So, it depends. There is certainly room for ambivalence, open-mindedness, or enoug perspective to see all sides of an issue, indeed it’s healthy to not be crazily partial on any issue that arises.
BUT…
On the great issues of the day? Politics, freedom, social order, that sort of thing? Yeah, neutrality pisses me off. Society is forced to make choices on these issues, and those choices can and do lead to tremendous suffering. I feel we have a responsibility to try and be as smart and passionate about that stuff as we can in order to come, eventually, to solutions of social utility (or whatever) – to alleviate suffering, to maximize actualization, to make the world a better place. And when we disagree on that stuff, at least we’re all trying to get it right. But those who don’t work hard enough to even develop an opinion? In my view, they abdicate their duties under the social contract in a way that translates inevitably – even if not proximately – into increased human suffering.
In addition, the related problems of apathy and undue cynicism tend to affect those on my side of the idealogical debate much more than the other, so we give unwarranted ground on that score too.
What bothers me more than neutrality is when people are attacked for trying to point out that the attempt to see it from the other side’s view might help.
drew, are there any topics for which you do have strong opinions and about which you are passionate. Seeing two sides of an issue is not the same as not having an opinion: weighing both sides of an issue is an important part of forming a decision.
I think there’s a difference between neutrality, not caring, and thinking the issue is to complex to take a stance. It annoys me a lot when people flat out refuse to even think about an issue when it is brought up. When asked “So, what do you think about X?” “Meh, I don’t care” is usually not really an acceptable answer to me. Part of that is trying to engage in conversation with someone, and the other person pretty much just shooting you down. Another part is that it shows willful ignorance and apathy on a matter. Even if someone asked my opinion on something I don’t really care about, I’d think about it and try to formulate one based on what I know, or explain why “picking a side” is not so simple.
There are of course exceptions. If someone genuinely doesn’t know enough about a matter that is more factually based than theoretical, then sure, I wouldn’t expect them to form much of an opinion.
I wouldnt classify myself as neutral, but I definitely am not cookie cutter, and that really ticks people off. Especially in the political spectrum
Socially, I am liberal. Im pro-choice, I despise hate speak of any kind. I think we should have social programs to give a hand up, not a hand out.
Fiscally, Im very conservative, I am a Christian, and I consider myself a supporter of this Country.
When I get into discussions of politics, both sides tend to knee jerk me into a Libtard or Rethuglican. When I share my beliefs, it seems to piss them off more.
I get Fence Sitter, Pick a side, You dont know what you want, etc.
If ind it humorous that people actually believe in either or., and no other option can exist.
I have spoken to people who claim to be neutral on important issues, and I got the impression that they were not really neutral, but people pleasers, who hated to be seen as opinionated. They would be very uncomfortable when I would press them for an opinion, so I would respect that, and back off.
I believe some people hide their opinions, for fear of alienating others, and may have learned how to do it, the way some learn to keep a poker face, instead of showing emotion.
If I did not believe they had a method or reason to claim neutrality on important issues, I would instead think of them as spineless jelly fish, and loose all respect.
In the case of people remaining neutral while forming opinions, that is different, and probably a normal part of the process many of us go through in discovering our opinions.
It is the people with strong opinions who oppose one each other, but neutrals are the ones who gets beaten.
Wise words, said by “me.”
Well, at least I have an opinion.
However, if someone really looks for my point of view, it is neutral only when I am not sure what I am dealing with. And that happens now and then. I would rather call that reasonable rethinking and gathering info while keeping low profile.
There are some disagreements where I couldn’t care less whos right and whos wrong as the subject and/or the people are of no interest to me.
There are subjects where I can’t be sure if the facts presented by the opposing parties can be trusted to be accurate or honest.
There are arguments between someone whos friend I am with people I dislike, but my friend is in the wrong.
There have been wars between nations that are equally loathsome in the past, ie. the S.U. and Nazi Germany, Iraq &Iran.
I have seen drunks who I don’t know having an all out fight, I don’t know which one of them started it, or why, and so don’t care who’s winning or losing.
I am highly annoyed by the thought that one must be on one side or the other. The US’ political system is one awesome example of frustrating irritation.
True, and so what? Who says you have to care deeply about everything?
In my observation, some people have a passionate/activist approach to life and it frustrates the hell out of them to deal with those who don’t. So to get even with the laid back folks, they irritate the hell out of them by always bringing up their pet causes.
It depends on what the topic is. If it is an esoteric question that does not require you to have an opinion and does not affect you, then neutrality makes sense.
But what about something like the US invasion of Iraq? Did you have an opinion on that? and if so, did you take any action on it, like making sure that elected officials were aware of your opinion?