> radicals don't see nuance
Hard disagree.
A nuanced view, the ability to tease differences apart, is disruptive to the status quo. Radicalism is often the embrace of nuance that other people deny exists.
Hard disagree.
A nuanced view, the ability to tease differences apart, is disruptive to the status quo. Radicalism is often the embrace of nuance that other people deny exists.
But in seriousness, I mean nuance as the ablity to see and acknowledge the complexities, and consider fairly evidence that does not support your position...this is an effortful task, and you cannot build a movement for change by telling people to consider all facets, in fact the opposite, you provide frameworks that discourage or shortcut those introspective processes. AKA indoctrination is not nuance.
I also think it's pretty common for radicals to become nuanced between shades of their own radicalism, but be completely blind elsewhere.
I'll end by saying this, "No biologist was ever an essentialist"
"relating to the most important parts of something or someone; complete or extreme"
That's a nice ideological soundbite that is wishful thinking. When observed in practice, both opposite ends of radicalism are most prone to discussing none of the nuance. Just think of the radical ends of this issue...