[wredcoll]

You say this like you think you're making some kind of clever point.

Just to pick one easy example, the confederate states of america employed agents to advocate for peace treaties and cease fires during the civil war. By all reasonable classifications, they were "enemy agents trying to weaken our resolve".

Would some people have benefitted from a peace treaty? Of course. Would everyone have benefitted equally? Obviously not.

[carlosjobim]

Exactly, I'm with you. People who claim to "advocate for moderation" or for "depolarization" are always enemy agents or AI bots who get paid a salary from the enemy to try to weaken us. We must stand firm in our psychological self defence, and only listen to verified and trusted sources and people. We have to diligently prune our friend groups and family from those who have been infected with wrongthink and started working for the enemy. They get together when we think they're at the dentist to plot against us, it could even be your own spouse!

[wredcoll]

The point I'm making, which you are either unable or unwilling to grasp, is that being moderate is not the same thing as being correct. Sometimes the right position is an extreme one. Fighting hitler is a pretty easy example.

There's a particularly annoying form of cowardice that involves refusing to take a position and then pretending this is some kind of moral high ground.

[carlosjobim]

Who has argued that taking the middle position is correct? Taking in information from differing sources is on the other hand correct, because then you can make an informed decision on your own position.

Believing that your position or your side's position is always correct and not bothering with other perspectives is the first step to becoming ignorant.

The second step is to believe that everybody who isn't explicitly of the same opinion as you must be some kind of shill or agent or infiltrator is the second step.

[const_cast]

Jesus Christ, the sarcasm is thick. You even used the word "wrongthink".

It's not a conspiracy or anything like you're describing, it's that moderate politics is often just... wrong. Believe it or not, there's sometimes a right answer, and a wrong answer. And if you go "in the middle" you end up being wrong.

I mean, take a small gander a history. There's usually a right answer... and a wrong one. Typically, in the moment, the people don't know that. So some construct middle-ground that they believe seems reasonable. Then, we look back on it, and say "what the fuck were you thinking". And that's how we end up with bullshit like the 3/5ths compromise. Seriously, what the fuck was that?

Point being, simply being moderate or depolarized doesn't save you. Consider that, in some countries right now, moderate positions are pro-genocide. Because that's how far gone the politics in said country are.

[wredcoll]

I don't think anyone thought the 3/5s compromise was morally correct, people either didn't care or were willing to live with it in pursuit of another goal.

Also, as you said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation there's a name for it!

[const_cast]

> I don't think anyone thought the 3/5s compromise was morally correct

I disagree, they absolutely thought it was morally correct because morals progress throughout history.

What I think people miss is that slavers were evil people doing evil things. No, they were normal people doing normal things. And that's much more scary.