6 ms·

> Political left and right both formed extreme wings that attack moderate opinions for not being extreme enough Very well said. I hate all extremes of politics

> Political left and right both formed extreme wings that attack moderate opinions for not being extreme enough Very well said. I hate all extremes of politics. I like asking questions and being critical. What I have noticed is that critical thinking is attacked viciously from both sides. Asking questions that go against your side's "hard fact" is greeted with intense hostility and vitriol. I would imagine that this behavior is encouraged because it teaches people to not ask questions and follow the herd. Forming your own opinions, coming to your own conclusions, asking your own question -- this is all so offensive nowadays. It is sad because often there is real social risk in saying something that might offend the left/right. If you live in a community that heavily leans to one side, you are scared of stating your own opinions because people could shun you. This social punishment could extend to your children -- what parent would want to take that risk?

brsg 6y ago
I agree with this and, for what it's worth, I've found discussions like this are always far more cordial in person versus online - even if you already know the person online. I genuinely blame social media for this "descent into dogmatism". Any time my belief is challenged in an online discussion, I can just retreat into my echo chamber and feel even more confident than before.
kls 6y ago
Not too long ago, maybe 4 months ago I saw an article posted on HN which was along the lines of moderates are more dangerous than the enemy, because they empower the other side. It was a fairly radical piece obviously slanted towards hard-left economic policies. I found the comments to mostly be in agreement and pretty depressing given that I am fairly moderate, I lean a little to the right on economic and personal rights, and well to the left on social issues. This is the way most people when I was a child where. The radicalization has been eye opening to say the least but I am staying in the middle, if both sides of the radicals would rather see me dead (one radical basically inferred, that is what needs to be done with moderates) then so be it.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  This isn't new though. If you read MLKs letter from Birmingham jail you'll see he's also super vocal against moderates. The issue is moderate really ends up meaning status quo (with basic changes), which if it's not clear a ton of people are suffering under the status quo. So when you're a moderate you're in a way putting your seal of approval to the status quo, which ends up being pretty harmful for those who want to decrease suffering.
  - kls 6y ago
    No I am not, I don't agree with radical ideals, I am not approving of either sides ideals. I do not need to choose your side and I am not your enemy, if I don't see eye to eye with you. At some point you get the idea that we are enemies as thus you make us enemies (not me), as I don't see eye to eye with your opponent either and have no interest in aiding them. I will not lend them comfort nor aid, just as I will not lend it to you. I should not be involved in your fight at all. It is you the radicals that insist that I lend your side aid. This is the entire concept of the 3rd amendment in the bill of rights. It is sad that we have slid this far from that type of moderate and enlightened thinking. MLK is human he was capable of flawed logic just as all of us humans are. While I too revere him, invoking his disdain for moderates is a appeal to authority and does not make it a fact. I could similarly invoke Malcolm X and his realization in the end that, it was in fact not moderates but the people who thought they were helping that did the most harm (in his word radical white liberals). Both where wise men, both had irrational thoughts, as well as very rational lessons to teach humanity. But the fact that MLK saw moderates as a problem, speaks to the fact that while MLK moved more towards Malcolm's position, Malcolm, being an intelligent man as well, saw that his position was radical and moved towards pacifism and moderation. Where MLK started out. Neither were correct and both being intelligent moved their position, something that the dogmatic radicals of today's age have a hard time doing. Had MLK lived long enough he would have seen the error in his judgement. Unfortunately he was stricken down by a radical of a different belief system. Do you see the lesson in that? Is the lesson that the moderates helped the radical white supremacist? Or is it that radicals of all cloths, are full of hate? Malcolm talked about that hate, and how it consumed him, that was a true from the heart message and it got him killed. In all respects humanity has more to learn from Malcolm given that he started out extremely flawed and hateful and thru educating himself and experience he reshaped his understanding of the world and reached the conclusion that what he wanted for the black man, does not need to be taken from the white man and that compassion for all man is the key, to ending the cycle. You see radicals (of all walks of life) want revenge. Revenge is a cycle, when what you should be seaking is justice. You can cloke it in whatever language you would like, but if the desire comes from hate it is revenge. Justice comes from sorrow but the realization that atonement has to happen. Moderates by their very nature where not involved in MLK's death. They did not enable it, they did not condone it, they wanted nothing to do with it. Yet by your claim is that they did. I will spell it out clearly radicals on both sides are the problem, because you want to make everyone that does not eat your dogma the enemy, and your heart seeks revenge, to the point that it will take revenge on the innocent. The moderate majority is getting sick of it. Sorry for the harsh words but it's tough love time. To be very clear I am not your enemy, I am a pacifist. I wish no harm to any human. I call them as I see them and I see the dogma of hate on both sides. I will stay where I am at, grounded in my pacifist principles, if that is worthy of calling me the enemy than so be it, but be very clear in your mind, you are labeling me an enemy, not the other way around and that strikes to the very heart of this very flawed thinking. Dogmatic ideology necessitates enemies, the prescription for that enemy is any that disagree with the dogma. Your dogma is creating the enemy not the other way around. This is at the very heart of why Malcolm left the Nation of Islam and why they saw him as such a threat. Malcolm shed the dogma, the Nation of Islam did not, we know who were the perpetrators of violence, thus who saw who as the enemy.
Balgair 6y ago
One issue is that the 'extremes' change over time. It used to be that emancipation was a very extreme view, same with universal suffrage.

brsg 6y ago

I agree with this and, for what it's worth, I've found discussions like this are always far more cordial in person versus online - even if you already know the person online. I genuinely blame social media for this "descent into dogmatism". Any time my belief is challenged in an online discussion, I can just retreat into my echo chamber and feel even more confident than before.

kls 6y ago

Not too long ago, maybe 4 months ago I saw an article posted on HN which was along the lines of moderates are more dangerous than the enemy, because they empower the other side. It was a fairly radical piece obviously slanted towards hard-left economic policies. I found the comments to mostly be in agreement and pretty depressing given that I am fairly moderate, I lean a little to the right on economic and personal rights, and well to the left on social issues. This is the way most people when I was a child where. The radicalization has been eye opening to say the least but I am staying in the middle, if both sides of the radicals would rather see me dead (one radical basically inferred, that is what needs to be done with moderates) then so be it.

aaomidi 6y ago
This isn't new though. If you read MLKs letter from Birmingham jail you'll see he's also super vocal against moderates. The issue is moderate really ends up meaning status quo (with basic changes), which if it's not clear a ton of people are suffering under the status quo. So when you're a moderate you're in a way putting your seal of approval to the status quo, which ends up being pretty harmful for those who want to decrease suffering.
- kls 6y ago
  No I am not, I don't agree with radical ideals, I am not approving of either sides ideals. I do not need to choose your side and I am not your enemy, if I don't see eye to eye with you. At some point you get the idea that we are enemies as thus you make us enemies (not me), as I don't see eye to eye with your opponent either and have no interest in aiding them. I will not lend them comfort nor aid, just as I will not lend it to you. I should not be involved in your fight at all. It is you the radicals that insist that I lend your side aid. This is the entire concept of the 3rd amendment in the bill of rights. It is sad that we have slid this far from that type of moderate and enlightened thinking. MLK is human he was capable of flawed logic just as all of us humans are. While I too revere him, invoking his disdain for moderates is a appeal to authority and does not make it a fact. I could similarly invoke Malcolm X and his realization in the end that, it was in fact not moderates but the people who thought they were helping that did the most harm (in his word radical white liberals). Both where wise men, both had irrational thoughts, as well as very rational lessons to teach humanity. But the fact that MLK saw moderates as a problem, speaks to the fact that while MLK moved more towards Malcolm's position, Malcolm, being an intelligent man as well, saw that his position was radical and moved towards pacifism and moderation. Where MLK started out. Neither were correct and both being intelligent moved their position, something that the dogmatic radicals of today's age have a hard time doing. Had MLK lived long enough he would have seen the error in his judgement. Unfortunately he was stricken down by a radical of a different belief system. Do you see the lesson in that? Is the lesson that the moderates helped the radical white supremacist? Or is it that radicals of all cloths, are full of hate? Malcolm talked about that hate, and how it consumed him, that was a true from the heart message and it got him killed. In all respects humanity has more to learn from Malcolm given that he started out extremely flawed and hateful and thru educating himself and experience he reshaped his understanding of the world and reached the conclusion that what he wanted for the black man, does not need to be taken from the white man and that compassion for all man is the key, to ending the cycle. You see radicals (of all walks of life) want revenge. Revenge is a cycle, when what you should be seaking is justice. You can cloke it in whatever language you would like, but if the desire comes from hate it is revenge. Justice comes from sorrow but the realization that atonement has to happen. Moderates by their very nature where not involved in MLK's death. They did not enable it, they did not condone it, they wanted nothing to do with it. Yet by your claim is that they did. I will spell it out clearly radicals on both sides are the problem, because you want to make everyone that does not eat your dogma the enemy, and your heart seeks revenge, to the point that it will take revenge on the innocent. The moderate majority is getting sick of it. Sorry for the harsh words but it's tough love time. To be very clear I am not your enemy, I am a pacifist. I wish no harm to any human. I call them as I see them and I see the dogma of hate on both sides. I will stay where I am at, grounded in my pacifist principles, if that is worthy of calling me the enemy than so be it, but be very clear in your mind, you are labeling me an enemy, not the other way around and that strikes to the very heart of this very flawed thinking. Dogmatic ideology necessitates enemies, the prescription for that enemy is any that disagree with the dogma. Your dogma is creating the enemy not the other way around. This is at the very heart of why Malcolm left the Nation of Islam and why they saw him as such a threat. Malcolm shed the dogma, the Nation of Islam did not, we know who were the perpetrators of violence, thus who saw who as the enemy.

Balgair 6y ago

One issue is that the 'extremes' change over time. It used to be that emancipation was a very extreme view, same with universal suffrage.