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

81–90 of 382 posts

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#81

Post by mikojan »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #79
krapp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed his point, though, that calls for moderation and tolerance from an oppressing party are often just a means to defend an unjust status quo, and by extension, unjust power. I'm sure there are plenty of Chinese who wish Uighurs and Hong Kong protestors would just calm down and understand that civil order is more important than "justice." But doing so will never work out well for those aggrieved p…

I get that point very much ($deity knows I had it explained to me a lot in other discussions). You present very good examples. But the point I can't ever seem to get across is this - action is meaningfully different than inaction, regardless of what is the status quo. It's the action part that's risky. Action has a price, and it's worth considering how high it is in a given case, before jumping to keyboards or bayone…

I don't think many would deny "action" is or might be "risky." However, you'd have to show that "inaction" is not for your argument to make sense.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#82

Post by lowmagnet »

msla wrote: post #14
hnhg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps 'accidental moderate'='independent' and 'intentional moderate'='centrist'?

"Intentional moderate" = High Broderism, or at least the popular understanding of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_S._Broder http://pressthink.org/2010/06/clowns-to-the-left-of-me-joker... The above has this quote, which sums it up nicely: > Journalists associate the middle with truth, when there may be no reason to… Writing the news so that it lands somewhere near the “halfway point between the best and the w…

I think this is a good summary of why meeting in the middle is a poor excuse for balance. The average isn't the ideal middle, as almost nothing fits the average.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/on-average/

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#83

Post by simonh »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #32
simonh wrote: post #16

As a British moderate conservative, the differences between US and UK (arguably European) politics are fascinating. What moderate means is so different. For reference I’m a lifelong conservative voter that grew up under Maggie Thatcher. We do have a middle of the road Liberal Democrat party, but to my mind they maintain their position in the middle ground by dodging the hard issues. They are intentional moderates in…

As a British former moderate conservative who's abandoned the party, though in truth I feel the party has abandoned me, I see a UK conservative party that has followed a very, very similar transition. Moderate conservatism has just been kicked out of the party. It's now a radical ideology captured by libertarian think tanks in American image -- and several of them funded by the US. The conservative party is now the E…

I think we’re heading in that direction, but it’s such a recent shift in direction that hopefully it’s just a contingent reaction to the outcome of the referendum. I’m a remainer, but I think once we’re out if the E.U. the party will re-centre itself on its basic priorities.

Mistakes always happen in politics, if you’re not making mistakes you can’t be doing anything worthwhile. Austerity went too far, but fundamentally had to be done. Leaving the EU Is a mistake, but given the referendum the party had to commit itself to delivering what it promised. That’s my take anyway.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#84

Post by krapp »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #79
krapp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed his point, though, that calls for moderation and tolerance from an oppressing party are often just a means to defend an unjust status quo, and by extension, unjust power. I'm sure there are plenty of Chinese who wish Uighurs and Hong Kong protestors would just calm down and understand that civil order is more important than "justice." But doing so will never work out well for those aggrieved p…

I get that point very much ($deity knows I had it explained to me a lot in other discussions). You present very good examples. But the point I can't ever seem to get across is this - action is meaningfully different than inaction, regardless of what is the status quo. It's the action part that's risky. Action has a price, and it's worth considering how high it is in a given case, before jumping to keyboards or bayone…

>It's the action part that's risky. Action has a price, and it's worth considering how high it is in a given case, before jumping to keyboards or bayonets.

I agree completely. I don't think most would disagree with this.

>The point I'm trying to get across is that there are situations that are less like civil rights movement, and more like asking US to threaten China with nukes to get them to back off on HK.

I think you're conflating your fears about a specific, and in my opinion unlikely, doomsday scenario into a general slippery slope argument against the dangers of disruptive justice. Most such movements don't even have a theoretical capacity to pose an existential threat to civilization, so in most cases, the risk is arguably worth the reward.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#85

Post by war1025 »

morelisp wrote: post #67
war1025 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can see this with the Republicans who turned into Democrats once the Republicans shifted far enough right that there were no more Rockefeller Republicans and Bill Clinton ran as a Democrat. If you're an accidental moderate, you run the risk of involuntarily changing party affiliation. I think this is interesting because it's been exactly the opposite for me and many of the people I know. At some point over the…

> At some point over the past ten or fifteen years, the Democrats switched their focus Clinton was elected on explicit Third Way positions nearly 30 years ago. If you think something changed in the past 10-15, you're falling for GOP propaganda. What you're noticing is the democrats finding a new base a decade after losing their working class supporters, through a combination of Third Way politics, the Republican Sout…

I think Southern racism has very little to do with the Republican shift in the Midwest. We've had heavy hispanic immigration for twenty years and they've all been fairly well integrated.

I would guess what actually happened to the older people I know is that they grew up in union jobs at factories that got sent to Mexico after NAFTA went through.

Unions lean heavy Democrat. When the union fails you, I think that leads fairly directly to losing faith in the Democratic party.

Further, the insistence by many within the party that the only reason someone would want to leave the Democratic party is that they're racists really doesn't do them any favors.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#86

Post by TeMPOraL »

krapp wrote: post #84
TeMPOraL wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that point very much ($deity knows I had it explained to me a lot in other discussions). You present very good examples. But the point I can't ever seem to get across is this - action is meaningfully different than inaction, regardless of what is the status quo. It's the action part that's risky. Action has a price, and it's worth considering how high it is in a given case, before jumping to keyboards or bayone…

>It's the action part that's risky. Action has a price, and it's worth considering how high it is in a given case, before jumping to keyboards or bayonets. I agree completely. I don't think most would disagree with this. >The point I'm trying to get across is that there are situations that are less like civil rights movement, and more like asking US to threaten China with nukes to get them to back off on HK. I think…

> I think you're conflating your fears about a specific, and in my opinion unlikely, doomsday scenario into a general slippery slope argument against the dangers of disruptive justice.

Yes, I kept repeating the one example I used, but I worry about all issues that could plausibly lead to a civilization-ending war. Of which there are many, including all kinds of problems created by worsening state of the planet's climate. But I also worry about things that could lead to local wars (including civil wars), and history says that regular politics, even identity politics, can find a way to turn into bloodshed.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#87

Post by morelisp »

war1025 wrote: post #85
morelisp wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point over the past ten or fifteen years, the Democrats switched their focus Clinton was elected on explicit Third Way positions nearly 30 years ago. If you think something changed in the past 10-15, you're falling for GOP propaganda. What you're noticing is the democrats finding a new base a decade after losing their working class supporters, through a combination of Third Way politics, the Republican Sout…

I think Southern racism has very little to do with the Republican shift in the Midwest. We've had heavy hispanic immigration for twenty years and they've all been fairly well integrated. I would guess what actually happened to the older people I know is that they grew up in union jobs at factories that got sent to Mexico after NAFTA went through. Unions lean heavy Democrat. When the union fails you, I think that lead…

I agree that NAFTA is one major inflection point, but it supports 25 years ago, not your 10-15. I mean, I'm in full agreement that the democrats as a party have abandoned anything but the neoliberal project - I just also think if you expect anything but isolationism and racism out of the GOP - neither of which is good for the working class - you've fallen for their big lie.

> I think Southern racism has very little to do with the Republican shift in the Midwest.

I didn't say "Southern racism", I said "Southern Strategy", which is a specific GOP maneuver to pick up white working-class voters from the 50s onwards, as they calculated it would be better to give up the black and civil-rights focused voter base they were already losing, to pick up the white working-class, primarily agricultural, voters alienated in the South. They used existing racism, but they also stoked it. It was extremely effective (to the point you can even use "Southern racism" as a shorthand and "everyone knows" what you mean). While they mostly couldn't predict a similar opportunity in more industrial labor in the north 2-3 decades later, they definitely didn't miss the chance when it arose - and again, they've used existing racism, but also heightened it in places it was previously marginal.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#88

Post by war1025 »

morelisp wrote: post #87
war1025 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Southern racism has very little to do with the Republican shift in the Midwest. We've had heavy hispanic immigration for twenty years and they've all been fairly well integrated. I would guess what actually happened to the older people I know is that they grew up in union jobs at factories that got sent to Mexico after NAFTA went through. Unions lean heavy Democrat. When the union fails you, I think that lead…

I agree that NAFTA is one major inflection point, but it supports 25 years ago, not your 10-15. I mean, I'm in full agreement that the democrats as a party have abandoned anything but the neoliberal project - I just also think if you expect anything but isolationism and racism out of the GOP - neither of which is good for the working class - you've fallen for their big lie. > I think Southern racism has very little t…

> I agree that NAFTA is one major inflection point, but it supports 25 years ago, not your 10-15.

Things take a while to have an impact. The factory my dad worked at for 25 years didn't go to Mexico until 2007 [1]. Manufacturing in the area really didn't start moving to Mexico until the financial crisis. Whether as a result of the crisis itself or just a convenient side effect, I don't know.

> I didn't say "Southern racism", I said "Southern Strategy"

I know the Southern Strategy. My point is that people in the northern states are much less motivated by racism than you imply. You can choose to believe that or not, but I firmly believe that its true.

[1] https://globegazette.com/news/imi-cornelius-to-close-mason-c...

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#89

Post by morelisp »

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…

> someone who has lived in one for 5+ decades

Graham's sale of Viaweb essentially exits him from the society most of us live in; he achieves a level of wealth that lets him ignore most aspects or truths he finds inconvenient (good or bad, small or large). As he's now writing in absentia for over 20 years, I don't think we should assume he knows anything about how the world works for most people today.

> and paid some attention

Extremely questionable based on his other essays.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#90

Post by alphabettsy »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #86
krapp wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's the action part that's risky. Action has a price, and it's worth considering how high it is in a given case, before jumping to keyboards or bayonets. I agree completely. I don't think most would disagree with this. >The point I'm trying to get across is that there are situations that are less like civil rights movement, and more like asking US to threaten China with nukes to get them to back off on HK. I think…

> I think you're conflating your fears about a specific, and in my opinion unlikely, doomsday scenario into a general slippery slope argument against the dangers of disruptive justice. Yes, I kept repeating the one example I used, but I worry about all issues that could plausibly lead to a civilization-ending war. Of which there are many, including all kinds of problems created by worsening state of the planet's clim…

There is already bloodshed, but right now it just happens to not be yours.

The point of MLK’s quote, in my opinion, is that moderates can always find reasons to maintain status quo especially when the issues at hand are not deemed personally impactful. People are being harmed, but because they are not me or look like me it’s not worth risking potential upset.

Post reply on HN