It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dont Take the Moderates Seriously

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I remember when John Stewart was the guest on CNN’s Crossfire back in the early 2000s. He was the moderate voice to Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala’s partisan banter in what turned out to be a memorable episode.

Stewart’s main thrust of argument was that the pundits should just shut up. He convicted them, among other things, of “hurting America”, as if a political argument might bring heat upon anyone but the one making it. He fell further into cynicism by accusing both of “partisan hackery”, impugning the hosts motives as if they never really believed what they were arguing for anyways, but were instead the unwitting tools of politicians and corporations. He did this while dismissing their arguments entirely.

As self-aggrandizing as Stewart’s performance was, it had it’s effect: to stifle the debate and make everyone taking part in it look silly.

CNN executives agreed with Stewart’s argument, not because it was true, but because the audience had widely signalled their approval. Calls for unity and bipartisanship are currency in a population awash in their own virtue-signalling. CNN cancelled Crossfire and steered away from the spirited debate format altogether, transforming it in to what former president Jonathon Klein envisioned as “roll-up-your-sleeves storytelling”, which in retrospect turned out to become a hotbed of yellow journalism.

Despite the disappearance of shows like Crossfire, the political polarization had only increased, reaching unprecedented levels. So while executives followed Stewart’s advice that the hosts should just “stop it” because it was “hurting America”, stopping the show entirely did little to suppress any division or bolster CNN’s credibility. All it did was promote Stewart’s moderate bona fides.

Luckily for us the debate continues with or without shows like Crossfire and pundits like Stewart. But moderates will continue to make the same hollow, fatuous remarks nonetheless. It is no strange wonder, then, that the moderates only seem to rear their heads in moments of contention and division, always perched safely in the middle, reminding us of the danger of taking a side even when one side is right and the other is wrong.

In his famous Letters From a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King came to the distressing conclusion that the moderate was the biggest stumbling block to the black man’s liberty, even worse than the KKK. The moderate is one “who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice”. Their pride is so bundled up in their political agnosticism, their hall monitoring, that they become more devoted to order and “balance” than to any justice or higher principle. It is only in this manner that they can remain aloof from the struggle right or wrong but still claim victory in retreat from it.

Besides, we should never pretend that the moderate position is the reasonable one. Their common arguments, for example the absurd conclusion that “both sides are as bad as the other” or are “both sides of the same coin”, are more often false equivalencies when they aren’t overt attempts at thought and speech policing. That the whole moderate position is essentially built on the argument to moderation seems not to dissuade them.

As history shows, in times when the radical and extreme views are the only correct ones, moderation is intellectual cowardice disguised as the voice of reason. We should not take hem seriously.

edit on 11-10-2018 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



+6 more 
posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
As history shows, in times when the radical and extreme views are the only correct ones, moderation is intellectual cowardice disguised as the voice of reason. We should not take hem seriously.


Who determines whether extreme views are correct?

It intellectual cowardice to stay steeped in your own views...as correct. See my siggy.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


Luckily for us the debate continues with or without shows Crossfire and pundits like Stewart. But moderates will continue to make the same hollow, fatuous remarks nonetheless. It is no strange wonder, then, that the moderates only seem to rear their heads in moments of contention and division, always perched safely in the middle, reminding us of the danger of taking a side even when one side is right and the other is wrong.


In an era of prosperity and relatively moderate politics, moderates don't need to call out either party. When the country is doing well, people aren't complaining or hostile, you also don't see extremism take as much of a platform in either of the parties.

The 80's and 90's are over. People don't have the same purchasing power as they did back then, and compensation hasn't risen to combat inflation. So you see the left and the right heating up, looking for extreme platforms to combat the problem many of the voters feel is a result of the status quo and complacency.

Harp on the moderates all you want, we're used to taking it from both sides regularly (that's what she said). Truth be told, the moderates start speaking up when the left and the right ramp up their rhetoric. The moderates have no problem voting left of center one day and right of center another based on the current climate and whatever platform is being represented by the candidate. So you can see why we're typically not going to take an extremist stance or get all riled up.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They should have a problem with being a moderate for the exact same reasons I stated.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
As history shows, in times when the radical and extreme views are the only correct ones, moderation is intellectual cowardice disguised as the voice of reason. We should not take hem seriously.


Who determines whether extreme views are correct?

It intellectual cowardice to stay steeped in your own views...as correct. See my siggy.



Certainly not the moderate.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Who determines whether extreme views are correct?


Who's to determine there aren't people actively creating the division to make sure the two (one) party system prospers?

OP, can you spell out to us moderates what major differences there were in the last twenty years of different presidential admins from both parties?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

The cowards imo is people who are scared to admit the other side might have a good argument and that I can maybe compromise and respect different opinions. Which is why I'm a "moderate" and why I believe it's the only way to remain sane in this political climate.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
As the saying goes.

Take everything in m o d e r a t i o n.




posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They should have a problem with being a moderate for the exact same reasons I stated.


I have no problem using my own moral compass and opinions to take stances on each issue as I see them rather than "taking a side" and sticking with their script.

That said, many convicted partisans still disagree with aspects of their platform and respect people on the other side of the isle that intelligently represent their platform.

I only call out the high and mighty ones. At the end of the day we all have opinions. Who is to say who is right and wrong? If you use good data and articulate argument on an issue, I can just say we have a difference of opinion. If you however say your ideology is right, and everyone else is wrong purely out of opinion, you don't know what opinion means.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

The cowards imo is people who are scared to admit the other side might have a good argument and that I can maybe compromise and respect different opinions. Which is why I'm a "moderate" and why I believe it's the only way to remain sane in this political climate.


You can’t compromise between truth and falsity.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
As the saying goes.

Take everything in m o d e r a t i o n.



Including moderation, and I agree, hence you'll see me take left and right stances. I just don't subscribe to either as a whole.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

The cowards imo is people who are scared to admit the other side might have a good argument and that I can maybe compromise and respect different opinions. Which is why I'm a "moderate" and why I believe it's the only way to remain sane in this political climate.


You can’t compromise between truth and falsity.


Not everything is black and white. Truth and falsity in the context of politics is perception and opinion much of the time.

To frame it as anything other than that is disingenuous.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They should have a problem with being a moderate for the exact same reasons I stated.


I have no problem using my own moral compass and opinions to take stances on each issue as I see them rather than "taking a side" and sticking with their script.

That said, many convicted partisans still disagree with aspects of their platform and respect people on the other side of the isle that intelligently represent their platform.

I only call out the high and mighty ones. At the end of the day we all have opinions. Who is to say who is right and wrong? If you use good data and articulate argument on an issue, I can just say we have a difference of opinion. If you however say your ideology is right, and everyone else is wrong purely out of opinion, you don't know what opinion means.


The moderate’s self-banishment from the system only leaves it to those with partisan or radical views. In the end the banishment is self-defeating. The climate and rhetoric might be better if the moderates took part in it.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

The cowards imo is people who are scared to admit the other side might have a good argument and that I can maybe compromise and respect different opinions. Which is why I'm a "moderate" and why I believe it's the only way to remain sane in this political climate.


You can’t compromise between truth and falsity.


So truth is universal to everyone? I'd love to live in your world



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I think Stewart's thrust was against the fomenting of false antagonism for ratings ... not that the arguments were without merit. He pointed out that the two American sides had far more in common than not, and that the two frothing combatants often went out for drinks after the show.

But then, you do have a good point about sticking up for one's values, though we would likely benefit from refraining from talking politics or religion in merely social circumstances, again.

Acrimony for acrimony's sake is , er, historically bad for people.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

The cowards imo is people who are scared to admit the other side might have a good argument and that I can maybe compromise and respect different opinions. Which is why I'm a "moderate" and why I believe it's the only way to remain sane in this political climate.


You can’t compromise between truth and falsity.


Not everything is black and white. Truth and falsity in the context of politics is perception and opinion much of the time.

To frame it as anything other than that is disingenuous.


Not everything is differing shades of grey. To say otherwise is fallacious.

Argument to moderation



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
As the saying goes.

Take everything in m o d e r a t i o n.



Even moderation?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

The cowards imo is people who are scared to admit the other side might have a good argument and that I can maybe compromise and respect different opinions. Which is why I'm a "moderate" and why I believe it's the only way to remain sane in this political climate.


You can’t compromise between truth and falsity.


So truth is universal to everyone? I'd love to live in your world


Give it a shot, you might be pleasantly surprised.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They should have a problem with being a moderate for the exact same reasons I stated.


I have no problem using my own moral compass and opinions to take stances on each issue as I see them rather than "taking a side" and sticking with their script.

That said, many convicted partisans still disagree with aspects of their platform and respect people on the other side of the isle that intelligently represent their platform.

I only call out the high and mighty ones. At the end of the day we all have opinions. Who is to say who is right and wrong? If you use good data and articulate argument on an issue, I can just say we have a difference of opinion. If you however say your ideology is right, and everyone else is wrong purely out of opinion, you don't know what opinion means.


The moderate’s self-banishment from the system only leaves it to those with partisan or radical views. In the end the banishment is self-defeating. The climate and rhetoric might be better if the moderates took part in it.


You just described non participants or people who abstain from current events or the right to vote as a whole.

You're conflating many things. You're loading the argument to offer one choice, and that's your ideology.

You framed the whole thing as there is a side that is true, and one that is false. (implying your's is right).

Then you said if you don't take part in either of them then you're enabling both. (even though moderates routinely vote cross ticket).

So just dancing around and say what you really mean.... Everyone who isn't in your camp is wrong, don't take them seriously. You don't have the capacity to debate right now with the constraints you've put on the argument you've proposed.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They should have a problem with being a moderate for the exact same reasons I stated.


I have no problem using my own moral compass and opinions to take stances on each issue as I see them rather than "taking a side" and sticking with their script.

That said, many convicted partisans still disagree with aspects of their platform and respect people on the other side of the isle that intelligently represent their platform.

I only call out the high and mighty ones. At the end of the day we all have opinions. Who is to say who is right and wrong? If you use good data and articulate argument on an issue, I can just say we have a difference of opinion. If you however say your ideology is right, and everyone else is wrong purely out of opinion, you don't know what opinion means.


The moderate’s self-banishment from the system only leaves it to those with partisan or radical views. In the end the banishment is self-defeating. The climate and rhetoric might be better if the moderates took part in it.


You just described non participants or people who abstain from current events or the right to vote as a whole.

You're conflating many things. You're loading the argument to offer one choice, and that's your ideology.

You framed the whole thing as there is a side that is true, and one that is false. (implying your's is right).

Then you said if you don't take part in either of them then you're enabling both. (even though moderates routinely vote cross ticket).

So just dancing around and say what you really mean.... Everyone who isn't in your camp is wrong, don't take them seriously. You don't have the capacity to debate right now with the constraints you've put on the argument you've proposed.


Actually I was speaking about the moderates, not any side.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join