How has recognizing the absurdity of the extremists on both sides helped you live your life better?
Pic related, words to live by.
>How has recognizing the absurdity of the extremists on both sides helped you live your life better?
Improved not at all, its actually quite frightening to realize you are surrounded by people who can only see one side of an issue and are completely unwilling to compromise.
We are all Americans, we are all world residents. Isn't it time we rose above the fighting and stopped shouting at each other and passed common sense reform like abolishing the death penalty, instituting common sense gun control, and eliminating corporate taxes? If we unite as one, there is no limit to what we can accomplish.
The truth lies in what a given debate ignores. By Parkinson's law of triviality, in a debate over important issues, people will only argue about what they can understand, and if the issue is complicated, will only understand the least important pieces.
For example, political discussion about illegal immigrants ignores big questions like open/closed borders or whether economic is desirable. Political discussion about gay marriage ignores the question of why secular governments legitimise marriage. Political discussion about abortion prevents political discussion about who is inhuman after birth (stroke victims? those without a complete brain?). Banning religious head coverings prevents discussion about banning religions.
That's no way to treat a fellow American.
What about health care? We can apply the same principles of moderation to the debate. Why can't we establish a private-public partnership to help the less fortunate but retain our world class care?
We need to get together and start a "Moderate" party and lead by compromise.
You're probably a troll, I can't see someone on here saying retarded shit like "common sense gun control" without a smirk. Your idea of a "moderate" party is better described as authoritarian hard left. Shit, its RIGHT THERE, >muh unity
The only thing that will work is the complete political neutering of the rabid rightists and their fundies, neocons, teahadists and corporate bootlickers.
And it is happening now.
>Have a right wing party and a crypto fascist right wing party
>Tell people how extremism is bad. That people should find the truth in consensus of those 2 right wing parties.
The only thing remotely left'ish is the cultural liberalism of Democrats. Regarding anything economical both parties are bought and sold to the same class.
No alternative. Nothing.
>mfw trying to discuss Islam in a civil manner
Now I avoid the subject all together.
>It's actually mostly 20-24 year olds
I know moderation is not exactly the name of the game in the States right now but... lol. No.
Natsoc /= moderate.
>implying I'd ever allow anyone with a religion whose prophet is a peedophile to coexist peacefully in my country if i could help it
top lel m8
on another note, this idea that compromising is good is complete bullshit, coercive taxes will forever be evil.
I don't know how many arguments I have had where I point out these ideas and people look at me like I'm crazy. Much of these ideas are too philosophical for the average person to understand. On the question of abortion, what makes a person a person? If it is intelligence than we should kill off all retards because they are not human. If it is DNA than abortion is murder. What makes a human a human and what gives it special rights? It is a very very meta question. Also the whole marriage thing was so blackie couldn't marry a white girl.
I agree, we need some common sense in gun control. Mostly NFA firearms not requiring so many hoops to hop through. NFA firearms should simply be classified as any other firearm, and not require stupid processes like they currently do. They were laws to more easily identify members of the mafia, and the $200 tax stamp was hard to obtain back then because the value of the dollar was still high. Now $200 is a mild inconvenience, but the difference between a legal SBR, and a class 3 felony. I mean come on, why should we have to go through $200 and 6 months of processing time from the ATF just to cut a 16 inch barrel to 12 inches myself? its ludicrous, there is no reason for obstacles like that.
Same for putting a vertical fore grip on handguns, short barrel shotguns, select fire weapons, and any other NFA firearm.
Also, we need all states to recognize all CC permits, I'm tired of WV being the only state that honors my PA LTCF. It's a silly hassle.
Then there's import laws. We should just get rid of import laws on firearms in general. We can't get our M1 garands back from other nations they were used.... isn't it silly that military surplus from just about any other nation is inexpensive here in the US, but our own weapons will cost you an arm and a leg? an M1 garand goes from $1,000-$2,000 in the US, but in Canada they can obtain them for an easy $400-$500.
We really do need more common sense in gun control, and the solution is no gun control at all.
By neutering my beliefs on the issue and always pushing for compromise, even in situations where it results in legislation that is worse than either of the two extremes, I have completely absolved myself of intellectual responsibility and have therefore improved my quality of life.
Depends what your outlook is, I guess. Extremism is generally defined as being extremely far from mainstream political norms. It also describes a propensity for using violence to get what you want.
>Extremism is generally defined as being extremely far from mainstream political norms.
Extremism is a loaded term that really has little meaning as to whether something is right or wrong.
Supporting elections in North Korea would be called "extremist", but it's also right. "Extremism" is just an inflammatory word that serves no purpose.
Classic "golden mean" fallacy.
>one party says we must every person in group X
>the other says we shouldn't kill anyone
>therefore the best option is to kill some people from group X
You see how retarded you are now?
Big Tent = having no principles
The only people in the US who support Big Tent politics are money-grubbing Jews who play both sides to get what they want. Most politically active Americans have a pretty defined set of values.
But then, political debate has been part of the American fabric from the beginning. Sitting on the fence has never been considered an honorable position.
> Since when is sticking to your beliefs "extremism"?
Since the word "extremist" was invented. To be fair, the specific definition is limited to "people who stick to beliefs that directly contradict reality, even after they are proven false." Not all people that stick to their beliefs are extremists, but it is a necessary precondition to becoming an extremist.
You're right of course. The mainstream media will still use the term "extremist" but they tend to abuse words like that and also "terrorism."
That being said, politics is the art of the possible. If your ideology is too far-out, it's hard to take seriously.
this won't really effect me though. I am a resident of PA, and already have a PA LTCF. I can still go out and obtain an out of state license as well. All this does is fuck over non-PA residents, which is still bad.
Here is the philosophical reason why political moderation is a bad argument.
Start with the premise, how do humans define moderation outside of abstract ideas?
What is a moderate amount of water?
When defining a moderate amount of water, we don't use real extremes. The middle between the maximum amount of water we can intake versus the minimum would still be too much water for most of us.
So then, when I say I want a moderate amount of water, what I am really saying is "I want a natural amount of water."
That's the key, natural amounts. We define the middle, in our personal lives, by looking at natural preferences and not extremes.
Now, realizing that our informed middle is defined by empiricism and not logical extremes, we reckon that moderate political views are the result of our current beliefs and not that of real logical extremes.
Going back to the water analogy, if the far right was offering you no water and the far left was offering you an ocean, the middle of that would be a lake which is still way too much for any human.
Therefore, introspectively, you will look at what feels like too much to you. I would say that 12 ounces is the daily minimum I need but more than 64 ounces would make me feel bloated.
These numbers do not rely on actual extremes, but actual experience and inherit dispositions. Therefore, you can reduce the decision from being the middle of extremes to whatever feels natural, which is more accurate if the distribution is skewed.
>philosophical argument about political moderation
>starts with the premise that concrete concept definitions are applicable to abstract concepts like politics
Honestly, I do think there should be some sort of background check/mental health evaluation that goes along with getting guns, because, not only would that maybe help prevent crazies from killing themselves or others, but it might also help America's current mental health issues, as many more people than in the past would be getting their mental health checked. Other than that, though, restrictions are pointless.
The point of the argument is that we define extremist empirically and that logical extremist do not equate to our own empirical extremist.
I think the racist on here are much more reasonable than communist. For most of the centre left, racist are probably made out to be much worse than commies.
Since we rely on empiricism to tell us who are extremist, than we might as well rely on our own natural feelings towards politics to tell us where we should belong.
Picking the middle doesn't work because in our real, practical lives, we chose what is natural, not moderate.
We do so because logical extremes can't inform us of human values.
Therefore, extremist do not inform us of the middle as much as they inform us of our own comforts.