Is "radical" good or bad.

[fredtoast]

The right wing media is trying to portray the left as an out of control group of "radical extremists". They try to equate any new program that benefits the general public as "socialist" and then rant about how socialism fails everywhere every time.

Meanwhile the young firebrands on the left are saying that the old fogies like Biden need to get out of the way because they need "radical new ideas" in order to succeed.

During Trumps campaign he was proud to be labeled a "radical" because it was a sign that he was not a part of the "deep state", and he was going to "drain the swamp". All he has done is pander to business and the wealthy, but the right seems to be making a radical move on social issues like abortion.

So what needs to happen? Does the right need to find a candidate that is more conventional that the "radical" Trump? Or do they need to make an even more radical move toward a Christian theocracy? Does the left need to find a more "radical" candidate that Biden, or do they need to move toward the middle.

Despite what the news networks want you to believe I think there are still a large number of people in "the middle". Not everyone has moved to an extreme position.

[Belsnickel]

I kept starting and deleting a post that would turn into a tome in response to this. I have already spent more time on this than I'd like because I got too in the weeds with political theory. Instead, I'll just say I am for radical solutions, because I want a more democratic and equitable society. Right know we are moving in the opposite direction.

[BmorePat87]

What is radical? It’s going to be applied in relative terms by people differently.

Having the political courage to make changes, big or small, that are necessary is good.

[treee]

Any word can mean almost anything (outside of a legal context). That's why it is often pointless the quibble over their meaning in the grander scheme of things, when they are often contextual.

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2019, 04:01 PM)treee Wrote: Any word can mean almost anything (outside of a legal context). That's why it is often pointless the quibble over their meaning in the grander scheme of things, when they are often contextual.

But I like quibbling over meanings. Semantic arguments are so much fun.

[hollodero]

(06-04-2019, 03:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I kept starting and deleting a post that would turn into a tome in response to this. I have already spent more time on this than I'd like because I got too in the weeds with political theory. Instead, I'll just say I am for radical solutions, because I want a more democratic and equitable society. Right know we are moving in the opposite direction.

I'd like to add that I also like radical solutions to keep our planet livable. Non-radical ideas won't do it.

The term itself is of course often used to scare people, in the sense of radical=extreme=threatening. It's a tainted expression. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2019, 04:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'd like to add that I also like radical solutions to keep our planet livable. Non-radical ideas won't do it.

The term itself is of course often used to scare people, in the sense of radical=extreme=threatening. It's a tainted expression. 

I consider those sorts of things equity issues. The continued degradation of the planet will disproportionately impact the lower and middle classes as the upper classes will have the means to "ride it out" longer than others. Therefore, solutions to reduce air pollution, for soil and water conservation, and also to combat climate change are matters of equity. So while I was including these issues in my very broad statement, I appreciate the specificity on these in particular.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2019, 04:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: The term itself is of course often used to scare people, in the sense of radical=extreme=threatening. It's a tainted expression. 

One of my friends thinks all radicals need to be locked up.  He keeps telling me how much damage free radicals can do.








But he is a chemist.

[*michaelsean*]

I can answer that the right need not go anywhere near a theocracy. I used to be more conservative socially speaking than I am now. But I don't feel that I was radical. I try to be more realistic or pragmatic now. I don't think abortion should have ever been legal, but I think making it illegal now would cause such an uproar and just craziness, that I find myself just hoping everything stays the same. Some may say I've just been beat down by liberals. Maybe so, but it just seems too much of a change now. It's too late.

I used to be against gay marriage. It wasn't because I hated gay people, it's just because that wasn't what marriage was. But then people came up with civil unions to afford them the same rights, and I was like, Yeah that's cool. Then I thought well hell so it's just calling it marriage that's bugging me? That's not a good reason.

I think I went off track there. But no I don't want any radicals from anywhere. Nothing radical is necessary.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 04:01 PM)treee Wrote: Any word can mean almost anything (outside of a legal context). That's why it is often pointless the quibble over their meaning in the grander scheme of things, when they are often contextual.

I agree with this. Folks get too caught up in the treees (pun intended) around here and often totally disregard the forest. We must try to use definitions provided and it's why I usually they to cite them when questioned. The issue is many will go off half-cocked on your use of a certain word instead of seeking clarification and by following Rule #1 of PnR Forum they will double-down rather than admit to their Premature Exclamation.

As to the OP: Given Webster's definition: "favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions" I suppose it would depend on your view of the current state.

[hollodero]

(06-04-2019, 04:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I consider those sorts of things equity issues. The continued degradation of the planet will disproportionately impact the lower and middle classes as the upper classes will have the means to "ride it out" longer than others. Therefore, solutions to reduce air pollution, for soil and water conservation, and also to combat climate change are matters of equity. So while I was including these issues in my very broad statement, I appreciate the specificity on these in particular.

Get it. Makes sense. I wouldn't necessarily have called it an equity issue myself, since a deteriorating planet creates no "winners". While for sure people of different classes will be affected to different degrees, there are no benefits for anyone.

...except for my country. We have water.

(06-04-2019, 05:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think I went off track there.  But no I don't want any radicals from anywhere.  Nothing radical is necessary.

Regarding environment and especially climate change, I have to disagree. Something radical is necessary. Which is not an ideological stance, but a scientific stance.

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2019, 05:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: One of my friends thinks all radicals need to be locked up. 

Did you tell him that is a radical approach; therefore, is is advocating for himself to be locked up?

[Dill]

(06-04-2019, 02:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The right wing media is trying to portray the left as an out of control group of "radical extremists".  They try to equate any new program that benefits the general public as "socialist" and then rant about how socialism fails everywhere every time.

Meanwhile the young firebrands on the left are saying that the old fogies like Biden need to get out of the way because they need "radical new ideas" in order to succeed.

During Trumps campaign he was proud to be labeled a "radical" because it was a sign that he was not a part of the "deep state", and he was going to "drain the swamp".  All he has done is pander to business and the wealthy, but the right seems to be making a radical move on social issues like abortion.

So what needs to happen?  Does the right need to find a candidate that is more conventional that the "radical" Trump?  Or do they need to make an even more radical move toward a Christian theocracy?  Does the left need to find a more "radical" candidate that Biden, or do they need to move toward the middle.

Despite what the news networks want you to believe I think there are still a large number of people in "the middle".  Not everyone has moved to an extreme position.

Just an adjective.  Like asking if "cold" is good or bad.  Good for ice cream; bad for french fries.

[CJD]

"radical" is a word with negative connotation.

Unless you're talking to a 90s surfer.

I haven't really heard liberals call moving further to the left "radical new ideas." I've mainly seen it described as "progressive" ideas. Occasionally "democratic socialist" ideas although they're almost all more akin to "social democratic" ideas (the former is based in a socialist economy, the latter in a capitalist economy).

the term radical is bad. The idea of being radical is bad. But these words are almost always used by the opposition party who, in relation to their own beliefs, the other side does seem pretty solidly radical.

[Benton]

Came across this story and it reminded me of this thread.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/graduate-quotes-trump-obama.html?fbclid=IwAR0c2CnffQnr9qUIXZFeIydG2rxpZ0OVcM4uAbppvUfomjY36DtYlWl8jvM

Quote:Wisdom comes from the unlikeliest places. And on Saturday, Ben Bowling, the valedictorian of Bell County High School in Pineville, Ky., made an inspirational appeal that left his graduating classmates and their parents dumbstruck.

“This is the part of my speech where I share some inspirational quotes I found on Google,” he told the packed auditorium. “‘Don’t just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table’ — Donald J. Trump.”

The crowd burst into applause. President Trump is quite popular in Pineville and the surrounding area, which is the heart of coal country and overwhelmingly supported the president in the 2016 election after he promised to bring coal jobs back to America.

Mr. Bowling, though, wasn’t finished.

“Just kidding,” he said. “That was Barack Obama.”

If a Democrat 'fights for his seat at the table' he's a violent extremist snowflake hell bent on murdering babies; if The Don 'fights for his seat at the table' he's making everyone a billionaire.

And that's why millions of people in the middle don't like either of your parties.

[CJD]

That kid is a liberal elitist.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-06-2019, 09:33 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: That kid is a liberal elitist.

Not yet.  Four years of undergrad, three masters degrees that sound a lot like each other, a PhD in anthropology, and then a professorship teaching all this to other kids who want to go to school until they are 35.  I often think the only jobs for half the majors are teaching it to the next group.  

Don't anyone get all up in arms.  I'm just messing a little.

[CJD]

(06-06-2019, 10:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Not yet.  Four years of undergrad, three masters degrees that sound a lot like each other, a PhD in anthropology, and then a professorship teaching all this to other kids who want to go to school until they are 35.  I often think the only jobs for half the majors are teaching it to the next group.  

Don't anyone get all up in arms.  I'm just messing a little.

I agree. A lot of degrees are not worth the money they cost.

Which is a shame because if the debt required to go to college continues to increase, then people will stop getting degrees in History, Liberal Arts, Literature and other low paying degrees and society will suffer for it.


When my Grandfather went to school, getting a degree was more than enough to get virtually any job (he got a degree in history and then became a CIA agent). A college education was more about proving you were teachable than necessarily what you were taught in school. I'm an engineer and, outside the basics of math, science etc, I only really use about...maybe 15% of the knowledge I gained in advanced classes that focused on very specific things like distillation column sizing.

Nowadays, employers are looking for real world experience and bankable degrees, and those two things just do not coincide with liberals arts degrees at all. And liberal arts degrees cost about the same as an engineering degree (minus lab fees and things like that, which are relatively minor) but pay exponentially less once you graduate.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-06-2019, 10:54 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I agree. A lot of degrees are not worth the money they cost.

Which is a shame because if the debt required to go to college continues to increase, then people will stop getting degrees in History, Liberal Arts, Literature and other low paying degrees and society will suffer for it.


When my Grandfather went to school, getting a degree was more than enough to get virtually any job (he got a degree in history and then became a CIA agent and eventually branch manager).

Nowadays, employers are looking for real world experience and bankable degrees, and those two things just do not coincide with liberals arts degrees at all. And liberal arts degrees cost about the same as an engineering degree (minus lab fees and things like that, which are relatively minor) but pay exponentially less once you graduate.

On the flip a lot of employees just want a degree, and they don't care what it's in which makes zero sense.  If you don't actually need the degree why would someone with a degree in say literature have an advantage over some kid who has been supporting himself since he was 18?  That takes much more discipline than getting average grades squeezed around four years of partying.  

[CJD]

(06-06-2019, 11:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: On the flip a lot of employees just want a degree, and they don't care what it's in which makes zero sense.  If you don't actually need the degree why would someone with a degree in say literature have an advantage over some kid who has been supporting himself since he was 18?  That takes much more discipline than getting average grades squeezed around four years of partying.  

Well, I think they want a degree in something that interests them. And then when they graduate, they realize there are no jobs for that degree and now are just applying for jobs they think they can do and hope they can impress in the interview.

It's a lot to ask 17 year olds to make a commitment to a certain degree that will affect the rest of their lives.

As far as comparing a college graduate to a person that has supported themselves since 18, all I can say is that getting a college degree is still difficult. It takes discipline and intelligence. The amount of which is heavily dependent on the degree, of course. You also learn to use tools like Excel, Word and give presentations and develop a variety of skills that a lot of companies value just through getting that degree. The self sufficient person may be really good at budgeting and values hard work, but they may not have the baseline tools needed to work in an office setting. This is a generalization, of course. Non-college educated people can obviously learn those things. But if I've learned anything through my career, it's that companies are not a fan of actually having to teach their employees how to do things. They want the fully finished product at hiring.

Also, the stereotype of partying for four years never really identified with me, personally. Granted, I was an engineer, so that may mean my degree was "harder" than, say, a business or communications degree.