6 ms·

Never mind the suffragette movement of the 19th-c., democracy and women's rights were Enlightenment ideas and there are many quotes of the foremost Enlightenmen

Never mind the suffragette movement of the 19th-c., democracy and women's rights were Enlightenment ideas and there are many quotes of the foremost Enlightenment thinkers (such as J.S. Mill) supporting them quite strongly. So, either the Enlightenment itself wasn't 'radical' at least in this sense, or the whole idea that "radicals anywhere and at any time have faulty metacognition" is, well, faulty.

mythrwy 7y ago
Exactly. People think they are Rosa Park but what they are up in arms about isn't the same type of thing. So instead they look to make issues because many of the big ones are already solved. Which, leads to problems.
- harrumph 7y ago
  > People think they are Rosa Park Rosa Parks gives us a model for behavior, for bravery in the face of institutionalized injustice. We want as many of her as we can get, because left radical ideas make the world fairer when they become mainstreamed by people like her. > So instead they look to make issues No. If you had ever been on the receiving end of what radicals exhibiting bravery actually get as response, you would understand that nobody prefers that kind of abuse.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    Yep. I have political opinions also. But I've learned they aren't worth arguing about nor making claims of superiority in most cases. Incremental changes work. Radicals causing destruction very seldom do. Unless the injustice is manifestly extreme and intolerable enough. And the causes most radicals espouse today, well, speaking of weaksauce.
    - harrumph 7y ago
      >I have political opinions also. Good for you. The thing is, it's not a matter of opinion: radical left ideas do, in fact, improve the society and do, in fact, become mainstream. >Incremental changes work. Radicals causing destruction very seldom do. The only thing Rosa Parks destroyed was the unchallenged idea that she was rightfully subject to lesser treatment. What she did was not incremental in the slightest, though, so, lame centrist chiding that would have her act "incrementally" is at best meaningless and at worst openly supportive of the unjust status quo of the time.
      - mythrwy 7y ago
        Claiming your opinion is absolute fact doesn't make it so. There are plenty of counterexamples but again, not worth debating. Rosa Parks all great and good. Not really that radical. Burning ghettos a decade later did what exactly? What we get from that? The ghettos are still there. "meaningless", "openly supportive". Like many of your stripe you appear to want to mostly be combative and argue and sling accusations. It's counterproductive and if I weren't in a shitty mood myself from too much time in Vim wouldn't even engage. You can't burn everything to the ground for every perceived slight. Makes nothing better. Fortunately most people in modern society recognize this. Communism failed and will continue to fail indefinitely (at least until strong AI comes about). Better ideas don't always come from the left. Sorry. Both sides have their share of dumb ideas. The progressive timeline in which I speculate you think you are participating, "taking up the mantel" as it were is mostly bullshit. Not that respect for basic human freedoms and respect for others and basic human decency is bullshit. But all too often leftists have forgotten about that part. Oh, not a "rightist" in case you misunderstand.
        harrumph 7y ago
        > Claiming your opinion is absolute fact doesn't make it so. Sorry, it's not an opinion: the examples given in the first paragraph of the article are nothing but left radical ideas that became mainstream. Don't mistake plain, historical, uncontroversial fact for opinion. They are left radical ideas that, like others of their kind, became mainstream and made the society fairer and better. It seems you don't want to admit it -- probably because it would interrupt your pose of above-it-all detachment -- but the good thing is because we have a shared history, you don't actually have to admit it. It's true anyway.
        mythrwy 7y ago
        You may think what you are saying is "true" but I challenge you to find counterexamples yourself. I believe you will find plenty which negate what you are saying. It's too simple of a narrative and lacks real world nuance. Also perhaps think about what being a "radical" entails. In short, don't be exactly what the studies in the parent article found.
eesmith 7y ago
I "mind the suffragette movement" because it was one of the examples used in the article. If that example doesn't work, then of course any number of other once-radical ideas don't work. As an aside, John Stuart Mill is not considered one of the 'foremost Enlightenment thinkers' because he isn't regarded as an Enlightenment thinker. The Age of Enlightenment ended about the time that J. S. Mill was born. Instead, he is part of 'late modern philosophy' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th-century_philosophy#Philosophical_schools_and_tendencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th-century_philosophy#Philos... J. S. Mill and other contemporaneous philosophers like Karl Marx, were certainly informed by Enlightenment ideas, but to the best of my understanding, the right of women to vote were NOT core to Enlightenment-era thinking. As support, I point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Condorcet#Gender_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Condorcet#Gender_eq... where we see that gender equality wasn't considered by famous Enlightenment thinkers until the end of the Enlightenment, around 1790: > One of the most famous Enlightenment thinkers at the time, [Marquis de Condorcet] was one of the first to make such a radical proposal. A visionary, he identified gender as a social construction based on perceived differences in sex and rejected biological determinism as being able to explain gender relations in society. He denounced patriarchal norms of oppression, present at every institutional level, and continuously subjugating and marginalising women. I can easily be proven wrong by pointing to writings from several other of the foremost Enlightenment thinkers advocating for a woman's right to vote equal to a man's. Could you point them out?

mythrwy 7y ago

Exactly. People think they are Rosa Park but what they are up in arms about isn't the same type of thing. So instead they look to make issues because many of the big ones are already solved. Which, leads to problems.

harrumph 7y ago
> People think they are Rosa Park Rosa Parks gives us a model for behavior, for bravery in the face of institutionalized injustice. We want as many of her as we can get, because left radical ideas make the world fairer when they become mainstreamed by people like her. > So instead they look to make issues No. If you had ever been on the receiving end of what radicals exhibiting bravery actually get as response, you would understand that nobody prefers that kind of abuse.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  Yep. I have political opinions also. But I've learned they aren't worth arguing about nor making claims of superiority in most cases. Incremental changes work. Radicals causing destruction very seldom do. Unless the injustice is manifestly extreme and intolerable enough. And the causes most radicals espouse today, well, speaking of weaksauce.
  - harrumph 7y ago
    >I have political opinions also. Good for you. The thing is, it's not a matter of opinion: radical left ideas do, in fact, improve the society and do, in fact, become mainstream. >Incremental changes work. Radicals causing destruction very seldom do. The only thing Rosa Parks destroyed was the unchallenged idea that she was rightfully subject to lesser treatment. What she did was not incremental in the slightest, though, so, lame centrist chiding that would have her act "incrementally" is at best meaningless and at worst openly supportive of the unjust status quo of the time.
    - mythrwy 7y ago
      Claiming your opinion is absolute fact doesn't make it so. There are plenty of counterexamples but again, not worth debating. Rosa Parks all great and good. Not really that radical. Burning ghettos a decade later did what exactly? What we get from that? The ghettos are still there. "meaningless", "openly supportive". Like many of your stripe you appear to want to mostly be combative and argue and sling accusations. It's counterproductive and if I weren't in a shitty mood myself from too much time in Vim wouldn't even engage. You can't burn everything to the ground for every perceived slight. Makes nothing better. Fortunately most people in modern society recognize this. Communism failed and will continue to fail indefinitely (at least until strong AI comes about). Better ideas don't always come from the left. Sorry. Both sides have their share of dumb ideas. The progressive timeline in which I speculate you think you are participating, "taking up the mantel" as it were is mostly bullshit. Not that respect for basic human freedoms and respect for others and basic human decency is bullshit. But all too often leftists have forgotten about that part. Oh, not a "rightist" in case you misunderstand.
      - harrumph 7y ago
        > Claiming your opinion is absolute fact doesn't make it so. Sorry, it's not an opinion: the examples given in the first paragraph of the article are nothing but left radical ideas that became mainstream. Don't mistake plain, historical, uncontroversial fact for opinion. They are left radical ideas that, like others of their kind, became mainstream and made the society fairer and better. It seems you don't want to admit it -- probably because it would interrupt your pose of above-it-all detachment -- but the good thing is because we have a shared history, you don't actually have to admit it. It's true anyway.
        mythrwy 7y ago
        You may think what you are saying is "true" but I challenge you to find counterexamples yourself. I believe you will find plenty which negate what you are saying. It's too simple of a narrative and lacks real world nuance. Also perhaps think about what being a "radical" entails. In short, don't be exactly what the studies in the parent article found.

eesmith 7y ago

I "mind the suffragette movement" because it was one of the examples used in the article. If that example doesn't work, then of course any number of other once-radical ideas don't work. As an aside, John Stuart Mill is not considered one of the 'foremost Enlightenment thinkers' because he isn't regarded as an Enlightenment thinker. The Age of Enlightenment ended about the time that J. S. Mill was born. Instead, he is part of 'late modern philosophy' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th-century_philosophy#Philosophical_schools_and_tendencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th-century_philosophy#Philos... J. S. Mill and other contemporaneous philosophers like Karl Marx, were certainly informed by Enlightenment ideas, but to the best of my understanding, the right of women to vote were NOT core to Enlightenment-era thinking. As support, I point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Condorcet#Gender_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Condorcet#Gender_eq... where we see that gender equality wasn't considered by famous Enlightenment thinkers until the end of the Enlightenment, around 1790: > One of the most famous Enlightenment thinkers at the time, [Marquis de Condorcet] was one of the first to make such a radical proposal. A visionary, he identified gender as a social construction based on perceived differences in sex and rejected biological determinism as being able to explain gender relations in society. He denounced patriarchal norms of oppression, present at every institutional level, and continuously subjugating and marginalising women. I can easily be proven wrong by pointing to writings from several other of the foremost Enlightenment thinkers advocating for a woman's right to vote equal to a man's. Could you point them out?