4 ms·

Extremism is used as pejorative because part of its definition is not wanting to take part in any kind of meritocratic discussion and accepting your being outnu

Extremism is used as pejorative because part of its definition is not wanting to take part in any kind of meritocratic discussion and accepting your being outnumbered gives you right to use extreme measures to be heard and/or prove your point. Extremist movements tend to be composed from people that do not listen, do not want to understand the other side and are interested only in furthering their own views. Further, frequently more moderate people (as in being more open to discussion or not accepting extreme measures being used) are being ejected from extremist movements to preserve their extremist nature. This process of polarization is a contest on who can be even more extreme and makes further resolution of the difference in views even more difficult. I object to the idea of extremism. Resolution of any problem requires that people cooperate and extremism thrives on prolonging the problem rather than seeking resolution. (edit: hint, maybe you meant to use word "radical" rather than "extremist". Radical is an extremist sans extreme methods)

eesmith 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism#Criticism > After being accused of extremism, Martin Luther King Jr. criticized the mainstream usage of the term in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love…Was not Amos an extremist for justice…Was not Martin Luther an extremist…So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?" I think you can see how 'extremism' has been used as pejorative in order to dismiss radicalism. As the Wikipedia entry points out: "When in conflict, the activities of members of low power groups tend to be viewed as more extreme than similar activities committed by members of groups advocating the status quo." Viewed through that lens, if the status quo isn't meritocratic, then doesn't your definition imply extremists actually do have "the right to use extreme measures to be heard and/or prove [their] point"? Quoting Letter From A Birmingham Jail: "If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action."

eesmith 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism#Criticism > After being accused of extremism, Martin Luther King Jr. criticized the mainstream usage of the term in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love…Was not Amos an extremist for justice…Was not Martin Luther an extremist…So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?" I think you can see how 'extremism' has been used as pejorative in order to dismiss radicalism. As the Wikipedia entry points out: "When in conflict, the activities of members of low power groups tend to be viewed as more extreme than similar activities committed by members of groups advocating the status quo." Viewed through that lens, if the status quo isn't meritocratic, then doesn't your definition imply extremists actually do have "the right to use extreme measures to be heard and/or prove [their] point"? Quoting Letter From A Birmingham Jail: "If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action."