Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway894345 | Hacker News Reader

You're observing that the definition of "moderate" is relative, not ideological. It's just like the definition of "median", my height might be close to the median in a US context, but I would be tall in a Nigerian context. This doesn't imply that the definition of "median" is ideological.

View on HN

It’s absolutely relative. But what’s the dimension we’re measuring this relativity on? I’d say it’s ideology.

Yes, "moderate" describes ideology (no one in this thread questions that), but the OP's claim is that the definition of "moderate" is itself an ideological question. It's a bit meta.

Of course "moderate" is relative. But relative to what?

Relative to your ideology.

You'd be tall in Nigeria relative to the median height.

You'd be a moderate in the US and a radical in Saudi Arabia relative to the prevailing ideology.

> Of course "moderate" is relative. But relative to what? Relative to your ideology.

Incorrect, not relative to one’s ideology, but relative to the implicit political context (such as “US politics” or “Saudi politics”. If it were relative to each person’s own ideology, then everyone would identify as a moderate: “My ideology is moderate relative to my ideology”.

> You'd be a moderate in the US and a radical in Saudi Arabia relative to the prevailing ideology.

This is correct, but it contradicts your earlier claim that the definition of “moderate” is itself ideological. It’s contextual but not ideological.

"Implicit political context" is just a very roundabout way of saying "prevalent ideology".

The ideology is the context.

Yes, I was being precise. “Moderate” is relative to “the prevalent ideology” (although it’s not conventionally thought of as a single ideology, hence my phrasing). The point is that the definition isn’t an ideological matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com