Why people dislike "neutrals"

[Static Electricity 729]

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 am not certain everything is wrong, I merely do not assume it is correct. I probably should have specified that.

[Frith is Magick 1,471]

 

 

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

I wouldn't call that a problem; having more "sides" is better. It increases the odds of there being a stance you agree with and implies that in absence of a good option, people created a side instead of supporting the lesser of two evils.

 

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.

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...

There is more to being politically active than voting. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, then lobby against any points you disagree with. Additionally you can start your own party. I don't know about the U.S. but in Canada we have multiple small (admittedly largely unknown) parties other than the 4 main ones.

 

I've said this already, but it bears repeating: there is being on your own side and not supporting others out of personal conviction and being careful, then there is just being flat out apathetic and lazy. If you're the former, I'll debate with you for the sake of working together to seek a better answer, but it's the latter that contribute nothing, and ultimately the apathetic have no right to complain.

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,302]

I think all the hubbub is making me feel "neutral" towards this thread lol.  I shall make a strategic retreat to the Rainbow Dash fan club...

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

I wouldn't call that a problem; having more "sides" is better. It increases the odds of there being a stance you agree with and implies that in absence of a good option, people created a side instead of supporting the lesser of two evils.There is more to being politically active than voting. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, then lobby against any points you disagree with. Additionally you can start your own party. I don't know about the U.S. but in Canada we have multiple small (admittedly largely unknown) parties other than the 4 main ones.

 

I've said this already, but it bears repeating: there is being on your own side and not supporting others out of personal conviction and being careful, then there is just being flat out apathetic and lazy. If you're the former, I'll debate with you for the sake of working together to seek a better answer, but it's the latter that contribute nothing, and ultimately the apathetic have no right to complain.

About being politically active i meant the same thing.

[KoGy 187]

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.

Yeah. For me it's not worth to say what I have in mind many times.

I prefer people being happy for each other instead of arguing about stuff and being divided.

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

@@KoGy,Oh oh oh! I see... it's not that you dislike taking a stance or prefer being neutral. It's that you do not like taking the conflict of beliefs to the extreme of having a fight about beliefs. I understand... besides conflict overall if bridled can result to positive outcomes. However should you take the conflict of ideas and beliefs too far you are losing points for your arguement and you are also losing listeners. I understand... some people prefer a "calmer" approach on debates. Correct me if i am wrong but i believe you would talk about abortion and other political issues if you expected the other side to not have any grudges about it later if your opinion differed to theirs. Correct?

[KoGy 187]

@,

Yes. I do have a big part of that in this.
Also I stopped caring because having panic attacks about how rotten society is not very healthy for me either.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

Sometimes I like to debate things just for fun, so I understand why neutrals can be a bit bothersome. I'll tell you what I think, you tell me what you think, we both learn something, and we can come to a decision about what's true based on that. If you don't have an opinion, you can't do that; even worse, there's nothing to talk about.

 

If you're going to be neutral, at least give a reason why. It's hard to converse with someone who deliberately tries to avoid conversing for the sake of avoiding conflict.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Regulus

[Raiko 43]

By 'neutral' what exactly do you mean? What do you fine as a 'neutral'? Are we talking cowards who never stand for anything or are you talking about someone who simply stands their ground that isn't the ground others stand upon themselves? It's import to stick to your principles and guns, but that doesn't make you 'neutral' as that decision puts you on your own side.

 

Neutral would be something like a Nihilist who believes in nothing and accomplishes nothing in return. That is the worst kind of person in my opinion. I'd rather take the most insane extremist than a Nihilist. Better to have someone who at least believes in something than one who believes in nothing, including themselves.

[KoGy 187]

@,

While I don't see how debate can be fun I see your point.

It can be boring for some people.

 

I don't mind it as long as nopony wants to change my opinions.

 

 

One who doesn't take any stances on issues out of not caring or not wanting conflict.

[Nine 707]

Neutrals are people without a stake in the question. At worst, they're just amoral, or without values.

 

It's one thing to be undecided, or uncertain, but to conclude "nothing" as an actual stance on anything is going to piss off anybody with a meaningful interest in whatever's under discussion.

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

 

 

Also I stopped caring because having panic attacks about how rotten society is not very healthy for me either.

Woah woah woah woah... wait a minute... you had panic attacks about THAT? Gee... That sucks... a LOT. I mean seriously? You must have really sensitive psychology. 

[KoGy 187]

Woah woah woah woah... wait a minute... you had panic attacks about THAT? Gee... That sucks... a LOT. I mean seriously? You must have really sensitive psychology. 

Yeah.

Living in isolation for a time and ahem bad experiences with people.

*plays a song on the world's smalles violin*

 

I usually feel cornered when people try to convert me.

I usually point out to very political/social justice etc people around me that I don't like talking about stuff like that.

Not to mention friends don't force their will on others. I find it rude.

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

@@KoGy,Aww gee man you should tell them really... they should respect your privacy. 

[KoGy 187]

@,

I lost a lot of friends with it in the past.
But we all can change. It's a compromise I must take for all of us.

I can get "rationality falls apart" passionate.

Then feel sorry for what I wrote.

 

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

Silence is a political stance. The implications being that you are in support of the status quo. While the latter may or may not be true, by keeping "neutral", that's the message being sent.

[Sunshower Raindrops 3,227]

I dont find the problem with neutrality, I mean look at Switzerland. They are doing absolutely fine.

[Arctic Night 884]

I wouldn't call that a problem; having more "sides" is better. It increases the odds of there being a stance you agree with and implies that in absence of a good option, people created a side instead of supporting the lesser of two evils.

 

That's what I meant. Misunderstanding.

[Luxpony 10]

It's because people view neutrality as an 'undecided' stance, and try to influence you towards one thing or another. It is basic human nature to want to have people think in the same way you do. If you are surrounded by people who think in a similar manner as you, then you don't have to constantly worry about judgment and the repercussions that can arise from such. 

[Fantasma Phantasm 673]

I'm part of a religion( relationship with God to be precise! ) yes, but, I prefer to stay out of contraversy over politics or other religions. If I even utter something about not caring about *insert contraversy here* I won't be able hear the end of it. I'm completely neutral when it comes to societies issues and don't wish to be a part of them. I won't let it stir my opinions and I won't try to stir yours. I'm not the stereotypical lable most people seem to think of christians. Stay neutral! Its good! There no reason you should have to take that kind of punishment! STAY FANTASMIC!!!!

[Arctic Night 884]

I don't really have a problem with neutrals. I guess my problem is with those really pretentious "neutrals" that will enter a debate just to tell people how they are neutral or to say things such as "you won't get anything done by arguing" or "this is pointless."

 

Why are they even there? I don't go to races to tell people how much I hate NASCAR. It makes no sense.

[Scootalove 10,689]

I don't have a problem with people being neutral. I only have a slight problem with people who are neutral in a debate, where they don't  contribute to the debate.

[Krosp I 114]

Neutrality. You keep using that word...

 

 

What I think really raises my hackles is the sort of use of neutrality as a justification of apathy when it comes to existing as a society rather than just where you stand. I know where you stand: You don't.

 

I don't have a strong opinion, one way or the other.  

 Read: I don't have an opinion.

 

 

My vote doesn't matter!

 

All parties are just as bad!

Did you know the largest voter turnout in the United States' Presidential Election was in 1876 between Rutherford B, Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden. The percentage? 81.8%. We haven't gone above a 60% turnout since 1968. Since then we've averaged at just over half. Congressional and local elections fare even worse. We're not angry at people being "neutral" because their stance is different than ours. We're angry at them for not doing a damn thing and then whining about it when things didn't go the way they really wanted it. Laws not the way you like them? Get involved.

 

Candidates not the kind you like? Get involved.

 

Society a wretched hive of scum and villainy? Get. Fucking. Involved.

 

You know why it sounds like two sides are making such a racket arguing with each other? Because nobody else is speaking out.

[KoGy 187]

@@Krosp I,

 

Candidates not the kind you like? Get involved.

Society a wretched hive of scum and villainy? Get. Fucking. Involved.

Coups and insurrections are illegal in my country.

I don't even have billions of dollars to roll back my country's goverment.

So the question is... how?

[Krosp I 114]

@@KoGy, the world is a library. You just need to use it.