include an article on every “Give Yourself Goosebumps”? That might sound excessive, but if you think about it they could go further if they wanted, by including diagrams of every possible path through those books. It doesn’t matter much either way.
So, is Centrism good or bad? It’s a bit of a mix, really. On the one hand it can come off as apathetic to those with strong political stances. On the other hand it is important to see the merit in … meh, whateverrrr, right? There are a lot of intelligent people, but obviously a lot of dumb people as well, so maybe hearing from everyone would not be so beneficial. It is a bit much to ask for society to be ruled by philosopher kings, but what about barons with philosophy minors? That would probably be alright.
There are some centrists who have a mix of right wing, left wing, bird wing, bat wing, and dragon wing opinions. Like libertarians and George W. Bush, who are actually quite different, aren’t they? Maybe they aren’t centrists at all, you decide. The point is that they don’t fit neatly into the agenda of their political party, so maybe they aren’t the creamy part of the center. They’re just like that last thin layer of chocolate shell which doesn’t face the air but is in contact with that cream, you know? Except they’re white chocolate.
There are other centrists who don’t really see social … hierarchical file system? … and that other thing as being important. There are other things to worry about like XBox vs PlayStation, MathNews vs Iron Warrior, staples vs paper clips, pinkies vs ring fingers and of course the modern classic: Coke vs Vanilla Coke. Do these people need to wake up, or are the mainstream-issue-following crowd just a bunch of sheeple who can’t prioritize for themselves? And while we’re on the topic of sheeple, is being a sheep-person such a bad thing? We could probably all use some extra wool during winter. Definitely better than being a merperson, but you’re probably not too concerned about the sheeple vs merfolk debate. Maybe one day, you’ll see the light and realize that sheeple vs merfolk is the 28-and-a-halfth most important issue of one of the decades.
Some centrists are just plain nihilistic, believing that nothing matters and the universe is a cold, uncaring, [TODO: insert adjective to subvert rule of 3? ambivalent about that tbh], meaningless void. Why even do anything if the effect is not important? Might as well just sit at home, eating endless packs of Ruffles™ Crème Sure et Bacon™ and washing down all the figurative and literal salt with (Vanilla?) Coke. There were probably intellectuals or something who said a thing about all this, long ago in a galaxy pretty nearby.
Finally, some centrists just don’t like conflict. They want everyone to hold hands and sing kumbaya. Trouble is, kumbaya is too Christian for the atheists and too sensitive for the Nazis. Also, demanding that everyone holds hands is ableist against people with no voice box … wait I might have mixed that one up. Or not, hard to say.
The point is … debatable. Alright, gotta go maybe, have an alright unspecified period of time.
Leave a Reply