This interpretation means there is no "centrist position", so if an issue is divided by Democrat vs Rebuplican (which it usually is) then you're picking a side for that discussion.

That means that in issue specific conversations or debate, bringing up the fact your centrist only serves to fracture yourself from the party your currently on the side of. (None of this applies for registering to vote, where being an Independent actually matters).

I just think the label at best fractures your impact and reach and at worst is an attempt to sound rationally superior.

All this to say, not identifying with a party or choosing opinions are all well and fine, but categorising yourself as a centrist just groups you with a bunch of people that don't necessarily represent or agree with you.

[–] atkion@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I can see that, you make a fair point. Centrists are probably the least homogenous group by definition, so they don't really stand for anything in particular and the label loses meaning.

However, I do think there is something to be said for using the centrist label to dodge around people trying to pigeonhole you into a specific viewpoint. For example, I've had great discussions with someone about UBI and socialized healthcare before, only for them to feel utterly betrayed and revolted by my stance on gun control (as they naturally assumed the rest of my views would align with theirs along their party lines).

Our political culture is so incredibly hateful and polarized at this point in time that I feel like 'adopting the role of a D or an R' for a single discussion is a recipe for disaster. If there's anything people instinctively hate worse than an enemy, it's a traitor.