@Omsomething Ok, but losing your shit in public and being generally antisocial/confrontational is not the way towards societal change that lasts any length of time. You might be able to bully or cow people into acting or speaking a certain way as long as you have the power to do so, but the second you don't have that power all of the repressed emotions and behaviors will come back at once. Plus it makes people mad and defensive to call them bigots or racists and does nothing to convince them of the inherent illogical nature of their positions.

I guess my issue is more with the methods than the goals. Making every societal issue into a public confrontation at all times does nothing to create willingness to compromise on deeply held principles or work together to find mutually beneficial solutions to problems. It just makes more fighting about the existing issues

But muh revolution

I am not sure about that, people can be made compliant with pressures like that. If people are made afraid to speak against things they slowly see others speak of it in good terms and they slowly perpetuate it again and again and they slowly come to accept it as a fact.

The same thing i assume worked in middle ages to keep everyone in check in the Catholic doctrine. Untill Protestants called them out for their bullshit, and that was dangerous thing to do and caused a massive stir.

Compromising is not something extremists do, and it is not their work either, they push and push so the "moderates" can be reasonable and push the reforms in the "center".

Fear as a method of societal control works, sure. But only so long

If i would say i want to ban everyone on this chat, and it was getting traction most people might agree that only banning @banestrum is moderate position.

That's a fallacious position

Ahh, but a reactionary position would be to do the opposite

And actually unban people

It's not a position anyone would or should take because it makes no sense.

Personally, i am not sure a lot of extremists on any discussion truly aim to make sense.

Precisely, they aim to win.

"I can jog anywhere I want at night and feel safe"

criminals don't care about how you *feel*, broski

It's instictual mob tactics

They want everyone to agree with them, regardless of if that means silencing disagreement or killing those who disagree

People like that must be removed from positions of power if society is to have any hope of functioning properly

I'd advocate removing them from society or existence entirely, but I wouldn't force people to accept that position.

It seems like extreme leftism and Antifa methodology are an emergent phenomenon from groups with a majority of emotion-heavy reasoning

emotion vs rationality

Silencing opposition is still silencing opposition, regardless of the views of each side

It is something people do when they feel they are pushed, or they feel entitled. Those people are on all sides of discussions too, fear is often used as a tool of politics.

@Fitzydog It's them coming to accept that they cannot convince or intimidate everyone through subtle means.

all people are emotionial. some a bit more than others

@banestrum I don't think it's even THAT deep. We're dealing with a formless monster here

a formless monster ??

It's like the inverse of 'Wisdom of the Masses'

@Omsomething Yes, and for the good of everyone who isn't a cluster B malcontent or some other form of mental defective they should not be allowed to occupy positions of influence in society, as they will invariably abuse the power of those positions to further personal goals or for other selfish reasons at the expense of society as a whole.

@Fitzydog The formless monster lives in academia and has tenure.

They know how to point it in the right direction, sure

Maybe, but it also gets tiring i am sure. If you have had the SAME DISCUSSION with 1000 people about things which is to you absolutely simple and true it WILL make sense to tell people to get fucked.

And a lot of times when people are silenced it is not really something done consciously. They have bad routes of normal action.

Yes but doing that is counterproductive and if you hope to make lasting changes by being seen as a reasonable and levelheaded person you will not go and get emotional and yell at people for disagreeing

Lets say a child who has always gotten their way by starting to sob and cry, it has ALWAYS WORKED. Why would they not keep carrying on with it since it works?

It's just against your best interests on every level and serves no purpose other than to make you less convincing

@Omsomething Yes but children eventually are conditioned to not do that because someone who does that is insufferable and would not function well in society, to say nothing of their mental state if they went through life like that.

I am not sure about it being counterproductive, to me it seems to be working that people are appealing to better nature and goodness of humanity to get their aims and get in positions of power while silencing those "others" who disagree as evil.

was geht

what did i miss

It's a positive feedback loop for those who do it as well

you guys do know that such a thinh as evil person for the sake of being evil exist. right... idc for oh circumstance.. or your definition of bad and good or saying objective manner there is no evil... sociopathics control freaks arent evil but when they are sadistic they will get high positions