What kind of thinking believes in the great middle?

[ihopehefails]

The great middle believes that the opinions of all citizens must find universal agreement with each other and sees widely differentiating views as a threat to the political harmony it craves so much. What idea that defines the great middle isn't as important as the harmony it hopes to achieve by creating a great middle. It sees the individual's right to hold a unique opinion as a threat to that harmony by polarizing two sides of any argument so every effort is made to create conformity by replacing opposing positions with a single postition known as the great middle.

The arguments that the great middle believers often use are not a defense of their own ideas but explanations about why joining the great middle is beneficial (such as efficiency or not being the party of no) which implies that conformity and harmony are more important than the actual idea that defines the great middle itself. They expect all individuals to augment their own beliefs in order to reach compliance in order to create harmony.

What kind of thinking believes that everyone must have the same political opinion in the first place?

 

[slackjawed]

The great middle believes that the opinions of all citizens must find universal agreement with each other and sees widely differentiating views as a threat to the political harmony it craves so much. What idea that defines the great middle isn't as important as the harmony it hopes to achieve by creating a great middle. It sees the individual's right to hold a unique opinion as a threat to that harmony by polarizing two sides of any argument so every effort is made to create conformity by replacing opposing positions with a single postition known as the great middle.

The arguments that the great middle believers often use are not a defense of their own ideas but explanations about why joining the great middle is beneficial (such as efficiency or not being the party of no) which implies that conformity and harmony are more important than the actual idea that defines the great middle itself. They expect all individuals to augment their own beliefs in order to reach compliance in order to create harmony.

What kind of thinking believes that everyone must have the same political opinion in the first place?

I think that the kind of thinking that believes everyone must have the same opinion would be one of authoritarianism. I do not think it would achieve harmony. I see it as creating dissent that would be forced to fester under the surface and erupt in unpredictable ways.
I think that all should have the freedom to form their own opinion and to also express it. I also believe that individuals should not be required to augment or alter their own beliefs to create harmony. Reaching compliance is a term that in itself points to a authoritarian way of thinking. I would expect that if this were to be achieved, that the society in question would eventually become very stagnant and non-productive. For that reason I do not believe that joining the great middle to create harmony and conformity is beneficial to society.
I believe there is strength and vitality in a society of differing and opposing viewpoints and opinions.

 

[ihopehefails]

The great middle believes that the opinions of all citizens must find universal agreement with each other and sees widely differentiating views as a threat to the political harmony it craves so much. What idea that defines the great middle isn't as important as the harmony it hopes to achieve by creating a great middle. It sees the individual's right to hold a unique opinion as a threat to that harmony by polarizing two sides of any argument so every effort is made to create conformity by replacing opposing positions with a single postition known as the great middle.

The arguments that the great middle believers often use are not a defense of their own ideas but explanations about why joining the great middle is beneficial (such as efficiency or not being the party of no) which implies that conformity and harmony are more important than the actual idea that defines the great middle itself. They expect all individuals to augment their own beliefs in order to reach compliance in order to create harmony.

What kind of thinking believes that everyone must have the same political opinion in the first place?

I think that the kind of thinking that believes everyone must have the same opinion would be one of authoritarianism. I do not think it would achieve harmony. I see it as creating dissent that would be forced to fester under the surface and erupt in unpredictable ways.
I think that all should have the freedom to form their own opinion and to also express it. I also believe that individuals should not be required to augment or alter their own beliefs to create harmony. Reaching compliance is a term that in itself points to a authoritarian way of thinking. I would expect that if this were to be achieved, that the society in question would eventually become very stagnant and non-productive. For that reason I do not believe that joining the great middle to create harmony and conformity is beneficial to society.
I believe there is strength and vitality in a society of differing and opposing viewpoints and opinions.

Who is to say that the goal of authoritarian societies wasn't to produce "harmony" considering the fact that they were all sold as utopias?

Anyways, I'm glad I made myself clear because everyone seems to think being in the great middle is some kind of acheivment but its really saying that all our opinions should be the same opinion but why would people create arguments designed to get everyone in the great middle in the first place for reasons that have nothing to do with that position being superior?

 

[slackjawed]

The great middle believes that the opinions of all citizens must find universal agreement with each other and sees widely differentiating views as a threat to the political harmony it craves so much. What idea that defines the great middle isn't as important as the harmony it hopes to achieve by creating a great middle. It sees the individual's right to hold a unique opinion as a threat to that harmony by polarizing two sides of any argument so every effort is made to create conformity by replacing opposing positions with a single postition known as the great middle.

The arguments that the great middle believers often use are not a defense of their own ideas but explanations about why joining the great middle is beneficial (such as efficiency or not being the party of no) which implies that conformity and harmony are more important than the actual idea that defines the great middle itself. They expect all individuals to augment their own beliefs in order to reach compliance in order to create harmony.

What kind of thinking believes that everyone must have the same political opinion in the first place?

I think that the kind of thinking that believes everyone must have the same opinion would be one of authoritarianism. I do not think it would achieve harmony. I see it as creating dissent that would be forced to fester under the surface and erupt in unpredictable ways.
I think that all should have the freedom to form their own opinion and to also express it. I also believe that individuals should not be required to augment or alter their own beliefs to create harmony. Reaching compliance is a term that in itself points to a authoritarian way of thinking. I would expect that if this were to be achieved, that the society in question would eventually become very stagnant and non-productive. For that reason I do not believe that joining the great middle to create harmony and conformity is beneficial to society.
I believe there is strength and vitality in a society of differing and opposing viewpoints and opinions.

Who is to say that the goal of authoritarian societies wasn't to produce "harmony" considering the fact that they were all sold as utopias?

Anyways, I'm glad I made myself clear because everyone seems to think being in the great middle is some kind of acheivment but its really saying that all our opinions should be the same opinion but why would people create arguments designed to get everyone in the great middle in the first place for reasons that have nothing to do with that position being superior?

I think the goal of all authoritarian societies is to produce 'harmony', real or mandatory.
I, for one, and glad we have the freedom to express our own opinions.

 

[ihopehefails]

I think that the kind of thinking that believes everyone must have the same opinion would be one of authoritarianism. I do not think it would achieve harmony. I see it as creating dissent that would be forced to fester under the surface and erupt in unpredictable ways.
I think that all should have the freedom to form their own opinion and to also express it. I also believe that individuals should not be required to augment or alter their own beliefs to create harmony. Reaching compliance is a term that in itself points to a authoritarian way of thinking. I would expect that if this were to be achieved, that the society in question would eventually become very stagnant and non-productive. For that reason I do not believe that joining the great middle to create harmony and conformity is beneficial to society.
I believe there is strength and vitality in a society of differing and opposing viewpoints and opinions.

Who is to say that the goal of authoritarian societies wasn't to produce "harmony" considering the fact that they were all sold as utopias?

Anyways, I'm glad I made myself clear because everyone seems to think being in the great middle is some kind of acheivment but its really saying that all our opinions should be the same opinion but why would people create arguments designed to get everyone in the great middle in the first place for reasons that have nothing to do with that position being superior?

I think the goal of all authoritarian societies is to produce 'harmony', real or mandatory.
I, for one, and glad we have the freedom to express our own opinions.

I didn't say it was good harmony. I just said it was harmony of some kind.

 

[slackjawed]

My grandfather used to say that the middle was the lazy ground, that it takes work to actually form an opinion and courage to stand up for it.

 

[ihopehefails]

My grandfather used to say that the middle was the lazy ground, that it takes work to actually form an opinion and courage to stand up for it.

Have you ever thought that there was something more at work than just wanting to be in agreement or a part of the crowd when it comes to driving everyone into the great middle? Maybe some people like the idea that the nation is coming together in unison under a single political will and perhaps those people like the "coming together" part more than what is going to be put into action by the government. I'm suggesting that there is something more sinister going on just beneath the surface.