Alternative to Reddit that is Center. Not liberal or far right.

Yep, they basically endorsed individual acts of terrorism, with the same justifications that all terrorists use. And they'll ban you if you challenge that lunacy.

[-]

Viceroy1994@reddit

Vigilante justice towards people who are murderers beyond any reasonable doubt != terrorism which requires harm come to innocents.

[-]

Complex_Database_341@reddit

A healthcare CEO is a proven murderer?

[-]

I have no political home. I just want to do things that are logical and make sense. Trump is really stupid. But we have immigration laws so I can't argue with them being enforced. I want to legalize all drugs. I am pro death penalty. I am pro universal health care... and so on..

So there's no place for me. I just what the crazies battle it out

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

There is nothing that's dead center. Either you accept truth from science or you accept truth from authority. These two are very different.

[-]

uuid-already-exists@reddit

The science can be flawed as well. Our understanding changes. Once blood letting was the science until it wasn’t. That doesn’t mean blood letting was ever the right way. Even if we get the right answers, because we’re people we can interpret it incorrectly. That isn’t to say authority is the way to go either.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

No, science is an ever updating method based on observation. That doesn't make it flawed. Truth from authority is how you get WWII.

[-]

EveryDay657@reddit

I don’t understand why people think this way. Science is incorrect all the time. So is authority. But it’s a false dichotomy to imagine there’s only two ways of looking at the world anyway.

[-]

Viceroy1994@reddit

Doesn't matter that science is incorrect all the time, barring god stepping down from the clouds and laying down the rules, it's the most correct thing humanity can achieve for any given situation.

[-]

True-Surprise1222@reddit

I actually had a hard time figuring out if he meant left or right as authority and the other as science. If that helps paint a picture of how silly this label is. They both try to use science in defense of their beliefs.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Science is a tool of observation, the only path to truth. Wishy washy shit based on no evidence and a strong stamp of feelings saying "Iknow cuz I know" is just not good enough evidence.

Basing your core beliefs off of a book is trusting in authority, and that got us the crusades and WWII.

[-]

True-Surprise1222@reddit

My point being that both sides use science to defend their views.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

No science backs up religion. There is no science that proves the spiritual realm exists.

[-]

True-Surprise1222@reddit

I didn’t say anything about religion??

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Maybe i am.

[-]

MurrayInBocaRaton@reddit

I would recommend reading “The Death of Expertise” by Tom Nichols

[-]

EveryDay657@reddit

I’m not suggesting science is without merit or can be discarded. My issue is treating it like infallible dogma.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

No, science adapts, authority asserts. You cant assert science without evidence. You can assert authority without evidence.

Authority is not a path to truth. The bible is not a path to truth.

[-]

EveryDay657@reddit

You can’t assert science without evidence? Go back and look through human history. Tons of folks absolutely asserted authority and cited science as evidence for their reasoning.

[-]

wooltab@reddit

I think that it's probably reasonable to draw a line between science now, and science before people actually had the means to study stuff properly.

Not that there still aren't beliefs that may be disproved, or incomplete understanding, but it's functionally a different thing now versus for much of human history.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Truth that's come from authority doesn't make it true.

Science doesn't require your faith. It provides evidence.

Idk wtf you're talking about science without evidence.

[-]

EveryDay657@reddit

Eugenics, phrenology, etc et al. Science is not infallible and simply leaning on it is not enough. It can and does and has gotten a lot wrong and it can and is influenced by humans, who do everything from buying environmental studies that favor oil and gas companies, to engaging in the Fossil Wars. It’s constantly evolving and corrections to each of its areas of study are constantly being made, yes, but by definition that also means it is always getting something wrong. I like science, but it’s just another tool in the toolbox. There’s not some kind of dichotomy where one should embrace it solely to the exclusion of everything else.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Yes, and it adapted, and we know better. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

God hates gays based on what it says in the bible, and culties will hate gays for no other reason than their authority tells them to do so.

[-]

Repulsive-Outcome-20@reddit

The key difference is that science LIKES being wrong. That's the point. And as it finds errors it updates. Authority on the other hand can't be wrong, because then it loses power.

[-]

AmazingRandini@reddit

Science tells you what is. It doesn't tell you what ought to be.

You need a philosophy to make decisions based on the information that science gives you.

Furthermore, before you choose a scientific question, you need to decide which question is worth pursuing. You need a value structure.

Science can teach you about nuclear energy. It can't tell you what to do with that knowledge.

[-]

uuid-already-exists@reddit

I don’t think I said anything to counter that. However garbage in will result in garbage out. Which creates flawed science and can pollute our understanding. Since we are flawed the work we produce can also be flawed.

[-]

Devildiver21@reddit

God damn American are always so your own research. .like wtf we all need to be authorities in stuff ..no you follow the experts and decide on your but to follow authoritianisn is fucking stupid. Go back w the magas

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

That's with anything and is irrelevant to my point.

[-]

GoodhartMusic@reddit

Framing of science as truth is the flaw

[-]

5erif@reddit

Right, because it doesn't claim to be truth. It's a reflection of current data weighed against prior data, continually evolving as new data comes in. It's a language for describing the rigour with which your data was collected, so that others can decide how seriously to consider your results. It's an invitation for others to challenge your findings and a method for judging conflicts cooperatively and as impartially as possible, while acknowledging biases.

Science is not any policy or prescription for what we should do in response to data either. Policy should be informed by science, but all policy is still a separate thing from science.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

No, pretending you can assert the truth because it's written in a book written by people. That's the flaw. And it's weird.

[-]

RepubMocrat_Party@reddit

Does this insinuate either side of authority allows truthful flow of information from science sources? They have the best interest of the people in their decisions to fund scientific research and dissemination?

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Can pretending a book written by men with no evidence to the spiritual realm prove God exists?

Making uo stories doesn't get you closer to truth.

Science is the only thing that has given humanity results.

[-]

RepubMocrat_Party@reddit

In a vacuum, absolutely. In the real world, there is plenty of corruption related to how “science” is appreciated. Not to say faith is pure and honest but providing moral foundation is vital to success and teamwork. Both are necessary and the dichotomy you view the world really shows a lack of real work experience.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

This is gibberish.

No, pretending a god exists does nothing for anyone except those in power to manipulate it.

Faith is purely dishonest. It's belief in the face of no evidence. You have to ignore evidence to maintain the faith. It's warped.

Our morality is based on the greater good of the group. Not a book based on middle eastern mythology.

[-]

RepubMocrat_Party@reddit

Back to a black and white take on things.. you mentioned God, I mentioned Faith. Faith is much larger than a book or higher power. Assuming whatever a scientist tells you is the only truth really limits potential. Once you aquire a few more life experiences you will find how valuable a strong internal belief can be. Instead of blindly following “science” research sponsored by major corporations simply use that info as another tool to complement the gut feeling. Thats what won the election for trump, all the conspiracies coming to light by people who refused to blindly follow.

[-]

Delicious-Squash-599@reddit

Can we explore your thoughts on this a little more?

Who is saying science is flawless or infallible? I thought we were discussing what methodology for reaching conclusions is the most reliable.

[-]

uuid-already-exists@reddit

I’m simply stating that people can claim they are following the science but are not in actuality. Purely following “the science” only works when you understand it or the authority stating it is completely truthful. Since the vast majority of people do not understand the complex topics of modern day ground-breaking science, the people explaining now becomes truth from authority. Twisting the truth, adding biases, or downright luring for political, monetary, or any other means is possible because the science becomes a tool for authority.

Topics that can be understood and verified by the average person will be generally followed since they can be replicated. Germ theory is easy to test, the average person can understand it. People can see that washing their hands prevent illnesses. They’ll easily follow the science. When you get to a more complex topic of the Covid-19 vaccine, you say that many people were confused, outright misinformed, and lied to by scientific authorities. The average person doesn’t didn’t even know what a coronaviruses is let alone the nuances and behavior of them. So the population was dependent of scientific authorities for a scientific source of truth. As we witnessed people like Dr Fauci intentionally lied to the public about protecting us from Covid-19. (He said we shouldn’t mask at the beginning of the pandemic then later said we should. This wasn’t from new information, this was for political/logistical reasons. Scientists also knew that regular common masks were of little use, but the population was continuously told to use them despite knowledge of how ineffective they were in practice.) As a regular person, following the science was near impossible unless you could comprehend and evaluate the latest studies coming out.

[-]

Delicious-Squash-599@reddit

I think you’re making an important distinction between trusting authority and following the science, but I don’t think it’s as inaccessible as you’re implying. Yes, most people aren’t reading primary studies, but that doesn’t mean they can’t follow basic scientific reasoning.

Take masks, for example. You don’t have to be an epidemiologist to understand:

COVID-19 spreads through respiratory droplets.
Masks reduce the spread of droplets.
Therefore, wearing a mask reduces transmission risk.

That’s following the science. It’s an evidence-based reasoning process, not just “Fauci said so.”

The real issue isn’t that people can’t follow science—it’s that science communication is often botched, and people conflate evolving guidance with deception. The mask messaging early on was a great example of this: public health officials worried about supply issues, so they downplayed effectiveness. That was a bad decision, but it doesn’t mean the science behind masks wasn’t solid.

To give another example—I personally recognized COVID-19 was going to be a global pandemic back in December, before it was officially declared one. Not because some scientist told me, but because I could reason through: 1. The virus had asymptomatic transmission and a long incubation period. 2. Cases had reached triple digits in China despite detection lag. 3. This meant it had already spread far beyond what was visible.

That wasn’t blind trust in authority—it was following the science.

If anything, the solution isn’t for people to throw up their hands and say “we can’t follow the science,” it’s to improve the way we engage with it. Wouldn’t you agree that basic reasoning like this is within reach for most people?

[-]

uuid-already-exists@reddit

Your 3rd point, wearing a mask reduces transmission risk is a large over simplification with plenty of asterisks and assumptions for that statement to be true. For example masks can capture droplets but the size of these droplets largely vary in size. One person’s mask made of linen will have little effectiveness compared to a properly worn n95 mask. These nuances get lost by the public at large. Even then the mask may stop the droplets from the mouth but the inside of the mask may be touched and now the droplets are spread from contact. So does the population with their lack of strict contamination procedure prevent Covid 19 infections, the answer as well saw was little to no effect. That is not the same as saying masks don’t work however, they just require the right kind and proper usage. Which is why hospital staff use them because they have the proper training and protocols to make effective use of them while the average public could not.

Someone like Dr Fauci, (I’m picking on him simply because he was the most well known scientific authority figure not because of the politics surrounding him) was trying to help the public but he could not explain all the nuances to the public. As you said the people can’t follow the latest scientific understanding. Education in general can help with as scientific education is difficult without a foundational knowledge of some of these concepts. It sounds like we agree for the most part. I don’t see most people following the science of things when they don’t understand it while simultaneously going against their comfort. Education can counter our will for comfort to a degree. We wear seatbelts and helmets because we know it’s safer to do so even though the strap is uncomfortable. More people learning will pull those that don’t understand for what ever reason along.

[-]

TwoWrongsAreSoRight@reddit

Yes, science has been wrong over the years and those views have been updated as new discoveries have been made. Religion (or what you call authority) have never been correct, ever and they still use things that they "knew" in the 1500's.

[-]

uuid-already-exists@reddit

That’s a very broad response however religion and science do not always conflict. The Catholic Church has long been a patron of the sciences. Of course there are examples of confliction, but they don’t always have too. Also like politics, there are so many different flavors of people’s views on religious topics. For every person whose view opposes the modern understanding of the current scientific understanding, there are religious persons who support it. For example the origins of humankind is disputed by many religious people, they think they were not the product of evolution yet many other religious people believe that we are.

[-]

dicksonleroy@reddit

Blood letting was never based on science.

[-]

DefiantAlternative61@reddit

https://nordelphysioclinic.ca/blog/how-bloodletting-works-and-what-are-its-benefits/#:~:text=Reduce%20the%20risk%20of%20cancer,less%20risk%20of%20heart%20issues.

[-]

dicksonleroy@reddit

Let me know when you have peer-reviewed studies to share. 😂🤣

[-]

DefiantAlternative61@reddit

It is peer-reviewed by over 10,000 physicians but keep laughing

[-]

dicksonleroy@reddit

Doesn’t cite sources sweet cheeks. Thanks, I will. Morons entertain me.

[-]

throwiebecausehate@reddit

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3114022/

Peer reviewed, cites sources, etc. Going to move the goalpost again?

[-]

ThePersonInYourSeat@reddit

This is true but sort of misleading as it's not the whole picture. Science can be wrong, but the amount by which it is wrong decreases over time. It gets MORE accurate over time.

So the incorrect things go from being "the four humors determine health" to "woah, this cell does a biochemical thing we didn't understand".

A lot of people use the argument you make to say "Science doesn't know anything".

[-]

Delicious-Squash-599@reddit

Don’t let people get away with reframing it as ‘science isn’t perfect’.

Bring them back to ‘it’s about what method for reaching conclusions is the most reliable.’

Unless they have some alternative to science that is even more reliable it’s a bullshit point they bring up.

[-]

BP1979ska@reddit

People can flaw science in purpose. That's a form of control. AI for example is not free thinking intelligence. It's mostly filtered with an intent in mind.

[-]

shrimp_etouffee@reddit

in the rest of the developed world, the democratic party would be considered right wing.

[-]

AmazingRandini@reddit

Science tells you what is. It doesn't tell you what ought to be.

You need a philosophy to make decisions based on the information that science gives you.

Furthermore, before you choose a scientific question, you need to decide which question is worth pursuing. You need a value structure.

Science can teach you about nuclear energy. It can't tell you what to do with that knowledge.

You can have 2 different political views based on the same science.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Gibberish.

[-]

Own-Neighborhood6828@reddit

Waaaaaaahhh

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Are you crying or saying what?

[-]

Own-Neighborhood6828@reddit

That was you.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

No, I see you crying, why are you crying?

[-]

Xavier_fan_@reddit

Agree with me or you're a fascist! Lol

Btw, x is the most ideologically balanced. https://nypost.com/2024/11/26/media/cnn-panelist-claims-x-is-ideologically-balanced-and-cites-networks-own-reporting/

[-]

Responsible_Chip_171@reddit

Actually, within science the authority principle works, too. At least in the social sciences and arts & humanities. (Source: I work there)

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

No, science is truth through observation. Religion is a book where people say they really really believe it's true or they will kill you if you don't, too. Kinda insidious.

[-]

Responsible_Chip_171@reddit

oh you sweet summer child....

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Attacking me doesn't make truth from authority better.

[-]

distractionfactory@reddit

I think he's trying to point out that you're being a bit naive by assuming that scientific information that's generally available isn't also influenced by some authority. Pure "science" exists only as a theoretical. Practically you are limited by funding sources, publishers and probably a ton of other factors that I'm not aware of since I'm not a scientist. As a science consumer you're also limited by how the science is interpreted and who is interpreting it. Also (and I think this is the biggest factor) what gets selected to be interpreted at all. I know I'm not reading scientific journals directly - I'm certainly not comprehending them fully when I try. So most of the "science" that's available to the general public has gone through more than a few layers of filters by one "authority" or another.

So even when pursuing information from scientific based sources you still need to be skeptical and approach it from a pragmatic perspective - understanding that the information you're seeing is not necessarily more of a guaranteed truth that if it were from a religious text.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Sounds like gibberish. Authority can claim anything without evidence, making it not a good route to truth.

[-]

distractionfactory@reddit

Gibberish? What are you talking about? I explained my points very plainly, if you can't understand the parallels with the point you're trying to make, you may have some issues with reading comprehension. Not saying it as an insult, just an observation.

Authority can claim anything without evidence, making it not a good route to truth.

This is literally the point I am trying to make. If the authority is the one interpreting the evidence for you, it's only as reliable as that authority.

If you are holding up something called "science" in your head with no regard to how you go about defining it or scrutinizing the process, it's no better than dogma and you aren't actually being very scientific.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

More gibberish.

[-]

distractionfactory@reddit

Then you've traded one master for another with no regard for any truth and you are as dependent upon authority as if you were following the Pope.

[-]

Locrian6669@reddit

This is literally the Mac defense from its always sunny in Philadelphia. lol

Believing in a book without evidence will never be equivalent to believing evidence that can be peer reviewed.

[-]

distractionfactory@reddit

I don't remember that scene, but I could totally imagine him using that argument against science.

In this case I am not making an argument against science. I'm pointing out the importance of evaluating sources of information. Anyone can say something is peered reviewed, but it's good to have some ability to be able to verify those claims for yourself even if you trust the source. There's also ways of presenting information that is technically correct, but in a narrow way that doesn't reveal context that could significantly change how the data should be interpreted.

This is becoming more of an issue as new findings are more complicated and data sets are getting larger; we're not getting a lot of breakthroughs in areas of science that are simple enough that you can see for yourself, like conservation of motion. Then there's the push to publish findings, make click bait headlines, show correlation to justify ongoing funding, etc. I've seen articles that make a big deal that a study found a correlation with x and y, but at such a low percentage that is was just barely outside of the error rate. So, technically statistically significant, but the headline (and often the whole article) does everything they can to obscure that fact.

The point is, believing evidence that can be peer reviewed is much better than believing it a book without evidence. But believing someone else's interpretation without ever bothering to verify that evidence exists to even be peer reviewed is no better.

I had thought that I could make this point to the person I was replying to, but their responses revealed them to be so single note that I have to assume they were a bot.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

No, i trust in science because it has observable results. Trusting in the pope is nonsense.

[-]

distractionfactory@reddit

You say you trust in science, but you don't seem to know what that is.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

No, badfaith actors like you would like to manipulate. Move along.

[-]

distractionfactory@reddit

I am genuinely trying to either understand your position and if I'm misunderstanding it, or to get you to understand that your perspective may be a bit more narrow than you realize. You didn't respond well to a well thought out explanation, so I took a different approach.

If I was a bad faith actor I would be trying to push a position. I am not. I am trying to get you to think about your own position and consider that the world may more complex than can be expressed by a platitude.

In case you haven't realized it, I agree with your premise, though I may state it slightly different; that the scientific method reveals more accurate (and useful) truth than faith based pursuits. I just think that it's not enough to recognize the benefits of science, you must also understand where it can be misused and corrupted when you don't question information simply because it was presented as "Science™".

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Seems like what a religious apologist would say, if you don't understand that's because you don't want to.

It's not hard. Truth from authority (God exists because this organization and book say so) does not give truth. It gives nonsense and it's morally wrong.

[-]

distractionfactory@reddit

You seem to have a lot of preconceptions about my position that has no basis in what I am actually saying. Maybe you've spent too much time justifying you're lack of religiosity. Nowhere in anything I've said have I advocated for religion of any kind.

I am trying to get you to understand that it's possible to fall into the same trap as religious people fall if you hold something in too high regard; following something without question. You are most susceptible to it when you can't recognize that that's possible. And you don't seem to be able to acknowledge that for some reason. True science is skepticism, peer review, trying to disprove someone's findings to find the flaws in it and honestly reporting your findings. When you see the world only in extremes; black and white, true and false, you won't be able to recognize your own blind spots. It's just as important to define what you don't know or can't know as it is to learn about new concepts that you actually have enough information to understand.

How do you get the information that you are calling science? From a book? From a website? From a video? Unless you are performing the science yourself in a field that you are qualified to study you aren't collecting data you are getting it from someone who is interpreting it for you. Denying the possibility that someone could be presenting something as science when it doesn't stand up to review is literally taking it on faith. You have to put data into context, understand the accuracy, understand the difference between actual scientific findings and what someone has extrapolated from those findings and injected their own opinion.

You don't need to be an expert, but you need to recognize the value of Scientific Literacy as an individual to put scientific findings into context and recognize when someone is trying to manipulate you. Very few concepts are so basic as to have evidence that anyone can understand. That means that for you to have heard about it, it had to come from someone else. All I am trying to say is that it's a good idea to be skeptical about your sources of information.

This thread started because someone who claims to actually work within the scientific community was trying to express that there can be flaws within those communities and you didn't believe them. It's intriguing to find someone so skeptical about being skeptical.

[-]

Responsible_Chip_171@reddit

I admire your patience, but I think its wasted on this redditor.

[-]

distractionfactory@reddit

It took me a little while to accept that. I eventually blocked him. I give people more of a benefit of the doubt depending on the subreddit (including this one) sometimes. I guess I understand if it's a troll, but between the possibility of it being a bot or a person who actually thinks like that, I'm telling myself it's a bot so my faith in humanity doesn't take the hit. It can't take much more at this point.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

What a weird way to say your religious.

[-]

Otherwise-Care3742@reddit

You’re*

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Yor*

[-]

distractionfactory@reddit

Okay, you're just a f*ing troll Good day

[-]

Alter_Of_Nate@reddit

You're conflating conservative with religious. They overlap, but the two cannot be equated. Many conservatives are not the slightest bit religious.

[-]

Locrian6669@reddit

Conservatism is equally based on nothing more than faith. We can measure the effects of conservative policy.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

This is just gaslighting nonsense.

[-]

Alter_Of_Nate@reddit

Now you're conflating reality with gaslighting just because you choose to deny it in order to maintain your incorrect beliefs. The only gaslighting is what you're doing to yourself.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

No, you're confused or a bad faith actor.

[-]

Alter_Of_Nate@reddit

Personal attacks don't make you right. Go out and meet people in the real world, see the truth you deny in reality. Conservatives may look to the voice of authority, but that authority doesn't have to be a religion. Many do, many dont.

Progressives use science as their God and then try to impose their own authority on the world the way the religion does for the religious conservatives. Even misrepresenting science to gain that authority.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

Science is not a god. Like i said, you're confused and believe in bronze age nonsense.

You're a religious culty and will not change your mind because your authority told you it's real.

[-]

Alter_Of_Nate@reddit

I'm not religious. You are projecting that onto me in order to dig into your position because you have no logical way to refute what I said. I didn't say science was a god. I said progressives use science like a god to gain authority. At least pay attention to what I actually said, if you're going to try to argue against it.

Your user name is quite accurate. Why are you so angry?

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

You're so confused.

[-]

idunnorn@reddit

in medicine for example expert opinion still matters. this is aithority-ish. you know science is not straightforward to interpret, right? you know how much is published in any given field? can be hard to form certain conclusions sometimes. sometimes the idea that "science is lord" is fine it's simply not black and white.

also human judgment cannot always wait for science. sometimes you make your best decision with whatever science exists and your own judgment. you sound like the person who sees science as their religion.

your response to their comment calling it gibberish is nonsense

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

More gibberish. Observation is truth, not authority.

[-]

idunnorn@reddit

christ. what a dumb person 🤧

is the dress blue or is it gold? is cilantro bitter or does it taste good? your observation is 100% objective eh? stupidest person I've seen on reddit in a while who actually thinks they're smart.

[-]

Cock_Goblin_45@reddit

This should be the highest upvoted comment, not “always believe science.” Such a lame cop out answer. But those are the answers that Reddit likes unfortunately…

[-]

distractionfactory@reddit

What's funny is he accused me of being religious for calling out his very unscientific mindset. I'm about as anti-religion as a you can get, maybe that's why I don't appreciate people treating science like another religion.

[-]

Cock_Goblin_45@reddit

I’ve been called similar when I’m actually the complete opposite of what they accuse me of. It’s just “intellectual” Redditors who love the spout the same spiel they read here and just repeat it ad nauseam. But whatever

[-]

Responsible_Chip_171@reddit

I never said that authority is good. i just said that authority exists in science and has a strong influence in some sciences. To deny that just shows that you have not much experience with the actual practice(!) of science. Therefore the formulation "sweet summer child" Which wasn't really meant derogatorily, more like a expression of desire to still have such high ideals as you.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

You don't get it, authority says a god is real. Science says there's no evidence for a god.

One is clearly more flawed.

[-]

Responsible_Chip_171@reddit

Not relevant to what I said.

[-]

angryatheist557@reddit

You're not saying much.

[-]

distractionfactory@reddit

Why would you try to introduce nuance into a totally and completely binary concept?! /s

[-]

bittabet@reddit

That's why arts and humanities aren't sciences and frankly many social sciences don't apply anywhere near the rigor needed to actually be scientific. Even within a field like psychiatry that's in an otherwise science based field, diagnoses aren't based on any actual physical differences between people's brains but just off of the DSM which means subjective symptoms are taken as diagnostic criteria.

[-]

Responsible_Chip_171@reddit

I agree. Some fields in the social sciences have relatively rigorous methods, e.g. in psychology. Other fields are dangerously close to pure pseudoscience.

Concerning psychiatry: For some diagnoses, e.g. dementia, brain scans are used now. For others, its still not possible, because there are, for example, no clearly defining features for a "schizophrenic brain" (or at least we have not yet found them).

[-]

Polskihammer@reddit

Ding ding ding

[-]

Xcessive_Swami@reddit (OP)

Ok

[-]

MarcusTheSarcastic@reddit

Reddit is as close to center as you will find. You are just a conservative who thinks you are center.

[-]

Xcessive_Swami@reddit (OP)

You don’t even know me lmao but okay bud. Have a good day.

[-]

Nde_japu@reddit

Imagine thinking it's anywhere close to center. I want to know more about these people in real life and how they've come to believe this sort of thing...

[-]

SelectionSenior229@reddit

Cause theres tons of subreddits with a wide range of the average user veiws its as close to center your gonna get since center is a nebulous subjective concept.

[-]

Nde_japu@reddit

Your average redditor is very progressive so the overton window is already very skewed

[-]

SelectionSenior229@reddit

But the site itself is not and people tend to group up with those like them.

[-]

MarcusTheSarcastic@reddit

The comment is about Reddit “bud.”

[-]

Gus956139@reddit

How delusional... I mean, MSM is also center too, right?

[-]

charronfitzclair@reddit

You being locked into the common political spectrum mindset is your problem. Center implies an ultimate truth and balance. Centrists arent more reasonable, they just tend to confuse thoughtlessness for insight and apathy for stoicism.

Basically identify how you feel about capitalism and thats your ideology. Capitalism is the underlying organizing principle to our world, like it or not. It informs how you live, acquire resources, what opportunities you have and the social relations of everyone around you. There is no "center" to that. Youre either for it and want it to work a specific way or youre against it and want to organize the world along a different principle.

So if youre confused first learn what capitalism is.

[-]

Rational_EJ@reddit

> Basically identify how you feel about capitalism and thats your ideology.

So you would tell someone who's a social democrat (likes markets and private property, but wants economies to move in the Nordic direction, advocates for strong labor protections and abolishing poverty, disagrees with socialism pragmatically and logistically but not ideologically) that the "center" doesn't exist and that this person is basically the exact same as Trump and Elon?

You can have your beliefs and disagreements, but framing everything as black-and-white pro- or anti-capitalism is overly simplistic. Purity-testing reasonable liberals with whom you have common ground on is why the left never gets anything done.

[-]

charronfitzclair@reddit

A social democrat is pro capitalism because they want a capitalist system with caveats and concessions to labor.

Elon Musk and Donald Trump are pro capitalist and want to esablish overt white nationlist ethnostates and extract value in an imperialist death spiral.

The former is not the latter but the tolerance for the capitalist interests by the former of the latter allow those of the second camp to consolidate power and eventually rescind those concessions. Socdems leave the door open for fascists because they both believe in capitalism, but different expressions of it. That's literally what happened with the social democratic model of the New Deal. Concessions made by Rooseveltian liberals of the capitalist system to labor that were eroded by the Reaganite neoliberals, and are now being retracted by the Trumpian fascists. Capital fundamentally consolidates itself, which causes a crisis, and fascism emerges as capitalism's immune system to its own internal crises.

This is the opposite of black-and-white, it's an accurate view of political ideologies that plays out the same over and over.

If you waste time looking for a magical center, you end up like the OP who incoherently wants "a center, not liberal, not right wing, not reddit" social media platform. What's that look like? Who fucking knows.

[-]

Head-Lecture-6126@reddit

you've been indoctrinated my fellow citizen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzSwZpHDAaU

[-]

charronfitzclair@reddit

Oh wow a tedx link. Very cool, little guy!

I just study historical dialectics, a scientific way of looking at history. The ones who are brainwashed are the ones bewildered that their economic system keeps devolving into fascism. Too bad.

[-]

BooboneicPeeBoy@reddit

And you’re still stupid for it. Sad.

[-]

MonauralNoise@reddit

You're the only one truly making sense here. Ironic that the folk lathered in liberal propaganda call you indoctrinated.

[-]

kingofshitmntt@reddit

The funny part is OP doesn't think liberalism is often defined as centrist if you consider everything from fascism or socialism on the other "end" of the political field. Centrism also doesn't mean that is a great mix of everything, it's not. Its a distinct political position just as a democratic socialist is or a neoconservative.

[-]

plinocmene@reddit

No "center" to that? So you've never heard of mixed economies? Market socialism? Welfare capitalism?

And if we do get rid of capitalism altogether then we need to replace it with something.

My opinion is that the market "calculates" and this calculation can at times efficiently address people's needs. But people aren't perfectly rational or even close to that and there is information asymmetry and then sometimes people are "rational" but they are selfish. All of these things require government intervention and sometimes outright ownership of certain means of production (IMO healthcare and energy ought to be run by the government). But that doesn't mean the market isn't useful anywhere.

[-]

Otherwise-Care3742@reddit

Sounds like an all or nothing mindset.

[-]

Complex_Database_341@reddit

Agree. So tired of having to join one of the teams and then I am suppose to get in line. I just want more a common sense policy on everything

[-]

NWOriginal00@reddit

In the days before social media I liked forums that were for skeptics. They leaned very left, but were fair. Nonsense would not go unchallenged just because it agreed with the groups world view. For example, there was a James Randi board, and a Straight Dope one which still exists, but is not very active https://boards.straightdope.com/

With social media, I do not know of anything similar.

[-]

HeyOkYes@reddit

I had the same experience prior to popular social apps. MSN groups about skepticism and atheism were great back in like 2004 lol. Center for Inquiry's podcast was refreshing. When I started using Reddit more I went to the Skeptic sub because that's my usual type of place, and it seemed oddly more political and less science related than I expected. Well it just got worse and worse to the point that hardly any posts were normal skepticism content.

It's just "look at this crazy thing Trump/GOP/conservatives said" over and over. Which of course yeah Trump is ridiculous but that's not the focus of skepticism. And you can't speak critically at all. You have to agree with positions that don't make sense just because the mob thinks that position is liberal - even if it isn't actually liberal. It's insane.

[-]

middle_aged_dad_here@reddit

Have you tried centrist sub-reddit?

[-]

MonauralNoise@reddit

You are naive to think that a "centrist" place may be better, and also wrong because there are plenty of centrist and right-wing subreddits. You may feel welcome by "centrists" over at, for instance, the Sam Harris subreddit, or the Cuba subreddit, just off the top of my head.

However, lately I do have the feeling that so many posts are by bots and/or AI. It does make interacting disappointing and boring. I think this is a real problem for Reddit, but hard to see any simple solution.

[-]

Xcessive_Swami@reddit (OP)

This post has proven my point, anybody from the right just answers the question or says there is none. Liberals literally rage and talk shit. Just check the comments lol

[-]

MonauralNoise@reddit

I am not from the right though...in fact I am a communist.

[-]

Xcessive_Swami@reddit (OP)

Ewwww

[-]

MonauralNoise@reddit

Yes, so when I respond to your post with an answer you deem 'good', you immediately think I am from the right. But when I tell you I am from the left you express disgust.

Just stop pretending you are a "centrist" (hence my use of quotes even in my first comment) and recognize what you are, a cuck rightwinger who is too cowardly to discuss their true proclivities in an anonymous forum.

[-]

Xcessive_Swami@reddit (OP)

I never claimed you were from the right I was telling you what I’ve encountered on here. I am a centrist there’s policies on both sides that I agree with. Usually the people telling other people are cucks are the cucks themselves. Tell your wife’s boyfriend I said hello.

Almost all of my friends are liberals they’re just not psychos who have to make every single conversation about politics. I said eww because you said you’re a communist and that’s disgusting not being a liberal.

[-]

Kloxar@reddit

There's plenty out there, but you will never be told about them because they're gate kept. Thats how they stay good. If you want to find a good community, go out of your way and find it yourself. Look for ones focused on niches instead of general content.

[-]

AppropriateSpell5405@reddit

Wanting to boycott Nazis isn't a liberal stance.

[-]

New_Arachnid9443@reddit

lol, bro standing against Nazism is too far left for you?

[-]

Nde_japu@reddit

I think the more common perspective from the center is that you guys are hacking at windmills thinking they're dragons.

[-]

New_Arachnid9443@reddit

I dunno man, a Nazi is a Nazi

[-]

Nde_japu@reddit

They were vanquished in 1945. I'll never understand the modern day obsession with them. I think maybe because there's no common adversary like we had in WW2 and during the Cold War? And nazis are considered universally bad, so it's easy to focus on a long vanquished enemy, and pat oneself on the back like the good keyboard social warrior fighting against ghosts and trolls.

[-]

BlueneckJeep@reddit

Here’s a better way to read the news: Ground News gives you multiple sides of any news story, from over 50,000 sources across the political spectrum.

Download it here https://ground.news/download and use this referral code 1549005 to get 1 month of free Premium.

[-]

No_Implement3535@reddit

No such thing exists. You're a retard if you believe in myths like centrism.

[-]

Rivarr@reddit

It doesn't exist yet. Everything you're complaining about is even worse on the alternatives I've tried. No shortage of communities for nazis and communists, not much in-between.

I think AI will ultimately be solution to tyrannical moderators. I could spin up a model on a raspberry pi right now that's better suited to moderation than these people.

I don't find the political lean of a site all that important as long as you're allowed to speak. Even if that speech gets pushed down by the community. It would make all the difference if we just lost the handful of manipulative ideologues who use bans and deletions as casually as a downvote. I'd argue the main reason places like reddit become such impressively deluded echo-chambers is because slightly differing from the mods opinion is usually enough to earn you a one way ticket to Timbuktu.

[-]

Zealousideal_Bag7532@reddit

Literally any alternative will be at once flooded with the worst of the worst regardless of your political stance. Creating a politically neutral option would have to be free speech with several concessions made around illegal content and various iterations of racist ideology. Which the left would call a far right breeding ground and the right would call a mossad site encouraging the shift of the overton window to make pedophilia palatable.

It will happen though, and the sooner the better.

[-]

SelectionSenior229@reddit

No it wont theres no reall appeal for a center site. The people passionate enough about it to sustain such a site usually lean heavy one way or another. Eventually any neutral site will shift one way.

[-]

cheducated@reddit

It’s possible on Reddit, you just have to avoid every big/popular subreddit as they’re inevitably infested with the people you and I are tired of. Idk about center but there are a couple “neutral” subreddits where they at least try to be neutral. Of course some of those ‘neutral’ communities aren’t actually neutral, you just gotta explore around

[-]

Apart-Pressure-3822@reddit

.

1-800-According_To_Jim.com

.

[-]

dicksonleroy@reddit

Reddit is center.

[-]

Xcessive_Swami@reddit (OP)

That’s an awesome joke

[-]

friblehurn@reddit

How's that a joke? I've made the same political comment multiple times, and depending on the sub/time of day, it's either highly upvoted or highly downvoted.

That kinda proves Reddit is filled with people from both sides, no?

It may not be "center", as no one is truly center, that's not really possible, but Reddit is filled with both sides.

[-]

Xcessive_Swami@reddit (OP)

Reddit isn’t center. I’m being recommended subs I have no interest in at all never visited and it’s the same dumb fucking picture or video of Elon doing the Nazi salute. It’s very very very clear Reddit is pushing an agenda. I just wanna watch my dumb shit in peace. I follow less than a handful of political subs most of my subs is sports music or random dumb shit.

[-]

Nde_japu@reddit

Avoid "Popular" like the plague that it is. Curate your subs and always stick with "Home". Delete any news and politics subs from your recommendations as they come up. The dumb progressive shit will still creep in but as a trickle compared to a more generic Reddit experience. But yes it's impressive how progressive reddit is. I wonder how much if it is organic college kids and coastals living in a bubble and how much of it is bots and astroturfing

[-]

dicksonleroy@reddit

No more than someone with literally no karma thinking they are shadow banned. 😂🤣

When you know how nothing works, it’s easy to adopt conspiracy theories.

[-]

Xcessive_Swami@reddit (OP)

So if I wasn’t shadow banned why couldn’t I respond anymore and I never received a message that I was banned?

[-]

dicksonleroy@reddit

Could be a number of reasons. You could have been blocked by a commenter you were responding to, commenting on a post could have been turned off by the OP or Mod.

I’d need to know specifics of your little incident to know more.

[-]

Particular_Pay_1261@reddit

That's literally not possible

[-]

micush@reddit

People are the problem. And also the solution.

[-]

uuid-already-exists@reddit

That’s the crux, it’s always one is too far off one side or the other. This wave with the twitter banning is so non-organic you can tell its bots have taken over. With the proliferation of LLMs it can be near impossible to determine who’s a bot now in many situations.

[-]

charronfitzclair@reddit

Idk the owner of twitter hitting the sieg heil with his full chest at the presidential inauguration will cause a big reaction. Pretending it shouldnt is more bot like than not. Things change fast sometimes.

As one guy said once "There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen."

[-]

luminescent_boba@reddit

Except anyone who’s been on Reddit for the better part of a decade can tell this is bot behavior lol. Are there real humans getting caught up in this manufactured “movement” as well? Yes. But it’s definitely being driven and amplified by bots

[-]

uuid-already-exists@reddit

There’s plenty of pictures out there with politicians left and right making the same hand gesture. Reddit didn’t erupt overnight when they did it. Not until there was a commercial motive did it occur. I can grab a pic but they’ve been floating all over Reddit.

Besides I think it’s much more believable that an autistic guy made an awkward gesture while saying “my heart goes out to you”. Even the ADL thinks it wasn’t a salute. He also denies it was a salute as well so that makes me believe it was a social faux pas in a moment of excitement and not some dog whistle.

Anyways it’s clear that this is being exploited by bots. When you see posts asking for twitter/X to be banned and it’s more than double the sub count of hundreds of subs it’s clear it’s inauthentic. However Reddit has no interest in resolving it since it increases engagement and thus makes more ad revenue.

[-]

charronfitzclair@reddit

Give me a break.

I saw the video, I won't be told to "not believe my lying eyes." He hit his chest and threw the arm out twice. Show it next to Hitler giving a sieg heil it's the same timing and gesture. Every other example is just waving.

Shut your mouth before someone fucks it, boy.

[-]

bittabet@reddit

Literally not the same thing at all? He put his hand over his heart and literally said out loud that he was thanking the voters from his heart. Saluting people does not make you a Nazi, and he did it twice from his heart way out to the side. An actual nazi salute looks nothing like that. Saying offensive shit to other people doesn't make you right.

[-]

TheRealRomanRoy@reddit

There ARE a lot of pictures. You’re not wrong about that in the slightest.

There aren’t a lot of videos though :)

[-]

LazyKaiju@reddit

The literal ADL says that it isn't a Nazi salute and that he was just sperging out, as usual. Do you know how stupid a person has to be to believe the Elon Musk was intentionally outing himself as a Nazi on live television?

[-]

Responsible_Chip_171@reddit

I fully agree. My secret dream is, that the bot-flood will kill off the internet, because people don't want to interact with entities where you never know whether they are human or not. (But maybe people will soon learn to LIKE interacting with machines. ugh!)

[-]

richpieceofshit@reddit

you're a rightwing dipshit, go on truth social. if you think you are too smart for them maybe you should cut it out with the mental gymnastics

[-]

vagabondvisions@reddit

[-]

plinocmene@reddit

It depends on the issue and what you mean by "middle". There are some things that shouldn't be compromised on like the one you portrayed. But there are other areas where there is more nuance and where going to the middle is more reasonable.

Also being in the center isn't just about policy position but can also be about tone and rhetoric. For instance I support single payer which is further left of the Democratic Party but I oppose demonizing people purely for being rich (not that there aren't a'hole rich people like Elon and Trump) which makes me more to the center. I don't think demonizing people just for being wealthy is constructive or helpful. That being said not demonizing them doesn't mean I don't think they should pay an awful lot more in taxes, since it's only logical and fair as they can better afford to shoulder the burden.

[-]

vagabondvisions@reddit

Then you accept the idea that a billion dollars or more can be acquired and/or retained in an ethical manner. I reject that idea. It’s an absurd, greed-normalizing position that is contradicted by even basic economic concepts like marginal utility. There is not only no need for so much money in the hands of so few, the acquisition and retention of it necessarily is a profound harm to others and society as a whole.

Your “middle ground” is just a repackaging of capitalist propaganda that has resulted in greater social harms throughout history than any other division among people.

[-]

plinocmene@reddit

I don't think anyone should be a billionaire I just don't blame the individual billionaire.

Suppose I became a billionaire. Money is not just a means to personal wealth but also to influence whether for personal or for altruistic purposes. Naturally my ideas for making a better world will not coincide perfectly with that of either the government or nonprofits. I may have ideas that require more capital and it may be logical to invest to make more.

I may accept that for society as a whole it would be better if no one were a billionaire, that even if the government wouldn't perfectly implement what I believe would be the best the increased revenue from not just me but from others and the good that could be done from that would make it worth it. But foresaking that level of wealth and power while other people with less altruistic ends are still becoming billionaires would not do anyone any favors. In fact I'd just be making those with more selfish ends more power relatively speaking. I'd be foresaking an opportunity to do good in the world.

And that doesn't touch on the issue of practicality. We need higher income taxes on the very wealthy and more capital gains tax. But to enforce everyone not being a billionaire we'd need a wealth tax. There are many issues with how to implement a wealth tax that other countries have run into when doing so.

[-]

vagabondvisions@reddit

If you are a billionaire who has the intention of using your money for altruism then you are not going to remain a billionaire for long.

You don’t need that much money. No one does. If you acquire that much and you want to help others, do it. Carve off enough for yourself to live comfortably, even very comfortably, and then stop hoarding the rest.

There is no ethical path becoming a billionaire, however, much less remaining a billionaire.

[-]

plinocmene@reddit

Carve off enough for yourself to live comfortably, even very comfortably, and then stop hoarding the rest.

Suppose someone wants to do something beneficial for society and they find that a non-profit model won't result in as much funding and so not as much benefit for society. Then they might start a for-profit corporation to do it. They know it needs to remain profitable to attract further investment but they also know the right decisions could help people more. They might offer those who can demonstrate need discounts or payment plans for instance. They may also seek to have good wages and benefits for their employees. They may even encourage the formation of a union. They may be especially keen on making sure their products and services are safe since they ultimately hope to benefit society with it.

If it does well then their shares may make them a billionaire. So should they sell their shares and lose control over the company to people who might not be as altruistic and might be unfair to their employees, and might skimp on quality and safety when it comes to products and services, might even take the company in a completely different direction producing something detrimental to society? In that situation the ethical thing would not be to abdicate power but to keep it and continue wielding it as responsibly as is possible.

I wish we could have a two-tier currency system (or some other mechanism besides currency). One currency for personal comfort and the other for economic decision-making. Nobody deserves billions in the former sense but someone could deserve billions in the latter sense if they were competent and altruistic enough. These two different functions of money would be better off uncoupled. There is far too much wealth inequality in terms of material things but when it comes to decision-making look around you people can awfully dumb and selfish so there should be inequality in who gets to make decisions in a manner that promotes those who are both smarter and more altruistic. The current system doesn't distribute this meritocratically and often rewards selfish incompetent people. It needs to be overhauled but in the meantime it does nobody any favors for a competent and altruistic person to foresake greater ability to make decisions in society and the economy and thereby give that power away to people who are either less competent or less altruistic.

[-]

KPater@reddit

Although I can't help with your question, using "center/centrist" in politics triggers a whole bunch of meme-talk. In the future I'd advice using "moderate".

[-]

Mister__Mediocre@reddit

Find subreddits that match your views and your attitude. Check out r/neoliberal or r/worldnews for generally centrist discussions, and considerable leeway for contrarian opinions.

[-]

Xcessive_Swami@reddit (OP)

I do follow subs that match my interest but what does Elon musk being a “Nazi” have to do with the dodgers? Or what does that have to do with animals doing funny things? I don’t want this crap shoved down my throat when I’m trying to read random shit that had nothing to do with politics.

[-]

friblehurn@reddit

Welcome to literally EVERYONE WHO ISN'T AMERICAN's lives.

We have to sit through so much damn American politics on the internet. There's literally no escape.

The amount of times I, a Canadian, have been accused of voting for Biden or Trump is insane. Just because I don't agree with you about a computer operating system doesn't mean I voted for some American politician.

The US TikTok ban was the closest the rest of the world got, and it was glorious.

[-]