Stop fucking calling things “moderate” to distinguish them from the loony bin types.
What the hell is a “Moderate Republican” these days? Anyone who isn’t Ted Cruz?
And the all-time-fucking-worst one: “Moderate rebels”, as in the folks in Syria. Not to worry America, we’re only arming the “moderate rebels”. What does that mean-- they only behead people one day of the month? I’d be happy to help out “secular rebels”, but “moderate” to me says they are still Islamic and that is going to blend seamlessly into the “non-moderate” types.
Moderate, Moderate Moderate… Don’t fucking give me “moderate”. The term has come to mean nothing. Worse, it’s used as a shield to hide that fact that, next to the absolute whack-os, almost everyone else looks like a “moderate”.
I agree with the OP. It may even be an intentional effort by the GOP to highlight their most insane members to make the rest appear moderate. I’m sure the Democrats would do it to if they weren’t a bunch of incompetent boobs. As for terrorists and other violent groups I think it’s common practice to use spokesmen claiming to be ‘moderate’ in an effort to convince people that the whack jobs don’t represent the mainstream.
It would depend on the context. For the Syrian rebels, I would call them the FSA, which is what they call themselves. Then, I’d do an as much of an in-depth analysis to explain how many different groups there are, and what their political goals are. Some may be secular, and some may be Islamist.
But “moderate” is thrown out there like some magic word to shut off debate. How could you not want to support the “moderates”?
But that’s really the point, isn’t it? We live in a society where the lunatics are running the asylum, largely due to their loud mouths and extremist actions. Those of us who long for a return to sanity think of moderation as the key. Here in the middle ground, we can see that both sides have a point, and can work toward situations that are equally tolerable. We need more moderates. Exclusivity in thought is the cause of all conflict. Moderation doesn’t mean nothing, it means everything.
The problem you run into is some governments are extremist. Now, I’ll grant you, some of the rebels who oppose those governments are just as extremist as the government itself. But some of the people who are rebelling against the extremist government are trying to replace it with a non-extremist government. They are, in fact, rebels for moderation.
OK, so we have these “moderate” rebels in Syria. What doest that tell you? Knowing only that they are “moderate” are you ready to send them weapons? Because that is what we are being told.
Not really. I’d be considering the following issues as well:
Are these guys real moderates or just faking it for support?
If they are real, do they have a chance of success? Or am I just going to piss off Assad, get these rebels killed, and not change anything for the better?
If they’re real and they have a reasonable chance of overthrowing Assad, will they be able to establish a stable moderate regime? Or will this rebellion just end up replacing Assad with somebody who’s worse?
What will be the consequences outside of Syria? Will other countries or organizations be pissed at me because I backed these rebels? Will I end up in a worse situation even if they succeed?
That’s not how I read it. I read the OP to mean not only is there a middle ground, we have stretched it so expansively that anyone not certifiable can be said to reside within its boundaries. I tend to agree. Surely there are more grades than Loony Left (or secular or whatever), Loony Right (or religious or whatever), and all the moderates in between.
I could very well sympathize with his probable intent and frustration on how the world seems love choosing sides. My problem with the OP is that he is using the same language as those who want to divide.