Why people dislike "neutrals"

[Doc. Volt 2,561]

what?? i am in the red cross! i am TOTALLY  a neutral person!

[KoGy 187]

what?? i am in the red cross! i am TOTALLY  a neutral person!

Why the NATO flag?

 

They are anything but neutral.

[Doc. Volt 2,561]

@@KoGy,

 

esactelly... it is called "irony" XD

 

i am in the red cross, but i was in the army before.. and the Nato flag will forever wave in my front lawn

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

Ehhh, You have a point, I went a bit too far. Yes, I am generally harsh about any kind of fanatic who sees world in simple "black and white" colours as You've pointed it out. My bad. 

 

And You have a point in last sentence You've written as well, sorry. 

 

No need to apologize! It's something everyone does, myself included. Humans just naturally have a hard time understanding that their way of seeing things isn't the only way.

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

 

 

You may choose to leave their house that way, but other ponies won't, I know I wouldn't.

Why does that happen? Because people care for each other... politics is part of that sometimes... You can't say you don't care about politics because politics makes up the system that handles how much money society gives you, it handles your general welfare, the dams that are built to protect your and your neighbours houses.

People say they "don't care" about politics and only think of it when they are going to elect someone. THAT IS TOTTALY WRONG. When i see 20% of the populus vote "Blank" in elections i see 20% of my fellow countrymen handling their right to choose the way the system works to the other 80% that might not exactly be that smart. Instead of voting blank we should vote smart or at least vote the ones that we think are most likely to do something better for society. They don't have to be perfect... but at least its better than watching people voting Neo-Nazi groups.

I feel strongly about many such things, but I will not bother to try to convince people. I'm a little worried if you can possibly be neutral with the way things are now, but it's up to you.

 

 

 SO TOTTALY AGREE WITH THIS!!!

 

I strongly disagree with whoever says remaining neutral equivalates to not taking a stance. It's really a matter of circumstance, but who says there HAS to be a "right" side? Sometimes being neutral and not siding with either faction (when both are WRONG) is just as significant as picking an opinion.

That's not exactly being neutral... that's just being against everyone and provides for necessary and productive conflict aka debate of opinions. I am really saying YES to this and i myself wanted to point what you said. However not caring AT ALL is no good...

 

You're also only a parasite if your life is hurting someone else. If you do your job, whatever function that's fulfilling, then you're contributing.

That's what we call "Symbiote". Parasite is not something bad... it's necessary for balance in nature however a parasitic human that is hurtful to others is something NONE wants.

[GONEFOREVER 518]

People don't like neutrals the same way they don't like people who oppose their views. Its just that they generally disagree with those who don't share their views.

[Shanks 10,816]

I used to strongly dislike them because I viewed them as petty and selfish and while there a lot of them that are as I start to see the ridiculous amount of corruption in the system and the complete and utter hypocrisy of the both the mainstream right and left I am starting to understand more and more why people don't want any part of it. Depite this understanding though I still don't agree with remaining neutral on everything. The unforunate truth is that while you may not take an interest in politics it will always take an interest in you, don't get me wrong I am not one of those people that buys into this lesser evil bullcrap but there are other choices aside from the two party duopoly. Yes third parties and write in candidates are at a disadvantage but voting in and of itself isn't the only thing people can do, protesting and even civil disobedience are sometimes necessary to effect change.

[KoGy 187]

Thank you for being so understanding everypony.

It was interesting to read your opinions about the subject.

[Invincible 2,091]

Oh, my intentions in an earlier post was not to call for being neutral towards anything and everything. It was to present my case at neutrality being a valid option.

 

To illustrate, i'll share some personal examples if you care to read:

 

In terms of religion -

Though being raised to a theistic family, i could never fathom most of the theistic concepts. It just never clicked for me. I've never called for anarchy or disorder or shoved my ideas forcefully upon anyone. I went to a religious convention once, where rather charismatic debaters tried to convince me of their position - i didn't came in order to interrupt it or undermine their ideas, but genuinely was just curious. I respect my family's tradition and worldviews even though i'm an atheist. Theism, or religion is one side, Anti-theism (the stance of actively fighting against religious ideas) is one. I don't pick either because i have good reasons not to. I see the validity in some of religion's aspects, but not all of them. I just can't be a part of it, so i just to abstain it in a benign way.

 

In terms of politics -

This is where it gets a bit tricky. See, every government is different, and while i don't wish to draw any parallels between mine and another's, here's what i think. I don't think you have to eschew voting and get in the way of your country, but i think it's up to the citizens' to question and be wary of their leaders. After all, in democracy, the people you elect and invest power in are just that - people. They aren't machines incapable of corruption. Like you they have needs, desires and agendas which can interfere with their judgement. True, you won't always get your way, and when voting comes you may not have that perfect candidate or set of candidates you wish to invest power in, but there are some whose campaign you can compromise with, and if you strongly disagree with everyone to the point of bile raising in your throat, you can, and should abstain. Personally? My political view's are MOSTLY (~70%) aligned with my country's current dominant coalition and parties. I don't agree and in fact strongly disagree the judgement of most of their agendas, but i can tolerate most of them. In the previous election i abstained (dunno how it's in your country, but here you just slip a blank note indicating you are unwilling to commit to any candidate) because i felt i could not support any faction and i would simply be screwed over anyway. 

 

I'm sorry for this wall of text, but i felt it was necessary to extrapolate on my views.

[Adachi 772]

I stay out of politics. They're all working for the same team in the end anyway. If I do take a stance, it'll be for something I care about, and CAN change. I believe that the richer countries should do more to help the lesser developed countries. They seem to be exploited, and the little help they do get involves trying to change their culture. I want to make a difference, but I will never join Peace Corps because they are military, and don't care about the safety of their volunteers, and I would say more, but this isn't the debate pit, so I'll stop.

 

I'm also inclined to believe that there will always be some darkness. I don't think it's as simple as there suddenly being no more darkness, no more bad things happening. We learn and grow from our misfortunes, if we have everything easy, we will stop growing, and maybe even end up taking certain things for granted without misfortunes there to remind us why we should be grateful.

[ChoroChii 284]

When it comes to politics, every vote counts. The reason we're at the point where we have to choose the less of two evils is because of the neutrals and haters thinking we're screwed either way but in reality, it's because they don't vote that we're screwed and are just allowing worst people to come in.

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,302]

Somewhere, somehow, somebody must have kicked you around some an implied obligation to contribute to society was brought into the topic.  I, for one, "contribute" to society by not purposely bringing about its downfall.  By not taking steps to develop Skynet.  And by not going around murdering people I don't like (thus far).  I may not be neutral on major issues, but I don't feel that it is my duty as a citizen (of either my country or of planet Earth) to contribute in some significant, relatively far-reaching way.  Or in such a way measuring greater in significance than, say, making a forum post (like this one).  I don't go out of my way to harm or hinder others, but neither am I actively lending a hand in the forward progression of the human race.  If, indeed, we be moving forward.  I contribute to my family in what ways I can, and in their / our day-to-day lives.  I DO care about issues.  But my situation is such that having a more direct, active, or beneficial part in society as a whole simply is not feasible.  The types of minds I would most seek to change (thus effecting some relatively miniscule improvement) are the closed ones.  But I don't necessarily buy into this whole "thou must contribute" stance.  Nor, I think, do many many many other people.  So far as I am aware, we do not live on a nigh-Utopian Star Trek-like Earth.  Where concepts like "money" are a discarded relic of the past.  Call me when the Vulcans land (if I'm still alive), and we'll see.  Considering how things are right now, I don't particularly like playing the part of the ant storming a skyscraper.

[KoGy 187]

@,

I respect your opinion but disagree.

There is no good alternative to vote for for me.

If I don't vote on anybody. I am clean.

 

[Frith is Magick 1,471]

It depends on the type of neutrality. There is neutrality in the sense that you have your own stance on issues and sense of conviction, it just doesn't align with any "side" and avoids getting involved in conflicts. I respect that kind of neutrality because it demonstrates careful thinking rather than accepting a polar opinion and trying to justify it. There is also weak neutrality, not having any real beliefs or opinions, that is the type of neutrality that people don't like.

 

As for conversion, there is a line between "I'm right, your wrong, you have to change" and debate for the sake of mutual learning and growth (arguing your own beliefs, but also accepting others). Some people (usually the more extreme ones) will legitimately want to change you while others are in it for the debate.

 

To answer the original question, people may not like neutrals because it demonstrates a lack of conviction, especially if those people have strong/extreme convictions.

[Washougal_Otaku 1,020]

I feel the same way about the neutrality thing for some stuff, but others I think are important to have a solid opinion on.  Though when you think about it, what defines neutrality...?

 

For example, something that I'm neutral on is gay marriage.  Because of my opinion on homosexuality, I don't think gays should marry because it's a slap in the face to what nature intended for our bodies, whether made by evolution or a god.  However, on account of opinions being simply opinions, there are those that disagree with me on that last point, and I respect that.  Since they have that opinion and live how they want to live, it does seem silly to make this type of restriction while giving them other rights that are typically meant for legitimate married couples.  If gay marriage happens, it happens.  I just hope that it done about in a legal and respectful manner.  But let's face it, the manner in which it started was anything BUT legal and respectful.  ...perhaps this is a case of the ends justifies the means?

 

With that statement on my stance, there have been many gay-right supporters who have belittled me for having ANY degree of opposition.  It doesn't matter that I say it's my opinion and it has no right to dictate how others live; all that they focus on is "I oppose gay marriage" and they react like I'm an evil, hate-mongering warlord.

 

Another subject is gun control.  I favor the Second Amendment; American citizens SHOULD have the right to own guns, but is it that black and white?  No, I don't think so.  I see owning a gun as being similar to owning a car; it can be beneficial, but you need to know what you're doing AND be responsible with it.  With this in mind, I do think we need to do more to restrict gun access to the mentally unstable, to those with criminal backgrounds, etc.  I don't think the rights should be taken away from people simply because of where they live, or some other nonsensical "stat" that a paranoid liberal wants to throw out there.

 

Most gun right supporters that I've personally share these thoughts with agree with me wholeheartedly, and the few that don't only feel that way because in some areas, there are already a great deal of such precautions and requirements.  Many gun control supporters that I've talked with agree with much of what I'm saying, too.  Those that don't (and I'm not kidding on this) have gone as far as to accuse me of being a drunk, trigger-happy, NRA-supporting hillbilly that should be imprisoned simply if I go near a gun.

 

Neutrality is open to interpretation, which can unfortunately be reinterpreted as "the other side of the debate."

[Static Electricity 729]

I find it best to assume both sides are wrong, and only to concede to beliefs that have been proven to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

I find it best to assume both sides are wrong, and only to concede to beliefs that have been proven to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

 

I'm not sure to what extent (if any) that was meant hyperbolically, but you make a good point, and you make it fairly well. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, in which case you could still be making a good point. But anyway....

 

It is definitely valuable to question both (or all, in the case of more than two) sides, including your own. Because let's be honest, no one's got all the answers. Although I will say there's value in believing things even before they've been proven; it's just important not to delude yourself to believe they have been proven when they really haven't.

 

I really like that you said "true beyond reasonable doubt" and not just "true beyond doubt", because there's really no way to prove anything absolutely without first having absolute knowledge of everything. But of course, what "beyond reasonable doubt" means will differ from person to person, so I don't really know where I was planning to go with this sentence. But there's that.

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

There is no good alternative to vote for for me. If I don't vote on anybody. I am clean.

No you're just refusing responsibilities. A responsible citizen doesn't throw anything away. I am not telling you or anyone to make a revolution but this attitude of neutral not voting for anything is just giving up, or it is playing in the "i don't care" category ((in which it has already been said that if you don't decide for the society you are in the others will decide for you so you might not like what you get and blame the others but you are responsible for it as well...)), or it is playing on some sort of hidden superiority that since i didn't make a mistake i was right! No... you just were a coward not to make the choice... ((not speaking to you in specific)).

 

No side can ever be 100% wrong... if you're looking for an ideal party to side with there is none. If you wish to you may oppose both and create some productive conflict.

 

With this in mind, I do think we need to do more to restrict gun access to the mentally unstable, to those with criminal backgrounds, etc.

You should tell that to people who carry their AK-47-like guns in public or publicly show their guns at places. No human being should show their gun unless being directly threatened by someone else. The view of a gun can shut down mouths, shift the course of debates, e.t.c. Why? Because the gun inspires fear... and if someone views you carrying it they definately ain't gonna act too friendly with you...

 

Ever read Maciabelli? Or however its spelled... he believed it's better to be feared than loved. If you are of the ones that believe in fear inspiring respect then you're inspiring the wrong kind of respect.

I find it best to assume both sides are wrong, and only to concede to beliefs that have been proven to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

With notions such as "Perception" it is hard to actually have someone be entirely wrong. Especially when there is no black and white as we said.

 

There is also weak neutrality, not having any real beliefs or opinions, that is the type of neutrality that people don't like.

That is what is being promoted amongst our youth these days. People go to the age of being able to vote and know JACK SHIT about the people they are going to vote. Why? Because all their surroundings are telling them either "Study/Yolo/Swag" or don't want them to deal with that at all. Those people are easy to be manipulated by political forces and end up voting for the worst party...

 

 

As for conversion, there is a line between "I'm right, your wrong, you have to change" and debate for the sake of mutual learning and growth (arguing your own beliefs, but also accepting others). Some people (usually the more extreme ones) will legitimately want to change you while others are in it for the debate.

In science there is no actual neutrality... scientists tend to accept whichever theory brings them closer to the truth even though it might not be 100% true. Neutrals would go to the point of either saying "We continue until we find the truth." or "We stop because we're never gonna find it so what's the point?". As you said neutrality has many interpretations and convictionless and purposeless people are actually a negative influence to humanity.

 

 

But my situation is such that having a more direct, active, or beneficial part in society as a whole simply is not feasible. 

Not feasible... aka "Impossible" should be completely deleted for all sane purposes out of everyone's dictionary at some subjects. In any case none is forcing you to put your vote somewhere. There isn't an 100% true party or 100% correct or whatever... There is going to be a time where you have to compromise. However none is forcing you to choose either... we simply request that you think a bit harder about where you want to put your vote. Nothing more... nothing less.

 

it's because they don't vote that we're screwed and are just allowing worst people to come in.

As i said i'd be happy if those "neutrals" were politically active even if they didn't vote. It's worse when people do vote but are politically active only once per 1/4 years...

Edited June 13, 2014 by nioniosbbbb

[Arctic Night 884]

I agree with everyone that all opinions are up for discussion, however this does not mean that all positions are equally valid in the end. In many areas, especially a nation's economy, there are some things that really just don't work.

 

Another example is the anti-vaccine crowd, whose beliefs can easily be crushed by anyone that passed high school chemistry.

When it comes to politics, every vote counts. The reason we're at the point where we have to choose the less of two evils is because of the neutrals and haters thinking we're screwed either way but in reality, it's because they don't vote that we're screwed and are just allowing worst people to come in.

There is a great potential among the large number of people that don't vote.

I find it best to assume both sides are wrong, and only to concede to beliefs that have been proven to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

That's the problem in a nutshell. There are not just two sides.

[Static Electricity 729]

With notions such as "Perception" it is hard to actually have someone be entirely wrong. Especially when there is no black and white as we said.

 

Hence "beyond reasonable doubt". Basically, "wrong until proven otherwise".

 

That's the problem in a nutshell. There are not just two sides.

 

Eh, you get the basic idea behind it. You can substitute both with however many groups/ideologies there are.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Static Electricity

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

 

 

Hence "beyond reasonable doubt". Basically, "wrong until proven otherwise".

Doesn't it go the other way? "Innocent until proven otherwise?" In any case everyone could present a valid point to an extent. 

[Rari-T 9]

I think people dislike neautrals because they want people to agree with them and them only. Something like abortion i don't even touch with a power pole because that is a minefield inside a ww2 warzone. Most stuff i usually like to here both sides arguments before making a judgement. But i kinda like neutrals. They're my kind of people.

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

 

 

I think people dislike neautrals because they want people to agree with them and them only.

Actually no... and the subject you are mentioning has some neutrals or even some extremists more so because people don't know and because ethics are REALLY REALLY REALLY complicated. It's fine if you consider yourself a neutral because you haven't decided yet or because you're patient in making decisions but actively abstaining from every kind of choice is a sign of irresponsibility that is harmful for society. 

[Static Electricity 729]

Doesn't it go the other way? "Innocent until proven otherwise?" In any case everyone could present a valid point to an extent. 

 

That's the way it is in the legal system. I am a person, not a legal system :B

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

That's the way it is in the legal system. I am a person, not a legal system :B

Well if you want my opinion proving something is valid/exists is equally important as proving something is invalid/doesn't exist. Thus you cannot be certain abou the wrongness of something and therefore have a solidified opinion upon it. 

 

I will use the lousiest of examples but bear with me... in the Harry Potter books Hermione was asked to prove that the "Stone of Ressurection" doesn't exist... and answered her own question/reasoning with "I can't be expected to pick up every stone and test that?"

 

There's a difference between neutrality and "Not enough Data Available". Socrates once said "I know one thing, i know nothing..." that isn't by definition neutrality... it's seeking to find the truth by refusing to acknowledge anything/most things as invalid until it is found. However what happens today is people taking the easy way/cowards way out by saying "I won't even try and find the truth because it's too hard... i'll simply remain "Neutral"."