A thread wishing for the triumph of the moderate over the left and right on this foru [Archive]

25th August 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Please define "triumph". In particular, does it mean "spout nonsense for so long that no one bothers to refute it anymoer"?

Thank you.

No, that's losing. Triumph means "have the majority in the political process".

Nyarlathotep

25th August 2003, 11:16 AM

I think the moderate should triumph in this forum and in life. I am kind of Aristotlean in that way.

Unfortunately I have about as much EXPECTATION of the moderate position triumphing here or anywhere else, as I do of winged simians flying forth from my hindquarters. Extreme positions are more exciting and offer people simpler solutions than do moderate ones, people are always going to be more receptive to that.

Silicon

25th August 2003, 11:28 AM

Hear, hear Nyarlathotep!

Upchurch

25th August 2003, 01:33 PM

I've always considered myself pretty much a moderate. The only exception is that I have a strong liberal stance when it comes to homosexuality (especially after I got to know quite a few gay men and women, and now two trans-gendered people). Most everything else, I recognize as often being too complex to pigeon hole into "absolutely right" and "absolutely wrong".

Abortion, for example, I am against in principle, but also recognize that we as a society don't provide enough in the way of socially acceptable alternatives so that abortion becomes seen as the easy way out of an unwanted pregnancy. To simply outlaw it without providing more in the way of support for people with unwanted pregnancies will just drive the proceedure underground, which will end up making everything worse.
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Unfortunately I have about as much EXPECTATION of the moderate position triumphing here or anywhere else, as I do of winged simians flying forth from my hindquarters. Careful. The moderates seem to be winning. I'd wear loose fitting pants, if I were you.

25th August 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I've always considered myself pretty much a moderate. The only exception is that I have a strong liberal stance when it comes to homosexuality (especially after I got to know quite a few gay men and women, and now two trans-gendered people). Most everything else, I recognize as often being too complex to pigeon hole into "absolutely right" and "absolutely wrong".

Abortion, for example, I am against in principle, but also recognize that we as a society don't provide enough in the way of socially acceptable alternatives so that abortion becomes seen as the easy way out of an unwanted pregnancy. To simply outlaw it without providing more in the way of support for people with unwanted pregnancies will just drive the proceedure underground, which will end up making everything worse.
Careful. The moderates seem to be winning. I'd wear loose fitting pants, if I were you.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a moderate stance on homosexuality is "just treat it like anything else". Let them get married, divorced, be taxed, etc, just like the rest of us.

The anti-homosexuality laws are entirely, completely derived from biblical principles, and are already entirely unconstutitional on that grounds, no matter what the representation in law is, that's the grounds, and that's enough to disqualify such a law.

Upchurch

25th August 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by jj

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a moderate stance on homosexuality is "just treat it like anything else". Let them get married, divorced, be taxed, etc, just like the rest of us.Really? Then what would the liberal stance be? I was under the impression that use of a "civil unions" in place of "marriage" was the moderate position. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of moderate writers or speakers, so I don't know what is considered the middle of the topic.
The anti-homosexuality laws are entirely, completely derived from biblical principles, and are already entirely unconstutitional on that grounds, no matter what the representation in law is, that's the grounds, and that's enough to disqualify such a law. Unless they actually are able to pass an amendment to the constitution. *shudder*

Nyarlathotep

25th August 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Careful. The moderates seem to be winning. I'd wear loose fitting pants, if I were you.

On the poll maybe, but it seems more likely that that this thread is going to attract people who consider themselves moderate.

This could just be my own cynicism talking but on this forum as well as in day to day life I see increasing polarization with people taking increasingly fanatical and radical political views and increasingly demonizing anyone who takes an opposite view. It is a rare thing for me to see anyone, conservative or liberal, who can believe someone can take an opposing view without being an evil, vile, despicable individual who wants to wipe his a$$ with the constitution. There are some moderates out there, but they are becoming an increasingly rare species.

I don't think the loose fitting pants will be necessary.

fishbob

25th August 2003, 01:58 PM

A thread wishing for the triumph of the moderate over the left and right on this foru

Shemp for dogcatcher. Triumph on this foru really does not mean much. It is often more educational to see what the extreme opinions are. How about an argument between Greenpeace and the KKK? How about a debate between Marilyn Manson and Jerry Falwell?

It is often quite boring to listen to a bunch people sharing the same opinions, what is there to make you think?

Triumph in the real world is an entirely different matter.

25th August 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

There are some moderates out there, but they are becoming an increasingly rare species.

I don't think the loose fitting pants will be necessary.

This is why we moderates should become MUCH MUCH MUCH more vocal.

Out with it, Moderates of the world, SPEAK UP!

Shinytop

25th August 2003, 02:13 PM

I don't want to see anybody "triumph". I don"t want anybody licking their wounds and plotting revenge. I don't want anybody plotting to consolidate their new found power.

I would like to see all sides come together and come to decisions based on what is best for America. It may not be likely but I can dream.

25th August 2003, 02:15 PM

Nyarlathotep

25th August 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Shinytop
I don't want to see anybody "triumph". I don"t want anybody licking their wounds and plotting revenge. I don't want anybody plotting to consolidate their new found power.

I would like to see all sides come together and come to decisions based on what is best for America. It may not be likely but I can dream.

We'd all like to see a lot of things. I personally would like to see Katherine Zeta Jones naked, but that's not going to happen either.

The problem with "all sides coming together to decide what's best for America" is that all sides feel that they and they alone know what's right for America and that anyone who feels otherwise is a traitor. Even Hitler felt that what he was doing was for the common good. Whichever side is the most powerful will ultimately grab power and force their views on everyone else. The best that we can hope for is that whoever does is either close to our own views or at least doesn't believe in dragging dissenters out into the street and having them shot. Listening to the level of political discourse in this country I am becoming increasingly convinced that the second option is vanishing from any sort of realistic hope as well.

Dancing David

25th August 2003, 03:26 PM

Shemp! He is the kind of extremist that moderates need to carry the day.

Maybe moderates just don't write, if we can get them to vote, now there is the important thing!

arcticpenguin

25th August 2003, 04:48 PM

I found the poster boy we need for our moderate cause: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,7070062%255E1702,00.html

Politician punches challenger
From correspondents in Oslo
August 26, 2003

MARTIN Schanche, a Norwegian rally cross champion running for local office, punched a political challenger overnight in front of about 150 shocked spectators, including schoolchildren.

I don't know what his positions are on the issues, but he seems to have a thoughtful, moderate approach.

Tormac

25th August 2003, 06:28 PM

I am rather curious what a "moderate" is.

Is there a litmus test for moderates?

What if you are moderate on some issues, but liberal or conservative on others? What are the big issues for moderates?

I have been accused of being a socialist sympathizer by some of my conservative friends, and an "arch corporate stooge" by a friend who is a green party supporter. Would my positions even out to make me a moderate?

I've read a saying from one of the car forums I frequent involving what is a sane moderate speed to drive on the public road.

"Everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, everyone who drives faster than me is a maniac."

Is this saying applicable to moderation in politics?

25th August 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Shemp! He is the kind of extremist that moderates need to carry the day.

Maybe moderates just don't write, if we can get them to vote, now there is the important thing!

Hey, I write, I vote. :)

25th August 2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Tormac
I am rather curious what a "moderate" is.

Is there a litmus test for moderates?

Litmus tests are for exremists.

What if you are moderate on some issues, but liberal or conservative on others? What are the big issues for moderates?

Moderation in all things, including moderation.

I have been accused of being a socialist sympathizer by some of my conservative friends, and an "arch corporate stooge" by a friend who is a green party supporter. Would my positions even out to make me a moderate?

Sounds a lot like how people treat me.

I've read a saying from one of the car forums I frequent involving what is a sane moderate speed to drive on the public road.

"Everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, everyone who drives faster than me is a maniac."

Is this saying applicable to moderation in politics?
No, because there's no 'slower' or 'faster' only different.

corplinx

25th August 2003, 09:14 PM

If you want a good viewpoint on what a moderate is, read Dr. King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail":

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

According to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., moderates suck. Those who choose not to decide simply block progress.

Lord Emsworth

26th August 2003, 04:02 AM

Go, Shemp, go!

arcticpenguin

26th August 2003, 07:05 AM

Upchurch

26th August 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by corplinx
According to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., moderates suck. Those who choose not to decide simply block progress. Don't confuse being moderate with being inactive. That's a false dichotomy. Both the left and right take things to extremes, sometimes an absurd extreme. It's not like there aren't other options. Consider the above posts concerning abortion and homosexuality.

BillyTK

26th August 2003, 07:31 AM

I had to vote "shemp for dogcatcher", for if moderate is a position between liberal and conservative (as per the order of the poll) then that would make the moderate position... conservative?

Originally posted by Upchurch
Don't confuse being moderate with being inactive.
Moderate activism? Coffee mornings instead of protests? Gentle hikes instead of marches? You sure you're not British?! ;)

Upchurch

26th August 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Moderate activism? Coffee mornings instead of protests? Gentle hikes instead of marches? You sure you're not British?! ;) Well, my family was British a little over 200 years ago. Maybe dry wit is a dominate gene....

I'm just saying that one's political standing is not a function of how hard one pushes for a particular outcome. Ever know a lazy leftist or a die-hard conservative who is all talk and no action?

BillyTK

26th August 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, my family was British a little over 200 years ago. Maybe dry wit is a dominate gene....

I'm just saying that one's political standing is not a function of how hard one pushes for a particular outcome. Ever know a lazy leftist or a die-hard conservative who is all talk and no action?
Oh yes, I know what you mean—can we add ideologues whose views start and end with with everyone else to the list?—I just got hooked on an image of a moderate activist ("What do we want? Freedom! When do we want it? Um, when we've checked with everybody else!"). I mean, just what would be the content of a moderate position? Is there a coherent viewpoint or can it be anymore than having constrasting (even contradictory) positions on various issues; being socialist on social issues, liberal on personal issues and economically conservative for instance?

CapelDodger

26th August 2003, 08:28 AM

Perhaps "pluralist" would get more respect than "moderate".

I like the Legalise Cannabis chant : "What do we want?" "Legalisation!" "When do want it?" "Want what?"

Upchurch

26th August 2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

("What do we want? Freedom! When do we want it? Um, when we've checked with everybody else!").how about an extremist moderate activist?

What do we want?
Compromise!
When do we want it?
Right the frell now or we'll force it down your throats!

BillyTK

26th August 2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Perhaps "pluralist" would get more respect than "moderate".

I like the Legalise Cannabis chant : "What do we want?" "Legalisation!" "When do want it?" "Want what?"
Good point; although in terms of jj's poll moderacy is a better description than pluralism in that s/he(?)'s appealing for centrism, whereas a pluralist wouldn't necessarily be bothered about a moderate position on anything.

BillyTK

26th August 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
how about an extremist moderate activist?

What do we want?
Compromise!
When do we want it?
Right the frell now or we'll force it down your throats!
Now my imagination's on overdrive :); the extremist moderate chant: "What do we want?" "Uh, whatever...". Wouldn't even moderate moderacy get you kicked out of the Moderate Party?!!

26th August 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by corplinx
If you want a good viewpoint on what a moderate is, read Dr. King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail":

According to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., moderates suck. Those who choose not to decide simply block progress.

Moderates are not those who choose not to decide. The indecisive are those who choose not to decide, or who are unable to decide.

Your endorsement of what I regard as hate-speech is noted. I suspect some further delving into the quote is required, because I suspect that MLK was referring to the southern white "moderate", a person who in the present day would be considered reactionary.

Please do not spread these defamatory stereotypes in the future.

26th August 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
I had to vote "shemp for dogcatcher", for if moderate is a position between liberal and conservative (as per the order of the poll) then that would make the moderate position... conservative?

Moderate activism? Coffee mornings instead of protests? Gentle hikes instead of marches? You sure you're not British?! ;)

Remember, the moderate slogan:

MODERATION IN ALL THINGS INCLUDING MODERATION!

26th August 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
how about an extremist moderate activist?

What do we want?
Compromise!
When do we want it?
Right the frell now or we'll force it down your throats!

You know, I've found myself doing exactly that in standards commitees sometimes. Not recently, but I've certainly found myself doing it.

corplinx

26th August 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I reject the equation of "moderate" and "undecided".

I'm sorry, that was a gross oversimplification on my part and it wasn't consistent with the previous quote from Dr. King.

26th August 2003, 03:56 PM

***prod***

26th August 2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

I'm sorry, that was a gross oversimplification on my part and it wasn't consistent with the previous quote from Dr. King.

Noted...

I'm still not entirely comfortable with the quote, frankly, I've met far too many people who were willing to equate moderation with either indifference or inability to decide (not meaning you at this point, it seems).

27th August 2003, 09:30 PM

PROD

Clancie

27th August 2003, 11:11 PM

So....Who would be an example of a moderate?

Dianne Feinstein?

George Bush, the dad?

Arnold Schwartzenagger?

Joe Lieberman?

Bill Clinton?

Colin Powell?

Richard Nixon?

I've heard or read all of the above described as "moderates".

Just wondering if one person's "moderate" is another person's "liberal" or "conservative".....

UnrepentantSinner

27th August 2003, 11:29 PM

Mantras (and yes, I agree with these) feel free to assume that I want them now or to be continued.

What do we want?

Abortion rights, but a reduction in their number through education and birth control!

What do we want?

Reduced taxes after we pay down the debt and upgrade national infrastructure!

What do we want?

A powerful and projectable milltary to be used for legitimate defensive needs!

You get the idea...

Being a moderate doesn't mean being wishy washy, it means you contemplate all the ramifications of an issue rather than just knee-jerk in response to it. Both the right and the left have an inability to control their jerking.

Some Friggin Guy

27th August 2003, 11:42 PM

Actually, I'm all for moderates, but my view is a little different rom what I am seeing here (I may be mistaken about some of your points, however.)

I don't necessarily feel compromise to be the best option, but to find the best points of both sides and use them.

For example, I believe it is imporant to maintain a strong active military in order to protect the rights and liberties of all citizens to live according to their own religious and moral belifes, provided those beliefs to not interfere with another's. This includes the right of Christians to practice in churches, their homes, etc, and the right for homosexuals to marry legally and raise children.

Oh, one other thing...

personally would like to see Katherine Zeta Jones naked, but that's not going to happen either.

I'll send you a web-link sometime. :D

28th August 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Actually, I'm all for moderates, but my view is a little different rom what I am seeing here (I may be mistaken about some of your points, however.)

I don't necessarily feel compromise to be the best option, but to find the best points of both sides and use them.

That sounds like a constructive moderate to me.
...

Web link?