Extremism and intellect

[Murray land]

Well my bias is simple. Im a moderate on almost* any issue My personal belief is though you may have well known intellectuals to postulate certain issues. For instance the American left has Noam Chomsky while the right has Ben Shapiro. Two individuals known not only for their profound rhetoric some of which i agree with, but also their intellecutal deception when confronted with hard facts against their own ideologies. I would also state that many extremists are also used by those who would lead them.

On a truly extreme end we could examine IS founder Abu Bakhr Al-Baghdadi. Who definitely took advantage of the poor and disenfranchised to build ISIS.

While on a more civil front you have Richard Spencer the now notrious leader of the now deceased alt-right. These two men are examples of how the well educated can stir the "unwashed masses" to there advantage. That adavantage being amassing power, through the use of extreme ideologies to incite repression and violence.

I could go in on ANTIFA too btw...but their too easy to knock for their actions as they pretty much speak for themselves.
So ns. You wonderful collective of trolls incels, neck beards sjws, soy bois ,boomers ,doomers bloomers ,zoomers, chads and pc bros in the cornerWhat say ye?

[United Muscovite Nations]

From the articles I've read on the topic, and my own experience, radicalism is the result more of lack of social support and social networking than the result of any level of intelligence. There are smart and there are dumb radicals, just like there are smart and dumb moderates. What really influences people's radicalism is that they don't have a social support network and so they don't really have much invested in the continued existence of the societies they live in.

A great example is the Nazis, when you read biographies of them, many of them were what we would call losers, so they sought to change society into something where they could accomplish something, no matter what it was.

[Erythrean Thebes]

Ideology is inherently subjective - one who is rigorously objective and without judgement in their analysis cannot be very ideological, if indeed at all. So this apparent 'duplicity' which the OP lambasts is, I think, intrinsic to ideological thinking. But I would have to agree that, at least in the United States, myopic and at times purely polemical analyses of social science have proliferated wrongly out of the subjective ideological preferences of many partisans into what are supposed to be descriptions of fact. But this misconstruction of reality is not necessary for a partisan or an ideologue. Ideology being a subjective choice, there is no barrier to a partisan knowing the facts objectively and advocating their preference on the basis of them - or even on a different basis entirely. So I agree with you, OP, that distortions of fact by partisans and ideologues are inherently stupid.

[Risottia]

Define "moderate".
I could consider, let's say, NOT lining up the bourgeois (hey, only those aged 0-199) against a wall and shooting them with a machinegun to be a sign of extreme moderation - to the point of a suspect of counter-revolutionary activities, actually.
Some other ones (the pig-dog lackeys of the imperialistic capitalism) could say that a progressive income tax is a policy only a kid-eating, liberty-raping commie extremist would support.
Lacking a meaningful and cogent definition of "moderate" and "extremist" that isn't strictly dependant on the "average" political opinion in that place and in that moment, the OP makes very little sense.

[The Blaatschapen]

Yes. I believe that everybody that has a different opinion than me is an extremist and has less intellect

[Sicaris]

No.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Julius Evola, that’s all you and I need to know.

[Kavagrad]

My god, I never thought I'd catch a live one

[Duvniask]

Well my bias is simple. Im a moderate on almost* any issue My personal belief is though you may have well known intellectuals to postulate certain issues. For instance the American left has Noam Chomsky while the right has Ben Shapiro. Two individuals known not only for their profound rhetoric some of which i agree with, but also their intellecutal deception when confronted with hard facts against their own ideologies.

Could've picked a better person to compare with Chomsky than Benjamin "Arabs live in open sewage" Shapiro. To my knowledge, nothing that pseudo-intellectual hack says is particularly profound.

I would also state that many extremists are also used by those who would lead them.

Couldn't we just as easily say moderates are used by those who seek to preserve the status quo?

On a truly extreme end we could examine IS founder Abu Bakhr Al-Baghdadi. Who definitely took advantage of the poor and disenfranchised to build ISIS.

While on a more civil front you have Richard Spencer the now notrious leader of the now deceased alt-right.

The alt-right is still around. I don't see how it is "deceased".

[The New California Republic]

Not really. There is a wide variety of people of differing intelligence in almost every ideology.

[Chessmistress]

Define "moderate".
I could consider, let's say, NOT lining up the bourgeois (hey, only those aged 0-199) against a wall and shooting them with a machinegun to be a sign of extreme moderation - to the point of a suspect of counter-revolutionary activities, actually.
Some other ones (the pig-dog lackeys of the imperialistic capitalism) could say that a progressive income tax is a policy only a kid-eating, liberty-raping commie extremist would support.
Lacking a meaningful and cogent definition of "moderate" and "extremist" that isn't strictly dependant on the "average" political opinion in that place and in that moment, the OP makes very little sense.

This.

I voted "no" because most people tend to define "extremism" what is "not mainstream", and usually "not mainstream" is a sign of intelligence.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

It depends. There were certainly very intelligent people back in the 19th and 20th centuries that were considered radical and even by today’s standards they wouldn’t be moderates. However, extremists are generally crazier than moderates. Moderate policy is usually better. But, this doesn’t loo, to be the main cause. There are ‘extremists’ that don’t have any coherent beliefs but they definitely aren’t moderate at all. These people tend to be dumber or more violent. Then you have the “I’m a centrist and you are all wrong” people who also don’t have any real beliefs and don’t even have a discernible opinion placing them anywhere on the spectrum. This is going by who is actually a moderate and who’s an extremist. Lots of people are just slightly less radical than an extremist but claim to be centrists because they are between two political entities. Not admitting to agree with anyone doesn’t make you a centrist. I technically am a centrist, as I am a believer in centrist economics and socially liberal leaning. People claiming to be centrists often are either are less moderate than me or purposely don’t identify with any ideas because that makes them ‘smarter’.

[Philjia]

I'm lazy and Ben Goldacre explains what I want to say better anyway.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Julius Evola, that’s all you and I need to know.

That dude was whack. Even people who respect him can agree on that.

[Conserative Morality]

No. Extremism is a result of dissatisfaction.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I don't think there's any real positive or negative correlation between extremism and intelligence. I could be wrong though.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Quite the opposite at least in my experience, most of the extremists on either the left or the right I've interacted with have always come across as more intelligent than ye olde centrists.

[Hanafuridake]

There have been several intelligent extremists, but that's because they tend to stand out from the rest of their demographic, who tend to be average like everyone else. The Unabomber was very intelligent, but the people who run the Sea Shepherd probably aren't. Right-wing extremists range from well read (Giovanni Gentile) to never having picked up a book if it would save their life (your usual skinhead). It varies like everything else.

Julius Evola, that’s all you and I need to know.

He was just a right-wing theosophist who happened to be in the right place and time to be remotely relevant in the 20th century. There was nothing particularly exceptional about him.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Quite the opposite at least in my experience, most of the extremists on either the left or the right I've interacted with have always come across as more intelligent than ye olde centrists.

That's not my experience. I've met plenty of smart people from dead centre to way out there.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

There have been several intelligent extremists, but that's because they tend to stand out from the rest of their demographic, who tend to be average like everyone else. The Unabomber was very intelligent, but the people who run the Sea Shepherd probably aren't. Right-wing extremists range from well read (Giovanni Gentile) to never having picked up a book if it would save their life (your usual skinhead). It varies like everything else.

Julius Evola, that’s all you and I need to know.

He was just a right-wing theosophist who happened to be in the right place and time to be remotely relevant in the 20th century. There was nothing particularly exceptional about him.

You’re just sayin’ that because he was big-brained af

[Murray land]

Well my bias is simple. Im a moderate on almost* any issue My personal belief is though you may have well known intellectuals to postulate certain issues. For instance the American left has Noam Chomsky while the right has Ben Shapiro. Two individuals known not only for their profound rhetoric some of which i agree with, but also their intellecutal deception when confronted with hard facts against their own ideologies.

Could've picked a better person to compare with Chomsky than Benjamin "Arabs live in open sewage" Shapiro. To my knowledge, nothing that pseudo-intellectual hack says is particularly profound.

I would also state that many extremists are also used by those who would lead them.

Couldn't we just as easily say moderates are used by those who seek to preserve the status quo?

On a truly extreme end we could examine IS founder Abu Bakhr Al-Baghdadi. Who definitely took advantage of the poor and disenfranchised to build ISIS.

While on a more civil front you have Richard Spencer the now notrious leader of the now deceased alt-right.

The alt-right is still around. I don't see how it is "deceased".

Haaaaaaa deceased means dead. Also how does beong a centrist want to preserve the staus quo? I have shared nothing on my personal beliefs which puts you at very little liberty to male such a claim. Also Chomsky amd Shapiro are equally conservative and socialost and Chomsky if we are being honest like Shapiro are both down right idiots half the time...But that my perspective.

[Valrifell]

Quite the opposite at least in my experience, most of the extremists on either the left or the right I've interacted with have always come across as more intelligent than ye olde centrists.

I think the trend is that the more politicially informed come off as extreme in most cases because their ideology is self-consistent and they know what to be mad about. I think what we think of as "centrists" or "independents" are mostly people who aren't as informed and don't really have a self-consistent ideology, more a few policies they like.

Though that's not to say all centrists are like that, obviously.

[Valrifell]

:?:

Could've picked a better person to compare with Chomsky than Benjamin "Arabs live in open sewage" Shapiro. To my knowledge, nothing that pseudo-intellectual hack says is particularly profound.


Couldn't we just as easily say moderates are used by those who seek to preserve the status quo?


The alt-right is still around. I don't see how it is "deceased".

Haaaaaaa deceased means dead. Also how does beong a centrist want to preserve the staus quo? I have shared nothing on my personal beliefs which puts you at very little liberty to male such a claim. Also Chomsky amd Shapiro are equally conservative and socialost and Chomsky if we are being honest like Shapiro are both down right idiots half the time...But that my perspective.

Calling Noam "father of modern linguistics" Chomsky stupid is such a bad take that my brain can not possibly compute. He's a professor at MIT ffs.

You disagree with him, that's not a sign of his lack of intelligence.

[Murray land]

Define "moderate".
I could consider, let's say, NOT lining up the bourgeois (hey, only those aged 0-199) against a wall and shooting them with a machinegun to be a sign of extreme moderation - to the point of a suspect of counter-revolutionary activities, actually.
Some other ones (the pig-dog lackeys of the imperialistic capitalism) could say that a progressive income tax is a policy only a kid-eating, liberty-raping commie extremist would support.
Lacking a meaningful and cogent definition of "moderate" and "extremist" that isn't strictly dependant on the "average" political opinion in that place and in that moment, the OP makes very little sense.

See theres this great thing called the political scale. It runs on an x-y axis ya know? Its on that x-y axis chart given out during science and math lessons as a kid? Well i fall dead center on that scale. Now Im sensing a great deal of hositility from leftists like you though. Hmmmmm i wonder why? Nit that the left is nothing but bad ideas or the right. But the far left the far right??? Ehhh i don know guy from all the defensiveness amd heat I'm feeling right now I'd say you lefties are a little touchy. Im not calling you socialists stupid or touchy. All im saying is. Actually screw it you're exactly why i dont think much of extremists. Youre narrow corridor of thought is only reinforced by your clearly ludicrous ideas of what a centrist is. To a centrist who believes in amongst other things such as : progressive income tax. Free speech, gay rights, abortion , legalization of marijuana and the second amendment lets not forget an end to crony capitalism. You say you dont want a definition based on the average political opinon? That's a fucking paradox if ever i read one. You know what go home read your daily karl marx and im going to pretend i never read that line.

[Murray land]

:?:
Haaaaaaa deceased means dead. Also how does beong a centrist want to preserve the staus quo? I have shared nothing on my personal beliefs which puts you at very little liberty to male such a claim. Also Chomsky amd Shapiro are equally conservative and socialost and Chomsky if we are being honest like Shapiro are both down right idiots half the time...But that my perspective.

Calling Noam "father of modern linguistics" Chomsky stupid is such a bad take that my brain can not possibly compute. He's a professor at MIT ffs.

You disagree with him, that's not a sign of his lack of intelligence.

He actually moved to U of Az. The man is also a career academic who's never struggled in his life and as someone who also subscribes to anarchist ideas i could pick his social anarcho syndicast position apart based on the reality of him living in an office and never doing a real days work or seeing the ugly side of life. Part of intelligemce is practical experience. Somethinf Chomsky would know little about first hand. Same goes for ben shapiro but you must hate conservatives so he clearly must be an idiot.