Middle ground is possible but when you tell someone else that their friends or family “died needlessly” that’s not really middle ground.
I told you. I'm not seeking middle ground. I wasn't seeking middle ground when I said it. My provocative speech was intended to shock and alarm and hopefully prepare folks for the coming truth of the matter.
Nonetheless, let's talk about it for a minute.
The strategy of seeking middle ground is employed when two people, at odds with one another, attempt to understand the position of their opponent by suspending their own position long enough to hear and consider what their opponent is
actually saying. One common technique among those seeking middle ground is for both party to agree on a set of facts or sources of facts on which to make an appeal to reason. Another common technique is for each party to ask leading questions and pursue a line of thinking to its ultimate conclusion.
Do you think anyone in this thread has done this so far?
Posts filled with questions is clear evidence of two people seeking middle ground, because the strategy isn't to prove your case, but to understand your opponent's case. I attempted to seek middle ground with someone in this thread (I think it was this thread) and I was accused of being an interrogator.
People take offence at someone who appears to be asking "too many questions" but that is precisely what seeking middle ground looks like. I often wonder if those who become offended at being questioned are insecure with their position and perhaps detest the thought that they were duped or made a mistake.
This thread and others like it are popular because people like to cheer for their favorite team. Other people come here in an attempt to seek information, hoping that the thread will eventually prove something. For the most part, threads like this are unproductive for several reasons, the bulk of which is centered on "trusted sources" and the interpretation of experience. Both Eternally Grateful and you have voiced caution and incredulity concerning information gathered from sources other than "official" sources, such as social media and the internet. Myself and others have voiced incredulity and caution concerning information coming from official sources.
I didn't always mistrust government sources. But over the years I have found corruption in many of the departments, which purport to inform the public. That is, governmental agencies responsible to inform the public suffer under major conflicts of interest, whereby governmental agencies promote the perspective of donors, rather than an objective, factual, perspective. For instance, when I was in grade school, we were taught the Food Pyramid, which I found out later, purposely favored the grain farmer lobby. In fact, as it turns out, the pyramid is upside down.
I could go on, but the point is this. Unless folks in this thread can agree on a set of trusted sources, then middle ground isn't possible.