Oddbean

@b05df304 Uh, “centrism” doesn’t mean not being for one of the parties, there is quite a lot ideological space that’s not between the US parties. And this is kinda insulting, considering what he thought about moderates.

@62f94e11 He did **not** have a negative view of **political** moderates... he had mentioned criticisms of "White moderates" but they were moderate in the sense of the politicial spectrum.. he was talking about whites who were not vocal against racism while not actively being racist themselves... he was purely talking about a moderate stance on racism, not politics.

@b05df304 Are you seriously suggesting that race was not a (if not the!) political issue then? o.0 Not to mention it still is now. Besides, you might want to read some of his later writings, where he explicitly advocates socialism. Due to how the party system in the US looks, no socialists (or other left ideologies) particularly like any of the parties, but I don’t think you would call them centrists, no?

@62f94e11 > Are you seriously suggesting that race was not a (if not the!) political issue then? o.0 Not to mention it still is now. Literally anything and everything can and is a politicial issue, then and now... Science is a big political issue too with the right thinking the scientific community are liars and corrupt and with the left generally saying to follow the science as a mantra... Does that mean if someone calls me a "moderate scientist" that they are implying im politically moderate? Of course not Racism was politicial, but calling a moderately racist white person as somehow meaning the same as a person with an overall political stance that is moderate is absolutely not the same. MLK made it clear in two ways 1) he has never said or suggested he was talking about political moderates, on racist moderates 2) he has explicitly taken a centrist/moderate political opinon in what he has said and done time and time again.

@b05df304 His arguments against “white moderates” are perfectly applicable to any other kind of political moderate though. Why do you think he only applied them to race politics? Plus, he wasn’t writing about “moderately racist people” – the letter was about people who, through a misguided vision of being moderate, kept insisting that his goals were just (so they weren’t really personally racists, just, as we would say today, insufficiently anti-racist), but the timing was wrong, a mantra that is oft repeated in many political contexts when some group wants change for the better. Amusingly, I kinda agree that he was a moderate, since he only advocated democratic socialism, which is a moderate position from my perspective. It was, and continues to be, to the left of any of the US party positions though. He was also to the left of both parties on race, quite obviously. That’s why I vehemently disagree with calling him a “centrist” in the US context, although feel free to call him a moderate if you consider democratic socialism moderate.

@62f94e11 Except not... racism is a clear evil, it is bad in any quantity and when you facilitate others doing it through inaction it is virtually always wrong. So yes being on the fence as to whther a minority is "equal enough" and going "thats an ok about of pain they deal with ill accept it".. is never acceptable. It is evil in all proportions. So no,, we cant apply that to other things too often because most things are not as wholly evil as racism is. If the choice is between locking down the borders complete with no exception or having completely open boards (two radical non-moderate extremes on views)... you have something that is not wholly one sided evil... Either of those choices in their radical extreme can and will harm communities. Where moderate solutions may find actual long term workable solutions. In fact, we find that outside of a few exceptioons most things have valid arguments on both sides where only a moderate could hope to reach a good balance effective solution that actually fixes the problems.

@b05df304 You could say the same about poverty or militarism – they are clearly evil, and MLK was also explicitly speaking out about them (well, in the quote I’m thinking of, he was saying “capitalism” rather than “poverty”, but that hardly helps your case). But you are arguing the less important part of the argument – MLK was clearly not a centrist, because he was to the left of both parties in the US, do you disagree with that?

@62f94e11 > You could say the same about poverty Sure poverty is fairly close to always bad (you can argue it gives character, but only if you actually get out of it at some point).. So yes you shouldnt be "I am pro poverty I want more people to be poor!" (extreme left communism)... and you shouldnt be "I am anti poverty and I think 100% of people should be billionairs (extreme left to the point of pooling all the money and letting everyone else die).... Neither extreme is good, so again, we have centrism being best, where people want to eliminate the poor, but not the rich, but also accept that the middle glass should thrive.

@b05df304 I have the feeling you are ever so slightly strawmanning communism… but, more importantly, you are clearly avoiding the topic of the conversation. I’m not arguing whether being moderate is good or bad, but whether MLK can be accurately called a centrist. So, do you disagree with any of the below? MLK was a democratic socialist. Democratic socialism was and is to the left of both US parties. By 1 & 2 calling MLK centrist is wrong.