What are aspects of political extremism?

[JRslinger]

Extremism means different things to different people. Extremists IMHO are not always a tiny minority.

These are what I consider to be aspects of extremism.
Desire to kill people who haven't done anything to you. Using the government to silence/surpress people who's ideas you don't like. Forcing your religious/political beliefs on others. Civilian disarmament advocates for their frequent fear/ignorance fueled anger and bigotry towards all weapons owners (often excluding the government) . Anarchists for wanting no law and order.

People who are hateful towards certain groups aren't necessarily extremists, because some people deserve to be scorned and hated. For instance, terrorists and rapists deserve to be hated for their actions.

 

[thiosk]

roosevelt did ask that he didn't invade basically everybody.

whats a dictator left to do?! cuba?!

 

[TheHorizon]

If you decide wether an idea is good or bad based on the name of the party that suggested it.

 

[thiosk]

roosevelt did ask that he didn't invade basically everybody.

whats a dictator left to do?! cuba?!

Nah, because a dictator already rules it. Although funny that he never mentioned Cuba.

Ah well.

not in the 1930's

at least i dont think american stooges qualifies

 

[slappymonkey]

Civilian disarmament advocates for their frequent fear/ignorance fueled anger and bigotry towards all weapons owners (often excluding the government).

You would argue that disarming a civilian population is an extremist pollitical view? But giving the populace the means to end a life is as fair as it gets? No. If anything your contradicting yourself in your own post, you claim Anarchy is an extreme view, yet arming the population, thereby giving them more of an ability to take the law into their own hands, is a big step towards Anarchy!

People who are hateful towards certain groups aren't necessarily extremists, because some people deserve to be scorned and hated. For instance, terrorists and rapists deserve to be hated for their actions.

Terrorists and rapists are not even close to being in the same category. Rape is a sexual attack on a innocent victim usually without motive or provocation. Terrorism covers a broad range of actions, from propagander to blackmail and murder. However the key difference is that terrorism is usually done for a reason, mainly to get a point across that no-one will listen too. Im by no means advocating or praising terrorist acts, in fact i think its not at all the right way to go about sending a message, but terrorism depends entirly from which perspective you are looking at, rape does not.

In WW2 if a french resistance fighter blew up a train track stopping trains taking prisoners to concentration camps that would be seen as an act of terror by the ruling goverment, however it was done for a just cause.

You could argue that fighting for independance in America was an act of terroism against the ruling British Empire, but then again history is always told by the victors.

In all honesty i dont know if there is such a thing as actual "political extremism", after all polictics is entirley a point of view so one mans extreme is another mans norm. There are however extremist actions and consiquencies to holding such an opinion, these can be more clearly defined as extremist. Its also worth thinking about whether you are using the correct definition of the word extremist, it appears to me that you are associating the word with purley negetive policies.

 

[JRslinger]

Civilian disarmament advocates for their frequent fear/ignorance fueled anger and bigotry towards all weapons owners (often excluding the government).

You would argue that disarming a civilian population is an extremist pollitical view? But giving the populace the means to end a life is as fair as it gets? No. If anything your contradicting yourself in your own post, you claim Anarchy is an extreme view, yet arming the population, thereby giving them more of an ability to take the law into their own hands, is a big step towards Anarchy!

Self defense is a basic human right often overlooked by human rights advocates. As a logical extension, access to effective weapons of self defense is also a human right. Someone who wants to disarm everyone can therefore be seen as an extremist. Also there are many parts of the USA, mostly rural that have a lot of gun ownership, yet are far from anarchy. In the ghettos that are closest to anarchy criminals own most of the guns.

Terrorists and rapists are not even close to being in the same category. Rape is a sexual attack on a innocent victim usually without motive or provocation. Terrorism covers a broad range of actions, from propagander to blackmail and murder. However the key difference is that terrorism is usually done for a reason, mainly to get a point across that no-one will listen too. Im by no means advocating or praising terrorist acts, in fact i think its not at all the right way to go about sending a message, but terrorism depends entirly from which perspective you are looking at, rape does not.

In WW2 if a french resistance fighter blew up a train track stopping trains taking prisoners to concentration camps that would be seen as an act of terror by the ruling goverment, however it was done for a just cause.

You could argue that fighting for independance in America was an act of terroism against the ruling British Empire, but then again history is always told by the victors.

I define terrorism as the deliberate large scale murder of civilians. Seen that way we can distinguish it from resistance movements.

 

[Screens]

Extremism is a point of view. I doubt that people who are called "extremists" by the idiots in the media and the government consider themselves to be "extreme".

 

[slappymonkey]

Self defense is a basic human right often overlooked by human rights advocates. As a logical extension, access to effective weapons of self defense is also a human right. Someone who wants to disarm everyone can therefore be seen as an extremist. Also there are many parts of the USA, mostly rural that have a lot of gun ownership, yet are far from anarchy. In the ghettos that are closest to anarchy criminals own most of the guns.

the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the only universal bill of rights formed under comitee from a unity of countries and therefore applicaple across the globe, the US constitution does not count for the rest of the world) has no mention of self defence as a human right, so point your point is already invalid there.

But suppose self defence was listed as a human right. The right to defend yourself from attack seems pretty fair, but when you start adding weapons into the equation how far can you go? Do you have the right to own a tank, or place landmines on your property to prevent trespassers? In my opinion there are two major problems with gun ownership, firstly allowing citizens to obtain weapons increases the chance of firearms related attacks. If weapons were illegal they would be more difficult and expensive to get hold of, thus decreasing the likleyhood of your average criminal obtaining one.

Secondly owning a weapon serves one purpose, to kill. Whether that be in self defence or not. "When you allow people to defend themselves with deadly force you are undermining the justice system. If someone breaks into your house and you feel threatened you can shoot him and possibly kill him. However the punishment for robery isnt the death penalty! The same for assault or trespassing, if someone beats you up you may shoot and kill them, but again the punishment for assualt isnt death. How can you justify giving someone that kind of authority and decision making abilty with no prior qualifications other than being a citizen of the state?

Gun owndership leads to an undermining of the court system, decreasing the ability of the goverment to keep its citizens safe and advocates a vigilanty and anarchistic society.

Also instead of terrorism you should use mass murder then.. terrorism isnt defined by killing, its a means of getting to an outcome by "terrorising" your victims, through whatever means that may be.