America has always rejected fanaticism, especially since WWII. We are supposed to be E pluribus unum – out of many, ONE. Now, the right wants America to be E unum pluribus – out of ONE, many.
America has always rejected fanaticism, especially since WWII. We are supposed to be E pluribus unum – out of many, ONE. Now, the right wants America to be E unum pluribus – out of ONE, many.
Riots, terriost plots, open calls for revolutions, etc all fall in that camp in my mind
Should you be using terms if you don’t actually know what they mean?
I mean I guess I could use the Victoria 3 definition but I chose this one since its more contemporary
Is that one better than the cheap one CNN (and you) are using?
Radical is just further left than reformer.
Is that better?
I use it more like free radicals but applied as people. Little agents of chaos that disrupt the system. Again for better and worse.
I was going to say radicalism (as a political concept) refers to the practice of looking for the root causes of society’s ills as opposed to merely fixating on (if we’re going to be charitable about it) superficial ones as reformist and reactionary politics would have us to do, and this makes radicalism an inherently left-wing thing and something reactionaries (and most of their reformist allies) will take extreme measures to prevent - including completely handing the state and it’s repressive apparatus over to reactionaries (ie, what we call fascism today).
But you know what? This…
…is, so far, the only half-way decent response I’ve ever had to this in about five year’s time - so I’m just going to leave it as is.