Community Messageboard: Re: That's not really a moderate though by Legolas

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Re: That's not really a moderate though Legolas Send a noteboard - 07/01/2010 11:10:17 PM

By and large, if you have opinions on stuff, one party meets your needs better than another, and you say, 'better 6 out of 10 then 4' very few genuinely straddle the middle. Some, of course, simply have views which are too antithetical to be with either group, many libertarians are of this group, I wouldn't call them moderate, even though many if judged on a dem-rep axis would show up as such.

I've heard of lots of people who claim to have voted for both parties, especially people who've been around a while. Elections wouldn't be nearly as exciting if independent voters who swing back and forth are as rare as you seem to suggest. Of course the current polarization and the two-party-system discourages that, but still there are lots of people in that position, I would think.

We are very specifically not talking about people who after careful study and review just can't align with either party, we're talking about people who don't know much and have chosen to assume non-partisianship is somehow on a higher moral plane, a celebration of ignorance, though they would never admit to it.

I can see how that would be annoying.

It is definetly better, as you say, to acknowledge neutrality if you meet that bill, but really, how often does someone who is genuinely knowledgeable of politics have no opinion on something? Fairly common, sure, but all the issues? Not very often. Yes, later on it isn't abnormal to have some sort of issue where you say "Well, I don't really support tariffs but I understand why we need them, so either is fine by me" or such. This is that less than 10% I refer to. They're entirely ready to give the pros and cons.

They may have an opinion but still feel undecided about a proposed law or change. The current health care laws are a good example - I don't think I'm the only one who is rather torn on the question whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and whether I'd vote for it as a Rep/Senator, or not. After all, laws are often complicated compromises like that. The ones that are not and on which you can take one of those fun, comforting, self-righteous, uncompromising stances, as most people on both sides do on gay marriage for instance, are really a minority, I should think.

Let's take a case like israel and palestine. Lots of people have a side on that issue, right or wrong. How often do you hear some ninny say "I just don't see what their arguing about" that's the group of mods I dislike. They don't know what they're talking about, but they still decide to have a position and they basically picked it for some sort of illusionary 'higher moral ground' when in reality they simply don't know what they're talking about, and they simply don't get that while neutrality is an option, neutrality through ignorance is just as bad or worse than picking a side.

I'm not sure I agree with you there actually. As much as it annoys me how 95% of people discussing that particular topic is woefully ignorant about at least some aspects of the history of the conflict, I would have to prefer someone entirely ignorant who tries to take a neutral position, over those countless people who vehemently choose one side or the other based on much more extensive but still incomplete knowledge. Perhaps even over people who vehemently choose one side while perfectly informed.

These are the sorts who if one side was horribly wrong and the other totally right would still be 'moderate', and they're saved from this normally because on most major issues if both sides don't have a bunch of good points one side would already have one. I truly think a lot of them would be neutral on genocide or slavery in the right circumstances, and I think history circa 1930s or 1850s backs that.

You're probably right there. Of course, it hardly ever happens that one side is horribly wrong and the other totally right, as you point out - one might argue that it's not such a bad general position to take, then. Even slavery, at least in the 19th century US context, is not entirely a black and white issue - and the Civil War certainly wasn't.

But I'm not trying to make a blanket statement, it is entirely possible to be moderate and know you're stuff, it just tends to be the minority, and I generally dislike the reasoning of most who pick this stance.

Like I said, guess I just haven't met many people like the ones you describe.

Reply to message

Moderates, Idiots, Apathy, and Mass Hysteria – A post-holiday rant Isaac - 06/01/2010 04:51:41 PM 1072 Views

Re: Moderates, Idiots, Apathy, and Mass Hysteria – A post-holiday rant Floffe - 06/01/2010 05:06:33 PM 625 Views

Re: Moderates, Idiots, Apathy, and Mass Hysteria – A post-holiday rant Isaac - 06/01/2010 05:12:47 PM 458 Views

I generally agree with you LadyLorraine - 06/01/2010 06:10:45 PM 495 Views

Re: I generally agree with you Isaac - 06/01/2010 07:11:22 PM 512 Views

you should sneer at asprin anyways

*NM* LadyLorraine - 06/01/2010 07:55:29 PM 209 Views

It's the whole 'natural' thingy... Isaac - 06/01/2010 08:14:45 PM 404 Views

if there was a berry i could stick up my nose... LadyLorraine - 06/01/2010 08:17:00 PM 538 Views

When spring rolls around again I'd probably join you Isaac - 06/01/2010 08:42:05 PM 421 Views

well, just as a note to life expectency LadyLorraine - 06/01/2010 09:55:12 PM 412 Views

Re: well, just as a note to life expectency smaug - 07/01/2010 05:30:41 PM 556 Views

I don't believe we can say either way at the moment Isaac - 08/01/2010 08:40:30 PM 433 Views

I dunno, I tend to prefer moderates above partisans. Legolas - 06/01/2010 06:29:27 PM 524 Views

That's not really a moderate though Isaac - 06/01/2010 06:51:05 PM 514 Views

Re: That's not really a moderate though Legolas - 07/01/2010 11:10:17 PM 629 Views

Re: That's not really a moderate though Isaac - 08/01/2010 07:26:14 PM 590 Views

This was a fun post to read. Ghavrel - 06/01/2010 07:52:46 PM 474 Views

One tries one's best

Isaac - 06/01/2010 08:28:08 PM 559 Views

Jindal is well meaning, but he's a horrible governor. Ghavrel - 06/01/2010 09:29:57 PM 417 Views

So I presume he is republican? LadyLorraine - 06/01/2010 09:56:42 PM 484 Views

He was seriously talked around for the 2012 pres bid Isaac - 07/01/2010 01:05:35 AM 525 Views

you're not wrong LadyLorraine - 07/01/2010 01:11:17 AM 430 Views

It sounds harsh but sometimes cutbacks help Isaac - 07/01/2010 02:58:24 AM 623 Views

it's more a matter of the degree LadyLorraine - 07/01/2010 05:07:18 AM 450 Views

That's true, but as LL said, the balance is completely off. Ghavrel - 07/01/2010 05:30:56 AM 441 Views

Re: That's true, but as LL said, the balance is completely off. Isaac - 07/01/2010 06:18:08 AM 474 Views

that would actually be quite interesting LadyLorraine - 07/01/2010 06:26:36 AM 393 Views

But you already have insane amounts of people in jail. Legolas - 07/01/2010 11:22:19 PM 459 Views

The higher crime rate in the US is something of a different issue Isaac - 08/01/2010 08:26:00 PM 644 Views

That's a long post... Legolas - 08/01/2010 08:58:07 PM 648 Views

I agree. *NM* Avendesora - 07/01/2010 01:18:06 AM 220 Views

Huh. That wasn't offensive. It was interesting. *NM* Tashmere - 06/01/2010 10:48:17 PM 206 Views

muon, proton, and moron? Lol.

*NM* everynametaken - 07/01/2010 01:22:19 AM 383 Views

I enjoyed your post, except for one part. Avendesora - 07/01/2010 01:23:09 AM 582 Views

I disagree with about 70-80% of what you said, but I don't have time ATM to go through it all BlackAdder - 07/01/2010 02:00:02 AM 650 Views

I am unsure whether to be impressed or offended (and this necro is your own fault.

) Joel - 05/02/2012 02:37:54 PM 568 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="68008">
<quote id="67454">By and large, if you have opinions on stuff, one party meets your needs better than another, and you say, 'better 6 out of 10 then 4' very few genuinely straddle the middle. Some, of course, simply have views which are too antithetical to be with either group, many libertarians are of this group, I wouldn't call them moderate, even though many if judged on a dem-rep axis would show up as such.</quote>
I've heard of lots of people who claim to have voted for both parties, especially people who've been around a while. Elections wouldn't be nearly as exciting if independent voters who swing back and forth are as rare as you seem to suggest. Of course the current polarization and the two-party-system discourages that, but still there are lots of people in that position, I would think. 
<quote id="67454">We are very specifically not talking about people who after careful study and review just can't align with either party, we're talking about people who don't know much and have chosen to assume non-partisianship is somehow on a higher moral plane, a celebration of ignorance, though they would never admit to it.</quote>
I can see how that would be annoying. 
<quote id="67454">It is definetly better, as you say, to acknowledge neutrality if you meet that bill, but really, how often does someone who is genuinely knowledgeable of politics have no opinion on something? Fairly common, sure, but all the issues? Not very often. Yes, later on it isn't abnormal to have some sort of issue where you say "Well, I don't really support tariffs but I understand why we need them, so either is fine by me" or such. This is that less than 10% I refer to. They're entirely ready to give the pros and cons.</quote>
They may have an opinion but still feel undecided about a proposed law or change. The current health care laws are a good example - I don't think I'm the only one who is rather torn on the question whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and whether I'd vote for it as a Rep/Senator, or not. After all, laws are often complicated compromises like that. The ones that are not and on which you can take one of those fun, comforting, self-righteous, uncompromising stances, as most people on both sides do on gay marriage for instance, are really a minority, I should think. 
<quote id="67454">Let's take a case like israel and palestine. Lots of people have a side on that issue, right or wrong. How often do you hear some ninny say "I just don't see what their arguing about" that's the group of mods I dislike. They don't know what they're talking about, but they still decide to have a position and they basically picked it for some sort of illusionary 'higher moral ground' when in reality they simply don't know what they're talking about, and they simply don't get that while neutrality is an option, neutrality through ignorance is just as bad or worse than picking a side.</quote>
I'm not sure I agree with you there actually. As much as it annoys me how 95% of people discussing that particular topic is woefully ignorant about at least some aspects of the history of the conflict, I would have to prefer someone entirely ignorant who tries to take a neutral position, over those countless people who vehemently choose one side or the other based on much more extensive but still incomplete knowledge. Perhaps even over people who vehemently choose one side while perfectly informed. 
<quote id="67454">These are the sorts who if one side was horribly wrong and the other totally right would still be 'moderate', and they're saved from this normally because on most major issues if both sides don't have a bunch of good points one side would already have one. I truly think a lot of them would be neutral on genocide or slavery in the right circumstances, and I think history circa 1930s or 1850s backs that.</quote>
You're probably right there. Of course, it hardly ever happens that one side is horribly wrong and the other totally right, as you point out - one might argue that it's not such a bad general position to take, then. Even slavery, at least in the 19th century US context, is not entirely a black and white issue - and the Civil War certainly wasn't.
<quote id="67454">But I'm not trying to make a blanket statement, it is entirely possible to be moderate and know you're stuff, it just tends to be the minority, and I generally dislike the reasoning of most who pick this stance.</quote>
Like I said, guess I just haven't met many people like the ones you describe. 
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password