The term “radical” has a distinct meaning when it comes to the political - the term literally means “that which pertains to the root.” Ie, radical politics are politics which looks for the root causes of society’s ills. That is why radical politics is almost universally associated with left-wing politics. *Reactionary politics," on the other hand, is almost universally associated with right-wing politics - ie, ideologies that wants to prevent politics that attempts to cure the root causes of society’s ills. Right-wing ideology is always anti-radical - that is the entire point of right-wing ideology, has always been and always will be.
In other words… the only one way for a nazi to be a “radical nazi” - and that’s by becoming an ex-nazi.
When someone tries to convince me that the moon is made out of cheese I do not forget what cheese is just to spare the convincer’s feelings.
Your misuse of important political meanings doesn’t make it less misinformational just because it’s misuse is something you’ve heard done on mainstream media.
I dont watch the news lmao but yes they do change umm thats how language works I’m not really sure what to tell u here do u think were still speaking Latin or what? With the internet especially language started to change faster
No. They don’t - no matter how desperately you want them to. The basic idea behind socialism hasn’t changed. The basic idea behind democracy hasn’t changed.
You just want them to have changed so that you don’t have to account for the fact that you bought the bullshit for the sake of convenience.
Even people writing papers on this use this word to mean that in this context.
I’m not denying other meanings exist. I’m just saying that you’re kinda being a jerk to get UMMM-ACTUALLYYY smart-points. In your head. They are only in your head my dude.
And what? Radicalization can mean different things in context. What do you think was the context when talking about this violence cycle? Could it have been like that example from that paper, a widely used definition by both academics and non academics?
Radicalization can mean different things in context.
Oh really? So why do liberals peddling their bootlicker ideology in mainstream media choose to only use the term in that specific context, hmm?
You never find fascists self-applying the terms “radical” or “radicalized”… that’s something only leftists do. Yet you liberals constantly ignore that context, don’t you?
Sure, go ahead, explain it.
The term “radical” has a distinct meaning when it comes to the political - the term literally means “that which pertains to the root.” Ie, radical politics are politics which looks for the root causes of society’s ills. That is why radical politics is almost universally associated with left-wing politics. *Reactionary politics," on the other hand, is almost universally associated with right-wing politics - ie, ideologies that wants to prevent politics that attempts to cure the root causes of society’s ills. Right-wing ideology is always anti-radical - that is the entire point of right-wing ideology, has always been and always will be.
In other words… the only one way for a nazi to be a “radical nazi” - and that’s by becoming an ex-nazi.
Yeah but you knew full well that that is not what radicalized meant in sentence. /:
Givng off a lot of pedantic vibes here
When someone tries to convince me that the moon is made out of cheese I do not forget what cheese is just to spare the convincer’s feelings.
Your misuse of important political meanings doesn’t make it less misinformational just because it’s misuse is something you’ve heard done on mainstream media.
It sorta does actually. Language evolves and its extremely common to have entirely different colloquial and academic definitions
The meaning of political concepts do not change - it doesn’t matter how desperately CNN wants to sell their “both-side-ism” bullcrap to you.
I dont watch the news lmao but yes they do change umm thats how language works I’m not really sure what to tell u here do u think were still speaking Latin or what? With the internet especially language started to change faster
No. They don’t - no matter how desperately you want them to. The basic idea behind socialism hasn’t changed. The basic idea behind democracy hasn’t changed.
You just want them to have changed so that you don’t have to account for the fact that you bought the bullshit for the sake of convenience.
That’s because you have no argument.
That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard being said about language and how language works (and half my degree was in Linguistics).
If you can’t admit language changes, you’re gonna have a bad time.
Hmmm. Do you always disambiguate word meanings by first taking them out of context and then applying some textbook definition you like?
I clearly meant this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43783789
Even people writing papers on this use this word to mean that in this context.
I’m not denying other meanings exist. I’m just saying that you’re kinda being a jerk to get UMMM-ACTUALLYYY smart-points. In your head. They are only in your head my dude.
And? There are people “writing papers” that still think the USSR was “socialist” or that the US is “democratic.”
Political concepts have meaning, genius - that meaning doesn’t change just because said meaning upsets the feels of liberals such as yourself, okay?
And what? Radicalization can mean different things in context. What do you think was the context when talking about this violence cycle? Could it have been like that example from that paper, a widely used definition by both academics and non academics?
Oh really? So why do liberals peddling their bootlicker ideology in mainstream media choose to only use the term in that specific context, hmm?
You never find fascists self-applying the terms “radical” or “radicalized”… that’s something only leftists do. Yet you liberals constantly ignore that context, don’t you?
Why is that, liberal?
I’m not a Liberal…
That’s like totally radical man.
Totally.