So you’re saying you found a Southern Baptist?
(In my experience, no one splits like Southern Baptists, especially in small towns. Schism as performance art.)
Or perhaps an Independent Baptist. (Jack Chick is one.) There’s nothing quite like them!
How is “extreme” being defined here? How small of a minority view must something be before you lable it extreme?
It’s odd how in a near two party system one of this parties can be labeled extreme when that party as a whole represents over 40% (?) of the population. That makes the label meaningless.
No it doesn’t. Entire nations have been dominated by extremists before; numbers don’t make them less extreme. If millions of people believe something crazy, it’s still crazy.
Are you equating the word crazy and the word extreme?
I’m just looking for a definition of the word extreme that makes this thread make sense. Wihin the US a majority opinion can not be extreme, yes?
The most extreme developments in recent American governance were the invasions of Iraq and Afganistan, the unprecedented inflation of the monetary base, the $700 billion stimulus (that some economists said was too mild!), the mountainous collecton of data on ordinary citizens, and the institution of assassination by executive fiat. Every single one of these were instituted by so-called moderates; every single one of these were accomplished without the Tea-Party. I suggest you recalibrate your extreme-o-meter.
I repeat, again.
An error is an error even if a million people agrees with it.
But the extremism I see coming from the Republicans is usually ignored or minimized by people that should know better.
Consider the immigration item. Even most Republicans would agree on doing some reforms that will benefit people like the dreamers, but the whole group in the end is hell bent on not doing a thing about immigration reform.
In a classic front you see that a majority of Republicans are creationists, but less than that think that it is a good idea to teach creationism in schools or even ID, and yet we see many republicans pushing for that or to “teach the controversy”. The waste of money in the litigation to get that result in schools be dammed.
As the investigation by Frontline showed, a lot of the new crop of Republicans got help or got money for their elections from the fossil fuel industry and now virtually all Republicans are just going against what moderate republicans and independents think.
So it does not matter if more than 50% of Republicans think that there is evidence that the earth is warming and more than just the Tea Party think that there is evidence that humans are the cause or that it is possible.
The Tea Party is the one with more deniers, and the Republican party as a whole is following the lead or the Tea Party extremists that claim that there is no problem and so the solution for them is to even oppose the moderate changes the EPA is making to the regulations regarding emissions.
The overall point to me is that many moderate Republicans are not aware of how extreme their own party is now.
An opinion or position that is mistaken and/or factually incorrect does not necessarily mean that position is extreme. If 99% of a group of people were flat earthers, that view would not be extreme, far from it. It would be the mainstream view, though still factually incorrect.
Again - please define how you are using the term “extreme”. I suspect it’s a tactic to label a viewpoint extreme, without regard to the actual meaning of the word. Please rebut my position by defining the term and showing how its use in this thread makes sense.
The examples I mentioned are actually supported by the majority of Americans, not just moderate Republicans and independents, the point here is that many of the moderate Republicans and independents are not aware of how much their representatives are out of step with them or the rest of the Americans.
I thought it was clear, when most of the people think that an issue can proceed to a vote the extreme position happens when a minority is who is driving the ship tells everyone that no vote will be made. Or that a vote will be made to defund or oppose the position that most Americans approve of.
I forgot to add another example, most Americans (even a good number of Republicans) think that gays should have their rights protected, but the extremists are still preventing many states from following what most Americans believe is right.
You were not clear. Are you deliberately avoiding the question? Can you define how you are using the term “extreme”? How small must a minority view be to be labeled extreme?
Inferring from your example of gay marriage, are you asserting that a position held by 47% of the population can be labeled extreme?
IMHO it is when more than 50% agrees that something should be done or changed, but with the added conditional that science or evidence should not be ignored in that decision. The extremism happens when those elements are present and we have a group that clearly is in the minority and does not care about what the people and science are telling them.
Yes. That is an extreme position now as it is not based on human rights nor what science reports nowadays. And then even most of the American people supports it now.
Let me make sure I am following your line of reasoning correctly. You are saying that if you hold a position that shares less than 50% support, it is extreme. Is that a fair interpretation?
Extremism is measured longitudinally as well, remember. Views that are widely but briefly held, during one of the fevered outbreaks of hatred or foolishness we humans are subject to, are still extreme when considered over the course of time. The simple thoughtless gummint-bad nihilism we see from the faction dominating the GOP right now (enabled by feckless leadership from its putative adults) would still be extreme even if it were universally held.
Historical positions that were once widely held can be considered extreme when measured against a future population - sure. For example, un-equal rights for women (like denying the right to vote) for a time was considered acceptable and would not be considered extreme at the time, but today anyone who espouses positions that would limit women’s right to vote would be considered an extremist. That’s not the discussion in this thread however, that being currently held views as measured by some future standard.
The discussion in this thread is about current positions, measured against the current population. Are you also asserting that a universally held position could be fairly labeled as extreme, at the point in time that position is held?
Close, but there are conditionals that are not mentioned or missed, one important factor is that even in that group there is a smaller group that have the real extremist position, the problem is that the extreme subgroup that should in theory be ignored is not.
As it happens, the extreme media is also controlling the agenda (see the immigration cite) and while the extremists should be rightfully ignored what is happening in practice is that the extremists are controlling the agenda of the whole group.
So you are defining the term to apply to a group of people who hold a position that may enjoy up to 47% support, but for some reason you don’t think they should hold that position, and therefore they are extreme?
If there really were such a thing as universally held position, sure. More common is that those who disagree with the loud, widely supported extremists are afraid to say anything, like, for instance, GOP Congressmen who are afraid the nihilist fever has not yet broken and they can still be primaried out of a job they love.
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity” (WB Yeats), once again.
Again, you are ignoring the science bit, or I should more appropriately, the bit about having evidence, human rights or logic on their side. In several of the examples mentioned there is a clear minority that opposes **all **change. Moderate positions that many Republicans agree (see the immigration example) should rule the day and compromises then should appear.
The extremism that is there is not allowing for much of that to show up.