It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Extreme VS Moderate: What's the Beef?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:03 PM
Whenever I talk to a far left liberal or a far right conservative they always tell me I am not a real whatever. Let's say I am talking to a far left liberal. They just yell at me and claim that I am stupid racist ignorant troll. That's expected, but I would never have expected conservatives to yell at me for not caring about some of the social issues that they care about eg Gay marriage and religion. Two of the big republican things that I could really care less about. But once the conservative tea party types figure out that woah I don't care about the social stuff as much as they do.

They get all pissy and say I am not a real republican...

So what's with that? Why can't extremes play nice like the moderates do. Why do they need to convert everyone to their side even though they know that their attempts are futile. Especially if you are an internet chat room!

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:06 PM
But are you perhaps doing the same mistake?

They say aren't you a real "blabla"
And you think all lefties or righties are like that?

I'm not saying you are generalizing, i'm sure you are not

But I don't think such people represent a majority, perhaps I am wrong though

Extreme of either sides is always bitter, though I really prefer the conservative side
I just can't back people that think that money grows on trees

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by jjf3rd77

Liberals are not left-wing, please don't insult the left-wing.

Liberalism was always a right of center ideology, that supports capitalism and the state with a social safety-net.

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

TPTB turned liberalism into socialism in the 1950's in order to turn the workers against real left-wing ideology.

Socialists don't want government hand-outs we want 'free association'...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

Free association (communism and anarchism)

"Liberalism is not socialism and never will be" Winston Churchill 1908

So next time you argue with a liberal tell them they're not left-wing, just more liberal right wing than you are...

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:57 PM
Actually I'd say liberals became socialists after 1995 to 2000. That's about when the party changed for the worse.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:07 PM
The whole label thing is way past annoying. I know of few members in this site that belong on a shelf displayed as this or that. Plenty accept the label but many without even considering what the label really means, what it once meant, and what it will possibly mean in the future. The whole labeling thing gets so absurd that those who love to label wind up hyphenating those labels, so if someone claiming to be a "conservative" doesn't fit the paradigm the modern label proscribes, then those people must be "neo-conservatives", then come the "classical liberals", the "moderate progressives" the "fiscally conservative - socially liberals", and on and on and on as if by adding all these adjectives and adverbs onto the label helps to somehow clarify a position.

Labels are restraints imposed upon people demanding they conform to some sort of "norm" that in the end does nothing but assure conformity and when all sides have conformed to the labels that some status quo believes properly defines them then suddenly we're all "conformists".

When I first joined this site I went for a long time refusing to use an avatar. It was only after several members contacted me and suggested that my posts were not getting the audience they deserved because of my own stubborn refusal to conform to a norm that I considered the value of an avatar. Once I agreed to finally use an avatar, I had to go through the process of choosing one. After a few months of stewing on that I finally chose the avatar I did.

I bring this up only because lately I am often accused of being cantankerous and grumpy even when I'm not being cantankerous and grumpy. Sometimes I can be grumpy, but only sometimes, and often, when I am just being adamant about a point, that insistence suddenly becomes labeled as "grumpy", and I have suspected for over a year now that my choice in avatar has a lot to do with that perception. I have considered choosing a "kinder gentler" avatar, but why? Who would I be appeasing? Would that appeasement even matter?

I can be moderate on a plethora of issues, but my moderation is largely ignored and it is my extreme views that often grab people's attention. Because of this, many view me as an "extremist". Should I just forgo my extreme positions in order to shed the label of "extremism"? Who would that appease?

Often I am taking to task for my "tone" and those taking me to task think nothing of the "tone" they employ to take me to task for my "tone", and if I call them on that, they justify their "tone" by suggesting they are merely taking me to task for my "tone". Should I "tone" down my posts to appease? Who would that appease?

One of the most shocking elements of participating in communities such as this is how many people despise freedom and harbor grand ambitions as petty tyrants, wanting to control, not just the way people communicate, but how they think. It is easier to recognize when engaging in debates and relying upon "extreme" points of view, but the truth is, this element is not just a phenomenon of the internet.

Years ago, were I to go to a party and discuss the topics I willingly discuss here, I would be the "party pooper" and if I kept it up, I would find myself no longer being invited to party's. Today, for whatever reasons, such discussions become the "life of the party" as more people are "waking up", but the proclivity to insist that we all conform to certain norms is always prevalent.

I suppose threads in this site are somewhat like party's. Not political party's but just plain old congregate in the kitchen party's. In certain circles, I am not at all welcome to join those party's. In others, I am more than welcome...and then one day, for whatever reasons, someone who hated to "party" with me has changed their mind and invites me to their party, and the labels they once stuck all over me are peeled off and they begin to accept me for who I am...who ever that is...

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:47 PM
Oh, and of course the beef is that all extremists expect you to believe the same way they do. If you don't, you're a threat to them because you aren't conforming to their expectations. So of course they will attempt to destroy you in any way they can. They must have control, after all. It's the only way they can be safe. Anything that is different than them will not be tolerated nor accepted.

new topics

top topics

log in