Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    we don't.
    
    we need to teach tolerance and leniency, and yielding the benefit of
    the doubt.  We need to teach less egocentricity and more respect for
    the feelings, thoughts, and worldviews of others.
    
    -Jody

	I too find it difficult to be a moderate in an increasingly black &
white world.  In fact, Liesl and I had a discussion that touched on this not
too long ago.

	When somebody goes hog wild in a conference with an out-of-balance
reply, I try to inject a little middle-of-the-road perspective, but I feel
that most of the time, both sides just see me as wishy-washy, or think I'm
defending the opposition.

	It happens here.  It happens in Digital.  It happens outside of work.


						--Doug

    But Jody, the problem with issues like abortion rights is that, as 'ren
    pointed out, full tolerance IS one of the two extremes. To be
    "moderate" on the issue is to be "less tolerant".
    
    Ray

     I live this. Being moderate mostly means that you take shit from both
    sides instead of one. The name of the game is polarization. It's very
    frustrating for reasonable people. It's the cat's miaow for radicals.
    
     The Doctah

    Re: .0
    
    Thanks, liesl... I've been thinking of entering a note much like yours,
    but you beat me to it.
    
    I truly don't know what to think about the subject... often, I think
    that being reasonable in hot debates is akin to fighting with one hand 
    tied behind my back.  Fanatics are able to focus their energy more
    intently because they don't have to waste precious brain-cycles
    THINKING about what the other folks in the debate have to say.  It's
    kinda like the difference between a 10-watt laser and a 10-watt light
    bulb -- the former is good for cutting and piercing, but bad at
    illuminating.  The opposite holds true for the latter 8-).
    
    I've often wondered if there was even a place for a moderate,
    reasonable person in today's society.  I certainly feel out of place!
    
    One image I get in my mind is that of "social Balkanization" where
    society divides up into factions, each of which have nothing good
    to say about the other.  And once one faction gains its independence,
    it further subdivides into more factions...
    
    Another completely different image was one that I thought of recently:
    at a recent science fiction convention (Readercon) I was watching a
    panel that was talking about social issues and where people get the
    positions that they do... and the image occurred to me of "galaxies of
    thought"; that is, given the entire universe of possibilities on HOW
    one can possibly think on a given subject, people's opinions tend to
    accrete around a small number of points in that universe.  That's why,
    f'rinstance, a subject as fiercely complex as abortion seems to have
    devolved into a pro-life side with its strident rhetoric, and a
    pro-choice side with ITS strident rhetoric.  Tell you the truth, while
    I definitely find myself closer to the pro-choice side, I can't help
    feeling that BOTH sides are missing the point somehow.  That's how I
    feel about a lot of issues; that ALL of the major factions in the
    debate are missing the point.
    
    Indeed, watching some of these debates is kinda like watching two
    drunks fighting; they may be mad as hell but neither is capable of
    landing a solid blow on the other, so they just flail about,
    accomplishing nothing but disturbing the peace...
    
    Doctah, you complained about something similar in another notesfile;
    the fact that people try to pin you down to one or another side, when
    in fact your real position is neither.  I feel the same way.  I may
    orbit a particular galaxy for a while, but I refuse to get sucked
    down 8-)
    
    [side note:  about ten seconds after I got the "galaxies of thought"
    image in my mind Chip Delaney, who was on the panel, articulated the
    same idea in exactly the same words.  Great minds think alike, no? 8-) ]
    
    So -- what's a reasonable person to do?  Go into hiding until the
    fanatics wear each other out?
    
    --jim
    

    
    I find this kind of ironic:  A Baptist church was protesting abortion
    on John Fitch Highway in Fitchburg last weekend.  They lined both
    sides of the road and all of them had signs.  One of the signs
    said something to the effect: "God forgives your mistakes".  I guess
    it implied the mistake of an unwanted pregnancy...  Doesn't it also
    mean he'd forgive a woman for having an abortion, if that is to be
    considered a sin?
                    
    	
    Sorry if this didn't really relate to this topic.
    
    Paul
    

    
    the best way I have found to be moderate ;) is to distance myself
    enough from what other people think to feel UNREQUIRED to convince them
    that I am right, and that they should see it my way.
    
    I have learned to bite my tongue after saying things once or twice, and
    just let it go.
    
    It's hard, and I haven't perfected the technique yet, but sometimes
    someone will draft a word or two back to me saying "yeah, that's it" or
    "wow, you really made me think".  Often I get lost in the flamage.  So
    be it.  As long as I'm not sacrificing my peace of mind, I can afford
    to convey my opinion and feelings and let others absorb or deflect as
    they see fit.
    
    -Jody

    > I have learned to bite my tongue after saying things once or twice, and
    > just let it go.
    
    That works in notesfiles and maybe even face-to-face, but what about
    making laws and policy?
    
    What I find interesting is how each side thinks the OTHER is being
    fanatical.  The moralists and fundamentalists say that they HAVE to be
    strident because they're up against the "well-organized gay and
    feminist lobbies".  Meanwhile, the gay and womens rights groups say
    they have to be strident because they're up against the "well-organized
    fundamentalist and moralist lobbies"
    
    What gives?  What's real?
    
    No answers here... just more confusion
    
    --jim
    

    
    My 2 cents:
    
    The way i see it is, what is right for one person may not be right for
    another. SO WHAT! Why can't human beings just live with it?? People in
    general are so hell bent on fighting their differences when it comes to 
    contreversial subjects, when all that we really need to do is worry
    about ourselves.
    
    As far as the abortion subject goes I'm for pro choice, I feel that it
    depends on the situation of the person who's invloved. Personally it's
    not for me, but I give that freedom to someone else who makes that
    choice, after they are the ones who must live with it, not I.
    
    (just had to get that out of my system)
    
    Sandy

    what about making laws and policy?
    
    If I have to scream and namecall to be heard, and even then it seems
    nobody is listening, why should I bother?
    
    I mean it's not like i don't vote, and it's not like I would not stand
    up in a town meeting and speak my mind, and I have certainly written
    letters of concern or clarification, but if I need to slander and
    yell and pull dirtier tricks then the opposition to be heard, am I
    mortgaging my moral belief system in order to force people to my will?
    
    Is it worth it to me?
    
    I don't know. 
    
    -Jody

But Jody, that's part of the problem. I like the idea of letting folks make
their own decisions, until that decision is to not allow me my decision. That's
where the problem lies. The fanatics *are* gaining control because they sway
people with shear volume and force. 

I'm taking a class on persuasion at school and what I'm learning is distressing
me. What the studies being done seem to show is that superficial factors and
repetition combined with a little authority and zeal will often work to 
persuade people.

As I see and hear more of the theories of persuasion I can see how Nazi Germany
happened and that it can happen anywhere. Normal, everyday people let this
happen to them. I want to be moderate, but I fear it's not enough to combat
the crazies. liesl

    
    nothing is enough to combat the crazies.
    
    as long as people listen to them and follow them, they will exist, and
    they will influence the world.  and many crazies are highly persuasive
    and charismatic....and they often are able to sway even the sanest of
    people....
    
    marketing sells, be it sense or nonsense.
    
    -Jody

>> I'm taking a class on persuasion at school and what I'm learning is distressing
>> me. What the studies being done seem to show is that superficial factors and
>> repetition combined with a little authority and zeal will often work to 
>> persuade people.
    
    Liesl,
    
    Can you recommend any books or articles on this topic?  It sounds very
    interesting.
    
    Dale

>I'm taking a class on persuasion at school and what I'm learning is distressing
>me. What the studies being done seem to show is that superficial factors and
>repetition combined with a little authority and zeal will often work to 
>persuade people.


	My take on this is that there are an awful lot of people who would 
	rather allow someone else to form their opinions for them, rather
	than take the time and the effort to make informed decisions themself.

	This depresses me.

	I think part of the answer is teaching people how to think, as opposed
	to what to think



	*A*

    I figure I have to respect somebody's right to their opinion
    or beliefs. It does not follow that I have to respect their 
    opinion or belief. 

    Too often I've seen people claim some sort of high moral
    ground for being moderate, impartial, when what they're
    actually doing is supporting the status quo.
    
    For example, remember after Marcos lost the election in the Phillipines
    he refused to recognize the validity of the election and fighting
    broke out in the streets?  Marcos's supporters were well-armed, had
    tanks, the people fighting against him had nothing, they were
    throwing rocks and bottles.  Reagan, president at the time, refused
    to take a position.  He said there was violence going on on both
    sides.  
    
    Sue
    
      

    
    re .16
    >>Reagan, president at the time, refused
    >>to take a position.  He said there was violence going on on both
    >>sides.  
      
    Sounds pretty moderate to me :-).  But seriously, it seems to me that
    we all see ourselves as "moderate," and everyone else (whether left or
    right of us) is "extreme."  I think of myself as quite moderate, though
    perhaps "slightly left of center."  And I think that's a good place to
    be.  Mark might see me as way left of center and himself right around
    the center, whereas, on some issues, I see him as pretty far right of   
    me.  It's all relative.  Mark, I used you as an example, because you
    talked about polarization a few replies back, but it struck me that you
    were doing it even as you called attention to it - all those people
    over there are polarizing things :-)  
    
    If only people could see the truth, they would understand and agree
    with my point of view.  I'm being a little glib here, but doesn't
    everyone feel this way at least some of the time?
    
    Justine         

>    If only people could see the truth, they would understand and agree
>    with my point of view.  I'm being a little glib here, but doesn't
>    everyone feel this way at least some of the time?

 Never! :-) :-)

actually it's completely obvious to me, if you would all just get with the (my)
program!!!

;->

Sara for World Dictator

( ^ unelectable; and if elected I'd be assassinated...)

    Justine, 
    that's exactly what I was thinking - most people claim that they're
    moderate because they can point to people further out as being radical.
    "I'm only for chopping off the heads of drug users. I'm a moderate.
    Now that Harry goes a little too far, he wants to put the heads
    on spikes and parade through town."
    
    Sue
    

well as someone who tries to call each case (and assess each individual) on
merits, while keeping true to my own principles, while not crucifying others on
my principles, I can say that I have often felt attacked by the people who
hold strong, but opposite, opinions on some topic I am trying to find a
reasonable path on.  Not often here in =wn=, but it has happened.  It happens a
LOT in the Box, for example, and it happens often enough in Real Life.

not everyone who walks a moderate path is trying to maintain a status quo. Some
of us just see that there can be more than one right side in an argument.  No
one who vehemently adheres to one side or another ever seems willing to concede
any point(s) to any other - as if it makes the merits of their own position less
certain.  It's this last, that I especially do not agree with.

Sara

>    Too often I've seen people claim some sort of high moral
>    ground for being moderate, impartial, when what they're
>    actually doing is supporting the status quo.

 Being moderate does not mean supporting the status quo, in my opinion. Quite
often the status quo is alot closer to one extreme than another. I also
believe that one can be moderate without being precisely between the two 
extremes. 

>He said there was violence going on on both sides.  

 You mean like David Dinkins and the recent friction between the blacks and jews
in Crown Heights?

Well, Sara, we must both be moderate!!! I agree with you. I can often (though
not always) see merits on both sides of an argument. It seems that those on
the extremes however have the "you're fer us or agin us" and any attempt to 
explain the other side's view lists you as a "traitor to the CAUSE". 

It's that all or nothing attitude I find so disturbing. liesl

    re: .22
     no, not like the violence in NYC, unless either one of the
    groups you mentioned had tanks and an army.
    
    Sue

re: "can we be moderate anymore"

The question, as I see it, is rather one of "is there any reason to be
moderate?"

The answer is no, for me.

I chose radicalness, because moderation is too much like compromise,
in which nothing ever gets done and everyone is a little unhappy.

D!

    Mark and Sara,
    
    The way the discussion in the note on male violence has gone
    seems to illustrate the difference in the way we look at
    being moderate.  I would agree with the both of you that there
    are plenty of grey areas in life.  I think I'm a moderate person
    who tries to treat other people fairly, and to consider each
    situation on its own merits.  But it sometimes seems to me
    that finding things to say on each side of an issue makes
    it appear as if both sides' case is the same.
    
    Sue    

    Personally, I'm moderate.  Politically, I'm to the left
    of center - how far to the left depends where your're standing.
    Financially, I'm conservative.  Ecologically, I'm conservative.
    On a very few social issues, I'm extremely to the left.
    
    Sue
    

	Me:	Give me $100

	You:	Are you crazy? No.

	Me:	OK, give me $75.

	You:	No way!

	Me:	Then give me $50.

	You:	No!

	Me:	Hey, I've moderated my position twice already! Why are you 
		being such an extremist?

				Tom_K

  Someone mentioned Nazi Germany, and the truth is, much of the way the
  fanatical leaders operate are modelled after the leadership of Nazi
  Germany.  Do not let people think for themselves, if you do, people
  question athority, they don't blindly follow. (Make it simple and 
  repeat it, repeat it, repeat it) 

  Blind obedience and ignorance is what the fanatical conservatives want.  
  Do what they say, so they can dictate policy. Become extremists so views
  of a minority can be inflicted on the majority. (the only way that can happen)

  Its a powerful force, can thinking moderates combat it?  Do we have to
  become extremists to combat the blind ignorance that is growing in this
  country?  (we certainly need to be less complacent)

  I think because the extreme conservatives are becomming more and more 
  empowered each year in this country, more and more moderates are being
  forced to become liberal extremists to protect their civil rights.

  I'm a moderate, I believe the conservatives have some good policies,
  (especially in the financial arena) and the liberals have also many
  good (and progressive) policies and views.

  I'm being pushed to the left, because of things like the supreme court
  being filled with conservatives (yes men to the president) and peoples
  rights no longer being protected. Instead we are having the morality of
  of a very far left segment of the population inflicted on us.

  If I need to become a radical liberal extremist to protect my rights
  than I will. So far, it looks like it may come down to that in the future.

  Q: Can we continue to be moderate.  
  A: Not if we wish to retain our civil rights.  Those that are now
     garanteed (or were) by the constitution.  

paul

	Funny, I feel the same way as .29, except in most places
	where .29 had conservative, I'd have put liberal. 

	Guess that shows that where you stand depends upon where you 
	sit....

					Tom_K

    Funny thing Tom, but like the author of .29 I see the conservatives
    as being the people who most want to straight jacket thinking and
    not allow a variety of opinions and ways of looking at the world. I'm
    a liberal *because* I think that providing for a variety of ways
    of looking at and dealing with the world is so important.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Bonnie,
    
    You are using the old (and true, I think) definition of the word
    liberal: broad-minded, tolerant.  Sometime during the past 30 years,
    the Republican Party hijacked this word by supplying this definition:
    
    SOMEONE WHO IS SOFT ON COMMUNISM!  AND WHO WANTS TO RAISE YOUR TAXES!!
    
    Of course, a Conservative is someone who worships dead radicals.
    
    JP

    thanks John

	Bonnie,

	You have the right to think that way. You also have the
	right to be wrong :-)

	Certainly we could argue forever, each citing examples of
	things that "liberals" or "conservatives" do or have done
	that curtail our rights. It would be an interesting discussion,
	but likely not conclusive or productive, and certainly a rathole
	with respect to this topic. 

	The point is, intelligent, thinking people have conflicting
	conclusions regarding who is more responsible for the erosion
	we see in the rights and freedoms we have. That the erosion
	itself is occurring is something I am confident we would all
	agree upon. 

					Tom_K

    yes, Tom, in re the errosion, I think we do agree.
    
    Bonnie

    Tom_K,

      I agree, our civil rights are eroding.  

      I also agree that suppression of rights has come from both liberal
  and conservative view points.  

      The liberals have succeeded in limiting the rights of gun owners.
  I feel this decision wasn't dictated by someones (or some religions)
  view of morality however, but rather on a set of facts and statistics.  

      The arguments against the freedom of choice however is based on 
  one groups view of morality.  (I tend to have my own views on this
  that aren't quite as liberal as all pro-choice views)

      The recent supreme court decision allowing the states to surpress
  how women may dress while performing (allowing states to require g-strings
  and pasties), or what women may wear on beaches ...  These are based on 
  a certain groups morality, not on anything else. 

      I try to be moderate and open minded and see the conservatives points
  of views as much as the liberals, but I resent the church trying to impose
  its views of morality our government and constitution.  (for instance 
  Cardinal Law trying to tell legislators how to vote)  I tend not to see
  a big "morality" influence from the liberal side.

  paul

    
    well the liberal progressive eastern establishment Hahvahd professorial
    cabal, NPR commentrices, editors and colunmnists in the liberal mouth
    piece newspapers are subtly or not so subtly telling us to believe 
    the pc gospel as revealed unto us, with those out of step reviled
    with cries of "sexist", "rassist", "neaderthal rablerouser", or 
    "kapitalist exploiter" if they dare question the epistle of the day
    as related in the days libero-progressive epistle..

    Rah, are you feeling all right?  You don't seem well.

>    if they dare question the epistle of the day
>    as related in the days libero-progressive epistle..

  Where does one find one of those libero-progressive epistles ...
  I could use some new readin'

>    well the liberal progressive eastern establishment Hahvahd professorial

  Boy, I'm really embarrassed to be associated with the likes of 
  people such as Hahvahd professors. (and editors and columnists too)
  God, I hope you don't associate us liberals with "doctah's" and 
  scientists too .. then I'd really be embarrased!  And God forbid
  we be from the north east! (except New Hampshire of course)

  I guess I need enlightenment.

  Oh where is Jimmy Swaggart when you need him!
  

    I think they just arrested 'ol Jimmy again.  Isn't
    it frightening to think what his parishioners must be
    like?  I doubt few of them are liberal.

    RE: .0	Hi liesle ...
    
    We seem to agree.  Your issues might be about a more feminine agenda
    while others of us are concerned about our 2nd amendment rights or
    possible restrictions on freedom of speech versus flag-burnings ...
    
    	But what do we have here today ?  A society in which we are all
    asked to pick our singular personal litmus test and align with those
    who fit our personal profile of Political Correct-ness.  As it stands
    some of us who are strongly pro-second-amendment have built a pattern
    of social interaction around Fish and Game and Rod and Gun clubs and
    weekend shooting Match events at ranges.  We do this in part because
    it is fun and supports our chosen life-styles and in part because we
    find we have to suffer the "in-your-face" style of activists who do
    not agree that we should be free and have the liberty to choose what
    we wish to do our free time and dollars ...
    
    	It becomes a "anti-anti" reality in which we consider those as
    our "enemies" any who oppose any aspect whatsoever of that one area
    we consider our personal litmus test for Political Correct-ness.
    
    	It doesn't matter that the neighbor or co-worker is in many ways
    a very fine and concerned citizen.  The question is ... "Where do
    they stand on 'X' ?"  It's like how fast you drive - If you are faster
    and pass us you are reckless and if you are slower you are blocking
    the public road and very likely a moving road hazard!
    
    ~--e--~  eagles wonder if there is a future for freedom and liberty