Normative radicalization and the rules of engagement

Economics, Politics, Philosophy, History and Culture
Forum rules
Always add something of value to the discussion and have fun. Mind your language, no porn, no libel, no trolling and no personal attacks.

Please note, views expressed on the forum do not necessarily represent the views of Mises UK. the Mises UK Council, Mises UK Faculty or Mises UK members. Membership of this forum is open to anyone world wide who is interested in civil discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:11 pm

Normative radicalization and the rules of engagement

Post by William » Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:22 pm

If a college educated person can not agree that normative radicalization is wrong, there is little room for much conversation.

By this I mean using radical and fringe terms and ideas without restraint and doing the one thing you are not allowed to do with them, make them normative.

To use a common illustration of this used in the medical profession; If your life depended on it, and you lived in North America or Europe and you hear something galloping at you with four hooves you would think "horse", not "zebra". When one's mind wanders to this in the social sphere it shows they lack the proper tool kit and restraints to look at social phenomena.

Common manifestations of this

1) comparing things to Hitler/nazis/kkk.

In so much as card carrying nazis and KKK make up about 1% of the population, they should enter your head about 1% of the time. In so much as they had a combined total of 60 years of relevancy in a very specific time and place vs things like progressivism, liberalism, conservatism, colonialism, corprotism, most major religions, and even socialism which have had hundreds of relevancy over many different places for thoughts on such people and ideas should correlate with such things.

2) the pathological approach

You are not a doctor. You do not bare the consequences a doctor bares. You have not gone through the schooling and testing in proficiency a doctor has. Quit diagnosing things. Even if you have a PHD...diagnosing the radicalization of time (this time it's different, we are under a new law the old ones are antiquated), groups of people, the destiny of groups of people, the "self interest" of groups of people (or even sillier "the self interest of time") . the subjective desires of a person's mind, the "genealogy " and/or "progress" of a person/ culture/ religion/ moral are infinitely more complex than anything a doctor can deal with. That a doctor understands he is dealing with complex stuff and knows his limitations and you don't show you are not cut out to be addressing or diagnosing a person's physical maladies, much less his personal maladies, and even much less social "problems".

And that a philosophy which usually calls itself "alruistic" becoming angry that people/ classes/ events go against "self interest" is hilarious to me, but that's another story for another day.

3) The obstructive approach

Obstructive approaches, usually in the name of something like "civil disobedience" which takes the form of shouting people down, targeting and destroying property of opponents, blocking opponents movement and so forth is a desperate tactic and a radical tactic. I can only take it seriously a few times in my life and such a tactic can only be employed at best a few times in one's life, pretty much by definition. If this is normalized I'm bound to think one of three things a) we live in truly radical times b) your histrionic, or c) we live in radical times BECAUSE your histonic. My money is on B or C, when I hear something on four hooves I think horse and not zebra
I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term 'social justice'.
F.A Hayek

Post Reply