5 ms·
This is how extremism spreads: 1. A Reasonable Position is expressed, in this case - 'Nazi's are very bad'. The Reasonable Position often involves an Enemy tha
by meri_dian 9y ago
This is how extremism spreads:
1. A Reasonable Position is expressed, in this case - 'Nazi's are very bad'. The Reasonable Position often involves an Enemy that must be stopped. Most reasonable people will agree with the Reasonable Position.
2. The Reasonable Position becomes the overriding factor in any situation that involves it. All other factors and considerations are dwarfed by it and forgotten.
3. Because the Reasonable Position comes to dominate the thinking of the Extremist - who often means well - they come to believe one can only ever be for or against the Reasonable Position. There is no room for moderate positions that try to balance the Reasonable Position with other important considerations and values - in this case, freedom of speech.
4. In order to show support for the Reasonable Position, third parties are forced to action in accordance with the world view of the Extremist. If they try to balance other considerations against the Reasonable Position, they are seen by the Extremist as sympathizing with the Enemy.
5. The fervor of extremism charges through society, trampling on other values and considerations.
- tyrw 9y agoSome examples would help here. Reading this did not bring any real world situations to mind for me.
- meri_dian 9y ago>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
- existencebox 9y ago(Edit/disclaimer, the sister post's examples of mcarthyism et al. are far better than my ken-burns-biased analogues) Prohibition comes to mind. Washingtonians and other early groups were based more in abstinance than prohibition; but the dogma shifted under a mix of social/religious pressures from the dominating voices in that fight to result in an all or nothing approach which, while it succeeded, had disastrous effects in the longer term.
- convery 9y agoThis. Over the past few days I've been called a Nazi-supporter or KKK-defender simply for disagreeing with people. The 'logic' seems to be that Nazis are their enemy, and me not 100% supporting them means I too am the enemy, thus I'm actually trying to undermine them to help the Nazis. My last post on Reddit was simply saying that dehumanising people and denouncing pacifists as sympathisers only creates further radicalisation. Currently at -350 points as it's clearly a controversial statement.