It is a major simplification to put the political spectrum on a single line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum). If we put it as a triangle, the Overton window can be as far from left to right as left/right is to the middle.

The Overton window is not involved in defining the middle, and the middle definitively do not need to agree 50% with any specific decision done by the left or right.

>Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters didn’t used to be “one side”

This is factually not true. Levels of violence by the state against citizens in the United States is at near historic lows. The state killed dozens of children in Waco in the 90s, bombed domestic buildings in Philadelphia in the 80s, shot protestors Kent State University in the 70s, going back to the early years of the USA where protests and rebellions were put down with private militias and bounties. The shooting by one officer of one protester in a scuffle with officers wouldn't have reached the history books in any other time.

US law enforcement kill over 1000 people every year, way more than any comparable country [1]. The raw data of incidents on Wikipedia has to be broken down by month [2]. And here's a chart showing the number has been going up basically every year for at least a decade [3].

What "historic lows" are you talking about?

[1]: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/policekillings_total.htm...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enfor...

[3]: https://www.consumershield.com/articles/how-many-people-are-...

OP is saying that this is a historical low for US, not in the grand scheme of things.

Jan 6 suggests those are merely tourists, not terrorists, even if they are trying to assassinate the VP.

All of the people there were trying to assassinate the VP? How come no one's been charged for assassination attempt?

"According to an F.B.I. affidavit the panel highlighted ... a government informant said that members of the far-right militant group the Proud Boys told him they would have killed Pence 'if given the chance.' The rioters on January 6th almost had that chance, coming within forty feet of the Vice-President as he fled to safety."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington...

Sorry I didn't catch that, how many? And government informant? This is your source?

What is your argument? That not every person there was trying to kill Mike Pence?

There sure were a lot of people in that crowd chanting "Hang Mike Pence" but I guess if your point is just that not all of them were doing it then I suppose you're right.

College students posting memes online is not the same as a crowd of people (some armed) forcing their way into a government building chanting "Hang Mike Pence" knowing that Mike Pence was inside.

Be serious.

I am serious, given the chance I believe these students would assassinate an ice agent.

Do you see how you are on the lower end of a slippery slope?

If you don't understand the difference between a credible, immediate threat to someone's life and someone posting a meme online you're too uninformed to be having this conversation and I won't be responding further.

And when they do, they should be charged.

I wouldn't bother. denuoweb2 is trying to circumvent bans or something I don't know by creating second accounts or more. I don't know why or maybe they know they are losing karma or something, I don't know, but they are lying and acting 100% like a troll. I wouldn't engage and just flag them. They aren't worth investing time or energy in.

> All of the people there were trying to assassinate the VP?

Sure seemed like it. All those people chanting to kill the VP? Sure seems like it.

> How come no one's been charged for assassination attempt?

Corruption? Doesn't change the facts. They were trying to kill the VP.

Pretend what you want, there were 1500+ that day that certain people said were just tourists.

It was a riot and attack on the capitol in support of an attempt to overturn a legitimate election result. Isn't that bad enough? Why do you have to lie and claim that it was an assassination attempt on Mike Pence?

I didn't make the claim. They made that claim when they tried. On camera. For the world to see.

So you're suggesting there were 1,500 potential assassins? Record yourself and play it back and tell me if you agree with what you said.

"1,500 people were trying to kill the VP" - mentally ill person

That's 100% not what I'm saying or claiming and you are 100% lying and making stuff up.

At best you are a troll. At best.

I do agree with what you, denuoweb, said though, you are a mentally ill person.

Edit: Oh, I see, you are trying to circumvent a ban or something and creating multiple sock puppet accounts or something? No.

> edit: and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ). if you cant even manage that, what are you doing here?

Is this irony? You literally just posted about arguments from vocal minorities on HN and other social media driving people away.

In the immortal words of the elder Elaine Benice: it means whatever you want it to mean. What I want is for someone to respond to my message as opposed to a lazy button press. But I dream.

You say socially approved catch phrases and yet people are being shot in my city by federal agents, and I carry a passport knowing that it will do me no good if they decide to crack my head in. When do words have meanings that connect to reality for you personally?

Thank you. This is more reasonable way of phrasing this. That said, it is almost completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Is it acceptable for you if I simply do not engage or am I obligated to offer a personal value statement as if I were an embassy representative?

I am not making fun of you. I treat words very seriously. I also treat them seriously enough to not direct every conversation to my pet cause ( whatever it may be ).

You can ignore or whatever, but the framing of this as a vitriolic outburst from people instead of what should be an obvious call to action for their countrymen is the problem, when you choose not to engage you effectively endorse the outcome of totalitarianism.

May I suggest that what may appear obvious to you, is anything but obvious to others? May I suggest that other people may not share your values, your priorities, your constraints, or your willingness to engage. Just from those alone, you should be able to gather that telling people something is obvious is not the most endearing way to capture their attention. You might capture it, but not in the way you might imagine.

And all this is before we even to get to the meaty part as to whether the people you are trying to convince are convinced something is a problem. So far, all I really see is posture and hand-wringing.

You wanna say something? Say it.

People are being shot that are interfering with said federal agents. Absolute excessive use of force but it’s stupid to present this as if there isn’t an easy way to avoid it.

Ah yes, lick the boot even harder and then maybe you will get some respite. This version of events you present has no connection with reality.

My dude.. have you considered the possibility that some people on this very forum have voted for this actual very thing you are complaining about? I am not even passing judgment, but merely stating a fact. If anything, your comment shows severe disconnect from the societal mood.

Making me laugh here.

How would you not consider that fact? Do you think I don't know there's plenty of people who think of HN as a nazi bar? Do you think the hacker ethos is to consider the "societal mood"?

Im talking about what has been reported. Who has been shot that wasn’t resisting/interfering?

> and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ).

Sure. You can guess the "camp", but so what? Must we all use value-neutral language when discussing an issue? I take issue with centrism for centrism's sake. If your goal is to take two points of view and treat them as equals then that grants a systemic advantage to whoever has the more insane view. By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities. Fuck centrism. Believe in something, you coward.

<< Believe in something, you coward.

:D I appreciate it. I truly do. I am somewhat aghast that someone would suggest that centrism, as a whole, is a not, in itself, a belief system. If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ). On the other hand, it really are those pesky zealot believers that are causing all that ruckus..

<< By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities.

Oh man. Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me.

> If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ).

What principles could a person have that would put them in the center of US politics right now?

> Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me.

Sure. My principles are that those with power must be held to higher, not lower, standards of conduct and accountability. When you act like maybe there's something to the obvious and boldfaced lie that the two recent killings by ICE* were done in self-defense then you are shifting the scope of acceptable conduct towards lawlessness. Playing both sides makes you an enemy of civil society.

The "liberal" media has their version of events, largely blaming "insufficient training." The killers had 10+ years of experience in their roles. When interviewing administration officials reporters refuse to call them liars or question their motivations, instead suggesting that they are simply mistaken.

And of course the official right-wing line is that the murdered civilians were extremist terrorists who attacked law enforcement officers and deserved what they got. Full-throated endorsement of street executions. Where is your centrism? What is the center between these two positions? I align myself more with the former because it's at least not totally deranged. I'm not a partisan because I don't think the Democrats or media agree with my values, but I'm also not going to equivocate between them and Republicans and act like I'm stranded in the middle of two positions. The solution isn't in the middle of two wrong answers, it's something else entirely.

*: (or was it CBP? They all blend together all of a sudden)

Interesting.

<< What principles could a person have that would put them in the center of US politics right now?

Any? All? None? Everything in between? The question itself is rather faulty, which prompted me to respond the way I did. There is a reason for it too beyond pure rhetoric: centrists overlap with US independents so their goals are not as easily labeled ( I suppose ).

Maybe I am approaching it the wrong way.

What do you think each side of US American politics are defined by what principle now?

<< Playing both sides makes you an enemy of civil society.

See.. it is almost as if you did not read my opening paragraph. Statement like that by itself is not exactly conducive to dialogue. I normally would not care, but I note it as we are attempting to have a conversation. Statement like that undermines it for a simple person like me.

<< Where is your centrism?

Oh boy.

<< What is the center between these two positions?

In the middle?

<< When you act like maybe there's something to the obvious and boldfaced lie that the two recent killings by ICE* were done in self-defense then you are shifting the scope of acceptable conduct towards lawlessness.

I can give you Pretti. Despite some previous engagements suggesting he was not just 'some rando, who was at the wrong time at the wrong place', his death was less defensible in the context than Good's ( she actually did swipe that officer.. ). We can argue all day over intentions and whatnot, but that is basically where middle ground lies: in taking each thing as its own case. But we will not do any of that, will we.

<< The solution isn't in the middle of two wrong answers, it's something else entirely.

Color me intrigued. What is the answer?

Right on cue

What is the point of your three words here? Legitimately I don't get it.

The parent comment was about how the most partisan users post the most on social media and sure enough, the first response was by a partisan user.

And you are replying to a partisan user.

Not sure why this is relevant.

The paper says partisanship is strongly correlated with frequency of posting. Are you also pointing out that the commenters here are very partisan and this shows the paper is correct?

It is relevant, reread it.

Best I can tell, you're indicating that more partisan users post more, as the paper found.

The problem is that "partisan" doesn't automatically mean "wrong".

People wield "the middle" as if it is some magic incantation that makes them correct or immune to criticism. In fact, it is generally the "middle" or, as I prefer to call them, the "inert" that tend to be wrong since they are always behind the curve rather than ahead of it.

In Milgram's experiment, only the most "partisan" refused to deliver the shocks. The "middle" dutifully continued right to the end and delivered the highest voltages even as their own distress mounted.

You may avoid politics, but politics may not avoid you.

I am ok with being called inert. In the context, this would suggest I am less easily swayed than most.

Someone very famous had words for you:

"Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

... There are layers to your post that need to be properly disassembled to be properly appreciated. And I assure you that I do appreciate it. Deeply. ...

<< That just means you cling to your wrong ideas with the same tenacity as your correct ones.

It is bold of you to assume that your ideas are correct and, consequently, my ideas are not.

It is not just bold, but also kinda well, not smart, to assume what my ideas are. For all you know, I believe circles are, in fact, round. Are you going to argue against roundness of circles now?

But to top of it all off with a quotable quote that seems like it should mean something, and yet manages to mean nothing, because, apart from it being -- lets say -- misapplied in general, it is also ridiculously wrong in the context.

How does work for an outright rejection?

We can stop talking now. We have no useful thoughts to exchange.

There isn't exactly a "curve" to be behind, just as there isn't one single "history" that you can end up "on the wrong side of". Politics is just the constantly shifting borders in a formalised war for power between different groups, long term there is no single direction of "progress".

>You may avoid politics, but politics may not avoid you.

This is the correct view, in the sense that if you don't belong to some kind of tribe, you'll get ripped off by someone who does. The inert group are not wrong, but by participating less than the others in the battle for their collective self interest, they will end up being the ones taken advantage of.

They have the most to win/lose.

The rest are just going ‘WTF is this shit?!?’

Or, you know, they actually have a point, and framing them as just another partisan is an uncharitable response. Which, ironically, is typical of partisans.

Neither the paper nor the original comment said the most partisan commenters are wrong. It found a strong correlation between how partisan a social media user is and how often they post.

You're being uncharitable by assuming the commenter is disagreeing that with the point that the Overton window has moved. Which, I've heard, is typical of partisans.

(De)legitimation is the dominant meta. Much more than arguing on the merits of ideas, folks argue on the legitimate status of their opponents real or perceived stance. A lot of it attempts to play to the audience rather than either side open to changing their minds. That's how I read it at least.

I would usually keep quiet and ignore post like this because they are extreme timesinks, but to give a perfect example: Waco. It happened under the other side. The official story is bunk and half the country that is supposedly anti-authoritarian cheered it on.

I don't care to have the conversation or change anyone's mind but your post is the perfect example why people in the middle disengaged from the loud minority that takes over online spaces.

I'm old enough to remember Waco and there was widespread criticism of Janet Reno's handling of Waco. This idea that the Dems "cheered it on" is ahistorical post facto justification for a position you likely already held.

I see this all the time. It's some combination of "X was hypocrditical" or "X was mean to me", which leads to "and that's why I support [the opposite of X] as [a centrist, a moderate, someone with common sense]". And reaching for a ~30 year old siege is the reachiest of reaches.

This is the Myth of the Moderate. There is no such thing a "moderate" or a "centrist" in the modern day. Ask them about issues and they're just conservatives who are embarrassed about it.

Hi, I consider myself a moderate. Feel free to ask me any questions. Happy to knock your silly strawman down. :)

Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters is still not within the Overton window though.