The Two Kinds of Moderate • Hacker News Board

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#331

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 12:02 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #325

enraged_camel wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>paul graham has a phd in computer science. he is a successful startup founder and vc. that is the extent of what i'm interested in his opinion on. Smart people are much more likely to believe that they have intelligent and well-informed opinions on areas outside their expertise. PG himself is no exception.

intelligence is correlated with (and arguably defined by) insight, so that's a reasonable, if fallible, belief. intelligence doesn't guarantee insights in areas outside expertise, but it's certainly more promising in that regard. what's baffling are the high expectations in the populace for the general opinions of famous but not demonstrably intelligent people, e.g., many actors, tv personalities, singers, etc. (come…

[deleted]

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#332

Post by NeedMoreTea » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 12:10 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #100

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…

Off topic: Can you explain to me (a US person who doesn't understand UK politics) why the Liberal Democrats did so poorly in the last election? In my limited understanding, it seems to have been tailor-made for them to do well, with both the Conservatives and Labour looking extreme.

Three major reasons in combination.

Their new leader performed particularly poorly in electioneering, and associated with this they nailed their election colours to "Bollocks to Brexit", and repealing article 50 legislation. i.e. Under us, Brexit is not happening, regardless of referendum, calls for second referendum or rerun with more honest campaign rules or what have you. Last, I think (I'm guessing) there was a good degree of everyone being beyond sick of this, and vote Tory so we're out and it's over and done with. Of course leaving is just the start of a 10x longer period of trying to negotiate with everyone, and make things like import/export work again, preserve NI peace etc... Brexit will continue to be the story of the coming decade -- all of it. Our famously resilient and politically neutral civil service is already deeply damaged by it.

Minor reasons are a lot of very amateur hour election leaflets with faked graphs, pretend newspapers that made them look like the Liberals in the 1970s once again -- intellectual, worthy, and utterly irrelevant. They also split the anti vote in more than one constituency.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#333

Post by modwest » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 12:14 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #318

modwest wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In that case, in my defense, I don’t have the option of downvoting anything, even comments! So I’d do my part but I don’t have that tool

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#334

Post by elfexec » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 12:15 AM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #267

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…

1. Just because we don't agree on the answer doesn't mean that there is no correct answer. If there are no correct or incorrect policies then there is no need to vote. 2. There is strong agreement on lots of things: 95 percent disapprove of people using cell phones in movie theaters. (Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel Poll, 2014) 97 percent believe there should be laws against texting while driving. (The Ne…

> If there are no correct or incorrect policies then there is no need to vote.

If there were correct or incorrect policies, there wouldn't be any need to vote. If politics was a science or a math, we wouldn't need to vote. We be able to test or prove the correct answer. The reason we vote is precisely because there is no correct answer in politics.

There is a why science and math doesn't work by consensus or a vote.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#335

Post by abernard1 » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 12:15 AM UTC

tunesmith wrote: post #312

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).

> 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).

Thank you for this. He has that post where he talks about "What you can't say" [1]. His basic premise is that it's naive to think that you'd believe the same things you do now by default if you lived in a different time period.

The posted article above seems pretty contradictory to me. Its notion of what is "moderate" is essentially anchored to the environment where a person lives. Would moderation be a virtue in an authoritarian country?

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#336

Post by bhelkey » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 12:23 AM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #128

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 don’t know that I’d call myself a moderate, but my honest opinion is that many strongly held views disturb me precisely because they tend to be so strongly held by those who seem to hold them, rather than being wrong in themselves, or because they require their adherents to brook no opposition. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, and I believe that people who say they have all the answers can safely be assumed…

> I’d be perfectly happy to experiment with policies that are way outside the Overton window

I am curious, what are some examples?

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#337

Post by Thriptic » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 12:48 AM UTC

morelisp wrote: post #330

Thriptic wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time spent on anti-descrimination policies is inherently time not spent on economic issues. There will always be policy focus opportunity cost. I can totally understand why working class people in the heartland who have never met any LGBT person, let alone someone trans or someone non-binary, would think that focusing on equality efforts for them is not a high priority issue and that legislators should focus on econo…

> Time spent on anti-descrimination policies is inherently time not spent on economic issues. Can you give anything close to a concrete example of this? Even ignoring the indivisibility of the economic and social spheres (ask a black person if the CRA was an "economic issue" - ask a trans person if whether they can safely pee at work is an "economic issue"), and that it's not a zero-sum game (for example, the heighte…

> Can you give anything close to a concrete example of this?

Sure, although I feel like your response is largely due to an uncharitable reading of my post. Whether someone can use a specific bathroom has an impact on a tiny percentage of the US population; pretty much only trans or non-binary people. Sure it's still economic in some contexts and it was incorrect for me to insinuate that it was totally social, but it is not economic or social policy that affects the vast majority of the population. Tax policy, immigration, trade policy, regulation, worker education, general schooling, government grants and investment, etc matter to far more people. Time spent on niche issues is going to appeal to fewer people by definition, and I could see people getting angry that legislative time is being spent in this manner while broader economic issues appealing to more people remain unsolved. Personally I feel that supporting those communities is morally important, but I understand why other people believe it takes a lower priority relative to economic issues affecting them personally.

> I can't imagine there's enough meaningful work to "saturate" 100% of some candidate's time with economic issue

People are clearly signaling through their voting that grossly insufficient time is being spent on economic issues. Key problems remain unsolved.

> I am not sure you know what those words mean ("any ... T person, let alone someone trans" is nonsense)

That statement implies I am referring to lesbian, gay, or bi people. I don't see what is unclear about that based on my wording. The concept of being trans is more of a logical leap for a straight person than the concept of being bi, gay, or lesbian for pretty obvious reasons. I don't think this requires further explanation.

> We are long past any plausibly deniability to not even know a gay person

You have very clearly not been to large swaths of the United States. Many, many, many people have never met an openly LGBT person. Even more are not friends with one in a close enough manner to have the types of honest, informative discussions to cut through popular misconceptions.

> if you don't know any, it's because you're actively trying to avoid them.

Yes, a large number of people intentionally self segregate into communities where other people are like them. They still get to vote.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#338

Post by rossdavidh » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 12:53 AM UTC

black_knight wrote: post #169

Animats wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> after two elections, still no agreement on Prime Minister. Third election coming up. Parlamentary systems without the option to call re-elections is an attractive alternative. The politicians just can't keep asking people's opinion until they get the answer they want. Then there will have to be compromises, and even the smaller parties can get some of their important causes through.

Smaller parties have gotten plenty in Israel, sometimes to the point that supporters of the larger parties feel they have less voice than whichever small party holds the balance of power at that moment.

Or, as in the current situation, there is simply no agreement, and they go months without a government. It's not clear that an inability to call re-elections would improve Israel's situation; they could be stuck for years with no government.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#339

Post by edmundsauto » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 12:54 AM UTC

bhelkey wrote: post #336

ksdale wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know that I’d call myself a moderate, but my honest opinion is that many strongly held views disturb me precisely because they tend to be so strongly held by those who seem to hold them, rather than being wrong in themselves, or because they require their adherents to brook no opposition. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, and I believe that people who say they have all the answers can safely be assumed…

> I’d be perfectly happy to experiment with policies that are way outside the Overton window I am curious, what are some examples?

Not OP, but as a thought experiment, I tried to think of some things that are un-discussable because of one side or the other.

Maybe universal healthcare, completely gov't paid? That's socialism to the right -- can't try that.

On the other side, maybe ending hate crime legislation? Or striking down Roe v. Wade, and letting each state be their own experimental ground? Ending minimum wage?

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#340

Post by edmundsauto » Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 12:58 AM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #78

TeMPOraL wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of "impressive" does not change, it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article. Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination.

Yes let’s always take texts at face value, regardless of context. There’s no reason to point out that your relative who says everyone in his life is conspiring against him is addicted to meth. There is no reason to notice when an essay opposing increased mall security was written by someone who’s been convicted of shoplifting dozens of times. And we must never point out that a person advocating for the political stat…

In those situations, it's appropriate to point out potential biases or agenda from the author, but it is not appropriate to reinterpret their words based on a mental model one has of the author.

That model is likely to be flawed and incomplete, but even worse, it makes the text subjective. Two people, reading the same text, won't agree what it said. That prevents honest discussion.