extremes are objectively a negative, when i hear radicalize i see staticity that leads to stagnation, stagnating into any idea has the serious risk of leading to doing whorse than the already extreme opposite
just really don't like the word radicalise
"radical" doesn't mean "extreme" in our context, the etymology of the word comes from the latin "radix", which translates to "root", so when we say we're part of the radical left it means our approach is looking for the roots of society's problems and how to fix them
Yeah, i know the root, i'm italian and romanian, doesn't get more latin than this, seems like i was thinking about the figurate meaning, that in fact refears to an Extreme, while the political meaning changes to what you explained
Gut reaction stays the same, but tk for the view shift
i mean you're not wrong, but i feel you gotta take into account that the extremes are subjective, what some may consider radical others may consider too lenient, what i think people mean with radicalize is more like a call to action
i was refearing to objective extremes, like "stop hitting me" from someone beeing attacked for no reason, the situation is bad, needs to stop, but making it a fixed point i let to boil only makes it more likely i end up doing the same in greater measure
still don't like it can be linked to that inte
things like women voting where seen as extremes and radical, same for the abolition of slaves, we shouldn't judge something just for being "radical" we should try always to analyze the ideologies from our own perspective, middle of the road is also not always healthy
All radicalism promotes anarchy from whatever perspective promotes it. Anarchy leads to reformation. Reformation leads to genocide. Who is it you want to slaughter?
I'm sure everyone will hold hands and universally do the right thing when there's no accountability or oversight from the state or regulatory officials. I mean isn't that what that Sinclair guy was talking about? :^)
It really depends on what definition of anarchy you mean and on what scale and how committed the people involved are to the ideals. The main thing is that successful anarchy takes a lot of planning and organization.
And then someone will come and take power by use of force because there isn't anyone to oppose them. And many people will accept it because they will see it as being better than the chaos that existed before it. Just look at history. And this has nothing to do with socialism.
Comments
brasil anarquista JÁ!
just really don't like the word radicalise
Gut reaction stays the same, but tk for the view shift
still don't like it can be linked to that inte