Moderates and Extremists

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Moderates and Extremists

Post by Oldjohnw »

When Teresa May said she would press the nuclear button first (the first British PM to make this proposal: previously it was always only in response to an aggressor) she was called a ‘moderate’. Peace campaigners are called ‘extremists’.

The same with climate activism.

Those who fight to keep the status quo and make minimal adjustment, no matter the consequences, are called moderates.Those who see the issue and campaign for a better world are called extremists.

Governments spend billions on WMD. Injured soldiers need charity.

Topsy turvey world.
Last edited by Oldjohnw on 1 Aug 2021, 11:26pm, edited 1 time in total.
John
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 8003
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by simonineaston »

There's a new twist. Up until now, any faction that prevailed and so were able to press for the adoption of a particular change in our life-style simply shifted the way we live. We adapted. Now the faction that prevents adequate reaction to climate change has resulted in our forthcoming annihilation. No adaption is possible. That's some difference!
Last edited by simonineaston on 2 Sep 2021, 8:07pm, edited 1 time in total.
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
gbnz
Posts: 2554
Joined: 13 Sep 2008, 10:38am

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by gbnz »

simonineaston wrote: 1 Aug 2021, 8:58pm has resulted in our forthcoming annihilation
Have to admit that I literally take a pragmatic viewpoint. As long as life continues for another 20-25 years, what happens thereafter won't effect me. Rather like the 800m deep glacier covering the place I currently live, 20000 years ago. Or that huge volcano several miles away, though it has been extinct for good few hundred million years now.

Suppose the fact that I live an exceptionally green lifestyle, is a bit of a nonsense :? (Nb. Probably due to being a tight sod, therefore reusing stuff, walking, drying clothes outside has always been the norm!)
LollyKat
Posts: 3250
Joined: 28 May 2011, 11:25pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by LollyKat »

It may not affect me either but it WILL affect my family. In fact it has started already - my grandson’s nursery in London was closed by last week’s flooding, and my son’s family had a tough time with poor air quality in Sydney during the forest fires last year.

:(
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by Jdsk »

Humans are not going to be annihilated in the foreseeable future. Global health and quality of life are increasing. Starvation is decreasing.

Whatever has happened in the past we have a choice about the future. Starting... now.

Jonathan
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by Psamathe »

Jdsk wrote: 2 Aug 2021, 10:05am Humans are not going to be annihilated in the foreseeable future. Global health and quality of life are increasing. Starvation is decreasing.
...
Whilst I agree the human race is not going to be annihilated soon, I do wonder what radical changes might happen - and I suspect quite a lot. As areas of the world become uninhabitable (e.g. temperature in some cities, our increasingly daft political system), so we'll see more migration from parts of the world likely moving to those parts of the world that are already trying to find means to keep migrants out by any means (legal and illegal).

Healthcare might be improving but I do wonder if in the UK we have a distorted view of access to that care. In many countries it seems to be somewhat restricted on the basis of ability to pay. I wonder if the NHS is at a turning point (which could probably have been said for the last 20 years!), but with record backlogs and waiting lists, GPs overloaded likely meaning those patients who can afford it will be moving to get their care without the wait through private means.

I'm uncertain if the "starving decreasing" will reverse as climate change takes more effect, weather patterns start changing, agriculture starts suffering and the western world closes its doors tighter to migration and is less prepared to help other countries (e.g. 0.7% dropping to 0.5%).

Ian
axel_knutt
Posts: 2881
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by axel_knutt »

The status quo always looks moderate compared to change, because that's what people are accustomed to.
Jdsk wrote: 2 Aug 2021, 10:05am Humans are not going to be annihilated in the foreseeable future. Global health and quality of life are increasing. Starvation is decreasing.

Whatever has happened in the past we have a choice about the future. Starting... now.

Jonathan
Diamond's Collapse is a catalogue of the civilisations that have collapsed through overconsumption of the resources they were dependent on. The only difference is that now, civilisation is global and not local or regional, and we are the first civilisation to have the knowledge to foresee what will happen if we don't act, hence the subtitle: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive.
At present, we're choosing to fail.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Collapse-Socie ... 890&sr=8-3
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by Jdsk »

axel_knutt wrote: 2 Aug 2021, 1:11pm The status quo always looks moderate compared to change, because that's what people are accustomed to.
Jdsk wrote: 2 Aug 2021, 10:05am Humans are not going to be annihilated in the foreseeable future. Global health and quality of life are increasing. Starvation is decreasing.

Whatever has happened in the past we have a choice about the future. Starting... now.
Diamond's Collapse is a catalogue of the civilisations that have collapsed through overconsumption of the resources they were dependent on. The only difference is that now, civilisation is global and not local or regional, and we are the first civilisation to have the knowledge to foresee what will happen if we don't act, hence the subtitle: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive.
At present, we're choosing to fail.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Collapse-Socie ... 890&sr=8-3
Definitely worth reading, although not in the same league as Guns, Germs and Steel.

But a major part of his thesis is that there were multiple factors in historical collapses, and that it wasn't all down to overconsumption of resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse: ... _societies

Yes, much of what happens next is our choice.

Jonathan
mumbojumbo
Posts: 1525
Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by mumbojumbo »

The term extremist has become pejorative, and is used to disarm those with unorthodox views on ideology etc .It appeals to the lazy and mindless as it requires no substantive counter-arguments. Moderate is similarly unhelpful as it is both a noun and a verb and an adjective.
User avatar
kylecycler
Posts: 1378
Joined: 12 Aug 2013, 4:09pm
Location: Kyle, Ayrshire

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by kylecycler »

mumbojumbo wrote: 2 Aug 2021, 6:48pm The term extremist has become pejorative, and is used to disarm those with unorthodox views on ideology etc .It appeals to the lazy and mindless as it requires no substantive counter-arguments. Moderate is similarly unhelpful as it is both a noun and a verb and an adjective.
Same applies to the term radical, I think - there are an awful lot of radicals who have been responsible for genuine and beneficial progress; in fact, without them there might never have been progress.
pwa
Posts: 17370
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by pwa »

The word "extremist", as most widely used, means someone whose views are so far to one end of the spectrum that most people consider them impossible to deal with. Typically it is used for people who kill random strangers in the name of religion. I have heard it used for climate emergency protestors, but much less frequently and generally for those whose protests take the form of an action so extreme that it is not supported by others within their movement. Take, for example, the climate change protestors who attempted to disrupt public transport, a method of getting about that mainstream climate change protestors would normally favour. An "extremist" in that context would be someone who goes a lot further than most folk think is reasonable. That is what makes a person "extremist": taking a position at a far edge of opinion, at some distance from the norm.

"Moderates" are generally people whose stance makes them people who can be reasoned with. They are people open to negotiation and compromise. One example is Irish Republicans in the mid to late 1990s. Those referred to as "moderate Irish Republicans" were those who were open to negotiation and compromise. When someone uses the word "moderate" in that way, they mean someone you can have a productive discussion with.
francovendee
Posts: 3148
Joined: 5 May 2009, 6:32am

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by francovendee »

Jdsk wrote: 2 Aug 2021, 10:05am Humans are not going to be annihilated in the foreseeable future. Global health and quality of life are increasing. Starvation is decreasing.

Whatever has happened in the past we have a choice about the future. Starting... now.

Jonathan
Not annihilated but maybe culled?
The pandemic has shown how vulnerable we are. If a new virus appears will we find a vaccine as quickly?
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by mattheus »

pwa wrote: 3 Aug 2021, 3:55am The word "extremist", as most widely used, means someone whose views are so far to one end of the spectrum that most people consider them impossible to deal with. Typically it is used for people who kill random strangers in the name of religion. I have heard it used for climate emergency protestors, but much less frequently and generally for those whose protests take the form of an action so extreme that it is not supported by others within their movement. Take, for example, the climate change protestors who attempted to disrupt public transport, a method of getting about that mainstream climate change protestors would normally favour. An "extremist" in that context would be someone who goes a lot further than most folk think is reasonable. That is what makes a person "extremist": taking a position at a far edge of opinion, at some distance from the norm.

"Moderates" are generally people whose stance makes them people who can be reasoned with. They are people open to negotiation and compromise. One example is Irish Republicans in the mid to late 1990s. Those referred to as "moderate Irish Republicans" were those who were open to negotiation and compromise. When someone uses the word "moderate" in that way, they mean someone you can have a productive discussion with.
Sounds a good summary.

(but isn't it absurd that a climate protestor delaying a train gets bracketed with someone killing random strangers who don't agree with their religion! )
biketips666
Posts: 217
Joined: 19 Jun 2021, 7:17pm

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by biketips666 »

Oldjohnw wrote: 1 Aug 2021, 8:34am When Teresa (sic) May said she would press the nuclear button first (the first British PM to make this proposal: previously it was always only in response to an aggressor) she was called a ‘moderate’.
I neither know, nor care, what Theresa May was "called" after she made that statement.

Her answer was to a loaded question from an opposition MP.
"SNP MP George Kerevan, asked: “Is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that can kill a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children?”"
source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... nt-renewal

George Kerevan's question doesn't distinguish between a nuclear attack on another nuclear state or a non-nuclear state. Because of course that would imply that things aren't always simple enough for the child's play of Prime Minister's Questions. Watching the video of that short exchange, I liked the simple, direct response Mrs May gives.

The question was parliamentary game playing, nothing more. The usual "have you stopped beating your wife" trap.

Her answer was the right one. There is no point spending £31 billion on a weapons system, and then saying it's not going to be used, if needed. That would be a stupid thing to do.

And of course her answer to some MP hoping to make political gains from his question is irrelevant. What matters more is any protocol agreed with other ministers, armed services chiefs, and the contents of the letters she wrote to the captains of the four nuclear submarines. I've always though it quaintly British that the definition of being cut off from government communication (for the captains of those subs) is being unable to get Radio 4 - "if you can't listen to the Archers, start armageddon".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

As far as I know the UK government has never specifically ruled out first use of nuclear weapons, at least against other nuclear states.
"The Government indicated this in a Minister’s statement prior to the 2003 Iraq War and still states that it has “ neither a ‘first use’ nor a ‘no first use’ policy”. "
source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-eu ... he-button/

It seems to me that the UK policy has been intentionally ambiguous.

However, you seem to assert that Theresa May's statement represents a change in policy. As you appear to have knowledge of this area, perhaps you could supply some more details which demonstrate that every past Prime Minister has ruled out first use.

Still, as you've raised the subject, and asserted something, however simply expressed, I thought it worth a little of my time looking into it:
"For their part, France and the United Kingdom have always been reluctant to adopt the NFU [No First Use] concept, although the sole purpose of their arsenals, given their limited capacity, can realistically only be that of deterrence. The UK has now said in its 2021 integrated defence review that it may in future review its commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear state if the future threat of WMD or emerging technologies “with a comparable impact” “makes this necessary”."
Source:https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.o ... ar-weapon/

The defence review referenced above is here: https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.o ... community/

The No First Use policy which the UK government seems to have committed to is No First Use against non-nuclear states.. The two references imply that the UK government might be changing that committment. The nature and number of the UKs nuclear weapons seem to me to make that a sensible policy, because:

1. The UK's nuclear stock isn't large enough to make it part of the Nash equilibrium of a MAD doctrine.

2. Therefore the UK's nuclear weapons are of more use in a tactical situation.

3. A tactical situation could well be a threat from a "terrorist" state.

Personally I think Trident is a bizarre way to spend money. The idea of spending money on something whose purpose is never to be used is almost Carrollian in its absurdity. But this does go some way to explain it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
Though as I said, I'm not sure if Nash applies to our nuclear weapons.

Of course the nature of nuclear war in the public imagination, as portrayed in On The Beach, War Games, The Day After (which I've seen), and Threads (which I haven't) seems to have given rise to the idea that if only one nuclear weapon is fired at first, then the world become a fireball, and all human life will immediately, or eventually, end. Nobody really knows, but there's enough very poor misinformation around for me to think that a good long term policy, at least for the UK, would be to abandon nuclear weapons, and be like Switzerland:

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/prepared-f ... all/995134

That way, we might survive somebody else's nuclear war, couldn't start one of our own, wouldn't be a nuclear target, and wouldn't kill anybody else with our nuclear weapons. All of which sound like a very good things.

Still, we've just left the EU, so have become a tiny bit more "like Switzerland".
Last edited by biketips666 on 3 Aug 2021, 2:28pm, edited 1 time in total.
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: Moderates and Extremists

Post by Oldjohnw »

As always, I am sure you are right.

You’ll understand if I don’t engage but in the month or so you have been here you’ve corrected the moderators, the administrators, you’ve told me, unasked, how to work out the cost per mile of owning my car which I know perfectly well, my spelling and now this,
John
Post Reply