Centrism isn’t magically enlightened. Depending on the climate it’s arguably incredibly naive. “Radical centrism” just sounds like having no internal philosophy.
And my comment had nothing to do with bob’s second point about centrism, only the first about surrounding yourself with radicals of any political ideology.
You would benefit from being specific when making a comment where your exact words are wholesale endorsement of someone’s worldview. Turning around and immediately changing the entire thesis of your comment makes it seem like your goal was to be contrarian rather than add to the discussion.
A. "Don’t surround yourself with extremists.
I’d surround myself with extreme centrists instead"
B. “That is shallow”
You. “They see modern issues better than you. (…)”
You may want to rethink how you provide endorsement in general, if someone pointing out how shallow of a belief something that is inarguably shallow encourages you to claim that other someone, off of a single comment, literally sees the world better.
Your reading comprehension isn’t my issue to fix. I didn’t say a word about centrism. As soon as your ego got hurt you come at me with this nonsense. It’s cool, you can still grow from this and have it be worth the time taken.
Centrism isn’t magically enlightened. Depending on the climate it’s arguably incredibly naive. “Radical centrism” just sounds like having no internal philosophy.
And my comment had nothing to do with bob’s second point about centrism, only the first about surrounding yourself with radicals of any political ideology.
You would benefit from being specific when making a comment where your exact words are wholesale endorsement of someone’s worldview. Turning around and immediately changing the entire thesis of your comment makes it seem like your goal was to be contrarian rather than add to the discussion.
A. "Don’t surround yourself with extremists.
I’d surround myself with extreme centrists instead"
B. “That is shallow”
You. “They see modern issues better than you. (…)”
You may want to rethink how you provide endorsement in general, if someone pointing out how shallow of a belief something that is inarguably shallow encourages you to claim that other someone, off of a single comment, literally sees the world better.
Have a good one.
Your reading comprehension isn’t my issue to fix. I didn’t say a word about centrism. As soon as your ego got hurt you come at me with this nonsense. It’s cool, you can still grow from this and have it be worth the time taken.
It’s a fun game to call failures of rhetoric someone else’s failure of reading comprehension. Flimsy, too.
Implicitly, yes you did, by virtue of defending a comment that did discuss “radical centrism” against criticism for being “extremely shallow”.