Talk:Extremism

The article defines extremism as views that are "well outside the mainstream, with connotations of being dangerously so," but this fails to address a distinction made by another article that links here, Fringe, which states "In countries where these groups have a significant amount of support they stop being 'fringe' and become 'extremists.'" For example, most of us would consider the Nazis extremists, but they ceased being fringe once they took power in Germany and saturated German society (as well as, to some extent, society in other places they succeeded in conquering) with their ideology. Using Google's definitions, I'm editing the definition to being far from the center of a given political spectrum. The One They Call Mars (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Too much focus on the left-right dichotomy
Religious extremists, for example, aren't always readily categorizable into left and right. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I must say that I do believe that the list of left wing religious extremists would be interesting to see. It begins with . . . . ....... errrr, , , ,,,,,   why don't you go first. Carptrash (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you get "there's lots of leftist religious extremists" out of "aren't readily categorizable into left and right". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Typically the use of quotation marks means that you are quoting someone. That is the point of them.  Nowhere did I write, "there's lots of leftist religious extremists", this appears to be you putting words in my mouth.   Your initial posting suggests to me that there is such a thing as a "left wing religious extremist" or . . . what would be the point of the message?  So . . ... what IS the point of the message? If there are no LWREs, then categorizing becomes a lot simpler, does it not? Carptrash (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was paraphrasing what you were implying I was suggesting. And you're completely and utterly missing my point. Try reading the words I wrote again, slowly. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Would (some of?) the liberation theologians of Latin America be classified as left-wing religious extremists if they supported left-wing revolutionary movements? But I agree that most religious extremists are wingnuts, rather than moonbats. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:ScepticWombat, and for our unregistered friend who states, "I was paraphrasing what you were implying I was suggesting." ...well, I hardly know what to say other than a paraphrase does not need quotation marks. Carptrash (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's wiki also has an article on which mentions a Catholic IWW founder as well as Ernst Bloch and others. However, I guess it also depends on how "extreme" something needs to be to be put into this category and which criteria are used for gauging this. For instance, of the examples mentioned in the WP article, I'm not sure that anyone but liberation theologian Torres directly advocated violent revolution, though Bloch supported the Russian Revolution. By contrast, if extremism simply means something like "way outside the mainstream political culture", considering the political spectrum in the US, a Franciscan nun who ran as a Veep candidate for the Socialist Party USA could fit the bill for a(nother) left-wing religious extremist. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I was talking about extremists not readily categorizable into left or right. Why go on this religious-extremists-categorizable-as-left tangent? (And Carptrash, please stop being pedantic about quotation marks, sheesh.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Got any examples of these "not readily categorizable" extremists? ScepticWombat (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it would've been pretty obvious, but... groups like ISIS and Boko Haram maybe? On one hand they're misogynist, supremacist, expansionist and traditionalist, but on the other hand, as they see women as property, their enslavement and marrying off of women is redistribution of wealth and they want to nationalize industry and raise huge taxes (which would require them to give to the poor and needy). Moreover, their most hardcore opponents are right-wingers. Are they right-wing? Are they left-wing? Or are they just a bunch of guys doing whatever they feel like and is trying to shoehorn them into a left-right categorization a pointless and rather stupid endeavour? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And individual terrorists too. Do you really think each one can be neatly classified into left or right-wing? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Radical Islamists are a notable exception which would probably identify with the American/UK left more than right, though horseshoe theory makes that arguable. Also, the idea of social justice was created originally by a Christian if I'm not mistaken. The weight is more on right extremism, I agree, but no need to be so aggressive about it.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I view these extremist Islamist groups as extreme right wingers because they praise the "traditional values" (as they see them) which is characteristic of right wing organisations seeking to recapture some mythical lost golden age (similar to extreme nationalist right wingers such as Nazis). Right wing doesn't necessarily mean extreme laissez faire economics and indeed it's mainly in the US and UK that they have become almost synonymous. That the Islamists' most vehement opponents are also right wingers is irrelevant. European social democrats were among the most vehement opponents of communists during the Cold War and other extreme right wingers opposed the Nazis, just as the communists and social democrats were at least as busy fighting each other in Weimar Germany as they were fighting the Nazis and conservatives. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So all it takes to be right-wing is traditionalism? Are, say, anarcho-primitivists, architectural revivalists or Native Americans trying to preserve their culture right-wing then? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Call me a right wing conservative, but someone has to pick up the torch of correct grammar around here. And you may quote me on this. Carptrash (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite what you may think, the use of quotation marks is not limited to direct, exact quotes. That I used them in a way you don't like doesn't mean I committed a grammatical error. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, the rule states, "We do not enclose indirect quotations in quotation marks. An indirect quotation reports what someone says but not in the exact, original language. Indirect quotations are not heard in the same way that quoted language is heard." Your use of quotation marks was not just incorrect because I don't like it. Feel free to come up with a definition that supports your use, and I'll withdraw my objection. Carptrash (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Blah, blah. Blah! Blah blah." See? Now I'm putting words into your mouth. Well, "words" might be a bit too strong a word.
 * In all seriousness, let's go over the situation. When my original sentence was, and I quote, "Religious extremists, for example, aren't always readily categorizable into left and right." you replied by making a non-sequitur inquiry about the amount of left-wing religious extremists. Logically, I concluded that you misread my initial statement, possibly due to hallucinating. Hence why I used quotes around "there's lots of leftist religious extremists"; to imply that you somehow read these words instead of the ones I'd actually written down, in particular the ones I quoted in that very sentence. How is that grammatically incorrect? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well hallucinating is a problem for me, but I did not come here to be laughed at because of my . . ....inclinations. And speaking of "words" look up "to carp" sometime. Carptrash (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. That does explain some things. My apologies if I made you feel laughed at. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will have to look up "anarcho-primitivists " but "architectural revivalists" are rarely really reviving a traditional form of architecture. Typically they take elements of past architectural styles and graft them on to modern buildings. Few, if any of them would suggest a return to no running water or electric power, which is, in effect, what many extremists are trying to do when they attempt to cram the toothpaste of feminism back into the tube. Carptrash (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We weren't discussing anarcho-primitivists, though they are arguably harder to place (I'd describe them as either extreme libertarian left wingers or right wingers, depending on the "flavour", btw. "Utopian socialists" would be an example of the former, while the an-cap/social Darwinist version would be an example of the latter), and what on earth does architecture have to do with this topic? We were discussing politics, not art or stylistics.
 * But to get back on track: The Islamists tend to be extreme traditionalists and authoritarian, a combination which is not incompatible with a description of them as right-wing. The only substantial objection against this description so far has been their heavy taxation, but as I've already pointed out, this is only a "problem" if a US/UK-centred conflation between right wing and "the church tax cuts" is applied.
 * Are there difficult to place extremists? Sure, but the examples mentioned so far aren't particularly good objections. Also, if you go down to single "individual terrorists", you get into a level of detail where it would be unrealistic to expect that broader categorisations would allow single persons to be "neatly classified into left or right-wing". Such expectations simply miss the point of such categories, i.e. to sort on a macro scale, not to minutely describe individuals in detail. Instead, these categories are broad on purpose, they aren't meant to provide all-encompassing descriptions, but a rough sorting scale. As with Weberian ideal types, left/right wing distinctions simply aren't designed to pigeon-hole every concrete case. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With egalitarianism and socialism/communism being the most typical elements of 'the left', I'd think it wouldn't be controversial to consider ISIS as economically left. And when a movement is made up of a combination of left, right and where-the-fuck-do-you-put-this elements, I'd question the value in trying to put a general label of left, right or center on it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, everything is potentially a political issue. When people can make a big deal out of people wearing clothes from a non-Western culture or people using an allegedly wrong toilet, why might people not make a big deal out of architecture? So, would an architectural revivalist party be right-wing? Would an architectural modernist party be left-wing? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If they wish to keep society as it is, they are Right Wing. If they wish to "return" society to how it was before, they are Far Right, even if the "before" happens to be more egalitarian, which is why Left & Right are so damn confusing. The Conservative Marxists were "left wing" while Stalin was "right wing", even though Stalin was "far left" virtually everywhere else. CorruptUser (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree: Stalin was very much left wing, but a different kind of left wing from his various opponents within the Bolshevik party (basically, to the right of Trotsky, but to the left of Zinoviev and Kamenev). Now you could argue that some of Stalin's views were conservative (e.g. his cultural tastes and views on the role of families and women), but that doesn't make Stalinism into a right-wing ideology. Instead, Stalinism is perhaps the prime example of left-wing authoritarianism, not least because Stalin certainly wanted neither a status quo nor a return to a mythic past, but focused on a forced modernisation and industrialisation using oppression and slave labour as central components. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And we could somewhere include Uncle Joe's architectural revivalist tendencies. if we chose to do so, which we have not. Carptrash (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SW, that's my point. In Russian government, he was "right wing", while the "conservatives" who wished to adhere to Marx were "left wing", but as a right winger in Russia he would've been far left anywhere else. CorruptUser (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, he wasn't. Stalin was attempting (and to some extent succeeding) in a wholesale transformation of Russian society according to his interpretation of Marxist(-Leninist) dogma. He had factions both to his left and right within the extremist left-wing communist party, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether Stalinism is a left- or right-wing ideology. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We are speaking past each other here. Amongst Communists, he was "Right Wing", because he deviated the most from Marxism.  The "Conservatives" who tried to adhere to Marxism were "Left Wing".  It's Russia; everything is backwards.
 * What was "Left Wing" at one point could be considered Right Wing extremist today; someone who though Homosexuality was a mental disorder and black people should be second class citizens was downright progressive in the 19th century, a moderate in the 20th, and a wingnut today. CorruptUser (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Amongst Communists, he was "Right Wing", because he deviated the most from Marxism." Sorry but that's just BS, or at least you need to define what kind of "Marxism" you're judging the Man of Steel by. As I already pointed out, Stalin had opponents both on his left and the right within Soviet Communist Party.
 * Also none of the Soviet communists "tried to adhere to Marxism", but to variants of Marxism-Leninism whose idea, that you could "force" history by "telescoping" two revolution into one ("Get your bourgeois and communist revolution for the price of one, and I'll throw in the dictatorship of the proletariat for free!"), was already fundamentally anti-Marxist in that it cut out the central creed in Marx's "scientific socialism", namely that all societies had to progress through the same phases and that this logic of history was a scientific fact.
 * And no, it's not the case that "everything is backwards" in Russia, not then, not now. I think you've heard too many "Russian reversal" jokes.
 * Finally, if you want to play "pick a historical context", then all bets are off. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All of this is really about the social context. Christian fundamentalists in America would be religiously traditionalist in the West and contemporary in places like China because it's a matter of being for crystalizing or reshaping the status quo respectively.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think that US Christian fundies would be regarded as just as right wing in China as in the US (hint: Religious fundamentalism is not considered mainstream in China, even if traditionalist Chinese might agree with them on certain issues, the death penalty, for instance). But sure, if you insist on comparing apples and pears (by jumping in social context and/or time) you can get practically any result you want - but who has argued that left-/rigt-wing were temporally constant labels, anyway? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Another kind of extremism
occurs when you have a talk page eleven (carp math) times longer than the article it discusses. I find this pretty extreme anyway. Carptrash (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Try looking at the GamerGate talk page some time. Or for the most pointless case of all time, the Wikipedia feud over whether the last Star Trek movie should have been titled "Star Trek into Darkness" or "Star Trek Into Darkness".  While we are at it, Programmers like you pronounce JIF, pronounce JIF. CorruptUser (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Eh, most of it doesn't really discuss the article, to be honest. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)