Thanks for your long reply - which you didn't post, but still, thanks! Alas, I was unable to get any big reveal from the quotes themselves. Maybe one of your points was that feminism in itself is radical?

I had objections to each quote separately, but also had one point on top of that, so I bolded two words. In a nutshell - you claim being progressive prevents being radical, suggested being a feminist is being progressive. If so - what about "radical feminism"?
I sincerely hope you can figure the rest out. The third quote is especially egregious. It's not a case of "what's wrong with this?", more of a "why would anyone ever think this way?"...

Yes, I believe equality of the sexes (feminism) is a progressive ideal. And I also think that it's hard to be truly radical with that as a foundation.

In my experience, the label "radical feminism", is mostly used as a derogatory term for feminism in general. Someone talks about "radical feminism", and I get my hopes up for something extreme - death threats, conspiracies of enslaving all men, something like that - and it turn out to be someone analysing games on youtube ...

Of course, it is possible twist anything into something radical. For instance when Janice Raymond used "feminism" to justify her notorious transphobia. But her attack clearly goes against the foundation of 'equality of sexes': If men/women have a basic right over their own bodies, this clearly includes mens right to wear stockings and redefine their gender identity.

If someone forget that the ideal is "equality of the sexes", and instead has the mindset that "me and my gender is the victim here", then we have a perfect recipe for radicalism. But then they have moved far away from the true foundation.

I don't see that hostility needs to be an intentional state.


The comment was a plea for cliffsnotes. You somehow took it as proof of an average reader losing interest because they were presented with non-controversial information.

In fact, the article is tagged 'politics' and 'things I will regret writing,' i.e. the article is controversial. Again, the article the commenter stopped reading is controversial.

The comment didn't illustrate the point of the article at all. If anything, it shows the opposite, that the commenter is a superlative reader who is not easily humbugged into some silly controversy.

Someone is using this article as a form of ego defense and acting the Moloch, and it ain't that poetic humanoid vampire cat.


It's also tagged 'long post is long.' Could help explain why someone might ask for CliffsNotes.


You know you hurt someone.

Can you accept your role and say you're sorry?

In other words - "Radical feminist isn't radical". Either that or "There's no such thing as radical feminist"... OR "When TRULY radical, it no longer COUNTS as feminism". Frankly - these were the answers I expected. Carry on.

You seem to be saying that a person can be hostile towards someone or something without knowing it... Alright. If that's how you want to use your language, who am I to judge?

I didn't know that "superlative readers" in your country need cliffsnotes. I expected them to simply read shit on their own like they do in my country. I guess these are cultural differences I have yet to acquaint myself with...

Nope, non sequitur. The sensationalist tone isn't really present in the article. The shock value isn't really there. To claim that it is "sensationalist" simply because it describes something interesting that people might disagree with is stretching it.
Besides - don't take my word for it. Snowkatt claims she stopped reading because she was BORED. "Boring" is the very opposite of "controversial". One puts you to sleep, the other increases your blood pressure.

Alternative character interpretation: the commenter is young, easily distracted, loses interest quickly. Of course - I respect your right to kiss ass...

Nope. I'm not Matt Taylor. I don't really give in to social pressure. I can "accept my role" and tell you to go fuck yourself. I will not apologize for a multitude of reasons: because I've done nothing wrong, because I intended no harm, and because it would benefit nobody. I will not get bullied into submission, but you are welcome to keep trying.

Hey, I just discovered an online music album called The Freest of Radicals Remixed

There are people who despise everyone who is not fond of chocolate
and of course lots of people that hate everyone who is not fond of their favourite band, but I couldn't imagine someone like this here. ;)

PS: I hate Minecraft.

Hi there, I somehow missed this earlier mate.

I do acknowledge it. And it's great you do as well. I don't think I'm a less radical human than you. When it comes to politics though, I do think I'm more tolerant than you. I think you have a certain blind spot, not so much at the 'yourself' level, rather at how easily you dismiss tolerance of non progressive values as a political common good, hence your political radicalism. I don't think you're an anarchist though, just radical.

Also don't worry about derailing, I did post the quote referencing GG right there in the OP itself right?

I agree idealistic rational ideologies (pacifism, feminism, multiculturalism, etc...) can provide an ethical core.
I disagree that communication with anyone is a priori impossible. There's enough commonality in humanity itself.
I disagree people are dishonest just because they have different values to you. I agree you will despair before you get them to reveal their 'true' viewpoints, because those truths are actually ghosts in your shell.
I agree surrendering the debate may be polarizing (you mean by shifting the average of some societal norm to a more extreme point - I'd call this radicalizing), the link I posted is all about how the debate itself usually is itself polarizing (in a different way, where the distribution splits into at least two poles - this is what I call actual polarization), and becomes more so with time. Having a debate while avoiding polarization is hard and boring work.

I aggree.

A debate without polarisation is not allowed to use terms like *ism.
As soon as you give yourself or someone else a label or think like/as a group of many people, polarisation is already there.

I am always between fighting parties having enemies at both sides no matter at which topic and can clearly see, that the amount of tolerance, will to communicate, to understand each other and finding compromises is in no way related to the "-ism" in itself.
There are tolerant nationalists, open minded conservatives, shockingly intolerant left-wing people and lots of misogynist feminists as well as extremely misandrist machos, etc...
In the end, the labels really don't matter, radicalism, intolerance and narrow mindedness only show at certain points in discussions regarding various topics.

We are all radical at some point, but it's always important to remember why exactly that is and to ask yourself if the reason is still a good one and the moment you can't find a proper reason anymore or cannot really explain it to yourself anymore, you'll be lost in a stream of pointless hatred.
Hopefully I never reach this point.

I was an extremely cynical person for years and never want to be like this again, although it made life in a hostile environment (big city as well as internet boards) much easier.

Right, and I'm as guilty as anyone else of putting people in boxes. It's a reason I think face to face comm is less fraught with such dehumanizing polarization potential, though it invites all sorts of other biases much more strongly, related to physical aspects.

Merry Christmas all.

Not quite, because the French revolution was certainly radical, but also, one has to hand it in for the French for having both the ideal and the cruelty of imposing it internally.

Let us take the Bolshevik revolution - it ended up projecting outwards most forcefully; even when the communist ideal IMO is not too far from ideals per evangel of Mattheus.

Up to any of us, I think, to have source criticality and maybe some degree of kindness - or unquestioning take-in, and cruelty.

I perso prefer to think that we humans intrinsically are not evil - so even more shame on those who should like to believe about anything as long as it enhances their prejudges. This, I should think, is the core of radicalism.

As to how anyone comes about hating a class or group of others - well, hard to say - because the haters are never (or at least rarely) very open and honest about it, are they?

I tend to think this requires for the main the shield of anonymity, conformity, being oneself victim of unkindness, or belonging without discrimination to a class of privilege.

I think I agree, though you are confining yourself to terrorism and class or ethnic hatred, not radicalism as I've described it. I do think the banality of evil is often quite open and sincere, not hidden at all. As well I'd say arrogance and feeling superior, as well lack of empathy, both contribute to radicalism more than hatred.

Well... the tragedy of being human is precisely that banality of evil right? I agree with you, that anything can be a source of radicalism: lack of empathy, too much empathy, etc...

As to the morals of it. I could tell you what I feel/think is the correct answer to your example, however at this level I would rather say that I don't think either consequentialism (where the results define the moral good - so intent hardly matters, accidents are equally bad to premeditated acts) nor its opposite, which I believe is called deontologism (where the act in itself carries all the moral, regardless of consequence, hence lying about someone's location is wrong even if it's lying to someone wanting to find them to kill them) are wholly correct. I do tend more towards the moral imperative side, and so I'd say there is always something wrong about radicalism, even when its consequence is good. Heck I'd not be against SJWs otherwise, as I believe usually their intentions are good, yet their methods not. However I do think intent is very important for human action and judgement of it, and I kind of see a karma system as being relevant, where sure, the lying is bad, the radicalism is bad, but it can achieve good as well, and one should carefully determine where the balance of it is. Put another way, to me saying something is right or wrong, is not the end, it's the beggining, for although I don't agree with utilitarianism as determining that ethical bottom truth, I do agree with it as a method to actually evaluate the superficial pros and cons of a democratic humanity. So killing is wrong, yet war may be right, etc... you see? Apart from the Arendt meaning of banal men being evil, I use the expression banality of evil also in this sense, that war is organized killing, therefore evil, and yet... it's banal and imo obviously effective very often.

And by the way, to your final rethoric touch to TStael, although I agree with its intent. I'd say the truth is humans are animal and amoral. We paint the moral or imoral into it from a variety of cultural and biological imperatives. Which is why I'm not a categorical deontologist.