Kojiro Sasaki wrote:This actually happened during the Bolshevik revolution and later on in Soviet Union.
Do we know any other situations, where other radical stances you mentioned were applied on mass scale in the 20th-21st century?
(I have no idea how to write what I mean using proper English ... -_-)
...The top is taken from U.S. news right in the here and now, and the second is an equally popular (terrible) viewpoint at present in the U.S.
Even the third could be a real argument against the extreme U.S. fiscal rightwing who argue for near total repeal of social programs (to the extent that, yes, those without means would more likely die).
It's reductive in all cases to boil a principal or belief down to those groups or extreme versions.
...Were you trying to imply, through contrast, by the way, that in the 20th or 21st century there's never been violence in the name of either a socially conservative or free-market state?
(None of this has anything to do with cultural appropriation at this point.)
ABED wrote:It's not radical. It's a logical result of bad ideas. The 22 year olds you are talking about is just one way it manifests itself.
Nearly every viewpoint or belief has examples of poor extremist application taken to their far logical ends (and you're lucky if they only come in the form of over-eager 22-year-olds instead of actual lobbying or legal power). Are we obligated to address those at length every time we present the core ideas behind a social belief, or is that requirement reserved solely for progressive stances for some reason?
We don't discuss ideas in terms of their wildest extremes because it isn't representative and takes conversation in circles, as we're in right now. If you agreed with the non-absurd applications of addressing cultural appropriation I laid out two posts ago, then we're on the same page and we're done. Responses focusing on application in the extreme are intellectually dishonest; you're arguing against a boogeyman that's never been present in this thread.