Weird double click double post result. Edited post follows.
I don’t think he’d be doing that if this wasn’t the Pit, and I assume he intended the irony.
Believe me, I know. I’m cutting him a lot of slack. It’s just that, well, it’s a bad way to think and I have to call him on it.
“The worst things in the world are justified by belief”
- U2, Raised by Wolves
Sadly, the people who rail hardest about other people doing wrong because of their beliefs, have their own set of beliefs that allow them to do wrong.
In my head, I’m singing the Simpsons monorail song only with moderate instead.
I don’t realize that because it’s not true. Of course there is a middle ground between extremes. Lots of middle ground. But “moderate” doesn’t tell you where in the middle that ground is. It’s either a lazy way of ignoring important details*, or a deliberate attempt to brush over those details. When I hear someone talk about the “moderate” Syrian rebels, I can’t help but think that they want us to hear “secular”, which they are not.
*Yeah, I know that’s not exactly unusual, but it still bugs me
What about “moderate” Republicans? Do you deny they exist? Are you pissed at them? That’s what you led with in your OP.
I am a self describe moderate Democrat. Are you pissed at me? Or are you, as I suspect, just feeling like throwing your shoe at the television?
ISTM that there are two separate issues being conflated here.
[ol]
[li]The notion that the term “moderate” should mean “what John Mace (or whoever) thinks is reasonable”, rather than a descriptor of where their position is on the spectrum that actually exists in the real world.[/li][li]The notion that some people who are being described as “moderate” are not moderate by either definition above, and are simply pretending to be what they’re not for PR purposes.[/li][/ol]
I agree with the second but not with the first.
[deleted
Personally, I think if you are at war, you are already well past moderation and into extremism. The best anyone on the outside can hope is that you will return to moderation after you kill enough of the other side to take over.
Somebody who wants to shoot illegal aliens, but not eat them.
I don’t know if it’s intentional or not, but the effect is to define the GOP this way to their faithful:
Tea Partiers/John Birchers/Militia Loons: Extreme right wing. Hearts in the right place, too extreme.
RINOs: May as well be Democrats; we don’t claim them, or really want them.
Everyone else: Moderates.
The catch here is that in reality, the RINOs are actually the moderates, but are being vilified for it, and the more conservative middle are called moderates without actually being moderate in any sense of the word, except relative to the rest of the Republicans.
Well, one of those “moderate rebels” was on youtube eating the heart of the government soldier. So I guess he was “moderate” because he didn’t go for the brains?
Well, that certainly settles that!
Yes, that’s it. I do think the GOP pushes toward the right very hard to get this effect. They seem to be reaching the edge of the cliff, but much of the damage is done already. When I was a kid back in the dark ages you’d often hear that you couldn’t explain the difference between the Democratic and Repulican parties to someone from another country. Back then the parties were controlled by each of their real moderates. Even now most of the country is probably closer to the middle than the extremes, but that’s not reflected in their representatives.
Hallucinate
Desegregate
Mediate
Alleviate
Try not to hate
Love your own mate
No, you’re wrong about #1. As I’ve already said, I think one of the problems with “moderate” is that it actually doesn’t mean anything at all (moderate compared to what) but is being used as if everyone knows precisely what it means.
What it means is apparent from context.
In the case of Syrian rebels, it means they’re moderate compared to the other Syrian rebels. In the case of Republicans, it means compared to other Republicans.
A lot of people don’t know what the deal is with moderate Syrian rebels, but that’s because a lot of people don’t follow that situation all that closely (or are in denial, as you can see from a lot of threads here). I don’t think the problem is the word “moderate” per se.
But, here’s the problem - they GOP would like there to be such a stratification, but in reality it does not exist - they all vote in lockstep as if they are being lead around by the nose by the vocal minority of the party. Anyone left of the Tea Party is labeled “moderate”, but they they are all consistent in their positions. They are MINOs.
What do you have against moderates John? You must be an extremist. Arming the moderates is sort of like systematic pressure, targets of opportunity, or surgical strikes: they make the less homicidally inclined appear unreasonable.