Back in mid June, contributor knucklehead posed the question "should we start plankin' out a platform" for the "Strewnaround" party - Strewnarounds being neither "liberal", nor "conservative", but not really the center either - "there really is no 'center'; there are just vague piles of various body parts strewn around the playing field".
Being a big believer in/fan of self-organizing systems, I thought the idea of "Strewnaround parts" was a golden insight. With all those body parts just looking for an appropriate group to which to attach, the huge number of body parts ought to be able to join up in some way to create a millipedinous/Frankenstein's monster-like center analogue, but one that was outside the experience of the major parties, with which most Strewnarounds are presumably disaffected.
Seneca's post seemed to me to reflect one possible plank for the Strewnaround party, which is this - while we may disagree over its propriety, we are reluctant to read into an article on lifestyle an intent to encourage the assassination of public figures.
In other words, we use aluminum (or aluminium, depending on our origin) foil, not tin, and generally only for covering food.
I think this explains both the "centerness" and "strewnaroundness" of those of us who might self-identify as strewnarounds. Issues aren't so simple as "that person disagrees with me more often than not, therefore his intentions are pure evil, and he wishes to destroy everything I wish to preserve, so I damn well better disagree with him". So we're kind of center - willing to agree and disagree with the same people (depending on how we view the issue, weigh the probabilities, value the alternative costs and benefits, and so on), without regard to their affiliation. Yet we're also isolated, with no set of positions on which we all agree, unable to work together at the level at which policy arguments take place - the "we should adopt this position, and I'm sticking to it regardless of what I learn later" level.
Understanding, therefore, that there are probably no particular policy position on which all the contributors and commenters at YARGB (or is it Flares?) can unanimously agree, I wonder if there are meta-position on which we might. You've got one of mine above - the rejection of the tinfoil assumption of evil intent on the part of others (if you have evil intentions, you've got to prove it). And I'm looking for additional suggestions in the comments.
I realized some time ago that I'd rather talk to, work with, and align myself with people who generally agree with me regarding the rules of a debate than people who agree with me regarding its outcome. Which is why I still think this is a Really Great Blog.