Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Radicals radicalize radicals.
Only stable conditions, equaliberiam or entropy deradicalize.
Social was a flash point. Large parts of society interacted for the first time. Echo chambers formed, energy level increase, radical leave the bubbles and new groups militerize in defense.
It made less sense to people out of the loop though. Nazis, antifa, police are raciest, lgbtq, Christian nationalism, socialism, etc. All of these ideas were subcultures that grew bubble online cause they could (much like the Arab spring), and the radicals that formed and took action made big moves from everyone else's ignorance.
The majority didn't have the means, and frankly still don't, to hold the concepts or ideas as unique groups so instead they mapped onto the two party system warts and all. Because "right wing" was Republican the opposing side told everyone "right wing" is Republican. So Republican had to either disavow or defend them, but when these groups wanted to act politically they had almost no choice but to fit in predefined parties.
Its been mostly good, that's the crazy thing, gay rights, trans rights, police reforms, the DoJ has how many anti trust cases going on now?, how unions are forming?, etc
Tell me you don't know what the term radical means without telling me you don't know what the term radical means.
Riots, terriost plots, open calls for revolutions, etc all fall in that camp in my mind
Should you be using terms if you don't actually know what they mean?
I mean I guess I could use the Victoria 3 definition but I chose this one since its more contemporary
Is that one better than the cheap one CNN (and you) are using?
Radical is just further left than reformer.
Is that better?
I use it more like free radicals but applied as people. Little agents of chaos that disrupt the system. Again for better and worse.
I was going to say radicalism (as a political concept) refers to the practice of looking for the root causes of society's ills as opposed to merely fixating on (if we're going to be charitable about it) superficial ones as reformist and reactionary politics would have us to do, and this makes radicalism an inherently left-wing thing and something reactionaries (and most of their reformist allies) will take extreme measures to prevent - including completely handing the state and it's repressive apparatus over to reactionaries (ie, what we call fascism today).
But you know what? This...
...is, so far, the only half-way decent response I've ever had to this in about five year's time - so I'm just going to leave it as is.