Holding the center in an age of extremes.
I would like to talk about moderation. Most of us, if asked our view on moderation, would likely say it is something of which we could use more in our public life. Yet, when we look around, we often see this sentiment “more honored in the breach than the observance.” This is true in our political and cultural ecosystem, and it is true, perhaps particularly so, in our online spaces. If you have been on the internet long enough to find this blog, you have probably seen how extremism, in ideas and in their expression, is often the order of the day.
Yet it is not just at the political rally, on the social media site, on the tongues of bitter partisan foes that extremism poses a problem. It is also in the moments when a touch of immoderation, of overstatement, creates a kind of “cried wolf” paradigm in how the public is presented with key issues, complicating efforts to address them. The reasons for this presentation are often understandable, sympathetic. We may care deeply about an important issue and find ourselves frustrated with the lack of public action on it. So, when we talk about it, we may overstate the risks of inaction, presenting worst-case scenarios—which, while certainly live possibilities, are not the likeliest trajectory for the issue to take according to the data—as if they are open-and-shut representations of the future.
Read more here