4 ms·

I'm intrigued by how this analysis fits in with increasingly 'tribal/team politics' - do intentional moderates try to appease every team? Thinking out loud, I

by hnhg 7y ago

I'm intrigued by how this analysis fits in with increasingly 'tribal/team politics' - do intentional moderates try to appease every team? Thinking out loud, I think this piece misses that aspect of team-seeking behavior. I know people who will recognise a good point against their side but will strive to ignore it because it works against their sense of loyalty to the team. I increasingly believe there are relatively few people who don't want/need that sense of identity. [edit: the article doesn't really talk about sense of belonging, which I think is inherent in a lot of this discussion]

ajb 7y ago
Indeed. I think a more useful definition is someone who does not exclude either side, from the set of people whose needs politics should address. Let's call that an 'ethical moderate'. Left and right could be thought of as differing in whose behavior they think needs to change, to improve the world: the wealthy and connected, or the poor and disconnected. The more hardline you are, the more you think that that behavior doesn't just need to change, but is reprehensible and deserving of exclusion from consideration. So you can be an 'ethical moderate' without necessarily holding centrist opinions. It may be that this means it should be named something else, but I think it's a useful way of thinking.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Well, not holding position X merely because X is the [conservative | liberal | Democratic | Republican | left | right] position might be considered "moderate", in one sense of the word. Holding position X purely because tribe Y holds it makes you a committed (ie, not moderate) member of tribe Y.
pjc50 7y ago
Great example of this going around in the British press today: https://twitter.com/alexvtunzelmann/status/1210340425124458498 https://twitter.com/alexvtunzelmann/status/12103404251244584... The small child at the top with the horn and red jacket is framed as Good, despite embarking on an illegal foxhunt at the end of which a fox will be killed with dogs. The "lawyer killing a fox with a baseball bat after it attacked his chickens" story immediately below is framed as Bad. As the tweet says, you have to know the team loyalties for this framing to make any sense. (The Telegraph is of course not any kind of moderate)
barrkel 7y ago
People can be true to a team and end up chauvinist; or they can be true to an idea and end up ideologues. The point about extremists getting their opinions in bulk is a solid one. I'm not so sure intentional moderates is a well-defined category. It's what most "balanced" media strive for, but it's more like rubber banding in a video game race - the media have incentives to ensure an exciting, tight race, it improves their viewership, so they try to find the dead centre. I think what PG calls intentional moderates are simply not that interested. Also, I think accidental moderates can end up fairly extreme in the end, because tribalism is ultimately a very strong draw and critical thinking is tiring.

by hnhg 7y ago

ajb 7y ago

Indeed. I think a more useful definition is someone who does not exclude either side, from the set of people whose needs politics should address. Let's call that an 'ethical moderate'. Left and right could be thought of as differing in whose behavior they think needs to change, to improve the world: the wealthy and connected, or the poor and disconnected. The more hardline you are, the more you think that that behavior doesn't just need to change, but is reprehensible and deserving of exclusion from consideration. So you can be an 'ethical moderate' without necessarily holding centrist opinions. It may be that this means it should be named something else, but I think it's a useful way of thinking.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Well, not holding position X merely because X is the [conservative | liberal | Democratic | Republican | left | right] position might be considered "moderate", in one sense of the word. Holding position X purely because tribe Y holds it makes you a committed (ie, not moderate) member of tribe Y.

pjc50 7y ago

Great example of this going around in the British press today: https://twitter.com/alexvtunzelmann/status/1210340425124458498 https://twitter.com/alexvtunzelmann/status/12103404251244584... The small child at the top with the horn and red jacket is framed as Good, despite embarking on an illegal foxhunt at the end of which a fox will be killed with dogs. The "lawyer killing a fox with a baseball bat after it attacked his chickens" story immediately below is framed as Bad. As the tweet says, you have to know the team loyalties for this framing to make any sense. (The Telegraph is of course not any kind of moderate)

barrkel 7y ago

People can be true to a team and end up chauvinist; or they can be true to an idea and end up ideologues. The point about extremists getting their opinions in bulk is a solid one. I'm not so sure intentional moderates is a well-defined category. It's what most "balanced" media strive for, but it's more like rubber banding in a video game race - the media have incentives to ensure an exciting, tight race, it improves their viewership, so they try to find the dead centre. I think what PG calls intentional moderates are simply not that interested. Also, I think accidental moderates can end up fairly extreme in the end, because tribalism is ultimately a very strong draw and critical thinking is tiring.