hangover
Gold Member
- Oct 8, 2013
- 5,734
- 642
- 190
It is funny, the far left thinks they are centrists.
While the extremists should have a voice they shouldn't be the one and only voice.
You bring up a curious point. Some groups have a large segment which self-identifies as "extremist" in terms of ideas (while often pointedly eschewing violent means). I find this in libertarian circles (remember Goldwater's famous remark!) and some on the Left. I place myself in this category, I am extremist in some of my core beliefs in the sense that I recognize that 90%+ of the population is not going to agree.
What I share with "radical" libertarians and other extremists is a conviction that just because a policy is supported by a large number of people does not make it a good policy. Consensus merely means that a large number of people join in a bad decision, it does not make the decision a good decision. This is the basic objection to "centrism", the idea that the "center" somehow must be the best course. If you believe that, please explain lemmings.
Often "extremists" are called "anti-democratic" and sometimes "anti-intellectual", both of which I think are bad raps. Democracy is a process, and someone can be dedicated to democratic process and have faith that eventually the best reasoning will win out, while holding seriously minority views. Nothing says the majority must be right. I just hope they can be persuaded.
So I like a good presentation of a position whether I agree with it or not. If someone can argue well, they likely can be persuaded as well. I shudder at the people who cannot be persuaded because they know the "right answer" even if I agree with them.
I have avoided examples because often as soon as one is given, a process "fire, ready, aim" often sets in where people give a knee-jerk reaction based on their world view (often without reading the entire post), assigning the author to one of the pre-determined pigeonholes, and blasing away with the birdshot. Not only is this not conducive to developing a good discussion, I find it incredibly boring. If I want to see that kind of behavior I can always watch six year olds at the park.
So extremists of the world, fire away! Just try to aim first.
I was just thinking a similar thing about the OP before I read this post. Specifically where the OP said that all voices are needed to describe reality (ironic since the Jim seems to be rather quick with the ignore list.)
My thought went something like this:
Say there is this thing called "reality"
Humans have ideas about what this "reality" is.
Their ideas may be accurate in describing reality or they may be inaccurate. (Really it is probably more like degrees of accuracy but let's keep it simple for now. )
If you have 99 people who's view of reality is inaccurate and only 1 whose view is accurate, you probably aren't going to make choices as a group that are in line with reality.
In that situation, the only real hope is that the person who does have an accurate view is a damned eloquent person. The majority or consensus view is NOT going to work out well.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
There it is. Those ideas of what reality is, are only "perceptions". All these herds, like science, Christianity, Islam, the GOP, and the DNC, have their "perceptions" of reality. But no one has a monopoly on reality. Until all these herds are willing to recognize that, and are willing to give up their "beliefs", in favor of the "truth" of reality, the evolution of humanity will remain stuck in it's stupidity. Some groups(herds), like science do re-evaluate their "perceptions" when they are found to be erroneous. Other herds, like religions and political parties are determined to wallow in their stupidity. i.e. The Catholics burning people at the stake for heresy, because they knew the world revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around. And then a thousand years later, said..."Oh, uh sorry."
The only way to see reality(the truth), is to be willing to give up your "perceptions". And that, to most, is just to uncomfortable.