You explained your curiosity by pointing to other online commmunities and something about rigor. What's the connection? — frank

The specific thing I had in mind there was something I've seen repeated in trans communities (I'm nonbinary myself), where someone philosophically-minded objects to the social constructivism underlying the usual framing of trans identities on general philosophical principles, not in an attempt to attack trans people, and gets framed as being "conservative" (i.e. right-wing) because of that.

Another thing that I've seen a lot of recently is complaints that philosophy is all about old white men and not inclusive enough and so leans toward the right on account of that.

The actual thing that prompted me to start this thread was noticing a lot of people who seem very economically right-leaning on this forum, not to mention the frequent religious posters who I would at first guess think to be right-leaning too because of the association of the right and religion. (Although I have also been surprised in recent years to see people on the left associating atheism with the right wing, which seems really weird to me).

All of that together prompted me to wonder how people generally see philosophers/students/enthusiasts, and how they see themselves.

Moderation for the sake of moderation seems nonsensical. — Artemis

Even Aristotle himself made sure to point out that by advocating for the Golden Mean, he didn't mean the arithmetic mean, the exact halfway point between extremes; he just meant whatever point in between the extreme of excess and the extreme of deficiency is neither too much nor too little of whatever's in question.

I also consider myself a moderate centrist in the way I would frame the political spectrum, but I recognize that that is far to the left of most mainstream positions and so in a colloquial sense (I didn't mean this to be a thread about the nuances of political spectra, just in reference to the mainstream political conflict) I'm "radical left". To me, that just means mainstream politics has almost always been to the right of true centrism.

Hi Artemis!

I would caution you not to get too hung-up on the exceptions. No pun intended, but are you saying that most things in life are black and white? Which is more prevalent, extremes or the compromise between the two?

Practical examples of excess or extreme's in random order (the list is endless):

1. 9/11 (religious extremism)
2. obesity
3. alcoholism
4. Ancient Gladiator games
5. workaholic
6. greed
7. flogging
8. drawing and quartering

Practical examples of moderation/compromise (the list is endless):

1. speed limits
2. majority of public safety laws
3. hybrid cars
4. balanced diet
5. moderate exercise
6. work and play
7. all season tires
8. compromise/negotiations

In keeping with the Political theme relative to the OP, here in America we value compromise in our democratic process through the two party system.

I think what you are referring to is something along the lines of a false equivalence or a so-called fallacious argument thus: if one person saying that the sky is blue, while another claims that the sky is yellow they might conclude that the truth is that the sky is green. While green is the color created by combining blue and yellow, therefore being a compromise between the two positions—the sky is obviously not green, demonstrating that taking the middle ground of two positions does not always lead to the truth.

Thoughts?

In keeping with the Political theme relative to the OP, here in America we value compromise in our democratic process through the two party system. — 3017amen

Just an observation. If one party in a negotiation can always be assumed to compromise without fail and imposes no relevant sanctions when the other party fails to compromise, the other party can get more and more of what they want by being an obstinate, uncompromising git.

A: "We want to pay 2 dollars less tax"
B: "We want it to stay the same, how about 1 dollar less?"
A: "We want 2"
B: "We want 1 dollar less, how about 1.5 dollars less?"
A: "We want 2"
B: "We want 1.5 dollars less, how about 1.75 dollars less?"
A: "We want 2"
B: "We want 1.75 dollars less, how about 1.875 dollars less?"
...
A: "We want 2"
B: "We agree, good compromise."

Time passes.

B: "You know, last time, it was really unfair, you were an asshole, now we demand 1 dollar more tax. This is fair given your previous demand, which was unworkable."
A: "You know, now we want 2 extra dollars less tax, it should be as low as possible for our nation's prosperity. Be consistent and follow decorum, our noble nation demands no less!"
B: "Fuck, fine, we still want 1 dollar more tax, but how about 0.5 dollars more tax?"
A: "We want 3 dollars extra less tax."
B: "In the spirit of compromise, we accept."

Time passes, some levers have been pulled.

"We want to pay a further 2 dollars less tax"
"We still need tax, but our economy needs to reward consumer satisfying investment a lot at the minute, how about 1.5 further dollars less tax?"

Well, at least whoever's not sitting at the negotiating table has nothing but consistent interests...

All of that together prompted me to wonder how people generally see philosophers/students/enthusiasts, and how they see themselves. — Pfhorrest

I see.

Good point...I guess it would depend on what is meant by 'sanctions' and the like . In a democratic-capitalist society , the free market generally acts as its own sanctioning body or mechanism against most inequities. (Not that there aren't any exceptions, inequities, abuses, etc..)

What is it with you people and the fucking free market? Does it also heal leprosy and find my lost keys?

keeping with the Political theme relative to the OP, here in America we value compromise in our democratic process through the two party system. — 3017amen

Although it's worked out that way in practice in America, there's no law or clause in the constitution which demands a two party system.

There are a lot of reasons why the current set-up is actually bad for American politics and winds up not fully representing the American people. For example, there are many so-called Republican voters who are actual single-issue voters (usually pro-life voters) but who would be open to otherwise democratic ideas.

In fact, abortion is a good example of when there is no middle ground. For the religious person, life and the sanctity thereof begins at birth. I don't agree with the second part of that personally, but I understand why they can't compromise with my position.

free market generally acts as its own sanctioning body or mechanism against most inequities — 3017amen

You have not been paying attention.

It's like aspirin it's a miracle drug!!
LOL

there's no law or clause in the constitution which demands a two party system. — Artemis

America is actually weird in that we constitutionally have no concept of parties at all. The emergence of a "two-party system" is an inevitable consequence of our FPTP electoral system, but the actual letter of the law has no acknowledgement of political parties at all.

That's partly why our checks and balances have broken down. The Constitution pits the individuals in Congress against the President (and the Supreme Court pitted themselves against both), but nobody expected that a single group would coordinate the capture of multiple branches and make them act in concert, so there's no concept of pitting such groups against each other for checks and balances of political parties.

Recently a poll done by newsweek showed close to 80% of philosophy majors - higher than any other field - supported socialism, so I'd say at least for the "philosophy student" side of things we can draw our conclusions.