Being Neutral is a Terrible Choice

There are two types of neutral in my opinion:

One means that one does not associate with any groups or movements. The other means that one does not have political, moral or ethical opinions.

I think the former is generally useful, as it reduces the impact of emotional bias towards a certain group. If you become member of a political party and start adopting that party's identity, then chances are, you are not going to evaluate the behavior of other people in your party as harshly as you would normally. If you stay neutral and just support their political opinions, there is an extra barrier to falling into that trap. Imho, one should only ever become part of a group if it is required to make change.

Striving for neutrality when it comes to opinions is just stupid. If you have no strong feelings one way or the other, then you're basically just a human slate who stands for nothing. There are cases where all outcomes are perceived as equally good or bad, and in that case, yeah, stay neutral, but it should only ever be the natural outcome, not the goal.
 
I like universal healthcare and free tertiary education (to a cutoff point), but also free markets and guns. Send help.
 
Dont derail the thread with your pet peeve and trolling people who dont like the Dems and Repubs with accusations of lying.
Number 1... wasn't talking to you. So if it stung, that says more about you than me. Number 2...Report or ignore and spare me your salty accusations.
What independent in Congress is clearly conservative?
None dude... that's what I just said ... in response to this (again... wasn't talking to you) comment (which wasn't yours):
Independents in Congress?
Loathed
Does anyone on either side really like Joe Lieberman?
Get it now Berz?
how dare you not care about what I care about!
How dare you post in my "independent" safe-space thread!
 
Last edited:
CHAOTIC GOOD
but not the meme kind

More fun in college. But principles do eventually conflict with law time to time.
 
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

Political moderates are scum. They're nothing more than conservatives too cowardly to identify themselves as such.
 
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet:



Political moderates are scum. They're nothing more than conservatives too cowardly to identify themselves as such.
Ah, yes. Declaring a broad, heterogenous, multi-faceted, and ideologically diverse socio-political group are all exactly the same in beliefs and point-of-view as one of the worst examples you can dig up. Typical pathetic and lame debating and rhetorical tactic so common today and greatly increasing in frequency - trying to prove or disprove an expansive and broad-scoped issue with a single (usually corner-case or counter-example) anecdote. Spare me!
 
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
Great speech excerpt :thumbsup:
 
Blow me Cago Boy. :lol: ;)

Through night the season ride into the dark,
The years surrender in the changing lights,
The breath turns vacant on the dusk or dawn
Between the abstract days and nights.
For there is always corpselight in the fields
And corposants above the slaughterhouse,
And at deep noon the shadowy vallenwoods
Are bright at the topmost boughs.
 
Last edited:
Number 1... wasn't talking to you. So if it stung, that says more about you than me.

Have you accused me of being a dishonest conservative/Republican? Yes... So you were talking to (about) me, you're repeating the same accusation you've directed at me in the past. Here's what it says about me, I dont like being accused of lying... and I dont like the hypocrisy of being called a liar by someone who isn't telling the truth.

Number 2...Report or ignore and spare me your salty accusations.

I prefer waving it under your nose, smelling salts can help clear the head.

None dude... that's what I just said ... in response to this (again... wasn't talking to you) comment (which wasn't yours): Get it now Berz?

Yes, there are 'independents' in Congress who dont like either party. So people can dislike both parties without being a member of one and lying about it.

How dare you post in my "independent" safe-space thread!

I wasn't talking to you, I'm not independent and this aint my thread. I'm just glad to see you've overcome your anger with thread derailing, hopefully you wont accuse others of that in the future.
 
Last edited:
“I hate the indifferent. I believe that living means taking sides. Those who really live cannot help being a citizen and a partisan. Indifference and apathy are parasitism, perversion, not life. That is why I hate the indifferent."

Antonio Gramsci

Simplicity is for violent fools and children.
Farm Boy's sig said:
"All great things are simple,

delicious

to be fair Winnie-boy certainly falls into the category of "violent fools and children."
 
I like universal healthcare and free tertiary education (to a cutoff point), but also free markets and guns. Send help.

That's not really neutrality, as you have stances on all those things. They don't cancel each other out (well, maybe American politics believes this...)
 
Are people confusing ability to compromise with neutrality? I am thinking that partisanship is inversely proportional to the capacity for abstract reasoning.
 
Jimmy Fallon refuses to get political.
He just tries to broadcast endless fun with bright people and offends no one.
This strategy has let Colbert exceed him by far in late-night comic ratings. :nono:
Colbert exceeds him because he's not at all funny and super fake & awkward.
 
Are people confusing ability to compromise with neutrality? I am thinking that partisanship is inversely proportional to the capacity for abstract reasoning.
in this day and age, it seems to me that many consider anything other than torches, rope and pitchforks in the night as 'neutral'.

In part this is yet another problem of two-party systems. Anything that doesn't fall under these two is considered neutral, which IMHO is just stupid. It makes politcal discourse and actually solving problems that much harder.
 
in this day and age, it seems to me that many consider anything other than torches, rope and pitchforks in the night as 'neutral'.

In part this is yet another problem of two-party systems. Anything that doesn't fall under these two is considered neutral, which IMHO is just stupid. It makes politcal discourse and actually solving problems that much harder.
But who, other than the U.S., Portugal, and most Anglo-Caribbean countries, truly has rigid, unassailable, solid two-party systems anymore. Everyone else has more than two viable parties, or an outright one-party, dominant party, party-of-power, or purely (or mostly) nonpartisan systems. True two-party are not really common anymore. The ubiquity of U.S. politics in the news just gives the illusion that such a system is actually much more common than it is.
 
But who, other than the U.S., Portugal, and most Anglo-Caribbean countries, truly has rigid, unassailable, solid two-party systems anymore. Everyone else has more than two viable parties, or an outright one-party, dominant party, party-of-power, or purely (or mostly) nonpartisan systems. True two-party are not really common anymore. The ubiquity of U.S. politics in the news just gives the illusion that such a system is actually much more common than it is.

that's true, but the forum, and many places in the internet being pretty US centric makes it appear to be everywhere. But even places that have multi party systems (like here) have recently shown signs of rigid block building where on many issues there are really only two blocks. That has happened in the past too, but usually the blocks shifted from issue to issue.
 
But who, other than the U.S., Portugal, and most Anglo-Caribbean countries, truly has rigid, unassailable, solid two-party systems anymore. Everyone else has more than two viable parties, or an outright one-party, dominant party, party-of-power, or purely (or mostly) nonpartisan systems. True two-party are not really common anymore. The ubiquity of U.S. politics in the news just gives the illusion that such a system is actually much more common than it is.
It's an English language forum, and the US, Australia, and the U.K. are all two-party systems. Makes sense that we'd focus on it.
 
As Dante (the pilgrim) enters Dante (the author)'s Inferno, the first people he meets are the uncommitted, who live this shadowy limbo existence, neither here nor there, because in life they wouldn't take a stand. Dante (the pilgrim) reacts with horror at these people who have effectively made themselves nobodies because Dante (the real life person) was deeply committed to political causes in his day.

Whoa, ya they don't even qualify for the 1st circle of hell.
They have to live in the hallway leading to Limbo. :goodjob:

No one remembers any of their names, and neither heaven nor hell want them.
Ouch.
 
It's an English language forum, and the US, Australia, and the U.K. are all two-party systems. Makes sense that we'd focus on it.
The U.K. is not really anymore, and nor is my home country of Canada (which I noticed you neglected to acknowledge as an English-speaking country - at least majority English-speaking) - both have had many elections where parties outside the biggest two have been spoiler parties, or minority governments have had to be shouldered by them, and provincial or devolved governments have been formed by such parties outright - not the traits of a true two-party system. Australia is a bit wonky, because technically there's three major parties, but two of them have been in a coalition for decades, but they're not actually bound into such by anything more than convention, in truth. New Zealand (also an English-speaking country) is also having greater frequency of spoiler parties and parties shouldering minority governments.
 
That's not really neutrality, as you have stances on all those things. They don't cancel each other out (well, maybe American politics believes this...)

But people perceive me as a neutral because of those stances since I can't neatly fall into either box.
 
Top Bottom