Lets say l support right wing policies about "free market" but left wing about ownership/property ownership/guns.

Or none of my beliefs are radical, is more correct.

Does that make me a centrist or indecisive?

A two party system doesn't allow for nuance or dissenting opinions. I consider myself very liberal in most things. But I don't strictly fit in the American liberal box. I think a gay couple should be able to get married, buy a machine gun, buy any drug they want at a corner store, see a doctor at no cost outside of tax, do whatever they want to their bodies, a robust support system should exist for their children, own land, do whatever they want on their land, open a cash business and do a whole bunch of other conflicting things. The world isn't black and white.

https://youtu.be/zJr4rZazQy4?is=ZknHP7XE9LJumYgD

Centrist means you have no strong feelings one way or another.

Centrist means you’re right leaning

Context and culture dependent.

In the US today, I take it to mean a Republican who is too embarrassed to associate with Trump any longer but still too brainwashed to express any criticism about the political party their parent(s) raised them in.

If you think "none of my beliefs are radical," then you're a conservative. You don't want change.

centrist is sort of a meaningless category, but it often seems to refer to what was once called a Progressive Conservative or Neo-Liberal.

and remember, if you go far enough left, you get your guns back!

depends on whose saying it. some like me calls myself left of center because im going by historical divide but someone who derogatorially says centerist is talking right of center that because of rightward movement could be considered center in the us. granted this center is messed up because the right here is largely extreme right and they are balanced vs a right that goes from extreme to somewhat. Now the rehetoric from our extreme right paints someone like me who is left of center as some extreme leftist because I want progressive taxes, regulation, and universal social safety nets. whats funny is some parts of those are conservative. like collecting taxes instead of debt and having regulation rather than the government running the things. conservatives have been in favor of regulation and taxes in the past believe it or not. in the us.

In a two-party system, having a collection of positions that does not align well with either makes you an independent, not necessarily a centrist.

Centrist is often used to describe someone who is aligned with a party, but holds mild or compromised versions of that party's positions. It can also describe someone who wants things to stay mostly as they are with any changes being incremental, but one might reasonably describe that position as conservative.

So centrism accepts a particular framework for discussing politics. One historically grounded in traditional liberalism and the hedgemony all politics since really the 1700's has sat under. Within that context left and right are two approaches, two forms of liberalism.

You can take other approaches to understanding politics. For example, you can to a more vertical, issue based approach, where individuals, institutions, etc.. are represented by "baskets" of interests.

"Centrism" doesn't mean that.

You are describing neutrality

You seem pretty reasonable to me

Uuhhh... pantrist?

So pretty much everything you described is left except buying something designed to kill dozens of people. So maybe prioritise.

I did, that's why it was number 2 😉. Several of the other things on that list are also more right than left. Plus the whole last part of my statement.

if you go far enough left you get your guns back. there's no revolution without them :3

Sounds like you could be. Why is it important to know?

Unfortunately, like the libertarians, centrist have been co-opted by ashamed conservatives/gop members and have ruined what it actually is to be a true centrist.

Labels are an over-simplification of the real world. This post sounds like you are trying to shoehorn a complex reality into a simple label, like the label really means anything.

You got it backwards. You are a complex being with complex beliefs.

That's what I prefer to call a pragmatist. 'Centrist' to me these days seems to more indicate indecisiveness. For what it's worth, as a pragmatist, the conservative side of politics is pretty much never right.

A centrist is someone that's too afraid to admit they're a conservative.

In my country, centrist parties just mean "rightwing but will support a bill from a leftwing ruling party if that party gives us a ministry or gov department to run"

I don’t feel like left and right wing are actually meaningful abstractions of human behaviour. Like, are those political wings reflective of people’s tendency to favour in-groups over outgroups or favour universality? Sort of, but not really! The wings are more like buckets of policy concepts that are more rooted in history of how governments and parties developed than anything fundamental. It’s an imperfect tool where people will, for instance, vote Tory because they think they’re better at economy, but not agree on their social policies.

depends on which countries political centrism. in the us, its mostly Center right as the "middle.

The problem with thinking about politics as having very few positions you can take, is that you lose all nuances.

You can take any topic, and broadly list them on a spectrum of; wants more of it | wants the current amount of it | wants less of it.

In that world, there's only three takes. Then we can list a few issues, like;
Immigration, income tax, capital tax, property tax, military spending, healthcare spending, school spending.

That's 7 very high level topics, causing 2187 unique positions in a tripolar world. If you expand that to 12 topics you care about, you're having 533 thousand different positions.

If you then expand the choices a bit from 3 options, to 5 options. For the 7 topics you'll now have 78 thousand positions and for the 12 topics 244 million positions.

All of this to say, political stand points is a fairly complicated multi dimensional vector. Forcing us to some degree to focus at singular issues at a time and dumbing down how we communicate it to find people we have some things in common with - But the world has dumbed it down too much, especially in the US, 30 years ago it was common politicians around the world could have their own opinions within topics that wasn't a part of the core ideology of their political party - That's pretty much dead today.

The left and right part of the word, literally comes from a historical context called the French Revolution.

The people standing on the left side of the parliament, wanted to abolish the king.

The people standing in the right side of the parliament, wanted to continue with a monarchy.

Nowadays it has changed meaning, but that's all it originally conceptualised. Pro people or pro elites/royals.

You could argue that's conservative, but nowadays conservative in a lot of locations wants to return to the past norms, rather than keeping the status quo of today

I'd describe myself as a centerist because I'm sick to death of all this manufactured right vs left divisive bullshit.

The real problem is the ultra-rich hoarding all the wealth and imposing their psychotic beliefs on everyone else. I don't see that as a leftist POV, I see it as a realistic take on a real social problem.

The standard term for that is reactionary.

Doesn't seem to be helping Americans so I'll take my chances and not have children be killed in school shootings every day

The real problem is the ultra-rich hoarding all the wealth

That's the whole point of the actual political left. So, not the US democrats who are right wing, but actual lefties.

Pretty much all our problems are rooted in this. What you may perceive as identity politics is just attacks the right orchestrates on some minority to distract us so we do not realize they are robbing us of everything the have. Be it abortion, be it trans rights, be it whatever other topics where liberals seem to have an opposite opinion compared to republicans, that's all distraction.

The rich don't actually believe that gay people or trans people or immigrants or women who have an abortion are a problem. Because somehow, none of those things are a problem for them if one of them is gay or trans or an immigrant or has an abortion. That's how you know it's all horse shit. And people? People gobble it all up because they foolishly believe it makes them part of the in-group that they will never belong to.

Basically, the differences between the democrats and the republicans are mostly artificial. The topics they "argue" about are topics they could not care less about, it just keeps you distracted. Literally Kang and Kodos. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it doesn't matter what you vote for, because as horrible as the US democrats are, they are less horrible than the republicans. But really, what needs to happen is that people start to understand what is happening to them and to tear down this whole system and build a new and better one.

Rich people are the problem, and rich people are relying on the right to keep making them richer.

There are very different interpretations of the term. Left and right in general is supposedly just economics. Right wing is free market. The basic tenets of left wing politics posits that eventually, we will move past the need for markets in a post scarcity society and once society has matured to a certain point. The only way to avoid an oligarchy is for the common people to own the means of production.

Most countries in the world currently do not agree with far leftists that we are at that point that communism should take over, or that there ever will be that magical moment. Opinions are shifting with Ai and such, but still. However, purely free markets has historically gone very badly. Regulationis needed, as well as a strong social safety net. Also, in many countries, unions are common or mandatory, with strong worker protections. These are all left wing policies, despite not really even approaching the ideal of communism. We could go further without going full communism, such as eliminating the gambling system that is the stock market, or forcing companies to pay shares to the common workers to encourage unified growth.

So in many ways, most developed countries in the world are "centrist". Even most "communist" countries like China are mixed economy in actuality.

if you ask some right wing Americans, the above policies are godless communism and insane to even suggest. So thr Overton Window is something to consider when deciding what "center" is.

Personally, I don't really believe in labels so much in politics, but if you wanted to label me as a radical centrist, that wouldn't be totally inaccurate. I believe political issues have a very clear answer as being right or wrong a lot more than people want to admit, and even when they don't have a clear answer, it is imperative to fully commit, otherwise it will end in a worse result. I don't think radicality comes necessarily from going too far left or right. I feel very strongly about my positions on many topics.