> Political left and right both formed extreme wings that attack moderate opinions for not being extreme enough
Very well said. I hate all extremes of politics. I like asking questions and being critical. What I have noticed is that critical thinking is attacked viciously from both sides. Asking questions that go against your side's "hard fact" is greeted with intense hostility and vitriol. I would imagine that this behavior is encouraged because it teaches people to not ask questions and follow the herd.
Forming your own opinions, coming to your own conclusions, asking your own question -- this is all so offensive nowadays. It is sad because often there is real social risk in saying something that might offend the left/right. If you live in a community that heavily leans to one side, you are scared of stating your own opinions because people could shun you. This social punishment could extend to your children -- what parent would want to take that risk?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Germans who didn't stand up against Hitler are no different to me than the Germans who gassed the Jews.
You can argue there is a difference but I'm not going to agree with you.
You have a very majority oriented and "safe" worldview because frankly you're not being threatened. You're a bystander letting others do violence onto us.
I am not being threatened because I don't see people as a threat. I see ignorance, hate, greed, anger as threats. I have background that would allow me to claim oppression based on ancestral origin, but I choose not to claim it as I am not oppressed.
Hitler would have never been able to gas the jews had people adopted a world view of non-violence and non-agression. He would have never had the support that is bread out of hate. You see you are prescribing a remedy for the symptom, when I advocate curing the disease.
You do not need to see the difference for me, that is the point one has to see it and hold it valuable for oneself.
My worldview is anything but majority oriented, people think I am a wimp, they thing I hate America, they think I am a racist, they think I am a bigot, they think I am a homosexual loving pervert and a deviant and claim that I support all these things because I don't agree with their radical world views and they can only accept by their worldview that if I do not accept theirs than I am the opposite of their position. The reality is very few people agree with my worldview, certainly not the majority as I am constantly explaining to them their doctrines of hate. But again, just like you, I can only fix it in myself and explain to other how it is harmful to us all, but after that it is up to them. Most people do not want to do that level of self reflection because it removed their justifications for feeling the way they do.
Try it, take an inventory of who you dislike and why, more importantly what you would like done with those people. Really reflect on it, do you want justice or revenge on those people. Take yourself out of the equestion, do not justify your position with your feelings or the plights of past errors that have happened to others that you believe need vindication. If you want revenge then it flows from hate. Don't expect them to put down their hate if you are unwilling to put down yours. It is really that simple. I am constantly doing this, as hate is insidious and creeps up in us naturally, it attaches to emotion and hides itself with justifications. You have to strip all that away to see it, and you have to rid it in yourself before you can expect others to do the same. The old adage still hold true, be the change in the world you want to see. It's the hard road and most certainly not the majority "safe" worldview.
Actually I am mainly Berber, North African and Middle Eastern with lesser but some Caucasian and sub Saharan African, most people assume I am an Arab, American Indian or WTF are you (I get that a lot, because most people in North American have not met many ethnic Berbers). but none of that really matters (even if I where white) if you make the assumption to value peoples worth or credibility, by their ethnicity. You have already (incorrectly) prejudged me based on my assumed race. You in this post, are refuting what I am saying not by merit, rather just saying "you are wrong because you are white". Do you see the flaw in that logic? To you whiteness = incorrectness, but you hold white people to a different standard, I assume. They are not supposed to take your and other peoples race into account? Placing your lenses of race over how you see the world distorts your vision, yet you don't like that other people do it to you, when you are guilty of the same reasoning.
More importantly rather than race, I identify myself as an enlightenment era, western liberal and that is the culture that I was raised in an identify with. Race is an artifact of eugenic era thinking.
I agree with this and, for what it's worth, I've found discussions like this are always far more cordial in person versus online - even if you already know the person online.
I genuinely blame social media for this "descent into dogmatism". Any time my belief is challenged in an online discussion, I can just retreat into my echo chamber and feel even more confident than before.
Very well said. I hate all extremes of politics. I like asking questions and being critical. What I have noticed is that critical thinking is attacked viciously from both sides. Asking questions that go against your side's "hard fact" is greeted with intense hostility and vitriol. I would imagine that this behavior is encouraged because it teaches people to not ask questions and follow the herd.
Forming your own opinions, coming to your own conclusions, asking your own question -- this is all so offensive nowadays. It is sad because often there is real social risk in saying something that might offend the left/right. If you live in a community that heavily leans to one side, you are scared of stating your own opinions because people could shun you. This social punishment could extend to your children -- what parent would want to take that risk?