Exactly.
People think they are Rosa Park but what they are up in arms about isn't the same type of thing.
So instead they look to make issues because many of the big ones are already solved. Which, leads to problems.
People think they are Rosa Park but what they are up in arms about isn't the same type of thing.
So instead they look to make issues because many of the big ones are already solved. Which, leads to problems.
Rosa Parks gives us a model for behavior, for bravery in the face of institutionalized injustice. We want as many of her as we can get, because left radical ideas make the world fairer when they become mainstreamed by people like her.
> So instead they look to make issues
No. If you had ever been on the receiving end of what radicals exhibiting bravery actually get as response, you would understand that nobody prefers that kind of abuse.
Incremental changes work. Radicals causing destruction very seldom do. Unless the injustice is manifestly extreme and intolerable enough. And the causes most radicals espouse today, well, speaking of weaksauce.
Good for you. The thing is, it's not a matter of opinion: radical left ideas do, in fact, improve the society and do, in fact, become mainstream.
>Incremental changes work. Radicals causing destruction very seldom do.
The only thing Rosa Parks destroyed was the unchallenged idea that she was rightfully subject to lesser treatment. What she did was not incremental in the slightest, though, so, lame centrist chiding that would have her act "incrementally" is at best meaningless and at worst openly supportive of the unjust status quo of the time.
There are plenty of counterexamples but again, not worth debating.
Rosa Parks all great and good. Not really that radical. Burning ghettos a decade later did what exactly? What we get from that? The ghettos are still there.
"meaningless", "openly supportive".
Like many of your stripe you appear to want to mostly be combative and argue and sling accusations. It's counterproductive and if I weren't in a shitty mood myself from too much time in Vim wouldn't even engage.
You can't burn everything to the ground for every perceived slight. Makes nothing better. Fortunately most people in modern society recognize this. Communism failed and will continue to fail indefinitely (at least until strong AI comes about). Better ideas don't always come from the left. Sorry.
Both sides have their share of dumb ideas. The progressive timeline in which I speculate you think you are participating, "taking up the mantel" as it were is mostly bullshit. Not that respect for basic human freedoms and respect for others and basic human decency is bullshit. But all too often leftists have forgotten about that part.
Oh, not a "rightist" in case you misunderstand.
Sorry, it's not an opinion: the examples given in the first paragraph of the article are nothing but left radical ideas that became mainstream. Don't mistake plain, historical, uncontroversial fact for opinion. They are left radical ideas that, like others of their kind, became mainstream and made the society fairer and better. It seems you don't want to admit it -- probably because it would interrupt your pose of above-it-all detachment -- but the good thing is because we have a shared history, you don't actually have to admit it. It's true anyway.
Also perhaps think about what being a "radical" entails.
In short, don't be exactly what the studies in the parent article found.
No, there are no serious counterexamples to the claim "allowing women the vote improved society and made it fairer", nor to "ending official, normalized white supremacy improved society and made it fairer." These outcomes were mainstreamed only after appearing as left radical ideas, a plain fact that weak, doltish centrists don't wish to admit, believing as they do in "incrementalism" and "nuance", which in the context of historic change served only as codewords for "abetting and protecting the status quo, no matter how unjust".
Where did you get this idea that all beneficial to human rights came from the radical left? Sociology 101 at Big State U?
You think Pol Pot was beneficial for human freedoms? You think he did so much good in the world? Where does he fit on your progressive timeline march towards an enlightened future?
Honestly what you have is very similar to religion. Tone same as an unreasonable Jihadist convinced if everyone would just accept Islam world would be oh so great and by whatever means necessary.
But, I've been 25-30 years in the past similar to where you are now. Heard the same claptrap in college. Thought similar things. A few decades of observation on the real world results of leftist policies and honest self reflection led me to acquire a bit more nuanced view of the world. But, I get it.
However I'd urge a bit more examination of any non thinking absolutist ideology. They are forms of self imposed mental illness really and don't make things better nor make one happy. Not a criticism. Just a suggestion because I want to help and make things better :)
Agitation for women's rights, including suffrage, first appeared formally in the US east in the 1840s. Suffrage was radicalism of a historic part with abolitionism, a radicalism over which a giant and entirely justified civil war would be fought and won by the emancipators in twenty or so years. Emancipation is the central theme of radical left thought, and here is no exception; while capitalism and imperialism went effectively unexamined theoretically until Marx in about the same decade, there is no left radical idea before or after that fails to hew to emancipatory ideals in the US.
Speaking of failure, it appears as if you've failed to "observe the real world" of historic occurrence, and have done so in pursuit of an ideology -- a weak, vacuous, change-nothing, injustice-friendly centrist ideology. I suggest you heed your own advice.
To review: left radical ideas become mainstream and improve the society when they do. The chief opponent of this mainstreaming is not the radical right, but rather the enormous, cowardly middle, whose political emptiness has always been the greatest friend and enabler to those who enslave us.
And this was a result somehow of political radicalism?
This is your own example BTW that you have gone on and on about "women's suffrage".
You think somehow I didn't sit in many humanities classes and thus am not "educated" after run down I gave you in last post? Cmmon my friend.
You could lose the hostile revolution tone. It isn't actually cool outside of a few college campuses, and truth be told, it isn't really cool there either.
Thread is getting too skinny so you can have last post. I'll read it but am out.
While you're at it, could you describe how Colorado and Idaho - two of the first states to allow women to vote - could be described as "very very non leftist places" and yet had strong support for the left-wing People's Party, aka, The Populists. The Populists helped push for woman's suffrage in those states. For example, Governor Davis H. Waite of Colorado, who campaigned for the right of women to vote in Colorado, was a Populist. And Colorado and Idaho supported Weaver (a Populist) in 1892.
It's almost like those states were leftist places.
Oh, but you're out of oumfph, so I guess I'll have the last word by responding to your questions:
1) The first states to grant women suffrage included Utah, Colorado, and Idaho.
2) It was a result of political radicalism. a) For Utah, most of the US was against polygamy and giving women the right to vote was considered a way to kill off polygamy. It backfired. (Some suffragettes were against granting women in Utah the right to vote until polygamy was outlawed, so it's confusing.)
b) For Colorado, the national suffragette organizations sent people to the state to organize, and the movement was explicitly connected to the economic issues facing male working-class voters. The example at https://blog.elevationscu.com/womens-suffrage-colorado/ is "The merciless power of the plutocracy that crushes you crushes us also".
This was effective because the working class people in those states were left-wing, starting unions, etc.
See, I paid attention in high school when we studied the populist movement, so I knew the west was pretty leftist in the late 1800s. I didn't just sit there like you apparently did.
Weaksauce centrism: it's a helluva drug.
Conflates populist and leftist radical. Throws in some insults as insurance /r/iamverysmart style hoping no one catches the switch.
Literally nothing in that post actually supports the point that leftist radicals are responsible for early women's suffrage in US states.
Not out of oomph. Out of patience. Adderall style google foo writing and people repeating the same thing over and over more stridently with no real backing isn't really of interest to me. If we can't be civil no need in discussing here anyway.
It's a sort of reverse No True Scotsman that anyone else cannot be a left radical.
'Course, that's not what 'radical' means, but it's what you've been pushing.
You have yet to demonstrate the it's meaningful to describe Populist-supporting Colorado of the 1890s as a 'very very non leftist place'. I can't help but conclude that you continue to "[throw] in some insults as insurance /r/iamverysmart style hoping no one catches the switch."
Your humanities training left you with a curious inability to explain yourself. All you do is castigate and laugh, Nelson-style.