Literally arguing for a middle ground between correct and incorrect because they reflexively have to make themselves look like the reasonable center whenever the left/right dynamic comes up on the internet.

No thought into the response it’s just Pavlovian centrist drooling.

The “others” think they are correct too. It’s simple tribal politics.

I think the point is that if one side is correct and the other side is incorrect (regardless of which side that is) then someone with that point of view cannot possibly be centralist.

To be centralist you would have to conceive the both sides have a point. Centralists like to claim that they listen to both sides and then make an opinion on who to support, but they don’t, they just stick around in the middle. They never actually commit to one side or the other, because if they did that they wouldn’t be centralist anymore and they wouldn’t be able to be on their high horse.

Except life isn’t black and white and rarely is one side “wrong” and the other side “right”.

Committing to “the truth” is simplifying a grey universe which contains millions of those truths. You can’t be certain which is right and which is wrong.

“Climate change is an existential threat to humanity” this is the truth, anything that goes against that would be false, yet every right wing group will try and tell you otherwise.

Okay, sure. But at what level does it stop being a threat? Do we need to revert to a pre-industrial society? Do we need to ban trade shipping? Do we need to get rid of every plane? What alternative sources of energy do we go for? Do they have drawbacks that are acceptable?

There is nuance to everything. You can’t just shout slogans and say “this is the objective truth!”