The absence of an ideology, as DoDo doctly explained, is not an ideology in itself.
What I do not agree with is your claim that you do not have an ideology. You have here displayed a lot of assumptions and values in a coherent narrative. That is, you have displayed your ideology.
Your claim to lack an ideology does not make it so, just as some marxists claims to lack an ideology - "Marxism is a science, not an ideology!" - does not make that true either.
It is not my claim alone that "make it so". I also tried to argue, and I regret not having convinced you. Someone at the center will be seen as conservative by the left and socialist by the right. Someone above the center as I position myself, is, in plus, a weird bird that no one really sees what it wants.
I don't think I displayed assumptions as such, but different situations that have several facets and I argued for considering all those facets. I'm not against immigrants, but I do think we should consider the locals' view of them and its causes (not always racism). This is the kind of politically-neutral, rational argumenting that I claim myself of.
Someone at the center will be seen as conservative by the left and socialist by the right. Someone above the center as I position myself, is, in plus, a weird bird that no one really sees what it wants.
Center is not an un-ideological position. An absence of ideology would not be placable on a political scale.
- Jake 640 kiloton should be enough for anybody
This doesn't show opportunism or maverick-ism, but exactly that we don't fit political scale, which is based on ideologies.
