Staying Neutral actually worse than being on a side?!?!

[Dairyking101]

So earlier today my friends were talking about politics and other subjects, anyways I was usually neutral than being on a side with someone. My friends (no matter the side) were like WTF and told me I basically had to be on a side no matter which side it was...
So I am curious is it worse to be neutral than on a side (no matter which side)?

[Bladeface]

So earlier today my friends were talking about politics and other subjects, anyways I was usually neutral than being on a side with someone. My friends (no matter the side) were like WTF and told me I basically had to be on a side no matter which side it was...
So I am curious is it worse to be neutral than on a side (no matter which side)?

because people who are nuetral are seen as an enemy to both sides. the enemy that is unseen is the one that is feared the most :P

[Damerflinn]

Politics is one of those things that is hard to talk about without ruffling feathers of someone. So usually neutrality even if you really do feel attached to one side, is the best policy. My guess is that your friends take it as you not caring at all either way, and that could potentially seen as a bad thing. So I would either explain to them why you stay neutral, whatever that may be. But take care with this, because if you really don't care one way or another it's an opinion that could cause even more negative feelings from your friends, because this is the country that we live in and politics, whether you support one side or the other, is important to a lot of people, and you not caring, to them could be a personal offense.

Just my two cents though.

[roflwaffle]

"if you're not with us, you're against us"

[semaphore]

Those sounds like terrible friends.

That said, in a more important context (i.e. in government), all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

[Kraenen]

Depends on the context, but for example if you remain neutral in a genocide, you're in fact aiding the genocide to continue, and therefore are automatically on a side.

[Kasierith]

You don't have to be on a side.. but ultimately, the current political spectrum is highly polarized between two people. No matter what you do, one of the two is going to be elected. So you have two choices: you can maintain personal integrity and not vote for either, as you disagree with both their views, or you can examine each candidate critically and do your best to come to an objective decision as to which one will be less harmful for you personally. So its an argument between doing the right thing in terms of the act itself or in terms of the consequences. Personally, I don't care much for the morality of the act; no matter what you do, one of them is going to win, so you might as well pursue self interest and vote in the favor of who is relatively better for you.

Not liking either side, however, is a perfectly valid viewpoint and quite honestly I encourage not compromising your values on a personal level (as opposed to voting which is a different matter) and forcing yourself to "like" one of them.

[DEATHETERNAL]

So much this.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Depends on the context, but for example if you remain neutral in a genocide, you're in fact aiding the genocide to continue, and therefore are automatically on a side.

Wat?

No seriously, what?

[Kraenen]

Wat?

No seriously, what?

Unthinkable that someone would remain neutral in a genocide, I know.

[Dacien]

It is important to take a side. If you do not know your side, determine it. If you care at all about whatever the subject matter is. This is a blanket opinion of course, and particular, specific situations may deviate from it's applicability.

[Velorian]

So much this.

This guy knows what's up.

[Pendulous]

Anyone who gets offended by or automatically makes an enemy of someone who's neutral, obviously does not know how to pick their battles. I mean, it's the who definition. They don't care. Leave em be and deal with real issues.

[Schmidz]

"But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. "

[tiporispit]

Tell them you're a Libertarian, and you think they're both a bunch of socialist scum.

[Decagon]

So much this.

Why is it that Futurama seems to have a video that fits perfectly into every situation ever?

[Dacien]

Tell them you're a Libertarian, and you think they're both a bunch of socialist scum.

Creating a new side! The plot thickens.

[Calzaeth]

My regular ring of friends tend to be VERY passionate about their political views (as am I, on the matters I care about), so here is a simple sentence when you really are neutral:

"I don't know enough about this to have an opinion, and I'd prefer to gather my information on my own instead of having someone with a clear agenda tell me."
It works every time.

I don't use it often, mostly because I tend to have an opinion on everything you can have an opinion about, but in today's world, new matters can ninja-appear if you blink too slowly -.-

[Sunseeker]

There's neutrality, and there's apathy, but having a "stance" doesn't necessarily mean being on a "side". Most issues are far more multifaceted than they are made out to be, not simple "yes" or "no" absolutes.

Neutrality is healthy if you're undecided, taking a stance you don't understand or don't support just to be on a side of stupid. It's better to simply say "I don't know."
Apathy is bad, you SHOULD care enough to not want to hang on to the "I don't know" position, because eventually you WILL need to make a decision on that subject, and at that time you better have an understanding of it.
Of course, that still doesn't mean you need to be absolutely for or against an issue. You can add context, circumstance, situation and all sorts of layers into your opinion to better state your position. It probably won't be the battle-winning "more people agree with me than you!" stance others want to hear, but it's better than having no opinion at all.

[Harry Botter]

"But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. "

Boondock Saints reference, I like it.

Sometimes it is truly hard to not be nuetral. Because it may be difficult for a person to determine what is right or wrong in a situation to them.