Is there a difference between the two? How do you define them? The terms themselves would imply that a centrist will sometimes be on the left, sometimes on the right depending on the issue, and a moderate could very well be always on the left or always on the right, but not operate in extremes.

I feel like people who don't fully identify with either the right or the left become ostracized by both for "not picking sides" in the fight. When really, where we are at this point in our society, a voice that can and is willing to pull from both sides might be the only thing that can unite everyone back together (if anyone could at all).

4/3/2018 4:30:43 PM

Compared to how my party has been hijacked, I feel like I'm pretty moderate. I've never thought of myself as centrist though.

[Edited on April 3, 2018 at 4:51 PM. Reason : adsfa]

4/3/2018 4:50:44 PM

Here are just two examples of how to get the left and right to equally hate you (these are my actual outlooks that I get crap for from both sides):

Guns
Everyone has a right to protect themselves, their families, and their property. And in many cases, a gun is the best way to do so. But a person should be trained, tested, and certified/licensed for operation in order to minimize lethal use by violent people.

Abortion
A fetus is not the same thing as a human life, but because it is a potential life, it is sacred and should not be harmed except under extreme circumstances (rape, incest, threat to the life of the mother, being born into beyond unlivable conditions, etc). Mother's life should always take precedent over the fetus. If we want to stop the number of abortions, do it through comprehensive sex education and availability of contraception...not by banning it altogether. Stop the pregnancy from happening in the first place.

4/3/2018 7:26:49 PM

You really find that those opinions get both sides to hate you!?! Do you mean that each of those opinions independently get people from both sides to tell you that you're somehow uninformed or evil, or both?

I'm not sure I 100% agree with either of them, but you certainly framed them from a stance and perspective that I can respect. I mean, I guess the details matter but I don't see why anyone would look at those statements and give you too much shit... except maybe on TWW...

4/3/2018 8:31:03 PM

I feel like Americans, at least the ones with the loudest voices, are becoming more and more extreme. By not saying "All guns/abortions should be allowed/made illegal" means you can't belong to the club.

Moderates don't shout, and don't get anyone to show up to vote for them in the primaries, so we end up having to choose between two extremes that everyone knows are no good.

4/3/2018 8:47:25 PM

I always thought 'moderate' was just a catchall term that non-political people use to pat themselves on the bag for sitting on the fence and taking no real stance on anything. Centrist, at least to me, is just a term people use to describe themselves (or a candidate) in relation to those on the far left/right sides of the political spectrum.

4/3/2018 9:06:49 PM

I have only just begun to pat myself on the bag!

4/3/2018 9:55:36 PM

^ ^you are a modsrate though.

bdmazurs positions are sensible and seem like they would be the default for any informed person.

i think the problem that gets these people into trouble is when they identify as a progressive or a conservative.

for me, moderate views are respectable as long as you own it and don't try to straddle Both sides and call yourself a progressive. thats where it becomes the most offensive political position.

[Edited on April 3, 2018 at 10:05 PM. Reason : slide home]

4/3/2018 10:05:00 PM

Who have been effective and succesfull moderate and/or centrist politicians? There are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans who cross the party lines from time to time, but in the end they are always slaves to their party leadership (looking at you, McCain) for fear of losing any connection to power.

Susan Collins maybe?

^^^What would you call a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative/social liberal? (And don't bother saying Libertarian, because we all know that's a farce).

4/4/2018 3:44:01 AM

there is nothing sensible about saying that a fetus is sacred

who has been effective succesfull moderate and/or centrist politicians? almost every democrat in office.

4/4/2018 8:40:12 AM

It’s all messaging. Somehow half the country was convinced an overtly religious center-right capitalist (Obama) was a far-left Marxist. It was baffling considering nearly all his actual policies were continuations of W..

4/4/2018 9:01:38 AM

^^^ I’m kinda at the point where I’ve accepted the reality that “fiscally conservative” is just a nonsense term (almost a dog whistle, tbh) to describe people who want to mind their own business and not pay for social services they don’t use or like.The GOP has trotted out that message for as long as I remember and they always end up spending tons and tons of money- just not on anything related to public services (education, health care, welfare, planned parenthood, etc). In all honesty, I used to claim that I was socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but I stopped doing it because it’s not really true. It’s funny, but libertarianism is the exact word that fits, and you’re right- it’s a bs ideology for the most part.

It’s easy to conflate personal responsibility and living within ones means with ”conservative” government spending. Sure, individuals can tighten their belts and make prudent financial decisions, but running the government ALWAYS costs a ton of money, no matter what. It gets even harder on the federal level than the local one, so I don’t know why we pretend that it’s possible to have an effective government that acts like a financially savvy person who can take care of EVERYONE’s wants/needs.

4/4/2018 11:34:23 AM

^^
Yes. Capitalists own the messaging (both media and political), and they've done an excellent job convincing everyone that center-right politics are the default. They've also created this obsession with "decorum", where passion is seen as psychotic behavior. And the most passionate candidates are the ones who are reasonably upset with this country and want it to change.

And the funny thing is, most moderates actually want progressive solutions, they are just convinced that "reasonable" "incrementalists" are the only ones who can deliver them. But in actuality, the "incrementalists" are more concerned with preserving right-wing capitalism than helping people.

It is 100% the messaging. If you call yourself a moderate, you're either not paying close enough attention, you're a sociopath, or you're flat-out brainwashed. The US is fucked up, and you should be upset about it.

Quote :

"First, I must confess that over the last 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 the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

[Edited on April 4, 2018 at 12:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2018 12:00:11 PM

I think my biggest struggle with politics today is the ever-growing belief that being educated is a bad thing. That the "intellectual elite" is somehow a bad group to belong to. I don't understand people who vote based on which candidate "connects" best with them instead of voting based on policy, experience, and leadership skills. I don't care how folksy or down to earth a candidate is, I want to be sure they will make the wisest decisions based on critical thinking and expertise.

The attack on political "insiders" is also bogus. I agree with the sentiment that what we had wasn't working so let's try something new, but that takes creativity, insight, and strategy...but they also have to know how the government works in order to change it. Trump is terrible being President because he doesn't know (or care) where the limits of the office are or should be, and no one in his camp has the balls to tell him when he's crossed those lines.

4/4/2018 2:31:00 PM

Your problem seems to be with the far right, not the far left.

I'm a little confused where you're getting at with all this, didn't you vote for Bernie in the primary? Who are the shouting left-wing extremists that caused you to identify as a moderate?

4/4/2018 3:38:23 PM

the bernie bro types who then voted trump/third party are pretty fucking annoying, but most of them aren't liberal or far left they're just morons

4/4/2018 3:47:27 PM

^

4/4/2018 4:45:01 PM

Quote :

"I’m kinda at the point where I’ve accepted the reality that “fiscally conservative” is just a nonsense term (almost a dog whistle, tbh) to describe people who want to mind their own business and not pay for social services they don’t use or like.The GOP has trotted out that message for as long as I remember and they always end up spending tons and tons of money- just not on anything related to public services (education, health care, welfare, planned parenthood, etc). In all honesty, I used to claim that I was socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but I stopped doing it because it’s not really true. It’s funny, but libertarianism is the exact word that fits, and you’re right- it’s a bs ideology for the most part."

I disagree with your dog whistle definition, but I completely agree with your assessment that the GOP throws that message out and then spends plenty of money where they want to (like Military contracts, or something like that). I still think libertarianism is a good ideology, we just haven't seen a politician who could take it to a big stage and not look like a dumbass. Maybe that's because a large portion of the US doesn't believe that true libertarianism is a good idea, and that's fair. But, it doesn't mean the ideology is BS or somehow just a coverup for nefarious interests. I'll agree that true libertarianism isn't a very realistic solution to the current social or fiscal problems in the US, but that's another conversation.

I find that social media (specifically the facespace) and the huge divergence between mainstream media sources have created a social landscape where opinions have to be polar to get any real traction, which really isn't good for anyone calling for something in the middle.

4/4/2018 5:19:22 PM

^^^I am a liberal, but a moderate one. I voted for Bernie in the general, too, but I don't see him as an extremist. The far left supported him but he's not what they made him out to be. The "down with Washington insiders!" voters were willing to ignore that he had been a politician for over 40 years, and somehow Hillary's camp had voters believing Bernie was so much of an outsider that he wouldn't be able to accomplish anything.

My current problems with the far left come from the unwillingness to compromise or even try to understand why the other side feels the way they do. They energize the far right, just the other side of the same coin. They are as ridiculous as the tea party, but instead of using racist tactics, they feed off racial tensions for political points but haven't come up with any proposed solution for breaking the pattern.

Of the issues that get the most twisted by extremism, Israel is probably the most personal one for me. I believe in Israel's right to exist and defend itself AND that there needs to be a free Palestinian state, AND Netanyahu's regime is the same nationalist and racist brand as Trump, and I would even say Netanyahu is worse. But the far right lashes out at anything remotely anti-Israel, and the far left lashes out at anything that implies there is a real 2-sided conflict and not a 1-sided ethnic cleansing. I feel both extremes reacting similarly to tax plans, health care, abortion, gun control...pretty much everything.

Trump didn't divide America, his uprising is a symptom of it.

4/4/2018 5:33:28 PM

Quote :

"I disagree with your dog whistle definition"

Fair enough. I guess it depends on who's using the term 'fiscally conservative' and for what purposes. My parents (they're both divorced and remarried), for example, are gun loving Republicans and they're fairly wealthy. They aren't at all religious, so gay marriage and legalizing weed doesn't faze them at all. Still, they never fail to mention how "socially liberal" they are because they have a MYOB and let me do me mentality. Mind you, they don't have any friends who are actually gay (or black, or single mothers, or disabled, etc), and they don't personally smoke weed (AFAIK their friends don't either), so I kinda roll my eyes when they try to lecture me about how 'progressive' they are.

Furthermore, they are typical Boomers that got 'theirs', and they incessantly complain about people on welfare leeching off the system and they think cutting services like Planned Parenthood is a good idea because they don't want to pay for it. They don't give a shit about how much a college education costs these days, because my siblings and I are already finished with school, and they've deluded themselves into thinking that the debt we have from our students loans (they didn't contribute a dime fwiw) is just the cost of doing business. They've always had great health insurance (dad is ex military), so they don't really give a shit about those who can't afford it. Their friends/neighbors are extremely classist and fairly racist, but they don't seem to care, since they don't really have any non-white friends to stick up for.. NOTE: I don't think my parents are terrible people, but it's difficult for me to bite my tongue when they drop the "bootstraps" line.

Quote :

"I'll agree that true libertarianism isn't a very realistic solution to the current social or fiscal problems in the US, but that's another conversation."

I meant that it's a bs ideology because in practical terms, it is completely unfeasible for a country of 325+ million people. In spirit, I can totally buy into the "live and let live" aspect, but that's a pretty slippery slope towards anarchy. And yeah, it's another conversation entirely.

[Edited on April 4, 2018 at 6:50 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2018 6:48:22 PM

Quote :

"I kinda roll my eyes when they try to lecture me about how 'progressive' they are"

Sounds like the philosophy behind "Get Out."

4/4/2018 11:43:52 PM

Quote :

"sitting on the fence and taking no real stance on anything"

yeah, because shitty decisions are better than not rushing decisions. this quote is a perfect example of how divisive politics inherently is.

4/5/2018 1:28:44 AM

Quote :

"My current problems with the far left come from the unwillingness to compromise or even try to understand why the other side feels the way they do. They energize the far right, just the other side of the same coin. They are as ridiculous as the tea party, but instead of using racist tactics, they feed off racial tensions for political points but haven't come up with any proposed solution for breaking the pattern."

In my experience, these people are more often hardline Democrats. Just like the party leadership, they'll criticize the right for being racist, while balking at solutions that are antithetical to capitalism.

The far left that I associate with would like nothing more than to unite the working class, both left and right.

4/5/2018 11:20:41 AM

I don't know anyone in politics who "sits on the fence." Sometimes they vote one way, sometimes they vote another. That doesn't mean their indecisive.

The biggest problem for someone closer to center who will cross the aisle on occasion is they get shunned by their party's leadership, and then have a much tougher time getting reelected without the national committees behind them. It all depends on the state, so Susan Collins should be able to keep her senate seat from Maine but would never get elected from somewhere like Alabama.

4/5/2018 1:47:37 PM

Quote :

"I don't know anyone in politics who "sits on the fence." Sometimes they vote one way, sometimes they vote another. That doesn't mean their indecisive."

Also, is there anything wrong with simply not knowing exactly how you feel or think about a topic because of conflicting principles or values, or just believing you don't have enough information?? I mean honestly it takes real time to give in-depth thought to a complex topic. (like abortion or gun control) This is why I don't argue politics on FB anymore. It takes me 2 days of web research 5 pages of text to give a complete argument on the what's, how's, and why's; and much less really just makes me sound unintelligent or severely opens me up to quick scrutiny. I find that most people on the poles aren't giving any real thought to their argument, they're arguing from a gut feeling which isn't really researched.



[Edited on April 5, 2018 at 6:32 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2018 6:30:39 PM

Quote :

"The far left supported him but he's not what they made him out to be."

we supported him as a compromise, thats why your follow-up statement gets to me.

Quote :

"My current problems with the far left come from the unwillingness to compromise or even try to understand why the other side feels the way they do. "

For me, the whole bernie thing was a compromise. I guess it just depends on who you mean by "the left" because you can be talking about so many different types of people with one generalized label. I feel like we are the most compromising group because we are the group that has never gotten anything to go our way yet we still have a painless movement. How many people on the far left show up and vote democrat every year?

In comparison, the far right has the tea party and holds a bunch of seats in congress. Far left has...Bernie??

A very large portion of the greens I know registered democrat just to vote for Bernie or were willing to vote for him over Stein in the general. People like Ujustwait like to say it was the other way around by saying angry bernie supporters voted for stein (which I'm sure exist in very small anecdotes) but the numbers on that are negligible.

[Edited on April 5, 2018 at 7:24 PM. Reason : k]

4/5/2018 7:15:38 PM

I think I saw something around 10% of Bernie's primary supporters went for Trump. But those people must not have been voting based on policies, only on personalities (and perceived status as "outsiders," when neither really were)

4/5/2018 7:43:16 PM

I think centrist implies a little more certainty about the range of possible ideologies than I'm comfortable with. I think you could be a "little of column A, little of column B" centrist and still be fairly extreme in your justifications. Moderates I think of as being more tactical; it doesn't say much about where a person falls on a given topic, it just says that they're willing to take a measured approach to solutions.

I'm not concerned so much with where a person falls ideologically, but whether they're willing to have a conversation in a detached, analytical way. It seems like moralizing is more common among what we consider the left - or at least the left that I interact with. Urban progressives, I guess. I know right-wing folks like this too (evangelicals, straight up rednecks, etc), but I really just have no contact with that demographic outside of family on Facebook.

It also seems like the left is often uncharitable to people they disagree with. There's a lot of accusations of dog whistling, 'free speech' being a code word for 'alt-right white nationalism', etc - it's just gotten sort of ridiculous. This isn't universal BTW - I know people that are pretty radical and far away from me ideologically, but it's still possible to cover interesting topics because we aren't playing a game of "who can call the other person evil first".

4/5/2018 9:26:56 PM

Quote :

"I think I saw something around 10% of Bernie's primary supporters went for Trump. But those people must not have been voting based on policies, only on personalities (and perceived status as "outsiders," when neither really were)"

if you look at the other questions they ask in the poll, those people weren't "left" and also generally were not and had not been democrats and had some pretty racist and sexist leanings so you can't really make any larger conclusions other than you're right that they weren't voting based on policies.

4/6/2018 9:01:24 AM

You mean HA Goodman and Cassandra Fairbanks aren’t progressives??

[Edited on April 6, 2018 at 9:09 AM. Reason : In case that wasn’t clear, that was rhetorical. They’re MAGAs.]

4/6/2018 9:08:40 AM

Quote :

"it's still possible to cover interesting topics because we aren't playing a game of "who can call the other person evil first"."

This is another huge problem in modern discourse. Instead of trying to convince the other side of why their side is right or better, they jump to delegitimizing the people with the opinions instead of the opinions themselves.

[Edited on April 6, 2018 at 2:37 PM. Reason : -]

4/6/2018 2:36:57 PM

Quote :

"but it's still possible to cover interesting topics because we aren't playing a game of "who can call the other person evil first"."

That’s pretty rich coming from the guy that starts every tax discussion from the position of “THE 16th AMENDMENT IS THE GREATEST VIOLENT ACT PERPETUATED ON AMERICANS OF ALL TIIIMMMMEEEEEE.”

4/6/2018 3:31:20 PM

Quote :

"This is another huge problem in modern discourse. Instead of trying to convince the other side of why their side is right or better, they jump to delegitimizing the people with the opinions instead of the opinions themselves."

Sounds familiar...

4/7/2018 3:19:21 PM

Quote :

"It’s all messaging. Somehow half the country was convinced an overtly religious center-right capitalist (Obama) was a far-left Marxist. It was baffling considering nearly all his actual policies were continuations of W.."

I've noticed that you've moved considerably to the left on most issues, including economic ones. What pulled you? I remember you being somewhat hostile to the Occupy movement, but then you came around. Not that I'd call you a red or anything, but you definitely have more measured critiques to the structures of capitalism than you previously did. I'm curious as to how that came about.

Quote :

"It seems like moralizing is more common among what we consider the left - or at least the left that I interact with. Urban progressives, I guess."

Arguing in moral terms is the best way to approach political differences. The effects of politics are real, and have lasting and meaningful impacts that touch everyone. Speaking in loose abstractions and detached and analytical terms is a luxury that many people simply cannot afford. When you demand that an opposing side practice decorum or civility, or that they respect procedural norms at a time when they stand to lose everything, then you erase their pain. Them confronting you with the real-world misery your positions will bring them and others is an uncomfortable reality that you should be forced to face, because it's NOT a game. It's real. It's not an academic exercise where we flex our intellectual muscle while discussing the merits of opposing schools of thought. The outcome of our political positions have real consequences and we should not be spared from the opinions of those most affected by our actions.

Quote :

"I meant that it's a bs ideology because in practical terms, it is completely unfeasible for a country of 325+ million people. In spirit, I can totally buy into the "live and let live" aspect, but that's a pretty slippery slope towards anarchy. "

If American Libertarians actually believed what they preached, they wouldn't be Libertarians. They'd be anarchists. "Anarchism has always been the libertarian wing of socialism" - Noam Chomsky (noted anarchist). But, American Libertarians have always just been run-of-the-mill young Republicans who smoke weed but also fetishize the idea of private property and individualism to the point of absurdity, so they never took that crucial step toward becoming anarchists because they are deathly afraid of collectivism.


---


Anywayyy....to the OP, I think you're realizing that there are entire schools of thought in political theory that revolve around the means of production and whether or not a few people who own those modes vs those who supply the labor should have access to the profits. As Americans, we've been conditioned to view politics as the collection of a few pet issues that we all have opinions on, rather than the fundamental conflict that arises in a world of scarcity and the determination of who has access to limited resources. Being a liberal capitalist makes you more palatable than the Republican party which flirts more openly with fascism (the idea that the state and the corporate class should merge into the same entity) every day. But thats not exactly something to be proud of. The country is drifting rapidly to the right, so being a centrist in a time of escalating tensions and diminishing resources isn't a great strategy. You can't be neutral on a moving train.


And since you mentioned your pet issue, I shouldn't have to tell you that Martin Niemöller's famous poem was a lamentation of him being a moderate in a time of rising conflict.

[Edited on April 8, 2018 at 3:58 AM. Reason : ]

4/8/2018 3:41:10 AM

Quote :

"Arguing in moral terms is the best way to approach political differences. The effects of politics are real, and have lasting and meaningful impacts that touch everyone. Speaking in loose abstractions and detached and analytical terms is a luxury that many people simply cannot afford."

Yeah, I understand your statement, and this is why I find the left is largely humorless and impossible to have an interesting conversation with. People that "can't afford" to talk about abstractions are not people I want to have a conversation with. They're not people I want to be friends with - they're people I want to avoid. It really is that simple. I'm sure I'm shitty to be around for those people too because we're speaking different languages.

I've attempted to argue in moral terms before, and it never convinces anyone or leads anywhere good. It's a good way to end a conversation. If I say, "if I don't want to pay taxes, should I go to jail, and what should happen to me if I don't agree to go to jail", then you'd say, "then you should be killed". Okay, that's a pretty extreme leap and we can't really have a productive conversation because you're now a hostile agent.

4/9/2018 12:15:03 PM

Quote :

". If I say, "if I don't want to pay taxes, should I go to jail, and what should happen to me if I don't agree to go to jail", then you'd say, "then you should be killed". Okay, that's a pretty extreme leap and we can't really have a productive conversation because you're now a hostile agent. "

Well, that's because this is a dumb intellectual exercise and an absurd leap that you're making in order to justify your "taxes = violence" absolutism. And you're doing it intentionally to make yourself out to be a victim, which is dumb.

A better way to frame your question, in moral terms, would be:

"What would happen to the society around me if I refused to pay taxes?"

"How many people should be denied access to basic services so that I can avoid paying taxes?"

"At what point is the individual hoarding of wealth detrimental to society at large?"


When you take your positions and frame them around your hyper-individualized view of the world, you make absurd moral arguments that revolve solely around you. You don't even attempt to make a moral argument focused around the needs of those around you, because you can't. If you tried, your moral arguments would break down with a fuckin' quickness.

4/9/2018 2:48:00 PM

Not interested in debating that argument (taxation is theft) - I'm using that particular argument because it's a moral argument. You might say it's hyper-individualistic (it is, and presupposes a certain set of moral axioms), but the point is that even if it holds up logically, it doesn't actually convince anyone. I'm looking at this meta-level, you're itching to get back to object-level.

It's the same when you make arguments like, "well, if you really cared about people, then you'd agree with me on policy A, B, C". As you've seen, that doesn't work because we're working from different assumptions. Moral arguments are excellent for rallying the troops. They get fence-sitters or allies fired up - it makes people feel like they're fighting a great evil. Moral arguments are shit for convincing anyone that isn't already on board. Every now and then you can appeal to a person's emotional inclinations but it's pretty rare.

Pragmatic and utilitarian arguments are a lot more effective when it comes to getting anyone to rethink presuppositions. You get them to rethink a position, just for fun. That's why it's possible to have detached conversations with political opponents and actually get something out of it. Moral assertions are binary - they either work, or they alienate. If I tell you that abortion is literally killing a baby (I don't believe that, but people make that argument all the time), you reject it outright. You probably have reasons, but you reject the moral appeal.

4/9/2018 4:47:07 PM

Quote :

"I'm looking at this meta-level"

Yes, I know.

Quote :

"you're itching to get back to object-level"

Yes, I am.


We live in a material world. Having a ridiculous set of predefined, hyper-individualized moral axioms that ignore these material realities doesn't do jack shit to elevate the discourse. All it does is give you the intellectual wiggle room to be completely at ease and to excuse the insane levels of rising inequalities and structural imbalances that we currently face. And this intellectual, "meta-level" abstract defense of (a)moral axioms conveniently serves the status quo and the ruling elite.

Try this incredibly easy thought exercise, and test how much you really value your meta-level worship of laizzes faire capitalism: If you were born at the absolute lowest rung of society, and were denied basic modes of education, healthcare, upward mobility, and had no social safety net to rely on and only had your unskilled labor to offer for minimum compensation in an oversaturated labor market, would you still be so cavalier about defending the interests of free enterprise?

4/11/2018 3:54:34 AM

Quote :

"Try this incredibly easy thought exercise, and test how much you really value your meta-level worship of laizzes faire capitalism: If you were born at the absolute lowest rung of society, and were denied basic modes of education, healthcare, upward mobility, and had no social safety net to rely on and only had your unskilled labor to offer for minimum compensation in an oversaturated labor market, would you still be so cavalier about defending the interests of free enterprise?"

I'm puzzled at why you would bother posting this - it's just an emotional appeal. Do you think I've never heard this sort of argument? Maybe if I was super poor, I'd conveniently support whatever it is that you want? There are plenty of people poorer than me that support my view, and plenty of insanely wealthy people that support your view, so it's just not a valuable thought exercise and it definitely doesn't prove anything.

I'm sure there are people that are swayed by sob stories. I'm not. You say people are poor and suffering because of capitalism, I say they're poor and suffering because of other reasons. But, again, I'm not arguing this exact point - I'm arguing that your emotional appeals aren't effective at persuading anyone. The only thing they are effective for is making you feel like you have the moral ground which seems to be something you value.

4/11/2018 12:43:16 PM

Arguing with a hardline libertarian on individual issues is honestly just a waste of time. You can't have a policy discussion with someone who thinks there should be no policies.

It's like arguing abortion with someone who believes abortion is murder. You have to break down their foundation of belief to make any progress whatsoever.

4/11/2018 12:56:12 PM

the second one is easy, just ask them about abortion for rape or incest

4/11/2018 1:04:49 PM

Somewhere between 20-35% of Americans still think it should be illegal in those cases

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

4/11/2018 1:11:49 PM

on a poll they don't care about, but when you follow up with questions about what they think about women they trip all over themselves

4/11/2018 1:14:52 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure there are people that are swayed by sob stories. I'm not. You say people are poor and suffering because of capitalism, I say they're poor and suffering because of other reasons. But, again, I'm not arguing this exact point - I'm arguing that your emotional appeals aren't effective at persuading anyone. The only thing they are effective for is making you feel like you have the moral ground which seems to be something you value."

Studies have shown over and over that emotional arguments are the most effective. Maybe not for you, but for most people.

https://qz.com/521628/keep-losing-arguments-a-psychologist-explains-why-emotions-are-more-persuasive-than-logic/

4/11/2018 1:15:45 PM

but libertarians are all on the spectrum, so...

4/11/2018 1:19:24 PM

Quote :

"Maybe if I was super poor, I'd conveniently support whatever it is that you want?"

But this illustrates my point: Your "moral axioms" are relative to your societal privilege. That is to say, you can afford to adopt these abstract notions of unfettered free markets being a noble ideal because the material realities of the market don't affect you negatively.

If you are willing to admit that your moral axioms would change based on your material realities, then your moral foundation ain't worth shit. It's clearly tied to your status. That's not me making an emotional appeal, I'm simply pointing at the obvious logical contradiction that underwrites your worldview.

4/11/2018 2:32:12 PM

Quote :

"But this illustrates my point: Your "moral axioms" are relative to your societal privilege. That is to say, you can afford to adopt these abstract notions of unfettered free markets being a noble ideal because the material realities of the market don't affect you negatively. If you are willing to admit that your moral axioms would change based on your material realities, then your moral foundation ain't worth shit. It's clearly tied to your status. That's not me making an emotional appeal, I'm simply pointing at the obvious logical contradiction that underwrites your worldview."

Is there any person that is exempt from this "material realities inform moral axioms" framework? Let's assume what you're saying is true - I support the capitalism because it benefits me.

The poor of the world support Not Capitalism because Not Capitalism benefits them, and we'll ignore the millions of poor that want more capitalism. They don't want Not Capitalism because it will be worse for them, right? According to your logic, their moral foundation "ain't worth shit". To the extent that they even have a notion of philosophy or moral axioms, it's probably informed mostly by a sense of "I'm hungry and sick", which seems like material realities to me.

Or is there some altruistic tier of humanity that is above it all and enlightened enough to have positions that aren't informed by their class? Let me guess...you're part of that tier, and you want other people like you to run the world.

Quote :

"Studies have shown over and over that emotional arguments are the most effective. Maybe not for you, but for most people. https://qz.com/521628/keep-losing-arguments-a-psychologist-explains-why-emotions-are-more-persuasive-than-logic/"

Thanks - scroll up and I talk about this some. Moral arguments are very effective for a class of topics, but it largely depends on whether both parties come to the discussion with the same moral presuppositions. The best example I can think of is abortion. People make the moral argument that abortion is killing babies, but this doesn't persuade you...why?

Definitely won't argue that arguments from emotion can be very powerful. This is why American news will show every dead Syrian child they can find, but you'll never find a dead Iraqi/Yemeni/Afghani child on the nightly news - one image promotes a national narrative and one doesn't, and the imagery has been carefully put together to elicit a desired emotional response.

[Edited on April 11, 2018 at 2:57 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2018 2:51:14 PM

lol, how do you people read that and take any time to respond to it?

4/11/2018 2:55:38 PM

^^I think the problem here is that you're trying to generalize poor people as if they're some monolithic group. Sure, many people born into poverty tend to stay there, but plenty of people move in and out of poverty at various points in their lives for a variety of simple and complicated reasons (sometimes due to poor choices, sometimes due to bad luck). And if you really think about it, the poor is just one subset of humanity. You'll run into the same types of problems when you trying to generalize groups of people based on race/ethnicity/religion/education/etc. That's pretty much why libertarianism extending past anything on a localized level is inherently incompatible with a national government. "Let me do me, and you do you" works in your neighborhood, at some work places, in a variety of social gatherings, but not on a scale much larger.

[Edited on April 11, 2018 at 3:02 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2018 3:01:30 PM

Quote :

"the millions of poor that want more capitalism"

They don't want more "capitalism." They want more "capital." There's a difference. They're poor. They'd like to not be poor. That requires a more even distribution of resources.

Quote :

""I'm hungry and sick", which seems like material realities to me."

Yes, it is. Their material reality informs their desire to not be hungry and sick. You are making a conscious decision to disregard their material needs and are trying to reverse engineer a moral structure that supports this conscious decision in service of free markets.

4/11/2018 3:02:10 PM