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

311–320 of 382 posts

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#311

Post by zozbot234 »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #308
zozbot234 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is part of a generalized development in Western politics though - it even explains why Brexit and Boris Johnson won in the UK. The "left" is now explicitly the party of managerial, globalizing crony capitalism, pushing for maximum openness and free mobility for all factors of production - not of the working classes with their petty, localized concerns, or of traditional "business" classes with their long-time ap…

Your position is that the UK Labour party, led by life long socialist and eurosceptic Jeremy Corbyn, who's manifesto proposed nationalising several industries, is "explicity the party of globalizing crony capitalism"? In a strong field this might be the weakest political take I've read in the last month.

Jeremy Corbyn is only one player out of many in the British Labor Party. He's a pretty divisive figure for other reasons, and many Labor supporters are even starting to acknowledge this.

In fact, if anything positive can be said about the shift towards favoring globalizing crony capitalism, is that it happens to be somewhat less divisive than the old-fashioned Marxist alternative that Corbyn favors. As strange as it may seem, this was very much a shift towards intentional moderation.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#312

Post by tunesmith »

He's conflating "think for yourself" with "averages to 50". Sure, it's silly to think one side is absolutely right, but it's also silly to think that the "average" rightness is right in the middle between the two sides (even if you grant the use of a linear model).

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#313

Post by vorpalhex »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #56
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 tim…

I agree with your general take, but I want to expand on what I think you were getting at with (1) some. Polarizing issues is a very real phenomenon where by disagreeing on one issue your positions on other, entirely unrelated positions is assumed. I've had people assume I was pro private-prisons because of my view of tax rates, or assume I was against marijuana legalization because of my views on second amendment rights.

The problem with polarizing issues is that it acts to reinforce the tribal mentality. The truth is that most people have relatively complex opinions when they get to genuinely think about them and they almost never fit in clean political tribes. Yet it's to the benefit of a given group to try and lump-sum everyone in or out of it.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#314

Post by vorpalhex »

taneq wrote: post #107

It never occurred to me that people would tailor their political views to try and be "moderate". The whole idea feels kind of dirty to me, your political views should be your honest opinion.

I can imagine earnest reasons for being intentionally moderate. Wanting to be a mediator, trying to fight back against extremism and partisanship from both sides.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#315

Post by JoeSmithson »

zozbot234 wrote: post #311
JoeSmithson wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your position is that the UK Labour party, led by life long socialist and eurosceptic Jeremy Corbyn, who's manifesto proposed nationalising several industries, is "explicity the party of globalizing crony capitalism"? In a strong field this might be the weakest political take I've read in the last month.

Jeremy Corbyn is only one player out of many in the British Labor Party. He's a pretty divisive figure for other reasons, and many Labor supporters are even starting to acknowledge this. In fact, if anything positive can be said about the shift towards favoring globalizing crony capitalism, is that it happens to be somewhat less divisive than the old-fashioned Marxist alternative that Corbyn favors. As strange as it…

The shift from Blair/Brown to Corbyn was a shift towards intentional moderation?

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#316

Post by vorpalhex »

tptacek wrote: post #206

It just can't be the case that this kind of content, which would never ordinarily survive on the front page if written by someone else, has a place here simply because Paul Graham wrote it. I say this as a moderate, of the accidental variety, myself! But if this would get shot down if it appeared in The Atlantic or The New Republic --- and it would, and should --- it shouldn't get a pass just because Harj Taggar and…

I think it is interesting because it's presenting a dichotomy which to me is at least a new nugget of thought. As others have pointed out, it's relatively shallow but that by itself isn't inherently bad. I do have bias towards PG, but I also like to think that if this was written in WaPo or The Atlantic that I'd also still give it a fair shot (but, humans are also pretty bad at bias).

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#317

Post by anigbrowl »

I enjoy pg's essays but must say this one strikes me as unusually trite. For context I would be one of his 'accidental moderates' who has since moved far to the left - though not universally, and despite my tongue-in-cheek bio I'm not a Marxist.

[2] For some reason the far right tend to ignore moderates rather than despise them as backsliders. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it means that the far right is less ideological than the far left. Or perhaps that they are more confident, or more resigned, or simply more disorganized. I just don't know.

As a long-time student of the far right I can answer this easily: they do despise moderates, but being fascist, they plan to rule over them and figure (with some basis in fact) that the moderate middle will just go along with their program because it's expedient to do so.

As this treats of loaded topics I might as well clarify my own understanding by saying that I think the far left is characterized by its antipathy to property rights (and arguably individual rights in general depending on the particular dogma they adhere to) while the far right is characterized by its antipathy to human rights (and arguably the existence of distinct populations in general depending on the particular dogma they adhere to).

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#318

Post by tptacek »

modwest wrote: post #305
tptacek wrote: post #206

It just can't be the case that this kind of content, which would never ordinarily survive on the front page if written by someone else, has a place here simply because Paul Graham wrote it. I say this as a moderate, of the accidental variety, myself! But if this would get shot down if it appeared in The Atlantic or The New Republic --- and it would, and should --- it shouldn't get a pass just because Harj Taggar and…

Are you saying this post is being artificially maintained on the front page by moderator intervention? edit: sincere q, I have no idea how these things are handled

No.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#319

Post by barrkel »

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #288
tptacek wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paul Graham isn't 50% of the way between American Democrat and American Republican either; he's using "moderate" in an idiosyncratically modern American way. The fact that we'd have to hash this out on the thread is just another good illustration of why this post doesn't belong here.

Do you know where PG stands in the Nolan diagram?

IMO - having been around these parts for some time - PG is fairly centrist on social justice re non-class-based identities, and extremely individualist, to the point of injustice blindness, on economics. You'd almost have to be, to be a VC and sleep at night.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#320

Post by mc32 »

tptacek wrote: post #206

It just can't be the case that this kind of content, which would never ordinarily survive on the front page if written by someone else, has a place here simply because Paul Graham wrote it. I say this as a moderate, of the accidental variety, myself! But if this would get shot down if it appeared in The Atlantic or The New Republic --- and it would, and should --- it shouldn't get a pass just because Harj Taggar and…

I agree but I differ. The substance is light, sure. But I think if people vote it here then it merits being here.

There are many posts that get on the front page which have even less merit from your POV. Posts about health or about management, many of the above with arguably unsubstantiated titles. If those make it here and get discussed I don’t see why this one deserves an exceptional consideration.

Post reply on HN