Neutral Stance Quotes

It is not possible to be truly balanced in one’s views of an abuser and an abused woman. As Dr. Judith Herman explains eloquently in her masterwork Trauma and Recovery, “neutrality” actually serves the interests of the perpetrator much more than those of the victim and so is not neutral. Although an abuser prefers to have you wholeheartedly on his side, he will settle contentedly for your decision to take a middle stance. To him, that means you see the couple’s problems as partly her fault and partly his fault, which means it isn’t abuse.

Cynicism creates a numbness toward life. Cynicism begins with a wry assurance that everyone has an angle. Behind every silver lining is a cloud. The cynic is always observing, critiquing, but never engaging, loving, and hoping. ... To be cynical is to be distant. While offering a false intimacy of being "in the know," cynicism actually destroys intimacy. It leads to bitterness that can deaden and even destroy the spirit. ... Cynicism begins, oddly enough, with too much of the wrong kind of faith, with naive optimism or foolish confidence. At first glance, genuine faith and naive optimism appear identical since both foster confidence and hope.But the similarity is only surface deep.Genuine faith comes from knowing my heavenly Father loves, enjoys, and cares for me. Naive optimism is groundless. It is childlike trust without the loving Father. ... Optimism in the goodness of people collapses when it confronts the dark side of life. ... Shattered optimism sets us up for the fall into defeated weariness and, eventually, cynicism. You'd think it would just leave us less optimistic, but we humans don't do neutral well. We go from seeing the bright side of everything to seeing the dark side of everything. We feel betrayed by life. ... The movement from naive optimism to cynicism is the new American journey. In naive optimism we don't need to pray because everything is under control. In cynicism we can't pray because everything out of control, little is possible. With the Good Shepherd no longer leading us through the valley of the shadow of death, we need something to maintain our sanity. Cynicism's ironic stance is a weak attempt to maintain a lighthearted equilibrium in a world gone mad. ... Without the Good Shepherd, we are alone in a meaningless story. Weariness and fear leave us feeling overwhelmed, unable to move. Cynicism leaves us doubting, unable to dream. The combination shuts down our hearts, and we just show up for life, going through the motions.

There is no value in willfully ignoring hatred, and the lie that neutrality in the face of oppression is not a political stance is part of how we got here.

How, then, can terrorists hope to achieve much? Following an act of terrorism, the enemy continues to have the same number of soldiers, tanks and ships as before. The enemy’s communication network, roads and railways are largely intact. His factories, ports and bases are hardly touched. However, the terrorists hope that even though they can barely dent the enemy’s material power, fear and confusion will cause the enemy to misuse his intact strength and overreact. Terrorists calculate that when the enraged enemy uses his massive power against them, he will raise a much more violent military and political storm than the terrorists themselves could ever create. During every storm, many unforeseen things happen. Mistakes are made, atrocities are committed, public opinion wavers, neutrals change their stance, and the balance of power shifts.

See people as facts of nature. They come in all varieties, like flowers or rocks. There are fools and saints and sociopaths and egomaniacs and noble warriors; there are the sensitive and the insensitive. They all play a role in our social ecology. This does not mean we cannot struggle to change the harmful behavior of the people who are close to us or in our sphere of influence; but we cannot reengineer human nature, and even if we somehow succeeded, the result could be a lot worse than what we have. You must accept diversity and the fact that people are what they are. That they are different from you should not be felt as a challenge to your ego or Self-esteem but as something to welcome and embrace. From this more neutral stance, you can then try to understand the people you deal with on a deeper level, as Chekhov did with his father. The more you do this, the more tolerant you will tend to become toward people and toward human nature in general. Your open, generous spirit will make your social interactions much smoother, and people will be drawn to you.

have come to see that neutrality is the most extremist stance of all; without it, no tyranny can flourish.

When you stand, you bear weight on the only structures in the body that have specifically evolved to hold you up in the uniquely human stance—the feet. The architecture of the feet, along with their musculature, shows nature’s unmatched ability to reconcile and neutralize opposing forces.

Liberal agnosticism about the good life has some compelling historical reasons behind it. It is a mind-set that was consciously cultivated as an antidote to the religious wars of centuries ago, when people slaughtered one another over ultimate differences. After World War II, revulsion with totalitarian regimes of the right and left made us redouble our liberal commitment to neutrality. But this stance is maladaptive in the context of twenty-first-century capitalism because, if you live in the West and aren’t caught up in battles between Sunnis and Shiites, for example, and if we also put aside the risk of extraordinary lethal events like terrorist attacks in Western countries, then the everyday threats to your well-being no longer come from an ideological rival or a theological threat to the liberal secular order. They are native to that order.

Neutrality always swallows all things mighty. The path of least resistance ensures all forks in the road are made comfortable descents into a mediocre valley of oblivion, an oblivion where nothing of note happens, where the audacity of uncomfortable choice is checked by the rank vanilla stank of stagnant stasis. In God's heaven, taking a hard stance is the heinous act of a heretic. Abandon all autonomy ye who enter here. Days of remembrance are reserved only for those who take a stand.

She unbuttoned her coat, carried it to the closet, and hung it up. This gave him his first chance to have a good long look at her. Rachael's proportions, he noticed once again, were odd; with her heavy mass of dark hair her head seemed large, and because of her diminutive breasts her body assumed a lank, almost childlike “stance. But her great eyes, with their elaborate lashes, could only be those of a grown woman; there the resemblance to adolescence ended. Rachael rested very slightly on the fore-part of her feet, and her arms, as they hung, bent at the joint. The stance, he reflected, of a wary hunter of perhaps the Cro-Magnon persuasion. The race of tall hunters, he said to himself. No excess flesh, a flat belly, small behind and smaller bosom - Rachael had been modeled on the Celtic type of build, anachronistic and attractive, Below the brief shorts her legs, slender, had a neutral, nonsexual quality, not much rounded off in nubile curves. The total impression was good, however. Although definitely that of a girl, not a woman. Except for the restless, shrewd eyes.

Page 21: Present-day whites relate to their material as spokesmen, not advocates. This is because they believe that the truth or other merits of an idea are intrinsic to the idea itself. How deeply a person cares about or believes in the idea is considered irrelevant to its fundamental value. The truth of the matter is in the matter. This view—the separation of truth and belief—is heavily influenced by what whites understand of the scientific method, where the goal is to achieve a stance of neutral objectivity with regard to the truth that is “out there”: a truth that is not the be possessed or created but, rather, discovered.

It’s tempting to think that the male bias that is embedded in language is simply a relic of more regressive times, but the evidence does not point that way. The world’s ‘fastest-growing language’,34 used by more than 90% of the world’s online population, is emoji.35 This language originated in Japan in the 1980s and women are its heaviest users:36 78% of women versus 60% of men frequently use emoji.37 And yet, until 2016, the world of emojis was curiously male. The emojis we have on our smartphones are chosen by the rather grand-sounding ‘Unicode Consortium’, a Silicon Valley-based group of organisations that work together to ensure universal, international software standards. If Unicode decides a particular emoji (say ‘spy’) should be added to the current stable, they will decide on the code that should be used. Each phone manufacturer (or platform such as Twitter and Facebook) will then design their own interpretation of what a ‘spy’ looks like. But they will all use the same code, so that when users communicate between different platforms, they are broadly all saying the same thing. An emoji face with heart eyes is an emoji face with heart eyes. Unicode has not historically specified the gender for most emoji characters. The emoji that most platforms originally represented as a man running, was not called ‘man running’. It was just called ‘runner’. Similarly the original emoji for police officer was described by Unicode as ‘police officer’, not ‘policeman’. It was the individual platforms that all interpreted these gender-neutral terms as male. In 2016, Unicode decided to do something about this. Abandoning their previously ‘neutral’ gender stance, they decided to explicitly gender all emojis that depicted people.38 So instead of ‘runner’ which had been universally represented as ‘male runner’, Unicode issued code for explicitly male runner and explicitly female runner. Male and female options now exist for all professions and athletes. It’s a small victory, but a significant one.

In comparing karate and Krav Maga, we notice various differences. In traditional karate, the advance forward has the rear foot sliding forward from a low dip stance into a forward dip. When comparing straight punches in boxing and in Krav Maga, there are two major differences. First, take into account the limitations of reaction time. The punch is lunged into the opponent’s face as the gap is closed, before the front foot has landed. Second, training in Krav Maga separates the retraction of the hand and stresses that the body should never come to a centered position to help with a quick linear motion backwards. Instead, Krav Maga recommends staying in this newly angled stance until students recognize what needs to be done next to end the fight. Fortunately, this also helps finish the punch and ensure the full body weight has shifted to the desired direction before rushing to the next punch. If the speed is kept at its maximum at the time of the blow, this ensures a knockout! Closing the distance to reach an opponent, karate fighters are taught to lunge their rear leg for a kick as their upper bodies remain static. They are taught to contract their abdomen and hip muscles as they send their hands and legs for a blow. The way the foot or hand makes contact with the opponent’s pressure point depends on how it fits the targeted part of the body. For example, the shin or open hand for the groin, the ball of the foot or open hand to the chin, the heel or palm to the sternum, the knife side of the foot, or extended fingers for the throat. Krav Maga fighters close the gap by pushing their toes and shifting their weight forward. They are trained to pivot their torso for greater reach. Lunging forward, they kick with their front foot and land on their rear foot. The momentum of the kick is being generated with gravity as they throw the ball of the foot in their opponent’s groin or torso in an upward motion (depending on the availability). The speed is kept at its peak by swinging the leg to ninety degrees. The contact point of the foot should preferably be the heel or ball of the foot. The ankle should be kept in a neutral position upon contact, so the ligaments are not in an overstretched position. This is a safety feature that will minimize trauma upon contact with the opponent’s bones.

Hysteria is a subjective stance of questioning (what do I really desire? what does my Other see or desire in me, i.e., what am I for the Other?), while a pervert knows, he is not haunted by questions. Today’s consumerist is a cynical pervert who knows—in this way, desire is neutralized, nothing happens when we achieve the object of desire, no event of a true encounter, when we love there is no FALLING in love.

I have come to see that neutrality is the most extremist stance of all; without it, no tyranny can flourish.

Remember, your critic is not a wise, trusted advisor with accurate predictions based on experience and a neutral stance. It’s a terrified, frantic part that is willing to dismiss reality, lie, or make up whatever absurd things it must to keep you safe.

The media of today, whether electronic or print, is only a political weapon and business, not a mission, since it executes that abuse the neutral stance.

In the second court hearing, the Bavarian Administrative Court argued that Floris had not made a Bekenntnis to German Volkstum back in Hungary. Although his parents might have been part of the “German linguistic and cultural sphere” (deutscher Sprach- und Kulturkeis)—as he claimed—and his ancestors might have come from German-speaking lands, this did not mean that they were Germans. Liberal Jews in interwar Hungary had cherished German language and culture, but, the court argued, this attitude resulted from a “cosmopolitan stance” (weltbürgerliche Haltung) and was not indicative of a person’s “conscience and will to be German and to belong to no other people.”65 In this court’s view, the plaintiff had not publicly identified himself as German. Rather, he had tried twice—once without success, then successfully—to change his German-sounding surname, Steiner, into the neutral-sounding Floris. The reasons for these actions were arguably economic (only by assuming this name could he continue using the brand name after the war, when the real Floris moved to England), yet the name change made clear that he did not value his German appearance in name. In the Bavarian court’s view, Floris’s emigration from Hungary had also been for economic reasons. Moreover, his wife, Elisabeth, was not clearly German either, even though she credibly stated that her maternal language was German and that she had been a member of the Mozart cultural association in Budapest, where she used to sing German songs and where she met her husband, with whom she always spoke German. She supposedly also lacked the Bekenntnis.66

OCR [US Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights] also states that a "school should also ensure that hearings are conducted in a manner that does not inflict additional trauma on the complainant", which implies that the school should not start the proceedings with a presumption of innocence, or even a stance of neutrality. Rather, university officials should assume that any complaint is valid and the accused is guilty as charged.

Imagine for a moment that you want to attend a concert or play. After parking the car and walking six city blocks on a cold, rainy evening, and while lining up at the entrance for another half hour, you glimpse an inviting auditorium seat. The seat appears to you not as a meaningless object of neutral observation but as a place of comfort where you can rest and warm your weary bones while enjoying the anticipated performance. You do not first perceive this seat from a purely objective stance in terms of its compositional material or its measurements. Such a theoretical stance is not our primary mode of perception, but a secondary, unnatural way of looking at things we adopt when we abstract something from the context of our experience to study it separately. Should, for example, the seat collapse under us as we sat down, only then would we adopt a scientific attitude and examine the seat to determine its structure and the reasons for its malfunction.

Robbie and I disagreed about guns. He believed that owning one was his right as an American, which he must’ve picked up when the Panthers out in Oakland were arming themselves. That was screamingly funny when I thought about it: a black man, one who’d been locked up twice, clinging to the Second Amendment. The strongest gun laws the country had ever passed were to prevent the men who’d inspired him, the Oakland Panthers, from having guns. If he’d been a little more intentional about his stance, it would have been subversive. But he wasn’t. He owned a gun because he liked them, and thought he was entitled to do so. Pop raised me to believe that guns weren’t for civilians. I think that stance was too soft; I think he shouldn’t have taught us to shoot. It wasn’t a beneficial skill, or even a neutral one. It was knowledge that had attracted and bred the violence in my life.

Statements that seem to be common sense to the speakers are nonetheless often profoundly religious in nature. Imagine that Ms A argues that all the safety nets for the poor should be removed, in the name of ‘survival of the fittest’. Ms B might respond, ‘The poor have the right to a decent standard of living – they are human beings like the rest of us!’ Ms A could then come back with the fact that many bioethicists today think the concept of ‘human’ is artificial and impossible to define. She might continue that there is no possibility of treating all living organisms as ends rather than means and that some always have to die that others may live. That is simply the way nature works. If Ms B counters with a pragmatic argument, that we should help the poor simply because it makes society work better, Ms A could come up with many similar pragmatic arguments about why letting some of the poor just die would be even more efficient. Now Ms B would be getting angry. She would respond heatedly that starving the poor is simply unethical, but Ms A could retort, ‘Who says ethics must be the same for everyone?’ Ms B would finally exclaim: ‘I wouldn’t want to live in a society like the one you are describing!’ In this interchange Ms B has tried to follow John Rawls and find universally accessible, ‘neutral and objective’ arguments that would convince everyone that we must not starve the poor. She has failed because there are none. In the end Ms B affirms the equality and dignity of human individuals simply because she believes it is true and right. She takes as an article of faith that people are more valuable than rocks or trees – though she can’t prove such a belief scientifically. Her public policy proposals are ultimately based on a religious stance.23

The media of today, whether electronic or print, is only a political weapon and business, not a mission since it executes that, abusing the neutral stance.

I wonder if one of the greatest lessons of our generation will be that ironic detachment is not an inherently neutral stance; that humor is not necessarily benevolent; that viewing anything and everything as a joke doesn't make you stronger or wiser, but exactly the opposite.