The man told jurors he spent hours listening to far-right podcasts before breaking into the Pelosi home and attacking the then-Speaker’s husband with a hammer.
The man told jurors he spent hours listening to far-right podcasts before breaking into the Pelosi home and attacking the then-Speaker’s husband with a hammer.
advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
Yep, it has a definite meaning and that meaning definitely applies here as I think anyone would class attacking someone with a hammer as extreme measures.
The term radical (in a political context) has always implied “change at the root.” That is what the Latin word rādīcālis (“of or pertaining to the root, having roots, radical”).
It is utterly impossible for a “radical” right-wing ideology to exist, as the sole purpose of right-wing ideology is to prevent change - that is why right-wing ideology is referred to as reactionary… essentially, anti-radical.
So, no… the liberal media is perpetrating misinformation when it uses the terms “radical” and “radicalized” in this inaccurate way - and so are you.
The term radical (in a political context) has always implied “change at the root.”
The dictionary definition I supplied gave no indication of left or right.
Your unsourced assertion, which I assume you got from someone making a video sitting in their car, is what you want to word to mean rather than what it actually means.
Now forgetting word play, do you think attacking an elected official’s family with a hammer is an acceptable political action in a democracy?
The dictionary definition I supplied gave no indication of left or right.
No, it doesn’t.
Showing up to a political discussion with a dictionary “definition” is a sure-fire way to show that you have zero real knowledge regarding the subject matter.
Your unsourced assertion
Really? You think the last three hundred years of political thought was made by “someone making a video sitting in their car”?
No, Clyde - again… it is utterly impossible for a “radical” right-wing ideology to exist, as the sole purpose of right-wing ideology is to prevent change.
Show me a right-wing ideology that is advocating for change “at the root” and not merely protecting and expanding the status quo - maybe your dictionary can help you with that?
It’s not fun watching liberals turn to copium when they find out they they are no less right-wing than the (so-called) “conservatives” they love looking down upon - but I’m afraid it’s true… your investment in maintaining the status quo means it can be no other way.
Your pretense that the term radical can be conflated with the term extremist does not make that any less true.
Fixed that for them. Despite liberal media’s pretensions, the term radical actually has a meaning - and a very good one at that.
(v) to make radical especially in politics
Radical (adj)
advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
Yep, it has a definite meaning and that meaning definitely applies here as I think anyone would class attacking someone with a hammer as extreme measures.
Yes it has, and you don’t have it.
The term radical (in a political context) has always implied “change at the root.” That is what the Latin word rādīcālis (“of or pertaining to the root, having roots, radical”).
It is utterly impossible for a “radical” right-wing ideology to exist, as the sole purpose of right-wing ideology is to prevent change - that is why right-wing ideology is referred to as reactionary… essentially, anti-radical.
So, no… the liberal media is perpetrating misinformation when it uses the terms “radical” and “radicalized” in this inaccurate way - and so are you.
The dictionary definition I supplied gave no indication of left or right.
Your unsourced assertion, which I assume you got from someone making a video sitting in their car, is what you want to word to mean rather than what it actually means.
Now forgetting word play, do you think attacking an elected official’s family with a hammer is an acceptable political action in a democracy?
No, it doesn’t.
Showing up to a political discussion with a dictionary “definition” is a sure-fire way to show that you have zero real knowledge regarding the subject matter.
Really? You think the last three hundred years of political thought was made by “someone making a video sitting in their car”?
No, Clyde - again… it is utterly impossible for a “radical” right-wing ideology to exist, as the sole purpose of right-wing ideology is to prevent change.
Show me a right-wing ideology that is advocating for change “at the root” and not merely protecting and expanding the status quo - maybe your dictionary can help you with that?
Ok sure. Radical Evangelicals want to change America from a Secular nation to a Christian nation.
They want to change a core, founding aspect of the nation, ‘at the root,’ to better align with their religion
See what I did there? I helped you not spread misinformation - ain’t I nice?
Soooo… a fundamentally white supremacist nation is turning to christofascism to protect the fundamental white supremacism the nation was founded upon?
Yeah… you really got the “radical” part nailed, genius - tell me another one.
You’re adorably confidently incorrect.
It’s not fun watching liberals turn to copium when they find out they they are no less right-wing than the (so-called) “conservatives” they love looking down upon - but I’m afraid it’s true… your investment in maintaining the status quo means it can be no other way.
Your pretense that the term radical can be conflated with the term extremist does not make that any less true.
ISIS.
Since when is fundamentalist right-wing Islamism not fundamentalist right-wing Islamism?