Current Events > Why do you get blasted by both sides if you take the middle ground?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like in an argument or something

I mean, what's so wrong with being sensible and realizing that there's good and bad on both sides?
---

frozenshock posted...

Like in an argument or something

I mean, what's so wrong with being sensible and realizing that there's good and bad on both sides?

Give an example
---

I like being blasted from both sides if ya catch my drift
---

frozenshock posted...

Like in an argument or something

I mean, what's so wrong with being sensible and realizing that there's good and bad on both sides?

People that can't think beyond towing their line, hate reasonable people.
---

emblem boy posted...

frozenshock posted...

Like in an argument or something

I mean, what's so wrong with being sensible and realizing that there's good and bad on both sides?

Give an example

I don't know.

Like, something.
---

i only see people get blasted if it's regarding political parties

for a lot of political arguments, taking the middle ground is refusing to commit to a solution when one is absolutely necessary
---

Romulox28 posted...

for a lot of political arguments, taking the middle ground is refusing to commit to a solution when one is absolutely necessary

Or, coming up with a solution that is based on logic and facts and might agree with parts of what both sides are saying and disagree with part of what both sides are saying.
---

There are some arguments where I doubt many have an issue with there not being a final solution and talking about the pros and cons are fine.

There are a few others where it makes sense to actually have an opinion
---

Because everyone hates cowards.
---

Compromise is a dirty word these days.
---

#TeamCap
---

frozenshock posted...

Romulox28 posted...

for a lot of political arguments, taking the middle ground is refusing to commit to a solution when one is absolutely necessary

Or, coming up with a solution that is based on logic and facts and might agree with parts of what both sides are saying and disagree with part of what both sides are saying.

Ya, a compromise, which I'd say most arguments are solved by. Except for the ones where the 2 sides are fundamentally different
---

frozenshock posted...

Or, coming up with a solution that is based on logic and facts and might agree with parts of what both sides are saying and disagree with part of what both sides are saying.

Republicans: "Gay people are an abomination!"
Democrats: "Gay people are people!"
You: "Let's find a middle ground, guys! Iamverysmart!"
---

Howl posted...

Because everyone hates cowards.

Because defining your entire belief system around whichever particular hivemind you belong to is the brave way.
---

frozenshock posted...

Romulox28 posted...

for a lot of political arguments, taking the middle ground is refusing to commit to a solution when one is absolutely necessary

Or, coming up with a solution that is based on logic and facts and might agree with parts of what both sides are saying and disagree with part of what both sides are saying.

there are a lot of situations though where compromise is not really an option and will not satisfy either party
---

The middle ground isn't always reasonable, especially when one side is correct and the other isn't.
---

Howl posted...

Because everyone hates cowards.

Yeah. These people have an opinion and don't want to share it because they're afraid of backlash. Not choosing to take a side is not the same as neutrality, because our inaction maintains the status quo and the status quo typically clearly supports one side over another. So in 'doing nothing' you are still taking a side.

Also, depending on the situation it can look like equating the two sides to one another, which is often a blatant false equivalence. News media, and one in particular, is often guilty of this, and basically does it every time they stage a fight between panelists on their air.

And sometimes there is no middle ground. There are an increasing number of examples of this.

So there are plenty of reasons to drag people for this kind of cowardice.
---

Because in our current political climate, with biased news media and viral sharing of false information on social media, people see the other side as "the enemy" and any attempts to collaborate or agree with "the enemy", no matter how little, is treason and shouldn't be considered.

Nevermind the fact that we teach children to compromise, not fight, from an early age. Compromise and teamwork are a foundation of the values of our current society, since no two people think exactly the same. But now that the opposing side is "the enemy", people feel like they are in an ideological war and any move towards the center means the other side wins.

Yes, there are certain topics where you can't just take the middle ground (I saw someone make the extreme example of the Holocaust where you can't really compromise when the options are murder people or not murder people). But people treat every single issue now like a life-or-death situation when it really isn't. There is still lots of room to compromise if people stop vilifying the other side.
---

You need a basis on which to argue that the two sides are equally correct. Just because it sounds sensible doesn't mean it's true.

Also, the middle ground is entirely relative. The middle ground in the US is different from the middle ground in, say, France. The middle ground in 2017 is not the middle ground of 1967. It's hard to have a coherent worldview while defining yourself entirely in relation to others, and what you aren't.
---

Don't be a boogie2988.
---

Because most of the time the people that pat themselves on the back for not picking a side when there are only two options presented aren't doing so because they've found a reasonable middle ground, they're only doing it because of a smug sense of false superiority for staying out of the discussion.
---

It also assumes some kind of compromise is politically viable, which just ignores the past twenty years of partisan politics in this country in favor of building castles in the sky. It's one thing to articulate distrust and/or sympathy with aspects of the options, but one still has to choose their priorities and act on them. These people waste everyone's time talking about having it both ways and doing nothing.
---

COVxy posted...

The middle ground isn't always reasonable, especially when one side is correct and the other isn't.

Which doesn't really matter when both sides have about equivalent power. Sometimes, you have to give concessions or compromise, even when you know the other side is wrong, to gradually make the changes you want. That requires some middle ground thinking.
---

Antifar posted...

You need a basis on which to argue that the two sides are equally correct. Just because it sounds sensible doesn't mean it's true.

I disagree with this. Sometimes, the middle ground may include variables the neither side considered because they don't fall in line with their way of thinking.

For example, in my state, one of the bigger issues is funding for public education vs. privatizing it for charter schools. One group wants more funding for public education while the other wants more funding for charter schools.

Regardless of how "right" people think one side is over the other, there are talks of certain voucher programs that can solve a lot of problems and allow public schools and charter schools to co-exist.

The problem is that one group will never even consider vouchers because of the racial inequality they've resulted in the past. But just because the vouchers were ineffectively applied historically, doesn't mean we can't try using them in different ways that would work better.

Meanwhile, the other side wants vouchers to be used exclusively, but wants the eradication of public schools completely, not understanding that rural communities would be screwed if we switched over to a charter-school only system, vouchers or no vouchers.

But no one is willing to budge from their stance at all, which is why our state is heading deeper into the crapper because no one can compromise so no action is being taken and meanwhile education funding is the worst it has ever been.
---

Zanzenburger posted...

The problem is that one group will never even consider vouchers because of the racial inequality they've resulted in the past. But just because the vouchers were ineffectively applied historically, doesn't mean we can't try using them in different ways that would work better.

Meanwhile, the other side wants vouchers to be used exclusively, but wants the eradication of public schools completely, not understanding that rural communities would be screwed if we switched over to a charter-school only system, vouchers or no vouchers.

But no one is willing to budge from their stance at all, which is why our state is heading deeper into the crapper because no one can compromise so no action is being taken and meanwhile education funding is the worst it has ever been.

We'll take your hypothetical, because I don't think this is an example where compromise might not be viable given the context of the past. What reason does the first group have to believe the second group won't re-create the same inequalities that plagued the first experiment with vouchers, when the redlining and division of society between now and then remains unchanged. Were you a member of the first of the first group, how would you evaluate a push to decrease public funding in favor of a voucher system?
---