Okay, cool, those are your opinion. There is no common ground on these definitions.
I may agree with many of those, I may not agree with others, but after all these are just our opinions.
We both know that different people use these terms differently.
The German political education ministry for example defines extremism as any anticonstitutional movement, and goes on to mention “caring too much about anti-fascism” as a form of left-wing extremism: Source
Meanwhile, they define radicalism as an ideology unwilling to compromise their positions… or someone who seeks to combat the root of a societal ill. Source
On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream, and even “conflate” it with radicalism: Source
Meanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to “British values”, whatever those are, along with specifically mentioning people who condone the loss of British soldiers: Source
I am sure that many, many people would disagree with these definitions both inside and outside of these countries, let alone across political ideologies.
No matter how strongly you feel about defining these words to your liking, fact is that they do not have clear definitions and are useless in any kind of serious debate.
As long as a pro-capitalist queer activist is considered left-wing by about half the population and right-wing by the other, there cannot be common ground.
Yes, they’ve spent trillions on propaganda machines to make sure no clear meaning can be ascribed to rather simple political concepts. That doesn’t stop us from discovering their actual meanings at all.
We both know that different people use these terms differently.
Yes. See above.
The German political education ministry for example defines extremism
Sooo… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?
On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream
So, again… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?
Meanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to “British values”,
And… more of the same?
fact is that they do not have clear definitions
That’s because “definitions” are utterly useless. What isn’t useless is the meaning without which these political concepts cease to serve any purpose - and no amount of “muddying the water” will be able to rob them of that.
But you don’t have the authority over words. Words don’t have innate meaning given to them by some God; their meaning is defined by usage. And it’s very obvious that people use these terms very differently.
They do not have a meaning, since almost each native speaker uses them differently.
You are not the authority over their meaning, no matter how righteous you think yourself, and neither do I. Meaning is defined by popular usage.
I have said nothing about authority. You, on the other hand…
their meaning is defined by usage
…ascribe those with the deepest pockets and vilest agendas the power to “define” the meaning of terms for you. Fox News gets to “define” the usage of the term socialism as “gubment doing stuff” (or whatever white supremacist nazi crack-pipe logic they are peddling these days) - but that doesn’t rob the term socialism of it’s actual meaning in any way or shape whatsoever. Fox News doesn’t get to wipe away hundreds of years of socialist theory - that’s why their ilk are resorting to burning books. They have failed to strip meaning from ideas despite all the trillions they have spent on their propaganda - so now they are resorting to the age-old tactic of simply attampting to prevent people from coming into contact with said meaning in the first place.
The exact same goes for what is “left” or “right,” or that which is “radical” or “reactionary” - usage does not dictate meaning. The distance between the usage and the actual meaning of a term merely demonstrates the intelectual integrity (or lack thereof) and/or understanding (or lack therof) of the user.
There is no “actual meaning”. There is no “using words wrong”. You do not understand how human language works.
Language is defined by its users, not by you, or a dictionary, or a historian.
Okay, cool, those are your opinion. There is no common ground on these definitions. I may agree with many of those, I may not agree with others, but after all these are just our opinions.
We both know that different people use these terms differently. The German political education ministry for example defines extremism as any anticonstitutional movement, and goes on to mention “caring too much about anti-fascism” as a form of left-wing extremism: Source Meanwhile, they define radicalism as an ideology unwilling to compromise their positions… or someone who seeks to combat the root of a societal ill. Source
On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream, and even “conflate” it with radicalism: Source Meanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to “British values”, whatever those are, along with specifically mentioning people who condone the loss of British soldiers: Source
I am sure that many, many people would disagree with these definitions both inside and outside of these countries, let alone across political ideologies. No matter how strongly you feel about defining these words to your liking, fact is that they do not have clear definitions and are useless in any kind of serious debate. As long as a pro-capitalist queer activist is considered left-wing by about half the population and right-wing by the other, there cannot be common ground.
Yes, they’ve spent trillions on propaganda machines to make sure no clear meaning can be ascribed to rather simple political concepts. That doesn’t stop us from discovering their actual meanings at all.
Yes. See above.
Sooo… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?
So, again… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?
And… more of the same?
That’s because “definitions” are utterly useless. What isn’t useless is the meaning without which these political concepts cease to serve any purpose - and no amount of “muddying the water” will be able to rob them of that.
But you don’t have the authority over words. Words don’t have innate meaning given to them by some God; their meaning is defined by usage. And it’s very obvious that people use these terms very differently.
They do not have a meaning, since almost each native speaker uses them differently. You are not the authority over their meaning, no matter how righteous you think yourself, and neither do I. Meaning is defined by popular usage.
I have said nothing about authority. You, on the other hand…
…ascribe those with the deepest pockets and vilest agendas the power to “define” the meaning of terms for you. Fox News gets to “define” the usage of the term socialism as “gubment doing stuff” (or whatever white supremacist nazi crack-pipe logic they are peddling these days) - but that doesn’t rob the term socialism of it’s actual meaning in any way or shape whatsoever. Fox News doesn’t get to wipe away hundreds of years of socialist theory - that’s why their ilk are resorting to burning books. They have failed to strip meaning from ideas despite all the trillions they have spent on their propaganda - so now they are resorting to the age-old tactic of simply attampting to prevent people from coming into contact with said meaning in the first place.
The exact same goes for what is “left” or “right,” or that which is “radical” or “reactionary” - usage does not dictate meaning. The distance between the usage and the actual meaning of a term merely demonstrates the intelectual integrity (or lack thereof) and/or understanding (or lack therof) of the user.
There is no “actual meaning”. There is no “using words wrong”. You do not understand how human language works. Language is defined by its users, not by you, or a dictionary, or a historian.
So you have nothing left to argue with… except to bang on the table as hard as you can?