The Two Kinds of Moderate • Hacker News Board

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#251

Post by tptacek » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

throwlaplace wrote: post #249

tptacek wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly, posting something to your own site isn't by itself a request to start a debate about it on Hacker News.

Sure okay but you do expect someone somewhere to debate you on it. That the forum ends up being hackernews isn't really significant to me visavis your opinion that some published writing could be free from debate. > It sucks having to be careful about what you because of what other people will do with it, and the weird debates you'll be forced into as a result.

I have just the tiniest sliver of Paul Graham's innate valence with HN, but it's enough to make me pretty empathetic about this problem: there is a pretty strong chance that if I blog something relatively superficial (just because it's on my mind), someone will submit it here. A throwaway I wrote about Javascript Cryptography has been on the front page here something like 5 times, and I've felt like I had to apologize for it each time. It is not a great feeling, and I "blog" less than I'd like to as a result, and, again, I'm not Paul Graham, where literally the simplest thing I could possibly blog about politics ("there is a difference between both-sidesism and moderation") generates a huge front-page thread.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#252

Post by friendlybus » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #176

robbrown451 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think drawing a line near the median is really the only thing that makes sense. These concepts are relative by nature. Generally, when speaking of how far to the right or left someone is in the US, I think of it as relative to other americans, not to the rest of the world, and especially not relative to some absolute concept of right and left (which falls apart quickly if you give it some thought, as norms change o…

> These concepts are relative by nature. Okay, the concepts are relative by nature (arguments about the two-dimensional nature of the left-right axis notwithstanding). In that case, place the concepts (or perhaps the individual ideologies that bundle the concepts) on a distribution and draw a line near the perceived median. That's the sort of thing you see in some poly-sci texts, and it makes sense. My point was that…

Having the tyrants fight each other in a battle they cannot win is good everyday politicking. Would you prefer they work together? It's an order of managed conflicts, not a descriptive, scientific system of unified political positions.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#253

Post by paulvorobyev » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

asdfman123 wrote: post #109

Ah yes, the old "No one thinks for themselves except people like me" argument. > openly being an accidental moderate requires the most courage of all If he thinks that having middle-of-the-road opinions requires the most courage of them all, he has had an extraordinarily easily life in which he is used to be hailed as brilliant. It seems as though due to his comfortable position in life he has never faced any signifi…

>Ah yes, the old "No one thinks for themselves except people like me" argument.

This is almost everything that PG writes.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#254

Post by totalZero » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #44

The famous MLK speech on moderates: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h... > First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is…

Rhetorically, it seems like the reason MLK discussed white moderates was because he knew they would be the first white people to warmly accept black civil rights, put justice above order, fight for tense peace, and accept an accelerated timeline for freedom.

The same principle is why you can say "I expected more from you" to friend or family member and that simple comment spurs an improvement in behavior. They actually care, a little bit at least. We don't eloquently express our lofty expectations when it comes to our enemies. Only our friends, allies, and teammates.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#255

Post by topaz0 » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

jamiequint wrote: post #220

tyre wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

strong agree. This isn't a nuanced or deeply explored post on the topic of moderates. Same as the previous post that was on here this week or last. Name brand carries a lot.

The fact that the argument is not complex does not mean it is not deeply explored.

Yeah. The fact that it is not deeply explored does, though.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#256

Post by IIAOPSW » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

asdfman123 wrote: post #135

karl11 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My takeaway from this comment is that you didn't really read what he wrote. An accidental moderate, by his definition, could hold zero moderate opinions. E.g. it is possible all of their opinions are 0 or 100 on a left/right spectrum. It requires courage because they cannot join any tribe, because enough of those opinions would be heretical to a given tribe to prevent acceptance.

Tons of people out there "can't join any tribe" because their belief systems are sufficiently different than those of people around them, and the way this is written suggests that it's almost a novel idea to Paul Graham. Has anyone cornered him and beaten him up for having moderate beliefs? And having beliefs across the political spectrum hardly makes him novel. I'm probably a classic left leaning liberal. I'm in fav…

>Do I need to invent a special term for myself? No. yes. Unless you don't want to ever convince anyone of any of your views.

You haven't understood the "intentional moderate". Contrarianism is a shortcut to the respect owed to skeptics. The purpose of the intentional moderate is to portray themselves as just like you: "a complicated individual". But unlike you they really aren't. Its a ruse. There is no substantive reason for their disagreements such as "I don't like their policies."

There's enough of this out there that if you self describe as "moderate", people might be classifying you as an affable idiot with no real views. Personally I like the more modern term "radical centerist".

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#257

Post by zjaffee » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #161

CameronNemo wrote: post #99

Right and left are arbitrary constructs necessitated by a first past the post voting system. Change the electoral system and you will see much more diverse and meaningful party affiliation. >The effect of a system based on plurality voting is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties with more evenly distri…

Right and left are arbitrary constructs necessitated by a first past the post voting system. Change the electoral system and you will see much more diverse and meaningful party affiliation. Diverse, yes. Meaningful, maybe. Look at Israel right now. 17 parties with seats in the Knesset, none with over 30%, and, after two elections, still no agreement on Prime Minister. Third election coming up.

The situation in Israel only exists because there are multiple layers of opposition at play, the "moderates" are hardly different politically than the conservatives, they just dislike it's leader, where they are unwilling to form a coalition with any of the arab parties in order to form a government.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#258

Post by totalZero » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #61

pjc50 wrote: post #44

The famous MLK speech on moderates: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h... > First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is…

It may be an unpopular view, but I disliked this quote ever since I saw it. There is value in order. In particular, there is value in order over justice, when justice is pursued with scorched earth tactics that risk leaving everyone worse off, even those that were meant to be helped. To use a perhaps extreme example: there's lots of injustice happening right now in China, and not a lot can be done directly to fix it.…

Your example sucks. A nuclear war would be unjust, too.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#259

Post by mncolinlee » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

There is some great theory around moderation which goes far beyond this piece. David Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant" is a classic.

Moderation is rarely a choice. There's an old expression, "The only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill." It's not saying that moderates are extinct or undesirable. Rather, left and right political views mostly come from a history of life experiences that drives people either towards empathy for strangers or towards fear of strangers. The combination of these worldviews and the human desire for having a community or clan drives people into parties in opposition to each other.

For most moderates, their experiences instead drive them to prefer either worldview depending upon which issue is being considered. Their experiences are not totally based on seeking safety or showing empathy. They are not middle of the road on most issues, but have a diverse set of opinions. Their opinions are diverse enough to not feel fully accepted into either party and to adjust their own views into alignment, unless their country has a middle party. This seems to be what Graham calls deliberate moderates.

There are also moderates who become moderate because nuance is important to smart policy. Fully left or right ideas both tend to overshoot evidence-based decision-making. I believe this is what Graham refers to as accidental moderates. However, the roadkill metaphor still applies because even accidental moderates still have life experiences that lead them to a worldview as well as the human desire to belong to a group. Even those who apply past policy-based evidence to develop a nuanced view will have a human desire to try to fit themselves somewhere into the partisan political landscape of their environment. It's not easy being the odd one who doesn't fit.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#260

Post by Reedx » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

asdfman123 wrote: post #109

Ah yes, the old "No one thinks for themselves except people like me" argument. > openly being an accidental moderate requires the most courage of all If he thinks that having middle-of-the-road opinions requires the most courage of them all, he has had an extraordinarily easily life in which he is used to be hailed as brilliant. It seems as though due to his comfortable position in life he has never faced any signifi…

You mean intentional moderates? The ones trying to find the middle point and attempting to appease both sides, essentially.

But accidental moderates aren't doing that and end up with positions across the whole spectrum. As such they're fully exposed to the slings and arrows from both tribes. It's easier and safer to be nestled inside a tribe than to be navigating outside of them. Which requires more courage than either selecting a tribe or trying to appease them.

I can't see how PG is incorrect about that, though I think using the term "moderate" makes it unclear and easy to misinterpret.