Moderates are simply conflict averse and don't consider that there is anything worth fighting for, ever. Unscrupulous extremists rely on them as a strategic buffer, because they are easy to manipulate. Neville Chamberlain was a moderate.
You're successfully proving my point from the comment above: you're painting folks who don't share your views. This does you a disservice as you can't possibly understand the arguments. There are many, many ways in which a person can be a Moderate or a particular topic can have a moderate viewpoint.
The cure for this affliction (of imagining your opponents and creating personifications in your head) is to diversify your conversational and reading sources.
Nice attempt at well-poisoning. You'll excuse me if I don't engage with the sophistry that follows.
Perhaps it's you who should broaden your reading sources, as people's behavior is much more amenable to objective analysis than you seem to be aware of. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451
"Moderate is an ideological category which designates a rejection of radical or extreme views, especially in regard to politics and religion.[1][2] A moderate is considered someone occupying any mainstream position avoiding extreme views and major social change. In United States politics, a moderate is considered someone occupying a centre position on the left–right political spectrum."
Very uncontroversial take by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_moderate
The pinning of subjective elements and personality traits to your political opponents is as dangerous as it is unscientific (and people both on the right and the left do this).
That's one way to put it. Here's another to think about: moderates lack rigid principles and avoid ideological convictions.
People on the extremes of both sides have a tendency to "paint." They paint the opposing view as monsters, and they paint people with independent views as "lacking convictions."
It is not accurate.