A bunch of useless crap
Extremist Ideas Are Not a Good Thing
Published on May 4, 2005 By MasonM In Politics
These are just some ruminations of my own on the sad state of affairs around the world. World-wide we have war, terrorist attacks, genocide or attempted genocide, civil wars, and general conflict in some form or another. There are times when the entire world seems bent on destruction.

What is at the root of all of this hate and discontent? What is it that causes an otherwise intelligent and graceful species capable of creating beautiful art, literature, science, and poetry to turn on itself in such a destructive and irrational manner? The answer can be found on a small scale right here at Joe User just by reading some of the artcles and ensuing discussion, particularly in the Political threads.

It doesn't take long to discover that many people hold to very extreme schools of thought and philosophy and are extremely agressive and irrational at times in defending or propogating their ideals. At times apparent open hatred can errupt between opposing extremes of thought with neither side acknowledging the other's thoughts or willing to concede on even the most reasonable and rational suggestions of a midle ground.

Sadly, many world leaders and people in power often also subscribe to these same extreme ways of thinking. But intead of fighting each other with words on a thread they utilize guns, bombs, and people's lives to propogate their extremes of thought. The cost of such extremist thought is high in natural resources, environmental damage, and most importantly human lives.

Entire groups of people are often targeted for destruction due to real or imagined political differences, religious differences, race, or other factors. This destruction may take the form of enforced extreme poverty, starvation, terrorist attacks, or open warfare. Examples of all of these are readily available world-wide and not restricted to any particular flavor of extremist ideals , race, nation, or political agenda.

The only thing all of these extremists have in common are that they are unreasonably extreme in their thought and philosophy, irrational in the defense and propogation of their ideas, totally dedicated to the idea that they are right and justified, are incapable of seeing or considering any middle ground, and they are human beings.

While human beings are the most intelligent creatures on our little planet, possessed of the ability for abstract thought and amazing creativity, we are also by far the single most agressive and destructive creature on our little planet. So much so that we turn on our own species in an attempt to destroy any members of our species that may be somewhat different in ideals or beliefs.

I find it interesting that the very thing that makes us the dominant species on the planet, our intellect, is also the thing that makes us the most danergous not only to other species and the planet itself, but to ourselves. Perhaps, in the end, we really aren't as intelligent as we would like to believe.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on May 04, 2005
I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on what else is currently ailing that region. You mind elaborating?


That would require a series of articles and I am hardly an expert on the subject. Suffice it to say that the gist of my original article here pretty well sums it up. Extremist ideas and behavior from more than one quarter.

I honestly believe than if humankind as a species doesn't move past this primitive thinking and behavior the species will eventually destroy itself.
on May 04, 2005

And this is in your opinion reasonable and rational behavior for an intelligent species? Chickens in a barnyard and wolves in the wild demonstrate this sort of behavior. It's hardly the kind of behavior one would expect from a so-called thinking species. And thanks.

No, it is not not reasonable or rational.  It is the truth.  It is humans being animals.  Nothing more. But since we have cognisence(SP), it is what happens.  I am not defending it.  I am explaining it.

Wolves, dogs et. al. attack the weakest.  They do not attack the perceived (I should have put that word in before) the lowest.  There is a BIG difference.

Thinking people dont attack the weakest, they attack the lessor.  That is why Japan, and germany lost last go round.  Perhaps if we were more animalistic, the agressor would not lose so many times.

But then when a pack of wolves tries to take on a wounded hunter, his 30-30 takes them out as well.  So weakest is not the end all either.

In the end, man has animal instincts and acts upon them.  But his instincts (check out moderatemans response on earthquakes) are not as good as animals.  But then animals instincts are not as good as real intelligence.

And that is what is not in evidence in a lot of humans.

on May 04, 2005

I honestly believe than if humankind as a species doesn't move past this primitive thinking and behavior the species will eventually destroy itself.

And that gets you the insightful!

No argument here.

on May 04, 2005
Dr. Guy: While I understand what you are saying, and do not entirely disagree with it, in the context of extremist thought it isn't really valid. Often, extremist thought is not related to "higher" or "lower" and certainly isn't instinctual. How do you feel your "truth" fits into the idea when two diametrically opposed political or religious groups wage war on each other for control of a piece of real estate?

In this case, each is attempting to gain political power over a region to solidify their particular political agenda which in true extremist fashion they believe is the only true, right way and are totally unwilling to see any middle ground.

I don't believe "instinct" can be the catch-all answer to this as it is far more complex but perhaps it is a piece of the problem.
on May 04, 2005
And that gets you the insightful!

No argument here.


Thanks!
on May 04, 2005
Dr. Guy: While I understand what you are saying, and do not entirely disagree with it, in the context of extremist thought it isn't really valid. Often, extremist thought is not related to "higher" or "lower" and certainly isn't instinctual. How do you feel your "truth" fits into the idea when two diametrically opposed political or religious groups wage war on each other for control of a piece of real estate?


It does go to the basic inferior/upterior thing. If I am better than you, You have no rights. it is not really political, religious or anything other than the human condition of needing to feel superior to someone. It all boils down to that.

The KKK was created from that. The PWT had to feel they were better than others (and in that they acknowledged that the other was equal). And so it is a concept unique to humans. Animals dont feel that. They fight and or lose. They prove their physical prowess.

Humans dont. They must prove it through artificial means. Hitler and Napolean (I dont know about stalin) were short men of limited physical ability. They proved their worth through the domination of others. Through the power of a non physical means. I will call it intelligence. Only in that they used the power of words. not might.

And that wont change. Ever.
on May 04, 2005
That would require a series of articles and I am hardly an expert on the subject. Suffice it to say that the gist of my original article here pretty well sums it up. Extremist ideas and behavior from more than one quarter.


Well, hopefully I'll see some articles in the future, I'll keep an eye out.
on May 04, 2005
And that wont change. Ever.


And that is one point upon which I sincerely hope you will eventually be proven wrong. But I won't hold my breath.

I understand what you're saying Dr. Guy. While I am still not convinced that "instinct" is the root of the problem, it is something to give serious thought. Thanks for the insightful comments.

Well, hopefully I'll see some articles in the future, I'll keep an eye out.


I'll give it some thought but I'm not sure I want to swim around in than can of worms. I am more a student of humanity than of politics although sometimes it is hard to seperate the two. I appreciate the comments.
on May 04, 2005
And that is one point upon which I sincerely hope you will eventually be proven wrong. But I won't hold my breath.


I am with you 100%. I dont like my predictions, I just make them.
on May 04, 2005
I'll give it some thought but I'm not sure I want to swim around in than can of worms. I am more a student of humanity than of politics although sometimes it is hard to seperate the two. I appreciate the comments.


Politics or Humanity. It does not matter. You have an insightful on this one. I wont hold you to that high a standard on all of them. Still, an insightful means you make one think. And you did here. I expect you will again.

Dont worry the topic. You give insight. We did not disagree, we only agreed in part. How is that for PC?

Welcome aboard again.
on May 04, 2005
How is that for PC?


Artfully done.
on May 05, 2005
MasonM -

I think you've touched on several chords that resonate with many people here at JU. The title, alone, will attract most JU bloggers to read your thread ( even if they don't respond ). Everyone wants to identify that singular problem at the root of all evil in this world in the hope of finding a serum for it. Past that, these are garden - variety thoughts every person indulges in - it's just that some fail to articulate it.

I'll tell you what, the PM (Political Machine) or even JU ( Joe User ) forums are simply a narrowcasted sample of Americans ( very little foreign input, but what is there is very good ) - particularly those of strong opine and the will and time to actually type it out. Though I fight vociferously ( even a bit below the belt at times ) with some of my fellow bloggers I recognize that we all belong to the same JU or PM community by choice for indulgence sake. We like it here. Sometimes we get a bit caught up and seem hateful, inconsiderate, or even spiteful - but those are just the conveniences of the internet we sometimes take advantage of.

Please don't judge all humanity by these standards - you will find yourself incorrect.

on May 05, 2005
Mason, just another thought on your article.

While extremism among us has caused a lot of terrible things to happen, there are a lot of wonderful things that never would have occured without it. Would there have been a "Renaissance" if a few extremists hadn't have questioned a few things, and acted on them? Would slavery in industrialized nations ended, if a few extremists hadn't have questioned the practice?

As a matter of fact, I can't think of one "moderate" that ever became the catylist for change. Extremism, for both the good and bad of it, is what fuels changes in any society. The major difference having more to do with the result than the extreme acts themselves.
on May 05, 2005
Thanks Deference, well said. I used the JU "warriors" as an example but seriously there is a vast difference between people engaging in spirited and sometimes heated debate on a forum and the attempted genocide of a group of people. As you said, these really are the generalized thoughts many people entertain from time to time. Thanks for the input.

ParaTed: I'm really not sure that the Renaissance was a result of extremism as it wasn't as much a sudden revolutionary explosion as it was a more gradual change of thinking society.

While I agree that change requires often radical thinking and actions, I am not certain that I would agree that this is the same as extremist thinking. The radical, in my humble opinion, sees problems in their society or culture and actively seeks change in order to improve the society or culture, often through compromise and seeking a middle ground, through revolution if that middle ground just can't be achieved. The USA was founded by such radicals but I am not sure I would call them extremists as they demonstrated quite clearly the ability to negotiate and seek compromise when possible.

The extremist on the other hand has no capacity for compromise. In their mind their way is the only way and they are totally incapable of seeing anything from the opposing perspective. It is a lack of rationality that marks the distinction. Thanks for your imput.
on May 05, 2005
Hmmm. I think it's just a matter of connotation of the terms then. You know, the whole "One man's extremist is another man's radical" thing.

True, Renaissance wasn't a single miraculous event, but it was brought about by extremists. As a matter of historical fact, so was the United States.

In the case of the Renaissance, a series of events brought on by people who risked life, limb and the label "Heretic" just so they could express themselves more freely seems like that acts of some pretty extreme folks.

As for the U.S. founding fathers, let's really look at those radical extremists and their ability to "comprimise".

They forcefully take a ship, and throw it's cargo overboard.
They engage in a revolution from King George, when only around 1/3 of the colonists wanted independence.
They have absolutely no open public meetings while discussing the details of what this new country will be about.
There are no attempts to negotiate or any other "diplomatic" means to overt war.
They dared to create a government system where the individual citizen was above any member of the government.

Yeah, their comprimise was held to be self evident! ;~D
3 Pages1 2 3