Will actually go ahead and write something proper up after work but until then, going off from Ger's lil' comment. What do people see as Extremist actions or ideologies and, beyond that, are any such ideologies inherently "Worse". In whatever spectrum you care to mention, be it Economic, Political or Cultural. As an aside, did not need the ' in the title. Will haunt me now for the rest of my days.
Well, for example, having a 500M cap on world-wide population as per the Georgia Guidestones would be an "extreme" ideology. But this is based on my current perspective of there being 7B+ people. It might not be quite so "extreme" if, hypothetically, there were only 100M people at the time of it's consideration (though I think I'd personally still have a problem with an arbitrary limitation without solid reasoning to back it up). On the other hand, a "our culture is and should always be considered superior, to the point of killing/enslaving others of different cultures" is likely to always be "extreme" though perhaps not uncommon... even if there is only "one" culture... since it bottles up expression within that culture and prevents branches from forming, which is otherwise a natural occurrence as people think of new things (or think of old things that seem new based on the culture they are within). That said, this perspective might be viewed as "extremist" within such a culture. What is seen as "extreme" depends both on cultural and physical norms at the time of consideration; is basically what I'm getting at. It's a term that can be used to dismiss or explain things outside of the "norm" and can be used selectively. But I also think there are apt uses of it. Any ideology which goes to the "extreme" quality of something should be considered "extremist." There are likely some worse than others. For example "all humans must die for the sake of the Earth" is one I'd consider bad (and yes, that's a real ideology held by some). Not only because it potentially results in people trying to kill me and people I care about, but I think it ignores the fact that humans are very much a part of the Earth as much as any other living being. And/or the fact that the Earth will very likely keep plugging along whether we humans have a particularly large impact on the environment or not. On the other end of that: "The Earth is meant wholly to service humans." Is also an "extreme" point of view. While it doesn't mean people are likely to try and kill me as a result, which is a bonus, it precludes the value of non-sapient life, or, potentially, of non-human sapient life which may wish to avail themselves of what the planet has to offer (even if that sapient life was emergent and thus native to the planet). This isn't all there is to it, but I don't think I've got quite the right words to get everything across, so I'll leave it here for now.
"Extremist" seems to me to mostly just be a convenient term to describe ideologies that some powerful or mainstream group wants to discredit. Buddhist asceticism is "extreme" in the sense that it differs from a median idea of "normal" human behavior to the point of almost complete incompatibility (at least w many lifestyles found in the US), but our country doesn't label this type of thinking "extremist." Similarly to "terrorist," it's more of a rhetorical label than a descriptive one.
I completely agree with you. In america you have a lot of news reporters using the phrase "islamic extremists", when while it is true it puts a negative connotation on extremist/extremism. They should be using terrorist/terrorism ect. Extremism can be negative too. There was a temple I used to visit as a child in Manhattan. It was buddhist and run by only nuns. Anyway, they have a process to become one where you meditate and get as close to death as you can to become enlightened. A woman died from 3 days of no food or water sitting in the same position(and most likely from the newyork heat).
It has. And the actual definition applies to a lot of actions that are then not called terrorism because those terrorists are on our side!
Bombing of civilian targets, shock-and-awe nonsense. The only part that doesn't fit is the "subnational" - which leads to the adage that terrorism on a national level would be called warfare.
Oh, I see what you were saying. National units can also perpetrate a kind of terrorism -- the word was actually first used to describe measures taken by the new French government during and after the revolution. Usually, though, large state movements are either warfare or police action.
But @kalasle , where would "religious" terrorist groups fit into? I mean, some of those don't even have demands..
Can you name one? I'm honestly curious as this is an opinion I see tossed around occasionally, but what religiously motivated terrorist group can you think of that didn't have any "Demands"
They still "seek to obtain a political or social objective through intimidation of a larger audience." When it comes to material concerns about terrorism, religious fundamentals, the far-right, communists, separatists -- they may have different preferences depending on their aims, but the mechanics and descriptions are all the same.
