NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen a thread about where the left gets it wrong and where the right gets it wrong. Please consider this - extremism gets it all wrong. Those on the extreme right and extreme left are so busy with slogans and knee-jerk reactions that they've forgotten how to think.

Neither thread was "extreme."

"Extremism," being relative to the political status quo, can be a great thing.

*pees all over thread*

That's what you get for being a copycat.

"Extremism," being relative to the political status quo, can be a great thing.

I don't necessarily consider a radical position "extreme". Radical positions usually only qualify as extreme if they are outright hostile or violent to the status quo or beliefs different than the ones held by that position.

A person who supports socialism in the US, for example, would not be an extremist unless they attempted to use violence to achieve their ends. The same is true with environmental activists; they're not extremists unless they use violence to achieve their goals.

... Anarchism ftw.

the golden mean...the other white philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_%28philosophy%29

I don't necessarily consider a radical position "extreme". Radical positions usually only qualify as extreme if they are outright hostile or violent to the status quo or beliefs different than the ones held by that position.

What if the "status quo" is hostile or violent to them (either actively or more subtly through, say, severe economic deprivation), and they are acting in self-defense as a last resort?

A person who supports socialism in the US, for example, would not be an extremist unless they attempted to use violence to achieve their ends. The same is true with environmental activists; they're not extremists unless they use violence to achieve their goals.

So George Washington, Simon Bolivar, and Toussaint L'Ouverture were all "extremists"?

I still maintain that it can be a great thing.

As a moderate, I can see the justice of things on both sides. Left and right are correct about some things, but not about all things. I find the idea that if I disagree with the right about, oh say, abortion, I am a radical liberal and that if I disagree with the left about, for example, the use of pesticides that I am a radical reactionary, to be insulting. I have discussed (argued) with both sides, attemping to use reason and facts to support my arguments, only to be shouted down, by both sides, with insults and knee-jerk slogans.

Perhaps the moderates are the true extremists, in that we really would like to deal in facts and not wishful thinking.

Perhaps the moderates are the true extremists, in that we really would like to deal in facts and not wishful thinking.

Yeah! I mean just look at that crazy abolitionist guy, William Lloyd Garrison. He must be in a dream world, to believe that slavery is such a crime that it should be abolished immediately. Next thing you know, he'll be saying that blacks and whites deserve equal rights.

Yeah! I mean just look at that crazy abolitionist guy, William Lloyd Garrison. He must be in a dream world, to believe that slavery is such a crime that it should be abolished immediately. Next thing you know, he'll be saying that blacks and whites deserve equal rights.

Did you read the whole post?

I said each side was right about some things and wrong about some things. Neither side holds the whole truth. A moderate can know the truth of equal rights without ignoring the truth of the difficulty of enforcing equal rights (which, incidentally, should not need to be enforced). The extremes are so focused on their "truth" that they refuse to see the others "truth."

Did you read the whole post?

No. I'm an extremist who believes in wishful thinking, not in facts; I delusionally imagined the rest of the post away.

I said each side was right about some things and wrong about some things. Neither side holds the whole truth. A moderate can know the truth of equal rights without ignoring the truth of the difficulty of enforcing equal rights (which, incidentally, should not need to be enforced). The extremes are so focused on their "truth" that they refuse to see the others "truth."

And where was the "truth" in the position of slave-owners that they should be allowed to keep their slaves?

Where was the "truth" in the position of the Nazis that the Jews should be exterminated?

Where is the "truth" in the position of religious fundamentalists that gays should be stoned and women forced to submit to their husbands?

The extremes are so focused on their "truth" that they refuse to see the others "truth."

Maybe moderates are so focused on not being radical that they miss the truth entirely.

Did you read the whole post?

I said each side was right about some things and wrong about some things. Neither side holds the whole truth. A moderate can know the truth of equal rights without ignoring the truth of the difficulty of enforcing equal rights (which, incidentally, should not need to be enforced). The extremes are so focused on their "truth" that they refuse to see the others "truth."
moderates just think their "truthes" are facts because they hear them repeated so often, and they often have inaccurate views of what extremists really believe and why they believe it. on the other hand extremists generally know what moderates believe and why they believe it because those views are constantly reinforced by many different agencies in society.

I am hardly a right wing "extremist". I don't really consider myself right wing any way. More libertarian than anything.