Are you an extremist?

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1161822749/43
This post got me thinking.

In my eyes there are 2 extremists. The racist and the crazy liberal. I've seen liberals on this board claiming anyone who disagrees with them is a racist or coming up with some retarded argument like...
1: Racism occurs.
2: ???
3: I'm right even if my argument is contradictory.
...and I'm beginning to see similarities. Due to it's mild value of human rights liberalism generally is not a terrible ideal, but this doesn't mean it is infallible.

Are you the liberal prowling this forum? Do you think I am secretly racist? Let's try to find out why.

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1161822749/43 got one thing right, there certainly were racists in that thread and they were extremists, however there were 2 types of anti-racist in that thread.
A: People who point out contradictions.
B: People who blurt random conspiracy theories and labels all opponents racists.
Occasionally B helps point out contradictions, but usually just repeating what A said and only a small percentage of the total volume of text.

Contrast this with discussions concerning statements that are certainly liberal.
C: People who point out contradictions.
D: People who blurt random conspiracy theories and use bigotry.

As we can see A=C. There are also similarities between B and D, the difference is that D uses bigotry and B calls all it's opponents racist. The motives for this are unclear but the effects are the same, the attempt to discredit a person's argument based on the person speaking rather than the argument itself. It is an act of desperation. Both B and D possess the property of extremism to a high degree.

Have any racists managed to read this far? If so can you tell what race I am? Black? What about the liberals? I'm white you say? Well there is nothing to suggest I am either! May I ask that you explain how you came to those conclusions?

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1161822749/43 was trying to reinforce claims that people who disagree with them on other threads were racist. If I did not type this and the next sentence undoubtedly the liberal would respond by claiming I was saying that the racists in that thread were not extremists. In fact it is not a case of a person either being racist or liberal, but a case of a person being one of the many different types of extremists or a non-extremist. Naturally if an ideology is not extreme and it's followers maturely debate the ideal then the ideology must either mold towards reason or become extremist. Liberal ideals are massively more reasonable than racist/fascist ideals, however liberals are still unbending with their obsession with marx-related ideals and the ease at which they resort to manipulation of their followers and other people through extremism.

tl;dr

How do I get pissed at trolls and waste my time writing essays nobody cares about?

>>2
B or D.

if you call me that again i'll kill you

>>4
Of course you will, because you are B or D.

black and dicker?

>>6
whut

4chan needs a /tr/ for trolls.

prempted by Trex

racism has become a lot more covert these days it slowing hidd=en it self within the ranks of the far right.

I feel that Liberals who fit into your(OP's) B column are generally people who have listened to A-s, evalutated the arguments, and have decided they believe the claims of A-s. What makes the B-s distinct from A-s is their lack of ability or will to explain or present their arguments as something other than self evident:
"Of course Bush is a moron, you whore! He got us into Iraq which is a fucking mess!"

Personally, I believe this claim to the core. That doesn't make it a sound or convincing argument, particularly to someone who isn't already convinced.

However, there exists a mood in humans where we think that people will believe us, if we just show them how strongly we believe....or maybe I just learned that in Church....fuck if I know.

I would be tempted to make the same claim about the trolls in the D column, but I'm not sure they actually listen to the C-s at all.

>>10
No, its in the left.

>>11
People are not stupid and usually develop complex reasonning skills by the time they can vote. The problem is politicians are master pscyhologists and evoke emotions in nearly all of their arguments to boost the appeal of whatever they are pushing. This stunts the development of a person's ability to transfer their everyday practical reasonning skills to the realm of philosophy and politics.

Extremism can have it's benefits as long as it is divided into many diverse ideologies... If a person cannot be taught to apply logic to their political thought, exposure to radically different points of view and uses of emotive arguments (especially those which are not directed at them) allows them to develop this ability themselves. Unfortunately extremists tend to attack the education system mixing up small amounts of their dogma with the guise of a good cause, so teaching children to be objective would likely be attacked and corrupted also.

DESU!

dsada

>>1
I'm a technocrate. I see that the only viable way to beat corruption is to replace bureaucracy with open source programs, which will use army soldiers as its only human agents. Is that extremism?

Wow, so even in 2006 /newpol/ was a place for people whose views and opinions are totally unacceptable in an intelligent, rational and civilised society.

Sure, but society has come closer to newpol.

I'm an extremist, but not because I'm a racist. I just think we should discriminate against people with red hair. Keep America American without those gingers.

I'm an extremist, but not because I'm a racist. I just think we should discriminate against people with red hair. Keep America American without those gingers.