4 ms·

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 empowe

by 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.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    If you're a bystander to violence then you are a participant in it. If you see someone getting attacked and you say you're a pacifist and you won't do anything to stop them then you're actively aiding the attacker and actively hurting the victim. The fact that you're seeing this as a two sides issue means that you're honestly not actually aware of what injustices others are going through. If you were a victim of the injustices me and many other minorities have experienced you would expect more from others too. No one says you have to join in on our fight. But if you're staying silent while I'm being killed then you're not going to be seen as a neutral player in this.
    - kls 6y ago
      There is a whole lot to unpack there, as everyone assumes that they are innocent and are the righteous, virtuous, and correct party but the reality is both sides of any argument have flaws, a perfect example is BLM, they pack in a bunch of radical marxist and intersectional theory onto the back of racism to give it emotional charge and to label people like me who want nothing to do with that as racist. When in fact I correctly see racism as a doctrine of hate as well. But I am not going to answer their rally call of racism when to do so, would be to lend my voice to their other and just as important doctrines that are part of their agenda and honestly I suspect their real agenda. The reality is I am not going to support that as it is a doctrine of hate. You cannot couch hate in emotional issues and then label it good. If you are out supporting it, I am not going to support you. I am not with them, I am against the hate. I am against their as well hate, I will just as I am now, call out my opposition to violence, but I am not going to support or advocate hate or violence because one side feels it is justified. I used BLM because you mentioned minorities, feel free to swap them, for Patriots Prayer because the message would be the same in talking to someone that mentioned ultra-nationalist, right wing, zealots who package it up behind a message of god's love. The people I support are men like Ken E. Nwadike who are consistent in a doctrine and worldview of no tolerance for hate or violence and that non-tolerance starts with the only thing we can change in this world, ourselves. If someone is being actively attacked no matter who they where I would try to stop the violence. This is very different that supporting any doctrine that espoused that it is acceptable to hate or be violent to others, this is the breeding ground of violence and I will not support it as to do so is to aid in violence. That being said if you are taking to the streets and you get killed don't expect me to come out to avenge you. You, just like the other side, took to the streets to push your grievances. The grievances I see in the streets right now are back by some really nasty human desires. I want nothing to do with it, I am neutral because I am not lending my support to either side. If you cannot see that there is hate packaged with what is being sold, than you miss the point as to why I cannot support it, and why I am not lending the other side aid. To lend aid to hate would be wrong. Both sides will label me against them, and that is fine it's the way dogmatic hate works. Yielding to it, would mean that the cycle cannot be broken. But once again, when you claim that a pacifist is participating in the violence by staying true to their belief in nonviolence. It is you that are placing the label on the pacifist, it is you that is putting into action blame and hate on a person that is correctly telling you that this is the fruits of hate, it is you that is placing blame, not me. Put simply the pacifist will not make someone their enemy, but that does not mean that people do not see them as the enemy and when you realize the truthfulness of that reasoning, you will understand the pacifists world view, and that is that hate starts from each and every one of us, to not condemn it oneself, while calling for the condemnation of it in others is hypocaracy. hate breeds contemptment and enemies, not the other way around. My actions cannot by their nature make enemies, anger and rage coupled with a feeling of justification are what makes them. You are justifying and rationalizing why it is ok to see a pacifist as the enemy, to the extent that you are claiming that they are participants in violence. I hope you can see where dogmatic thinking has led you.

by kls 6y ago

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.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  If you're a bystander to violence then you are a participant in it. If you see someone getting attacked and you say you're a pacifist and you won't do anything to stop them then you're actively aiding the attacker and actively hurting the victim. The fact that you're seeing this as a two sides issue means that you're honestly not actually aware of what injustices others are going through. If you were a victim of the injustices me and many other minorities have experienced you would expect more from others too. No one says you have to join in on our fight. But if you're staying silent while I'm being killed then you're not going to be seen as a neutral player in this.
  - kls 6y ago
    There is a whole lot to unpack there, as everyone assumes that they are innocent and are the righteous, virtuous, and correct party but the reality is both sides of any argument have flaws, a perfect example is BLM, they pack in a bunch of radical marxist and intersectional theory onto the back of racism to give it emotional charge and to label people like me who want nothing to do with that as racist. When in fact I correctly see racism as a doctrine of hate as well. But I am not going to answer their rally call of racism when to do so, would be to lend my voice to their other and just as important doctrines that are part of their agenda and honestly I suspect their real agenda. The reality is I am not going to support that as it is a doctrine of hate. You cannot couch hate in emotional issues and then label it good. If you are out supporting it, I am not going to support you. I am not with them, I am against the hate. I am against their as well hate, I will just as I am now, call out my opposition to violence, but I am not going to support or advocate hate or violence because one side feels it is justified. I used BLM because you mentioned minorities, feel free to swap them, for Patriots Prayer because the message would be the same in talking to someone that mentioned ultra-nationalist, right wing, zealots who package it up behind a message of god's love. The people I support are men like Ken E. Nwadike who are consistent in a doctrine and worldview of no tolerance for hate or violence and that non-tolerance starts with the only thing we can change in this world, ourselves. If someone is being actively attacked no matter who they where I would try to stop the violence. This is very different that supporting any doctrine that espoused that it is acceptable to hate or be violent to others, this is the breeding ground of violence and I will not support it as to do so is to aid in violence. That being said if you are taking to the streets and you get killed don't expect me to come out to avenge you. You, just like the other side, took to the streets to push your grievances. The grievances I see in the streets right now are back by some really nasty human desires. I want nothing to do with it, I am neutral because I am not lending my support to either side. If you cannot see that there is hate packaged with what is being sold, than you miss the point as to why I cannot support it, and why I am not lending the other side aid. To lend aid to hate would be wrong. Both sides will label me against them, and that is fine it's the way dogmatic hate works. Yielding to it, would mean that the cycle cannot be broken. But once again, when you claim that a pacifist is participating in the violence by staying true to their belief in nonviolence. It is you that are placing the label on the pacifist, it is you that is putting into action blame and hate on a person that is correctly telling you that this is the fruits of hate, it is you that is placing blame, not me. Put simply the pacifist will not make someone their enemy, but that does not mean that people do not see them as the enemy and when you realize the truthfulness of that reasoning, you will understand the pacifists world view, and that is that hate starts from each and every one of us, to not condemn it oneself, while calling for the condemnation of it in others is hypocaracy. hate breeds contemptment and enemies, not the other way around. My actions cannot by their nature make enemies, anger and rage coupled with a feeling of justification are what makes them. You are justifying and rationalizing why it is ok to see a pacifist as the enemy, to the extent that you are claiming that they are participants in violence. I hope you can see where dogmatic thinking has led you.