This is actually a reasonable point. There are a few things that moderates will support that no one on any corner of the extremes would. Why? Because these positions make no sense and only can make sense if your position is simply to agree with anything you are told in school.
For example, using the standard 2d political plane, no corner of it would ever come up with what we are currently doing with the Federal Reserve. Libertarians don't like it. They want free market money and don't like a manipulated financial system proping up the government. The left entirely wouldn't support it. Allowing banking corporations to basically print their own money to further debt trap the public faster than their standard model would allow. The authoritarian right wouldn't support it. Mostly Jewish Federal Reserve chairs handing discounted money to Jewish banks and pulling strings in our Federal government.
No body with an ideology would come up with this idea, because ideologies require at least some level of consistency and reason. They can be flawed and those flaws can be twisted to some irrational end. But never so irrational as letting banks print money. There is no extremist that irrational.
The people who do agree with it are moderates because they basically agree with any institution that exists. And that is a thing we currently are doing, so they support it.
No one who is trying to think of a sensible model of the world, even a twisted sensible model, would ever think of such a clearly bad idea. Well, other than the people who benefit. And the people who have no world view as you point out, have no world view to measure the horrible idea against. So the banker seems smart. He must be suggesting a smart thing.
The mistake is in thinking that if you don't hold a position or don't hold to any principles that you therefore aren't giving tacit approval to the status quo.
We used to have principled liberals, if there is such a thing. People that subscribed to the ideas of Locke, John Stuart Mill, etc. - "classical liberals." But even that would be considered equally "extreme" today.
Need to be extreme, demand a lot then compromise in the middle. Moderates don't know how politics works, how to negotiate. That's what trump was trying to do with tariffs, get them to agree to stuff to make tariffs go away.
Log in
I'm a moderate and I get hit by both sides.
Hence the disparition of moderates, or the ever-growing polarization of extremists.
Stats?
None, it's just logic.
Opinion.
A+++
Status-quo propaganda. At least the "extremists" have an ideology and worldview. Cleese advocates nothing at all here.
Balance.
Balance isn't a principle.
Moderation, Stoicism, and Taoism are quite principled.
It is an ex-Parrot!
This is actually a reasonable point. There are a few things that moderates will support that no one on any corner of the extremes would. Why? Because these positions make no sense and only can make sense if your position is simply to agree with anything you are told in school.
For example, using the standard 2d political plane, no corner of it would ever come up with what we are currently doing with the Federal Reserve. Libertarians don't like it. They want free market money and don't like a manipulated financial system proping up the government. The left entirely wouldn't support it. Allowing banking corporations to basically print their own money to further debt trap the public faster than their standard model would allow. The authoritarian right wouldn't support it. Mostly Jewish Federal Reserve chairs handing discounted money to Jewish banks and pulling strings in our Federal government.
No body with an ideology would come up with this idea, because ideologies require at least some level of consistency and reason. They can be flawed and those flaws can be twisted to some irrational end. But never so irrational as letting banks print money. There is no extremist that irrational.
The people who do agree with it are moderates because they basically agree with any institution that exists. And that is a thing we currently are doing, so they support it.
No one who is trying to think of a sensible model of the world, even a twisted sensible model, would ever think of such a clearly bad idea. Well, other than the people who benefit. And the people who have no world view as you point out, have no world view to measure the horrible idea against. So the banker seems smart. He must be suggesting a smart thing.
You can be anti-extremist principled "moderate rebels" without being balloon-headed sheeple, without direction, distracted, and intellectually lazy.
The mistake is in thinking that if you don't hold a position or don't hold to any principles that you therefore aren't giving tacit approval to the status quo.
We used to have principled liberals, if there is such a thing. People that subscribed to the ideas of Locke, John Stuart Mill, etc. - "classical liberals." But even that would be considered equally "extreme" today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J41iFYO0NQA
Need to be extreme, demand a lot then compromise in the middle. Moderates don't know how politics works, how to negotiate. That's what trump was trying to do with tariffs, get them to agree to stuff to make tariffs go away.