The original comment stated that they hate every government equally.
How does the definition you posted, which literally states “it treats all positions as equally flawed without engaging with their actual merits”, not fit here? This is a square shape object goes into square shape hole situation and couldn’t be more fitting.
Positions do not equal governments. His position is that all governments are untrustworthy. That’s just one position, one opinion. Not a myriad.
EDIT: to make it more clear: all governments being untrustworthy is something an anarchist would say. It would be quite the stretch to call that centrism, no?
I would say that those governments have positions and opinions that vary widely and that someone saying that all of their positions are equally bad, is peak enlightened centricism.
Edit: Anarchists do sometimes engage in enlightened centricism and have been called out for that. The difference is that Anarchists believe that the governmentness (“unjustified” hierarchy) of a government is the bad thing and not that every government just so happens to be bad like the comment OP seems to think.
to make it more clear: all governments being untrustworthy is something an anarchist would say. It would be quite the stretch to call that centrism, no?
The person (I reckon) is rather talking about the inherent nature of a government being corrupt. The individual opinions of each government do not matter for this.
Ah, i also just edited my comment haha. Then the difference lies in us reading the comment differently. You would be correct in your interpretation of the comment, i do not see a reason why that interpretation would be less valid than mine either until comment OP clarifies their position
At first I felt personally offended as I too regard all governments as untrustworthy, for which I’d be regarded as far-left, not (enlightened) centrist. But I see the discrepancy now :)
Huh?
The original comment stated that they hate every government equally.
How does the definition you posted, which literally states “it treats all positions as equally flawed without engaging with their actual merits”, not fit here? This is a square shape object goes into square shape hole situation and couldn’t be more fitting.
Positions do not equal governments. His position is that all governments are untrustworthy. That’s just one position, one opinion. Not a myriad.
EDIT: to make it more clear: all governments being untrustworthy is something an anarchist would say. It would be quite the stretch to call that centrism, no?
I would say that those governments have positions and opinions that vary widely and that someone saying that all of their positions are equally bad, is peak enlightened centricism.
Edit: Anarchists do sometimes engage in enlightened centricism and have been called out for that. The difference is that Anarchists believe that the governmentness (“unjustified” hierarchy) of a government is the bad thing and not that every government just so happens to be bad like the comment OP seems to think.
I made an edit to my previous post:
The person (I reckon) is rather talking about the inherent nature of a government being corrupt. The individual opinions of each government do not matter for this.
Ah, i also just edited my comment haha. Then the difference lies in us reading the comment differently. You would be correct in your interpretation of the comment, i do not see a reason why that interpretation would be less valid than mine either until comment OP clarifies their position
Okay, I can agree to that conclusion :D
At first I felt personally offended as I too regard all governments as untrustworthy, for which I’d be regarded as far-left, not (enlightened) centrist. But I see the discrepancy now :)