4 ms·

I've gotten into several interesting discussions on these topics, only to have them rapidly drop from the front page and/or be killed. In general, I think this

I've gotten into several interesting discussions on these topics, only to have them rapidly drop from the front page and/or be killed. In general, I think this should be seen as a much bigger issue than it is on HN. I generally take the view that if everyone is complaining, then the middle ground is being struck. The classic example is the BBC - the BNP (British National Party, nasty fascists) often claim the BBC has a "left wing bias", which makes activists on the centre left laugh out loud, given how much right-wing bias we detect in programmes like the flagship "today" on R4 in the mornings. So, unless both sides are complaining (me and you, the OP and the flaggers, PG, tokenadult and stiff,) something is wrong. :)

humanrebar 13y ago
In the spirit of interesting discussion and congenial disagreements, I believe you're committing the argument to moderation fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation The existence of two parties arguing does not imply that: 1. All views are more-or-less represented 2. All views fit on a one-dimensional spectrum 3. A middle view is more desirable than either "extreme" view (or even desirable at all).
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  Interesting, I'll take a look. I also proudly call myself a political centrist, mostly out of the idea that I'm an Empiricist, and all politicians make some extraordinary claims that can't be substantiated and some more moderate ones that overlap and are more likely to be correct - (breathe) which I think may fall under the same fallacy. Food for thought (and re-thought,) thank you. (especially interesting since, as a Lib Dem, I get quite cross about people saying politics fits onto a 1D axis, so I clearly don't even believe the premises of the fallacy in full!) EDIT: from just a few minutes of reading, this concept (which I've held in my mind for a while) makes me think less well of compromise for compromise's sake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window I probably still think the BBC isn't biased though - especially given the difference between different programmes, even just on R4 the comedy is very left-biased.

humanrebar 13y ago

In the spirit of interesting discussion and congenial disagreements, I believe you're committing the argument to moderation fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation The existence of two parties arguing does not imply that: 1. All views are more-or-less represented 2. All views fit on a one-dimensional spectrum 3. A middle view is more desirable than either "extreme" view (or even desirable at all).

tehwalrus 13y ago
Interesting, I'll take a look. I also proudly call myself a political centrist, mostly out of the idea that I'm an Empiricist, and all politicians make some extraordinary claims that can't be substantiated and some more moderate ones that overlap and are more likely to be correct - (breathe) which I think may fall under the same fallacy. Food for thought (and re-thought,) thank you. (especially interesting since, as a Lib Dem, I get quite cross about people saying politics fits onto a 1D axis, so I clearly don't even believe the premises of the fallacy in full!) EDIT: from just a few minutes of reading, this concept (which I've held in my mind for a while) makes me think less well of compromise for compromise's sake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window I probably still think the BBC isn't biased though - especially given the difference between different programmes, even just on R4 the comedy is very left-biased.