5 ms·

Mirriam-Webster defines "extremism" [1] as "advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism" By this definition, extremism and radicalism are equivocated. H

Mirriam-Webster defines "extremism" [1] as "advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism" By this definition, extremism and radicalism are equivocated. However, I know many people on the "left" presently identify as radicals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_left). The article differentiates between the terms "extremism" and "radicalism" by assigning a "political-right" label to "extremists" and a "political-left" label to "radicals". Stifling the extremes of one "side" while supporting the other "side" is how you implement cultural revolution. It is quite literally a repressive tactic. The term "Whac-a-Mole" assigns a sense of childishness and fun to the extremism elimination efforts, which disarms "moderates" and dehumanizes cultural revolution. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extremism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extremism

emodendroket 6y ago
I think you have to play pretty fast and loose with the groups involved to come to these conclusions.
- jtdev 6y ago
  Please explain what you mean by this.
  - emodendroket 6y ago
    The Democrats beat back a left-wing challenge from their base quite handily and Joe Biden was proud to say so. When I consider this and the generally contemptuous attitude of Dems toward their more progressive supporters, I find the notion of a Red Guard reshaping America in their image something like a fever dream and not a serious analysis. To my mind the Capitol raid is playing a much larger role in their minds. The thought isn't "we need to create a far left America" but "we came way too close to the peaceful transfer of power being usurped."
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - TheBobinator 6y ago
      The core base of the Democratic party; Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, and their ilk; have been in power in their jerrymandered districts for decades, and in line with accusing others what what they themselves are doing, they accused the Republicans for over a year with planning to usurp power for the mortal sin of making a fuss over Mail In Balloting, something most western countries have heavily restricted or outright banned. In a country with more firearms in civillian ownership then every other countries military combined, Nobody in the Democratic party believes there was actually an insurrection. If there were, there'd be no place for congress or the senate to hide from the nationwide guerilla warfare. As has happened so many times in politics, political parties get hijacked. The Democrats have been hijacked by foreign interests, the Republicans are in the process of being hijacked by domestic populists.
      - emodendroket 6y ago
        Getting a massive army to go for years of guerilla war is quite a different proposition from getting a small, committed group of people to storm a building and start taking hostages, especially if there is a rump that supports them.
        TheBobinator 6y ago
        So you don't need a massive army to engage in an insurrection but you do need a massive army to engage in Guerilla warfare? What sized army do you need to engage in terrorism?
        emodendroket 6y ago
        Your own scenario was a large percentage of gun owners rising up, wasn't it? I'm simply telling you I think that's far harder to pull off than an alternate version of the Capitol raid where they managed to get their hands on representatives.
- Taylor_OD 6y ago
  Yeah... Anytime a paragraph starts with a dictionary definition it is rarely going to result in a good explanation of a difficult and nuanced topic.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I think the salient point is that there are extremists on both sides but the article only concerns itself with right-wing extremists. In effect, this isn't a campaign against "extremism", it's a campaign to combat right-wing extremism while left-wing extremism continues to proliferate unfettered. The OP characterizes this as a cultural revolution, but I don't think he made a particularly good case for it. Notably, I think "passively tolerating left-wing extremism while cracking down on right-wing extremism" is pretty weak evidence for CR. Rather, I would argue that CR begins when left authoritarianism begins--when the mainstream, majority viewpoint (the Overton Window) takes a back-seat to the left-wing extremist viewpoint due to intimidation. If I were to argue that we're on the brink of a CR, I would sooner invoke cancel culture: threatening to get someone fired for espousing mainstream viewpoints (e.g., advocating for nonviolent protest or Tweeting an interview with a black man concerned about black-on-black crime). I would invoke BLM riots (no, I'm not talking about peaceful protests) and a media that refused to challenge the predominant narrative with obvious questions (e.g., "How are we collectively so sure that the cause of the shooting disparity is 'racist police' and not some other factor, to the extent that we are ready to burn neighborhoods to the ground rather than entertain dialogue?") and instead spent months rationalizing the violence. I would also note how remarkable it was that nearly every business in the hardest-hit areas were quick to hang "This business supports BLM" or "PoC owned business" signs, while their suburban and rural locations felt no such compulsion. I would invoke surveys showing chilled speech in newsrooms and the academy or an explicit willingness, pride even, from the same institutions to discriminate solely on the basis of politics. Ultimately though, while left-wing extremism is concerning, I'm less interested in arguing over the threshold at which it becomes "Cultural Revolution". I think we should content ourselves to note that it is fundamentally illiberal and anti-human and continue advancing the causes of peace, justice, equality, and prosperity.
    - emodendroket 6y ago
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  This person, the GP, now seems to be actively spreading disinformation. I caught them claiming a complaint about efficacy in the Pfizer vaccine was about safety, after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study. I read the study and you can go look at my response[1]. The tell of the troll is that he never comes back to finish arguments.... The fact that HN thinks they have a handle on the disinformation here is laughable. This site was featured in a New Yorker article, does not filter out obvious propaganda, and allows anyone to say anything as long as its cordial. To think they could combat nation state level attacks with two people is ridiculous. This is a soft target. The only thing we can do is pay attention to what our eyes and ears tell us. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280
  - waterheater 6y ago
    >The tell of the troll is that he never comes back to finish arguments.... Really? Perhaps people on HN have lives and dislike engaging with hostile actors on the Internet. >after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study If you think I was putting you down, I sincerely apologize. I simply meant that anyone who understands the science well should read it. Nothing more. The insight of the knowledgeable on contradictory information is most helpful in challenging times. I am surprised you appear to have engaged in a vendetta based upon a misinterpretation.
    - wbronitsky 6y ago
      Yet again you resort to troll tactics. You have yet to come clean about the obvious disinformation you are spreading, and seek only to redirect the conversation to something interpersonal instead of factual. Setting the interpersonal aside, How can one claim in good faith that they are representing the truth, when they demonstrably lie about the content of their citations to further their argument and refuse to reconcile with that? State actor or not, you are using troll tactics to spread disinformation, and it is blatantly obvious. Receipts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280
  - emodendroket 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wbronitsky 6y ago
This account is actively spreading disinformation. They are spreading FUD about vaccines and now about ANTIFA. They site spurious sources and they are not being properly flagged. I’m amazed that they think that two moderators could combat nation states. Such hubris.

emodendroket 6y ago

I think you have to play pretty fast and loose with the groups involved to come to these conclusions.

jtdev 6y ago
Please explain what you mean by this.
- emodendroket 6y ago
  The Democrats beat back a left-wing challenge from their base quite handily and Joe Biden was proud to say so. When I consider this and the generally contemptuous attitude of Dems toward their more progressive supporters, I find the notion of a Red Guard reshaping America in their image something like a fever dream and not a serious analysis. To my mind the Capitol raid is playing a much larger role in their minds. The thought isn't "we need to create a far left America" but "we came way too close to the peaceful transfer of power being usurped."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheBobinator 6y ago
    The core base of the Democratic party; Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, and their ilk; have been in power in their jerrymandered districts for decades, and in line with accusing others what what they themselves are doing, they accused the Republicans for over a year with planning to usurp power for the mortal sin of making a fuss over Mail In Balloting, something most western countries have heavily restricted or outright banned. In a country with more firearms in civillian ownership then every other countries military combined, Nobody in the Democratic party believes there was actually an insurrection. If there were, there'd be no place for congress or the senate to hide from the nationwide guerilla warfare. As has happened so many times in politics, political parties get hijacked. The Democrats have been hijacked by foreign interests, the Republicans are in the process of being hijacked by domestic populists.
    - emodendroket 6y ago
      Getting a massive army to go for years of guerilla war is quite a different proposition from getting a small, committed group of people to storm a building and start taking hostages, especially if there is a rump that supports them.
      - TheBobinator 6y ago
        So you don't need a massive army to engage in an insurrection but you do need a massive army to engage in Guerilla warfare? What sized army do you need to engage in terrorism?
        emodendroket 6y ago
        Your own scenario was a large percentage of gun owners rising up, wasn't it? I'm simply telling you I think that's far harder to pull off than an alternate version of the Capitol raid where they managed to get their hands on representatives.
Taylor_OD 6y ago
Yeah... Anytime a paragraph starts with a dictionary definition it is rarely going to result in a good explanation of a difficult and nuanced topic.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I think the salient point is that there are extremists on both sides but the article only concerns itself with right-wing extremists. In effect, this isn't a campaign against "extremism", it's a campaign to combat right-wing extremism while left-wing extremism continues to proliferate unfettered. The OP characterizes this as a cultural revolution, but I don't think he made a particularly good case for it. Notably, I think "passively tolerating left-wing extremism while cracking down on right-wing extremism" is pretty weak evidence for CR. Rather, I would argue that CR begins when left authoritarianism begins--when the mainstream, majority viewpoint (the Overton Window) takes a back-seat to the left-wing extremist viewpoint due to intimidation. If I were to argue that we're on the brink of a CR, I would sooner invoke cancel culture: threatening to get someone fired for espousing mainstream viewpoints (e.g., advocating for nonviolent protest or Tweeting an interview with a black man concerned about black-on-black crime). I would invoke BLM riots (no, I'm not talking about peaceful protests) and a media that refused to challenge the predominant narrative with obvious questions (e.g., "How are we collectively so sure that the cause of the shooting disparity is 'racist police' and not some other factor, to the extent that we are ready to burn neighborhoods to the ground rather than entertain dialogue?") and instead spent months rationalizing the violence. I would also note how remarkable it was that nearly every business in the hardest-hit areas were quick to hang "This business supports BLM" or "PoC owned business" signs, while their suburban and rural locations felt no such compulsion. I would invoke surveys showing chilled speech in newsrooms and the academy or an explicit willingness, pride even, from the same institutions to discriminate solely on the basis of politics. Ultimately though, while left-wing extremism is concerning, I'm less interested in arguing over the threshold at which it becomes "Cultural Revolution". I think we should content ourselves to note that it is fundamentally illiberal and anti-human and continue advancing the causes of peace, justice, equality, and prosperity.
  - emodendroket 6y ago
wbronitsky 6y ago
This person, the GP, now seems to be actively spreading disinformation. I caught them claiming a complaint about efficacy in the Pfizer vaccine was about safety, after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study. I read the study and you can go look at my response[1]. The tell of the troll is that he never comes back to finish arguments.... The fact that HN thinks they have a handle on the disinformation here is laughable. This site was featured in a New Yorker article, does not filter out obvious propaganda, and allows anyone to say anything as long as its cordial. To think they could combat nation state level attacks with two people is ridiculous. This is a soft target. The only thing we can do is pay attention to what our eyes and ears tell us. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280
- waterheater 6y ago
  >The tell of the troll is that he never comes back to finish arguments.... Really? Perhaps people on HN have lives and dislike engaging with hostile actors on the Internet. >after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study If you think I was putting you down, I sincerely apologize. I simply meant that anyone who understands the science well should read it. Nothing more. The insight of the knowledgeable on contradictory information is most helpful in challenging times. I am surprised you appear to have engaged in a vendetta based upon a misinterpretation.
  - wbronitsky 6y ago
    Yet again you resort to troll tactics. You have yet to come clean about the obvious disinformation you are spreading, and seek only to redirect the conversation to something interpersonal instead of factual. Setting the interpersonal aside, How can one claim in good faith that they are representing the truth, when they demonstrably lie about the content of their citations to further their argument and refuse to reconcile with that? State actor or not, you are using troll tactics to spread disinformation, and it is blatantly obvious. Receipts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280
- emodendroket 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wbronitsky 6y ago

This account is actively spreading disinformation. They are spreading FUD about vaccines and now about ANTIFA. They site spurious sources and they are not being properly flagged. I’m amazed that they think that two moderators could combat nation states. Such hubris.