Today we have a relevant topic and completely unrelated to me (except for the fact that I am writing it).
I struggle with the topic because I was unsure if I should focus the trigger or resulting thought, regardless I went for the trigger it gives a logical flow to the thought.
So first background knowledge, I went to this Hispanic society event where the "documentary" "the revolution will not be televised" was shown by the magazine "New Internationalist". This is a so called non profit media that is not driven by market or cooperativeism, and other types of "isms". Don't get me wrong I don't want to really comment o the magazine because I didn't have a chance to read it, but by skimming through it, I can say it doesn't look promising, it has adverts for stuff, the devils market tool :P, and seems completely bias to a left wing radical way of thinking (But will read it and let you know).
From my view I am a moderate center guy, no right or left, meaning depending on the issues I have a slightly more less or right view (just saying this so you understand my view, or at least have an idea).
So going into the so called "documentary" and I say it like this because it was a clear propaganda movie clearly designed to pass a political image about Hugo Chavez, ohh almost forget the movie is about the so called Hugo Chavez persecution who is a quasi saint figure. Ok I am being mean and exaggerating, anyways check it out it screams propaganda, never the less I’d like to state that I am sure it has a lot of real facts, has does any good propaganda.
Sorry about that, the thing is I don't want to talk about the film, I do want to talk about the discussion that took place after.
I could tell you about the dude, and is very unclear and shifty views, like those liberalists that are just because they are, no real dept to the arguments, but I don't want to go there.
I do want to talk about radicals, meaning people that are radical either in left or right, and how that can be so destructive. The scenario for the practical example is Venezuela, what Chavez did was what we heard in other places, either you are with me or against me, and again I don't want to talk about Chavez or his hypocrisy, just this simple fact what does a moderate do when confronted with a radical view?
The question makes perfect sense since most of the so called western world (basically the more developed nations) are moderate nations, we people voting mostly moderate.
Don't think about politics, because the context is a bit irrelevant, imagine that someone approach you with a radical view on something, like all we should kill all criminals, what would you do? Obviously you can ignore them, that is a way, but what if you have to make a stand, like in Venezuela, I mean sometimes ignoring the problem just makes it worst.
You would go well it depends and bla bla bla, but the thing is if the arguments where too radical against what you are saying, you have too choices either start conceding or start radicalizing in the other direction.
This is the thing radical thinking enables the bipolarization of arguments and destroys the possibility for consensus. This is my main thought, and I think it is quite brilliant (sorry I get proud of myself sometimes :P). You might even use this to your advantage, because if you don't want consensus this is the best way, blockade situations. This is the clear thing that radicals should see instead of enabling their views they are preventing us from reaching the sort of status quo that we which to happen when we have radical views.
This is the point I wanted to make, without going to much into detail, of radical views and how they appeal to things we all want and bla bla bla, just something I thought you should all think about.