Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Two Kinds of Moderate

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 382 posts

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#51

Post by SamReidHughes »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #50
SamReidHughes wrote: post #31

> Intentional moderates are similar to those on the far left and the far right in that their opinions are, in a sense, not their own. The defining quality of an ideologue, whether on the left or the right, is to acquire one's opinions in bulk. Well, no, not at all. People on the left and on the right tend to have a worldview and attitude that is the foundation of their stances on issues. It is not a coincidence that…

Why do the policy packages vary so much from country to country?

They don't. Edit: Not in the sense that they're scrambled up. Party lines can be drawn differently, specific policies can be different. In the same sense, policies differ at different times in history, too. Edit II: I note your question presumes there are universal far right and far left attractors -- that's not anything I meant to imply.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#52

Post by randallsquared »

tomlockwood wrote: post #43
randallsquared wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you didn't read the top comment, the redefining was in the text and quite literal, not something that had to be supposed or inferred: > You can just map “impressive” to “rich” and “accidental moderate” to “uninterested in increased taxation or regulation in their own life despite their otherwise disparate political views” and the whole thing comes into focus pretty clearly.

If there's no difference between interpreting or critically analysing what someone says, and redefinition, I can see where you're coming from.

I do see a difference, and the piece I quoted seems to me to be the latter: redefinition.

I say that, in part, because substituting those meanings changes the perceived message of the piece. If the rest of the essay reasonably supported that reading, I might well agree that this was interpretation, analysis, or even clarification. However, it seems as though the original comment is working backward from pg's identity to decide what opinions it's possible for him to have, in the commenter's view, and then covering the message of the essay (whatever you think of it) with one of the commenter's pg-possible opinions.

Personally, I'd prefer that commenters of this view argue against the essay directly, since I think there are a lot of things to say in that regard.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#53

Post by TuringTest »

pjc50 wrote: post #38
whyoh wrote: post #35

>the far right and far left are roughly equally wrong. I don't think you can reduce political arguments to who is "right" and who is "wrong". Politics and moral questions are not mathematical problems. We fundamentally don't all agree on what the final outcome (of a society, of life) should be. Maybe 99% of us can agree with something like "happiness" or "peace", but those are way too vague and the devil's in the det…

Eventually this ends up with a million people dead and everyone saying "well that was probably bad, maybe we should have tried to prevent that". Just because we cannot guarantee certainty or outcomes doesn't absolve us from the moral responsibility to try.

> Just because we cannot guarantee certainty or outcomes doesn't absolve us from the moral responsibility to try.

I think the point is that different people will try different things, often opposing each other.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#54

Post by noir-york »

whyoh wrote: post #47
pjc50 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually this ends up with a million people dead and everyone saying "well that was probably bad, maybe we should have tried to prevent that". Just because we cannot guarantee certainty or outcomes doesn't absolve us from the moral responsibility to try.

Ok, but this is not what I was getting at. When PG says that the left and right are equally "wrong", he's suggesting that they are both trying to arrive at THE solution, but just taking different paths. I don't think this is fundamentally true and if you view political struggle from this perspective you're going to miss the full picture.

It is indeed true - the extreme left and right (along with the religious extremists of any religion) all believe that they have the One True Solution, and have historically been ready to murder millions who they believe stood in the way.

So yes, both the extreme left and the extreme right are not only wrong, but morally repugnant.

The whole point of classical political liberalism is of how to get multiple incompatible ideas of what is the good life (broadly understood) to coexist peacefully. Without it there is only tyranny or chaos.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#55

Post by toyg »

CPLX wrote: post #28
toyg wrote: post #15

This is a very American perspective, occasionally a bit flippant (dismissing 100+ years of Marx-influenced intellectuals in politics and economics as “not smart” is definitely not smart, particularly after 2008) and overall mediocre. There is a lot of stereotyping, and it doesn’t account for the interest axis, i.e. the fact that a lot of very smart people simply do not care for organised politics in any way, shape, o…

Here’s an alternate take on your paragraph: So uhm, this piece could have been written by a 16-year-old trying to move his brain for the first time. That it comes from a [billionaire founder of a private equity firm with a large platform], somebody who holds a number of smart positions on other topics, to me is a signal that such person [is engaged in an intentional effort to influence public opinion].

If it is, it’s a poor effort - if anything because it’s absolutely not original. You can see the array of similar sources posted in this thread as proof... when you are rehashing something that even Chris Rock has said, you are not influencing anything - unless the attempt was to keep the debate fundamentally frozen in place, which does not need help.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#56

Post by TeMPOraL »

CM30 wrote: post #21

> Whereas an accidental moderate's opinions will be scattered over a broad range, but will, like those of the intentional moderate, average to about 50. I think this describes my own political opinion to a tee. I agree with some stuff on the left, some stuff on the right and the moderate/centrist opinion on some others, and it probably equals out as centrist. Still, I'm not sure I'd say this is a rare thing by any me…

This describes my own views perfectly as well.

WRT. the perceived amount of "accidental moderates" being small, I don't think it's just because of voting systems. I see two other factors.

1) When you speak up on some issue, people tend to immediately pigeonhole you into a drawer with a political affiliation label on it. I've been called an illuminati NWO supporter by some, a Marxist by others, roughly in the same time, just because I voiced my opinion on two different topics.

2) "Accidental moderates" are not a uniform group. I'll bet that you and I have plenty of differences of opinion - on one issue, I'll be leaning left and you'll be leaning right, on another issue, it'll be the reverse. So once someone wants to leverage group support for one of their positions, they essentially have to sign up with one of the extreme, well-defined groups, that support that particular position. And while internally, they're still an "accidental moderate", to the outside, they just look like another partisan.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#57

Post by TeMPOraL »

SethMurphy wrote: post #22

In our current political system the accidental moderate seems left out. How do they choose the right candidate when the campaign system is wholly based on ideology? Sure, accidental moderates may have great opinions, but how does one put those in action in the current political climate within a political framework. They would seem to be best living outside the system, with no label defining the political affiliation…

> How do they choose the right candidate when the campaign system is wholly based on ideology?

They don't. Perhaps that is why the voter turnout is so low everywhere.

For instance, myself, I cannot in good conscience support any of the political parties that exist in my country. I agree with each of them on few points, and strongly disagree on most.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#58

Post by bovermyer »

coldtea wrote: post #25
arh68 wrote: post #24

I'm not convinced there are any intentional moderates. Isn't this just one big straw man? Noticeable lack of specifics, not even historical figures. Honestly it comes off like "I met a guy, didn't like him, I think this is why". I think there's definitely something to the idea, but I wouldn't carve up the world into These People and Those People. If anything, we're more like calico cats and we all exhibit both behavi…

> I'm not convinced there are any intentional moderates. Well, I know tons of those. People in journalism, and other high profile public related posts, are often such. They don't want to offend any side, and reap the benefits of both. Some politicians are also like that. I know people in media personally who have more extreme positions in private talks, but their public opinions are carefully calculated to advance th…

While "I met a guy, didn't like him, I think this is why" is a bit too dismissive, your dismissal of a desire for factual data is disturbing.

One person's experience, no matter how broad for an individual, is still just one individual's anecdotal experience. This is true even if they have a sharp mind, decades of experience, and the best credentials.

The principles of fact checking and bias analysis should not be relegated solely to academia.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#59

Post by TeMPOraL »

pterrys wrote: post #8

Group thinking should of course always be questioned, but I do not believe it is useful to equate any form of moderation with cowardice. Especially in the modern political climate. http://www.thirteenvirtues.com/ https://www.quotes.net/mquote/770097

Cunning is more like it. Playing both sides against the middle.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#60

Post by tomlockwood »

randallsquared wrote: post #52
tomlockwood wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's no difference between interpreting or critically analysing what someone says, and redefinition, I can see where you're coming from.

I do see a difference, and the piece I quoted seems to me to be the latter: redefinition. I say that, in part, because substituting those meanings changes the perceived message of the piece. If the rest of the essay reasonably supported that reading, I might well agree that this was interpretation, analysis, or even clarification. However, it seems as though the original comment is working backward from pg's identity…

If you believe reading meaning into a text is redefinition - saying a text is trying to redefine things when the text doesn't use that precise word, is also redefinition.
Post reply on HN