Ah, well, you Yanks: when it comes down to it, you’re a wet, soft-hearted, kindly-to-a-fault bunch.
The Stonewall Riots were very extreme, but they led to the Gay Liberation Movement, a good thing.
Would the OP mind popping back in and giving some modern examples of what he is talking about?
Extreme, maybe. But extremist? I don’t think I’d characterize them that way.
I don’t see the Stonewall riots as very extreme. They did not result in hundreds of deaths, the elimination of either gay society or the police, or some other “extreme” result. Riots have occurred throughout history, generally resulting in a few busted heads, some destroyed property, and either the reinforcement of or the seed to overthrow some social injustice. How are they extreme? And the demands of the gay community to be allowed a place in society would not have been considered extreme even at the time. Considered wrong, by many, but not extreme. Some people probably would have considered that event to be extreme as they associated gay rights with NAMBLA, but one can find someone to consider just about any belief extreme–that does not make the phenomenon objectively extreme.
And, as already noted, even if an event has an extreme result, that still differs from advocating an extremist position on a topic.
There is this difference between radical ideas and fanaticism. Radical ideas can be about anything, they are just outside what are typical beliefs at that moment.
Fanaticism is not so much what you believe, but how you believe it. Typical fanatics never listen for a moment to anyone who doesn’t exactly agree with them. There is no such thing as nuance, no room for negotiation, or anyone else’s legitimate point of view. If you aren’t with them, you must not only be against them, but also unworthy of the slightest respect. Empathy is treason.
It’s always good to have somebody to express the ideas on the fringes, just so they can be heard. What was dismissed as fantasy yesterday seems like we always should have done it today.
Fanatics are always a lousy invite to the party. At least frisk them first.
Typical fanatics can also be very inconsistent, but can’t see it. An radical anti-abortion protestor told me that gay adoption is child abuse because “a child needs a mother and a father,” but supports the idea of single motherhood over abortion. Shouldn’t he agree that single woman should be forced to give their children to a straight couple?
Logic and fanaticism are not bedmates.
Right now single-payer health care may be viewed as too extreme, but I think 30 years from now it will be mainstream.
Edit: Oh wow, Wesley Clark beat me to this example.
As you pointed out, extremism is largely defined in the context of it’s society. But personally, I think true “extremism” is defined by an obsessive adherence to a ideology, regardless of the consequences.
Single payer health care may be viewed as new or different, but I wouldn’t call it extreme. There are non crazy reasons for switching to a SP system and there are plenty of examples around the world.
“Extremism” would be blowing up private hospitals because you believe in a single payer system.