The problem with balanced positions is the political world will portray a speech thats even handed and nuanced as "weak"
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
I think you can manage to be reasonably even-handed by portraying multiple points of view among informed people. Problems arise when you start putting in points of view from uninformed people.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
Lv. 3 Genasi Wizard
Eh, by compromise. Problem is most people aren't happy with that word, so you have to do some disguising.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.
victorinox243
Something like what Ozymandias would do. Utterly despicable and moraly and ethically questionable, but it undeniably ends with a good ending.
Lv. 3 Genasi Wizard
Except even that may not necessarily be a good end since he has no way to maintain said outcome once he kicks the bucket. Short sighted as always, Ozy.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.
Needs to be more Evil
Not really - if he tricks people into making peace and uniting, the people won't automatically de-unite and start nuking each other if they realize they've both been tricked by a third party.
Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.
Lv. 3 Genasi Wizard
Okay, first off, are we talking the comic version or the movie version? Second, would tricking everyone even count as "a nuanced, even-handed approach"? Cause it sounds a bit more like rule, or at least peace, through fear.
edited 8th Jun '11 1:52:29 AM by Usht
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.
Needs to be more Evil
A truly balanced approach to a divisive conflict? One that recognizes that people on both sides are generally reasonable and moral human beings, that see themselves as the good guys and have reasons for believing what they do. One that makes a good faith attempt to portray why both sides arrived at where they are, instead of attributing base and vile motives. One that represents the best arguments for both sides.
That doesn't mean that one side or the other being right can't still be a total slamdunk. Where the "Golden Mean" makes sense is that one side or the other is rarely evil.
Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.
Needs to be more Evil
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The comic, mostly. I wouldn't call Ozy's approach even remotely fair and even handed, but it was the best.
Lv. 3 Genasi Wizard
Well, since we aren't calling it even-handed or fair, it's not really the sort of solution this topic is looking for.
Brings axe down on possible derail.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.
While it isn't always possible to find the golden mean, it's a good idea to avoid fanaticism. The best idea isn't necessarily in the middle, but insane people whose whole life is determined by following some worldview will make anything bad.
"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Sounds like a lot of Take a Third Option in here. Which makes sense, actually.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Generally third options is usually a reasonable one to choose. We tend to think of the world as some kind of binary, which is far from true
"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey
@Radical Taoist: I'm not sure what a nuanced, even-handed approach is, but I'm positive that any speech that starts with "religion is bad for you" period isn't it.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
This.
victorinox243
I didn't even bother to read past that.
Sure she has good intentions, but her opinions have colored her rhetoric in a way that is hardly objective or even-handed.
edited 8th Jun '11 2:51:11 PM by victorinox243
A balanced position is acknowledging the merit in you opponent's arguments where they exist - for example, either party in the abortion debate, can, if they think about it deeply enough, realize that the other side isn't out to take away women's rights or deny that some right to human life exists - the problem is that those two have the potential to conflict.
scratching at .8, just hopin'
I would like to direct your attention to this part in particular:
Both are intrinsically racist. The pro-Islamist Left (and many liberals) imply that people are one and the same with the Islamic states and movement that are repressing them. The far-Right blames all immigrants and Muslims for the crimes of Islamism.
[It is important to note here that Islamism was actually brought to centre stage during the Cold War as part of US foreign policy in order to create a ‘green’ Islamic belt surrounding the Soviet Union and not concocted in some immigrant’s kitchen in London; moreover many of the Islamists in Britain are actually British-born thanks to the government’s policies of multiculturalism and appeasement.]
Both the far-Right and pro-Islamist Left purport that Islamism is people’s culture and that they actually deserve no better, imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class, parasitical imams and self-appointed ‘community leaders’.
Their politics ignores the distinction between the oppressed and oppressor and actually sees them as one and the same. It denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ and justifies the suppression of rights, freedoms and equality for the ‘other.’
Well, even there, she fails to see the nuances in Islamism. Islamism is everything from the moderate, democratic if corrupt government of Turkey to the traditionalism of Saudi Arabia to the people who thought the Taliban ought to come back. It's like saying that conservatism per se is a force for evil, when there are multiple tendencies in it - I believe there are at least seven major ones.
@Radical Taoist: Nope, not seeing any balance in that. That just seems to be strawmanning all her opponents.
For example, I know of no liberal who has ever identified the people of Saudi Arabia with the House of Saud.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
NOT THE BEES
I was about to Thread Hop in and cynically say that usually whoever purports the same extreme as you do is considered taking a nuanced, even-handed approach.
In all honesty I didn't expect the link in the OP to actually prove my point 
I'm assuming that few people are fans of the Golden Mean Fallacy. So what, if you can tell me, is a truly balanced approach to a divisive conflict? Are there any general principles or properties of a reasonable and balanced approach, definitions of objectivity that we can use? Or can you only give examples of what a balanced position looks like to you? (If so, link 'em, those are fine too.)
I'll start: this
speech is hands down the most objective and even-handed take on the spread of Islam I've ever read. It's a brilliant speech in its own right, but that's for a different thread.
What examples of really balanced positions can you think of?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.