The popularity I've talked about referenced your point about it being moderate and easy on everyone nerves. I've oryginally started my previous comment by saying, that full blown socialism right here and right now would be good for everyone and it would be considered pretty leftist, but deleted that after deciding this part was pretty much obvious. Something being good doesn't make it centrist. That's why I stayed on point of public sentiment, which you seemingly invoked by defining center as moderate in the eyes of voters.

Say whatever you want about their hienous ideas, there wouldn't be an issue in USA right now or anxiety about Trump winning if they weren't reasonably popular. And I'm not conflating that popularity with doing good, but using their example to reject your argument about popularity making a political system 'centrist'.

I don't understand where did you get popularity = 'doing good' from me, but before we get into argument about that, I don't see how either of those would make a system centrist. 'Good' is relative, and further left would be 'better' by this logic, right? So how does that make a democratic socialism 'centrist' if 'doing good' is the measure you're using here? It being moderate is for the sake of popularity, gradual shift to the left so no one has any major complaints, and I think I've spoken enough about how I don't see popularity as reasonable measuring standard here.

Democratic socialism wants to overthrow the capitalism, bring socialism, give everyone free healthcare, have worker co-ops as default mode of working, UBI, yada, yada, all of those propositions are radical (as in fundamental) and definitely leftist. Instead of violent revolution this system proposes a reformative approach, and that's basicially the main difference from wide range of socialist systems that would attempt to implement the same things. So how is that centrist? Moderate, I get. Popular, sure. But center would refer to either a midpoint between the furthest right and left ideologies, or a minimal degree of change from the current political system, depending on how you want to define that word. I can't see Democratic Socialism fitting either of those definitions, so it has to be a leftist system. I don't see how it being moderate or popular would even influence that.

It's true it's moderate and push for gradual changes to ease everyone in, but it being appealing to more people doesn't make it centrist, I don't think. It's purpose isn't to balance in the center between the left and the right, but rather to use softer kind of force to move society left.

As in the example you used, what we consider right and (nowdays even far right) manages power without much fuss from the society, and is appealing to some despite it's facist undertones. Would you consider Republicans to be centrist? Because if you wouldn't, I'd argue that any democratic socialist party wouldn't be either.

I think the intent matters more than public opinion, you could sway the public with charismatic enough figurehead without changing anything about policy. I see the 'center' as more of the tendency not to change anything either way or balance between the 'extremes', and democratic socialism intends to be polite about beheading the capital class.

I see your point, and it's true that a lot of earlier propositions of socialism are already implemented and seen as desirable by most people, but I think that's something to be said about left wing in general. We're no longer fighting to abolish 20 hours work day, instead it's 32 hours work week now. As the window has moved, so did the policy. I've never heard about there being a stopping point in regards to how far left socialist democracy system is supposed to push before it's "principles" are satisfied, but my understanding was that it's at least until capitalism is abolished (and socialism emerges) or capital class is weak enough to be defeated via revolution of some sort. And so, since it's intended purpose is to push much further left instead of mantaining the current system and it's status quo, and some changes required to implement it's propositions are radical, I feel like it can't be reasonably called centrist system. Unless your definition of political center differs from mine, but it would require it not to account for both how far left the system intends to shift the society eventually, and also how radical the changes are in comparison to the current center. That, or what we understand as socialist democracy differs, wikipedia page for it mostly fits my definition, and I don't know where to look for more 'common' view on it.

Why though? What makes it a centrist system in your view? Elaborate.

Leaning of political system would be measured in degree of proposed changes. The center shifts, but even without accounting for that, democratic socialism is still not a centrist political system by any measure. Democratic socialism proposes radical changes, as it attempts to dismantle capitalist estabilishment, eradicate class structure and all that. Those changes are touching fundamental aspects of the current system, which make them, by definition, radical. As opposed to centrist position of mantaining the status quo.

I thought you had some sort of insight about democratic socialism being actually a centrist position, and wanted to hear it out, but it seems you're either unwilling or unable to engage with that topic. Suit yourself.

Where did you get the right wing there? I'm seriously confused, since nothing that I said about democratic socialism was negative. Radical changes are needed and utopian societies are good. I just find calling democratic socialism a centrist political system inaccurate due to its intended radical change, as opposed to social democracy or, you know, centrism as it is understood.

And lots of people will stop drinking it because of that, and they will be healthier thanks to it.

He looks like he commented to someone doing this sport professionally that it look easy and now, with a bit of disdain and irritation, he had to show them what he meant by that

To be fair prisoners of war being raped to death to humiliate them is pretty complex mental issue. We know that psyhopathy can sometimes be acquired as a trait, and it seems Israel has ways of inducing it. Interestingly enough, Nazis invented similar stuff as well... Oh, no, no, I'm not comparing the two. Just an off hand comment. Move along.

IMO you're missing the point. It's less about whenever women are "right" to be afraid of men in general, and more about what their feelings on the matter actually are. If a lot of women would prefer to meet a bear rather than a stranger in a forest, then that's because of their deep distrust of men. It's not about whenever men are actually trustworthy and women are overreacting (though a lot of the responses are indicative that they're not), but rather about what led to this distrust, and also about how unaware of the issue men are in general. Quick googling shows stats like 1 in 5/6 women was or will be a victim of rape, 1 in 3 of them as a child, 81% in general had been sexually harassed or assaulted. It's not that many women just "hear stories of assault and rape and whatever", many women are victims, and almost all know a victim personally.

Now, did you know that? Do you know a person who's rape/SA/SH victim? Are you aware that's actually a broad problem and not just some abstract culture of fear? Because I think this whole thing with a bear vs man in a forest shows mostly the difference between men and women when it comes to understanding this topic. I see it not as a "are men bad" question, but rather "is sexual violence common", because you sure might be a righteous fella and most of your friends might be as well, but no women that know you can be sure you're not the guy who's keeping those stats up. It doesn't take a majority of men to cause this fear, but it will take a majority of them to fix it, and understanding that there is a problem is at the very least the first step.