Are Liberals More Evolved Than Centrists?

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Wait, are you sure that all of those in power and were loyal to the crown were moderates?

Imperial power (the Crown/Parliament) was, of course, the incumbent. But in the colonies, power was split: many Patriot leaders were also local elites (planters, merchants, lawyers, officeholders).

“Moderate” in 1775–76 often meant reconciliationist (stay in the empire but with reforms). Some of these moderates later drifted Patriot once reconciliation died; others stayed neutral or Loyalist.

Across both eras, conservatives generally favored less and slower change than moderates, who were more open to positive reforms short of radical rupture.

Moderate from the perspective of the powers that be... yes.

Conservative and moderate (in this regard) tend to mean the same thing... because moderates argue for the maintenance of the status quo and to keep the power structure as it is.

We have lost sight of the meaning of the word Conservative in today's world, because our current "Conservatives" are actually acting as agents of radical change who are attempting to make revolutionary changes to American government and culture towards a Christo-Fascist dictatorship and/or a Technocratic Plutocratic Fascist dictatorship.

But to be truly Conservative is to be a moderate. So, moderates in contemporary American culture are Libertarian-leaning Capitalists with mildly liberal social values... but in a disengaged way. 

The reality is that moderates and centrists are the true Conservatives as they are always trying to maintain the status quo for the power that be. And loyalists of the crown were moderate from the perspective of those in power, despite being a minority amongst American colonists.

But among the oppressed lower-powered colonists, revolutionary ideas gained a critical mass of people who wanted to break away from the norm. And they did so by force against the powers that be.

They were radicals from the perspective of the moderate status quo (which is determined by those in power).

And radicals only come to power by force. Nothing that's radical ever gets accepted through the established means of the powers that be... not by democratic voting nor by mandate of the king.

But, given that the radicals became a plurality of the low-powered colonists, it gained a sense of normalcy within the American colonial population. So, it became normal in the context of the colonies to become a radical from the perspective of the powers that be.

And they fought with force and won. And eventually, the radical position became the status quo... and therefore moderate.

But the colonists were still radicals. They were just radicals who gained a critical mass... which does not make them moderate.

The thing that made them moderate is that the figure-head American revolutionaries eventually got accepted as the powers that be.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Moderate from the perspective of the powers that be... yes.

Conservative and moderate (in this regard) tend to mean the same thing... because moderates argue for the maintenance of the status quo and to keep the power structure as it is.

We have lost sight of the meaning of the word Conservative in today's world, because our current "Conservatives" are actually acting as agents of radical change who are attempting to make revolutionary changes to American government and culture towards a Christo-Fascist dictatorship and/or a Technocratic Plutocratic Fascist dictatorship.

But to be truly Conservative is to be a moderate. So, moderates in contemporary American culture are Libertarian-leaning Capitalists with mildly liberal social values... but in a disengaged way. 

The reality is that moderates and centrists are the true Conservatives as they are always trying to maintain the status quo for the power that be. And loyalists of the crown were moderate from the perspective of those in power, despite being a minority amongst American colonists.

But among the oppressed lower-powered colonists, revolutionary ideas gained a critical mass of people who wanted to break away from the norm. And they did so by force against the powers that be.

They were radicals from the perspective of the moderate status quo (which is determined by those in power).

And radicals only come to power by force. Nothing that's radical ever gets accepted through the established means of the powers that be... not by democratic voting nor by mandate of the king.

But, given that the radicals became a plurality of the low-powered colonists, it gained a sense of normalcy within the American colonial population. So, it became normal in the context of the colonies to become a radical from the perspective of the powers that be.

And they fought with force and won. And eventually, the radical position became the status quo... and therefore moderate.

But the colonists were still radicals. They were just radicals who gained a critical mass... which does not make them moderate.

The thing that made them moderate is that the figure-head American revolutionaries eventually got accepted as the powers that be.

There is mainstream conservatism, mainstream centrism, and mainstream liberalism.

but I get your point. What was once an unthinkable or radical form of progress eventually becomes mainstream.

Edited Wednesday at 04:17 AM by Hardkill

[Daniel Balan]

On 16/09/2025 at 1:29 AM, MightyMind said:

I think this is an error to see any group (liberal, conservative, centrist, progressive) as being more conscious than the other. It all depends on the context and build up. I mean, there are some examples where conserving (conservative) some aspects of a culture would be a good idea and so in those moments a conservative perspective may be more conscious than those that may want things to progress (progressive) in the current direction when that may make matters worse. But, if a conservative who tries to conserve but does so in an unconscious way, this may then be very destructive and hence forth not conscious. 

In theory classifying political leans in a hierarchical way might be useful, but my point is, I think there's more complexity to it all. And so in viewing reality in this way, I see this theory/world view does not properly over lay to reality and in turn it could impede our ability to see the nuances of life. 

Thoughts? 

Conservatives are right on:

• Migration
• Not allowing late term abortions.
• Pushing back against lgbtq trans propaganda 
• Tight and secure borders
• Pushing back against demonic climate change action such as deindustrialization that leave millions of factory workers unemployed. 
• Strong police and military 
• Wanting to stop offshoring and having manufacturing jobs back in their country as opposed to offshoring manufacturing overseas.

Liberals are right on:

• Well tought Climate change action. We need climate action as fast and as strong as possible but we also need to not have millions of people lose their jobs because of it.
• Protecting sexual minorites, making sure the lgbtq community is safe and protected and has the same rights as the regular community. Although without propaganda in schools or obnoxious parades. 
• Protecting womens right to have abortions but only up until the 12th week of pregnancy. After 12 weeks abortion should be banned.
• Everything else

[Daniel Balan]

The reason I'm a centrist isn't because I try to act mature or that I compromise with conservatives or that I try to split everything down the middle. This is a rather silly strawman of the centrist's position. 

I'm a centrist because I disagree with both the liberals and the conservatives. In my case I disagree more with the conservatives, that's why when I debate right wingers I view myself as a liberal but when I debate liberals I view myself as a centrist. 

There's too much idealism and dangerous fantasies in the liberal worldview to fully align with it. Defunding the police, having open borders, allowing millions of violent unchecked migrants, rioting like fucking fools, indoctrinating children with lgbtq/trans propaganda is something I can't side with.

There is much more that I agree with the liberals than I agree with the conservatives, but liberals have glaring holes in their worldview that stain an otherwise pristine perception that I have of them.

Also I'm a centrist because I do agree with a good chunk of conservative positions. Conservatives aren't the fascists and the nazis that the liberals label them. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:28 AM by Daniel Balan

[zazen]

21 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

The reason I'm a centrist isn't because I try to act mature or that I compromise with conservatives or that I try to split everything down the middle. This is a rather silly strawman of the centrist's position. 

I'm a centrist because I disagree with both the liberals and the conservatives. In my case I disagree more with the conservatives, that's why when I debate right wingers I view myself as a liberal but when I debate liberals I view myself as a centrist. 

There's too much idealism and dangerous fantasies in the liberal worldview to fully align with it. Defunding the police, having open borders, allowing millions of violent unchecked migrants, rioting like fucking fools, indoctrinating children with lgbtq/trans propaganda is something I can't side with.

There is much more that I agree with the liberals than I agree with the conservatives, but liberals have glaring holes in their worldview that stain an otherwise pristine perception that I have of them.

Also I'm a centrist because I do agree with a good chunk of conservative positions. Conservatives aren't the fascists and the nazis that the liberals label them. 

Agree with this too. It's annoying to even have to box yourself into ''left'' or ''right''. If a liberal is trying to integrate their progressive views into the messy reality of politics and reality - are they now called a regressive centrist for trying to ground some of their utopian ideals and aspirations?

Conservatives are too fixated on form and order - meaning rigid constraints. Liberals nobly want to loosen themselves and others from those constraints and introduce some flexibility and humanity into the equation - but the slippery slope is getting rid of all constraint for some juvenile idea of freedom that they try to apply to the real world.

[Daniel Balan]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Agree with this too. It's annoying to even have to box yourself into ''left'' or ''right''. If a liberal is trying to integrate their progressive views into the messy reality of politics and reality - are they now called a regressive centrist for trying to ground some of their utopian ideals and aspirations?

Conservatives are too fixated on form and order - meaning rigid constraints. Liberals nobly want to loosen themselves and others from those constraints and introduce some flexibility and humanity into the equation - but the slippery slope is getting rid of all constraint for some juvenile idea of freedom that they try to apply to the real world.

👍👍

[DocWatts]

Pro tip, but you might want to consider renaming this thread 'Are Liberals More Epistemicly Developed Than Centrists' or something like that, since evolution doesn't have an end goal.

Based on anecdotes from my personal life (so take this with a grain of salt), it's my observation that centrists tend to be folks who don't want to pick a lane. Engaging deeply with issues involves far more than picking the middle point between two extremes and assuming that this is the reasonable or correct position (is the Fallacy Of The Middle).

Edited Wednesday at 11:46 AM by DocWatts

[MightyMind]

7 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

Conservatives are right on:

• Migration
• Not allowing late term abortions.
• Pushing back against lgbtq trans propaganda 
• Tight and secure borders
• Pushing back against demonic climate change action such as deindustrialization that leave millions of factory workers unemployed. 
• Strong police and military 
• Wanting to stop offshoring and having manufacturing jobs back in their country as opposed to offshoring manufacturing overseas.

Liberals are right on:

• Well tought Climate change action. We need climate action as fast and as strong as possible but we also need to not have millions of people lose their jobs because of it.
• Protecting sexual minorites, making sure the lgbtq community is safe and protected and has the same rights as the regular community. Although without propaganda in schools or obnoxious parades. 
• Protecting womens right to have abortions but only up until the 12th week of pregnancy. After 12 weeks abortion should be banned.
• Everything else

@Daniel Balan 

Both support K-12 approach to education which creates a collectivist who is prone to being easily manipulated by propaganda and misinformation\

Both are reacting in two direction when it comes to climate change. The left's take climate action guidance from the UN (17 SDG's) which at the end the day benefits the billionaires (and not the people) and these people and orgs are the one who profited off of the industrialized age and will be the ones now profiting off of "climate action". Climate action that is guided by the UN leads to digital gulag (SDG #11 = AI (Israel technology) tracking and monitoring all the moving parts including humans/). The right just pushes back and reacts in the other direction without finding middle ground and aiming for a reasonable approach to being more sustainable. Neither seem to know how to think for themselves and provide a more reactionary.

 LGBTP+ are human beings who already have rights. Identity is not the same as biological and so why are they treated as such? Should all identities have extra protection? And why do we need extra protection? Why not provide quality protection for all? 

Planned Parenthood has no shortage of people who have worked there and have spoken out about the realities of them selling baby organs and tissue for profit. There's more going on to that reality. 

Both parties swing in extreme directions and so I see that both parties/sides, and the representation at the top and ideas they put forth, they not very conscious. Both are limited in the ability to hold a vast array of perspectives which in turn impacts their ability to put forth adequate solutions that attend to the complexity and depth of reality. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:13 PM by MightyMind

[Hardkill]

12 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Pro tip, but you might want to consider renaming this thread 'Are Liberals More Epistemicly Developed Than Centrists' or something like that, since evolution doesn't have an end goal.

Based on anecdotes from my personal life (so take this with a grain of salt), it's my observation that centrists tend to be folks who don't want to pick a lane. Engaging deeply with issues involves far more than picking the middle point between two extremes and assuming that this is the reasonable or correct position (is the Fallacy Of The Middle).

But what about moderates like Washington and Lincoln and center-left leaders like FDR?

[sholomar]

I mean, higher spiral dynamics stages are more evolved than lower ones. Today's modern left is less dangerous because they are more evolved. Conservative parties tend to be lower on the scale and more apt to resort to violence and autocratic ways of leading, but that's not to say that greens can't be violent because we have clear numerous examples of them being violent, mostly fueled by the leftist propaganda they get when going to colleges, which pushes them to "hate the haters" in a very polarizing and unhealthy manner. Most conservatives are not nearly as fascist as the media and colleges paint them out to be, and this caricature of the right leads to increasing polarization. 

Most non political people have more common sense than most people into any sort of strict "movement" who want to try to assimilate followers whether it's religious or political or whatever. Most of them are nutty to one degree or another. I look at the movement following Charlie with the same healthy skepticism as the one telling me I must embrace 85 genders or else. 

A stage yellow is not going to be a strict leftist supporting these social utopian forms of government that go against the basic laws of nature if they see these systems aren't going to work, as an example. Just my opinion. It's about getting past emotional bias and understanding human nature, as best one can do.  Most centrists are probably not more "evolved" but some are. They are mostly less dangerous, as long as they aren't centrists that are easily manipulated into causes or conspiracy theories. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 06:07 AM by sholomar