Forum:Extreme wingnuttery and moonbattery

< Index | RW Article discussion

I admit I have a problem with these categories. They seem to cover anything extreme, but include rather inoffensive things in my opinion (e.g. Auxiliary language for moonbattery, or Micronation for wingnuttery) as well as really dangerous ones (too many to count in my opinion). My proposition is to keep the "extreme -ttery" categories for really dangerous ideas or people who held these ideas, and have another category for extreme but generally inocuous idealism, (on the right, left or even apolitical), that could be titled "Cloud cuckoo land" or something like that. What do you think about that ?

--Antee286 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggesting. Separate the evil from the simply stupid. It's a bit of a judgement call though. Could you link to a handful of examples of each case?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, as some pages are hard to categorise. Some micronations are indeed the creations of crazy wingnuts (eg Sealand), while others are simply cases where people have outmanoeuvred the government (Principality of Hutt River). Maybe we should try and make this clear in the articles? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering the subjective nature of what "extreme" is, they're not helpful categories to have at all. ^theist 20:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

@Bob_M : I know, for example, that most auxlang projects are created by extremely idealist people who maybe don't even believe themselves in the success of their own language, and aren't extremist of any kind (there is the strange case of so-called "modern indo-european" which kind of amazes me, given the age and complexity of the language). Esperanto extremists are too few to count in this regard, and to generalize to all auxlang projects. As for micronations... well, they're often founded by wingnuts, but they're generally too small be well-known and make the difference, and are dependent on a kind of libertarian "idealism" which goes against the stream of the denounciation of the indecency of existent tax havens. So I believe it's rather extreme "idealism" than a really dangerous idea.--Antee286 (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

@Armondikov : I believe something is extreme when it dangerously threatens political freedoms or advocates something that goes against very commonly accepted ethics (e.g. the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which is not dangerous per se). And a pro-science, snarky wiki can have categories listing crazy and dangerous political ideas based on bad science.--Antee286 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

perhaps we could replace "extreme" with "fringe"? incidentally, Antee, i once came across some cheese labelled Extreme cheddar in a supermarket. Real first name and last initial (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe should I have precised "I believe a political ideology is extreme when..." ^^ Else, just guessing, in what sort of way can cheddar be extreme ? At mine in France we are used to some cheese that smells weird. --Antee286 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fringe vs. Extreme

IMHO, "fringe" is adequate to describe any oddball interpretation of reality that smells a bit funny but does not go over the "you deserve to be imprisoned/beaten/killed/forced to watch reruns of Jersey Shore for your heretical beliefs" edge. A good example of the former might be Neal Adams and his neverending promotion of the expanding earth meme; a good example of the latter is, of course, the latest group of preachers advocating the outright killing of people because they're touched by Teh Eeeevil Gay. "Fringe" is merely wrong, weird or mildly delusional; "Extreme" is when the tinfoil hat actively gets replaced by a coal-scuttle helmet. --Archfiend (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

..."Extreme" is when the tinfoil hat actively gets replaced by a coal-scuttle helmet... and a weapons cache. Voxhumana (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest "militant" rather than "extreme" for this suggested purpose because it's more obvious what it means, though I guess either works. --Lord Shang (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. There are some wacko beliefs that are fairly harmless because they're not so much beliefs aimed at demonizing individual people or wide-ranging classes of them (the "militant" part you're probably referring to), but they fall into the category of beliefs so loopy that tinfoil hats for called for despite a lack of apparent malice (potential case in point: Pyramidology, if people still exist who believe in it).

--Archfiend (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say BOTH 'extreme' and 'millitant' forms exist. For example, somebody a breathatarian might be considered extreme, but not militant. A pro-war vigilante might be considered militant, but not extreme if he believes stuff that's kind of par-for-the-course for an idiot wannabe-G.I.Joe.±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 21:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)