> Are you really claiming that extremist militias are actually a valid reaction to some kind of political problem? What a bizarre stance.
In ethics, just terrorism is a well debated concept. A fairly famous thinker on the subject was Satre, who was influenced, for example, by the Algerian struggle for independence from French colonial rule, which involved both guerrilla warfare and acts of terrorism.
> We can solve political problems without resorting to extremism and violence
In a general sense, this should be trivially true for extremism. But it can be a tricky concept, as the term is also used in a prescriptive way with a politically charged intention, much like "hate".
Violence, it depends. If someone argues violence is never justified, that would be a pacifist position.
> inability to do so is not noble or caused by something external.
I don't see why moral superiority (noble) and external determination should be thrown together - or how either relates to the previous statements.
I would agree though, that one's own actions are never purely caused by external influences, as I'm personally feeling strongly against team determinism.
The previous commenter probably just wanted to highlight polarization as a driving force for radicalization, which isn't entirely untrue, but also, of course, complex. One needs to be able to call out the baddies, despite it being perceived as polarizing.