Originally posted by PalynkaI don't think that's necessarily so. Militancy is a proclivity to be pugnacious. I think any idea can be proposed, championed and fought for in a militant way, regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. Militancy is associated with hardline stances, sure. The problem is, the track record of 'the middle' is one rinsed of advocacy that is belligerent and unwavering in the face of dogmatism (while being ready to waver in the face of logical persuasion). How to tame extremists? The middle needs to be more militant but without oversimplifying and without mimicking the ideologues' professed lack of doubt.
Of course, moving to the "middle" would imply the end of militancy.
Originally posted by ScriabinAre you two proving the point that deliberating can push each other to extremes? 🙂 On a more serious note though, I find I am biased and must struggle to be critical thinking even if I agree with something. I think we all have that tendency to some extent. I have some extremist views on things. I don't think the views are extreme but most other people would probably say they are extreme. One thing I have noticed is that people will use weak evidence or maybe create evidence out of non issues to support their position if they feel strongly enough about something. Heck they will even believe it themselves.
then why are you still here?
Originally posted by joe beyserno, joe. you have to go down the hall to the third door from the end for deliberation, that's Mr. Barkley. This is abuse. Next door is getting hit on the head lessons. Apparently FMF likes abuse, which accounts for why she sticks around asking the very same question over and over again as though she spent much too much time next door. She's never been to see Mr. Barkley, and I think that's on purpose.
Are you two proving the point that deliberating can push each other to extremes? 🙂 On a more serious note though, I find I am biased and must struggle to be critical thinking even if I agree with something. I think we all have that tendency to some extent. I have some extremist views on things. I don't think the views are extreme but most other people w ...[text shortened]... sition if they feel strongly enough about something. Heck they will even believe it themselves.
1 edit
Originally posted by joe beyserIf you were involved in the process of setting the agenda and then participating in the deliberation, would you be willing to concede ground on the issues that you yourself have admitted might be perceived as being "extreme" (your recent sin bin infraction issue, for example) in order to arrive at consesnus applicable to a broad agenda? Or would you fight the good fight issue by issue? How should the deliberation be managed?
On a more serious note though, I find I am biased and must struggle to be critical thinking even if I agree with something. I think we all have that tendency to some extent. I have some extremist views on things. I don't think the views are extreme but most other people would probably say they are extreme.
Originally posted by Scriabin😴
no, joe. you have to go down the hall to the third door from the end for deliberation, that's Mr. Barkley. This is abuse. Next door is getting hit on the head lessons. Apparently FMF likes abuse, which accounts for why she sticks around asking the very same question over and over again as though she spent much too much time next door. She's never been to see Mr. Barkley, and I think that's on purpose.
Originally posted by kmax87I think not. I see "militancy" as the opposite of passivity. I think of "activism" as being a kind of militancy. I don't think of militancy as negative. I think palynka hit the nail on the head when he said: "To my mind, there are (roughly) two types of militancy. One is the dogmatic, propaganda-fuelled militant and the other is a reasoned, non-dogmatic believer in the cause. The latter will be able to defends his beliefs in a rational and coherent way, but the former will inevitably display contradictory beliefs EVEN at a very superficial level." There is a kind of militancy that is persuasive while being open to persuasion at the same time. It's the way forward, I feel. One could define an "extremist" as someone who 'cannot be persuaded to reconsider'.
Is a "militant middle" an oxymoron?
One had hoped someone would have realized how powerful is Mr. Sunstein and troubled themselves to read the article. Alas, we live in the age of the unprepared.
Sunstein's idea for terrorism, for instance. "If a nation aims to prevent terrorist activities," he writes, "a good strategy is to prevent the rise of enclaves of like-minded people."
Now, remember that Sunstein is also intrigued by behavioral economics theory.
What are the implications? I would say they aren't merely academic. I think the implications are potentially at least as troubling as the last Administration's rather interesting ideas concerning civil liberties.
Originally posted by FMFto be militant is to be aggressive, combative, according to webster.
I think not. I see "militancy" as the opposite of passivity. I think of "activism" as being a kind of militancy. I don't think of militancy as negative. I think palynka hit the nail on the head when he said: "To my mind, there are (roughly) two types of militancy. One is the dogmatic, propaganda-fuelled militant and the other is a reasoned, non-dogmatic believer ...[text shortened]... One could define an "extremist" as someone who 'cannot be persuaded to reconsider'.
activism can fit within those confines, albeit the connotation for being militant is usually a more aggressive, more combative approach than what one associates with being an activist.
Environmental activists, however aggressive and combative they may be, do not seem to warrant the word militant. Enviros who are militant climb into trees and chain themselves there; the militants drive spikes into trees to cause injury to lumberjacks and deter logging. Activists just persist, and won't stop until they get something, if not all, of what they want.
The enviros who are militant won't make a deal. the enviros who are activists will, but it won't be an easy deal to reach.
Of course, enviro activists tend to be somewhat pragmatic, realistic people. Enviro militants are a lot like religious zealots -- nothing reaches them, especially reason.
Originally posted by joe beyserDo you think this kind of rationalization is restricted to people whith extreme views? Can this kind of self-convincing not also be seen by people who appear to be - or appear consider themselves to be - in 'the middle'?
One thing I have noticed is that people will use weak evidence or maybe create evidence out of non issues to support their position if they feel strongly enough about something. Heck they will even believe it themselves.
Originally posted by FMFseen by?
Do you think this kind of rationalization is restricted to people whith extreme views? Can this kind of self-convincing not also be seen by people who appear to be - or appear consider themselves to be - in 'the middle'?
or seen in?
don't you mean to ask whether everyone is guilty of rationalizaation at least some of the time?
isn't it the case we all do it?
isn't that one of the main characteristics of normal human thought patterns from which Southeast Asian Buddhists, or at least some of them, attempt to free themselves?
Don't they teach us not to believe everything we think?
Originally posted by ScriabinI don't really agree with your restricted definition of militancy nor what your view of what its 'connotation' usually is. As a technocrat you may well be sub-consciously using the word to define who you want to ignore and who you want to listen to. If they environmentalists cooperate with you the way you want them to, they are activists. If they don't, they're militants. Too subjective, Scraibin. A wider understanding of militancy is more useful.
to be militant is to be aggressive, combative, according to webster.
activism can fit within those confines, albeit the connotation for being militant is usually a more aggressive, more combative approach than what one associates with being an activist.
Environmental activists, however aggressive and combative they may be, do not seem to warrant the w ...[text shortened]... Enviro militants are a lot like religious zealots -- nothing reaches them, especially reason.
Originally posted by ScriabinYes, and bears poo in the woods. I was responding to the kind of rationalization that joe beyser mentioned in his post - "creating evidence out of non issues" which is a little more extreme than the rationalizations that lubricate the everyday lives or people who might be somewhere in the vicinity of something or other that might be called 'the middle'..
don't you mean to ask whether everyone is guilty of rationalizaation at least some of the time?
isn't it the case we all do it?