Can Neutral People Expressed Their Opinion?

[Bartmanhomer]

Can neutral people express their opinion on any topic that's discussed? :smile:

[Dame_Mechanus]

All I know is my gut says, "Maybe."

[Peelee]

All I know is my gut says, "Maybe."

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[Dame_Mechanus]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

With evil, you know where you stand, but with neutral, who knows?

[Aedilred]

If I don't post again, tell my wife "hello".

[Peelee]

It was almost the perfect crime, but you forgot one thing - rock crushes scissors! But paper covers rock.... and scissors cut paper. Kif, we have a conundrum. Search them for paper. And bring me a rock.

[Khedrac]

What do you mean by "Neutral"?

If you mean "Neutral on the toping being discussed" then of course they can, but said opinion is likely to be one of the following:

Meh.
I'm torn between these points.
No comment.
As I see it all of the arguments balance out.
Please stop arguing about nonsense
With occasional helpings of support for the side that is doing worse in the debate because it isn't getting properly represented.

If you mean "Neutral" - the D&D Alignment, then of course they can (even if you have to try to work out what the alignment actually means first). People and characters are complex - they could be for some things usually seen as good, but against others (they could even be generally for a very good and lawful society because it is easier for them to live in - it doesn't mean they personally are either lawful or good).

[137beth]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

What is this quote a reference to? I've seen it before but Google was inconclusive.

[Gnoman]

It is from "Brannigan, Begin Again " Season 2 Episode 2 of Futurama

[Bartmanhomer]

What do you mean by "Neutral"?

If you mean "Neutral on the toping being discussed" then of course they can, but said opinion is likely to be one of the following:

Meh.
I'm torn between these points.
No comment.
As I see it all of the arguments balance out.
Please stop arguing about nonsense
With occasional helpings of support for the side that is doing worse in the debate because it isn't getting properly represented.

If you mean "Neutral" - the D&D Alignment, then of course they can (even if you have to try to work out what the alignment actually means first). People and characters are complex - they could be for some things usually seen as good, but against others (they could even be generally for a very good and lawful society because it is easier for them to live in - it doesn't mean they personally are either lawful or good).

The first one. Not the D&D alignment one.

[animorte]

I have developed the neutral position because of the way people handle conversations and disagreements. When asked about some sensitive topics, I generally start off with, “well, I don’t typically contribute much to these kinds of conversations because most people tend to be extremely opinionated and close-minded.”

It also helps to support statements with facts instead of the sheep effect. But let’s not dive into all that kind of territory…

[Bartmanhomer]

I have developed the neutral position because of the way people handle conversations and disagreements. When asked about some sensitive topics, I generally start off with, “well, I don’t typically contribute much to these kinds of conversations because most people tend to be extremely opinionated and close-minded.”

It also helps to support statements with facts instead of the sheep effect. But let’s not dive into all that kind of territory… Yes I feel the same way.

[Peelee]

It is from "Brannigan, Begin Again " Season 2 Episode 2 of Futurama

Futurama is the best show ever. It's built like a steakhouse but handles like a bistro.

[BisectedBrioche]

Expressing an opinion is an inherently un-neutral action.

After all, if you care about something, you're involved in it, and to be completely neutral you'd need to be detached.

That is to say...it's a beige alert.

[137beth]

The worst part about these forums is that there is no neutral face emoticon, forcing us to use emoji to get the Objectively Best facial expression 😐

[Aedilred]

As alluded to, it depends what you mean by "neutral". Much of the time, it is assumed that there are only two sides to any debate, and these days, thanks in part to the internet, that those sides are completely polarised. A neutral position is therefore assumed to be an "I don't know" or "I don't care". But in fact many debates leave space for opinions other than the two that get bandied about, and some of those opinions might be just as strongly held as the extreme ones.

For instance, a debate over the merits of the Hobbit movies:
Andy thinks that they are the greatest trilogy of all time, better than The Lord of the Rings.
Bruce thinks that they are the worst movies ever made.
Colin thinks that they are basically fine but nothing special.
In a debate between the various positions, obviously Bruce and Andy will be chosen as the opposing parties, because they present the most dramatic contrast. But Colin may have thought about, and may care about, his view much more than either Bruce or Andy do. It is therefore a positively-held neutral position, rather than a passive one.

(Note that D&D has on occasion presented the "true neutral" alignment a lot more aggressively in this respect too: you were not only unswayed towards either end of the alignment axis, but would take positive steps to preserve a balance between them.)

That's a situation where there is a fairly clear binary and a fairly clear middle way. Let's try something a bit more complicated:
Dave wants to build housing over a nature reserve in his town.
Eddie wants to keep the nature reserve, and demolish housing in order to build a water park.
Frank wants to keep the nature reserve, and use the money that would be spent on new housing/a water park to improve the housing that already exists.

Their views are opposed to each other and mutually incompatible, but it is not a clear binary. If presented as a binary betwen any two of them, the third may appear as a "neutral" option despite not actually being halfway between the two.

This is of course looking at neutral "positions", only. Neutral people are different again.

Grace and Harry are getting a divorce and cannot agree on the terms. They go to court to determine the outcome. Who makes the decision on who gets what? Neutral people! Getting neutral people in to express opinions is basically the essence of dispute resolution when the parties cannot agree.

The same goes for elections too, really. The majority of people who cast votes in any given election are not members of the parties presenting candidates. They may have strong preferences one way or the other but they are, in their collective essence, neutral. Obviously I can't say a lot more on that topic.

So in answer to the original question: yes, they can, and honestly I think they should more often or at least more loudly than they currently do.

[DarthArminius]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

A heart full of Switzerland!

[animorte]

(Note that D&D has on occasion presented the "true neutral" alignment a lot more aggressively in this respect too: you were not only unswayed towards either end of the alignment axis, but would take positive steps to preserve a balance between them.)
This is an excellent point, along with a lot of what you said. Just because I don’t take an extreme position doesn’t mean I don’t feel strongly about the topics at hand. There just isn’t much room for the gray area, which in reality is much larger than the two opposing sides combined.


A heart full of Switzerland!
My wife used to call me Switzerland just because I’ve never taken strongly to extreme opposing sides.

[Sigako]

Can neutral people express their opinion on any topic that's discussed? :smile:

They wouldn't have opinion in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be neutral.

[Bartmanhomer]

They wouldn't have opinion in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be neutral.

Good point.

[InvisibleBison]

They wouldn't have opinion in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't be neutral.

I don't think this is correct. Consider someone who, when asked about their stance on an issue, says "I don't care about this issue, because I don't think it's important." I'd say that this person both has an opinion and is neutral on the issue.

[Sigako]

Ok, I fumbled semantics. "They wouldn't express their non-existent opinion without external pressure, for they care not to express it".

[KillianHawkeye]

Sometimes neutral people interject their opinion into a discussion specifically because they don't care about the outcome and can we please just talk about something else you guys? Seriously, every time we get together, you always argue!

:smallwink:

[Haruki-kun]

I don't know... I think if someone is torn on an issue and gives their opinion on both sides to explain why, they're still neutral.

[Ionathus]

Like the 3-star reviews on an e-shopping product listing, I find that neutral opinions can often contain a bit more lived experience and a bit less vitriol. People who chime in from a genuine position of "I dunno what I think about this" have a good chance to share their actual experiences and the things they've noticed about the topic without coloring everything with a deeply saturated lens one way or the other.

I recall the Honest Trailer for Batman v. Superman, where they mention how polarized the "liked it" and "hated it" camps were, "even though you'd be lying if you said you thought this wasn't awesome...and this wasn't ridiculous (https://youtu.be/NrjneJvS6dk?t=36)."

Of course, that's not a perfect barometer and you shouldn't only value the opinions in the middle: that's a fast-track to the golden mean fallacy. All this to say, neutral opinions can have merit and neutral people should be encouraged to speak up on most topics, as long as they speak from a place of contributing meaningfully to the discussion. "I'm not a huge LotR fanboy, but the Hobbit movies weren't as good. I did really like how they did [XYZ] though" is a useful addition to the discussion. "I haven't seen the Hobbit movies and I don't care to, not sure why we're talking about this" is less likely expressing a neutral opinion and more likely just talking to talk.

[Mosearold]

I think that There's no way to tell without knowing the context of the situation.

[EarlGraye]

If I don't post again, tell my wife "hello".

Love the signature. Empire....... always recruiting.
<Clicks Link>

Empire: Embers of Dawn [Recruitment Paused]

Time for a signature update? :smallamused:

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Ogre: If you don't have anything to add to the conversation, generally don't bother. However, someone who is neutral on the topic discussed can certainly ask questions, or try to express their neutrality in a constructive way.

For example, if the topic at hand were the sequel trilogy of Star Wars, someone who is neutral on the subject might ask others after specific points ("OK, you didn't like this, what about it was so bad?"), or express a neutral opinion that is nonetheless useful ("The movies certainly had their weak points, such as X, Y, and Z, but I think they did A, B, C well."). They might also tell a relevant joke, for example.

A post such as "I don't have a strong feeling about this either way", without any additional elaboration, is counted as Minor Spam.