3 ms·
Looking for "in between" positions forces all issues into one dimension, and I think that's part of the problem. People who argue for their pole usually only a
by drewcoo 5y ago
Looking for "in between" positions forces all issues into one dimension, and I think that's part of the problem.
People who argue for their pole usually only argue how wrong some opposite pole is.
Middle grounders typically only argue that the poles are wrong and don't in any way show how their own opinions are correct.
None of that involves actual nuance.
- birracerveza 5y ago>Middle grounders typically only argue that the poles are wrong and don't in any way show how their own opinions are correct. That's incredibly reductive, to say the least. Having a middle ground means believing that both poles are wrong in some aspects and right in others, but it's up to the one arguing to actually explain his position, and if they "don't in any way show how their own opinions are correct" then it's simply due to their own poor arguing skills.