Both words, “extremist” and “right-wing”, have no real hard definitions.
No, right-wing ideology has a very hard and clear-cut definition - all politics that protects power and privilege. It really doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Is being socially conservative right wing?
It’s not supposed to be… but the only people self-applying the term in the US are fascists.
Is supporting capitalism right wing?
Yes. Period.
anti-racist and pro-trans left wing?
That’s not progressive - that’s radicalism.
Is socialism left wing? Is only communism left wing?
Yes.
Is someone an extremist if they condone violence?
No.
Is someone an extremist if they seek to change the system fundamentally?
No, that’s radicalism.
Is someone an extremist if their political beliefs are very strongly held, no matter what they might be?
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.
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.
No, right-wing ideology has a very hard and clear-cut definition - all politics that protects power and privilege. It really doesn’t get any simpler than that.
It’s not supposed to be… but the only people self-applying the term in the US are fascists.
Yes. Period.
That’s not progressive - that’s radicalism.
Yes.
No.
No, that’s radicalism.
No.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
So you have nothing left to argue with… except to bang on the table as hard as you can?