politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Yes it has, and you don't have it.
The term radical (in a political context) has always implied "change at the root." That is what the Latin word rādīcālis (“of or pertaining to the root, having roots, radical”).
It is utterly impossible for a "radical" right-wing ideology to exist, as the sole purpose of right-wing ideology is to prevent change - that is why right-wing ideology is referred to as reactionary... essentially, anti-radical.
So, no... the liberal media is perpetrating misinformation when it uses the terms "radical" and "radicalized" in this inaccurate way - and so are you.
The dictionary definition I supplied gave no indication of left or right.
Your unsourced assertion, which I assume you got from someone making a video sitting in their car, is what you want to word to mean rather than what it actually means.
Now forgetting word play, do you think attacking an elected official's family with a hammer is an acceptable political action in a democracy?
No, it doesn't.
Showing up to a political discussion with a dictionary "definition" is a sure-fire way to show that you have zero real knowledge regarding the subject matter.
Really? You think the last three hundred years of political thought was made by "someone making a video sitting in their car"?
No, Clyde - again... it is utterly impossible for a “radical” right-wing ideology to exist, as the sole purpose of right-wing ideology is to prevent change.
Show me a right-wing ideology that is advocating for change "at the root" and not merely protecting and expanding the status quo - maybe your dictionary can help you with that?
Ok sure. Radical Evangelicals want to change America from a Secular nation to a Christian nation.
They want to change a core, founding aspect of the nation, 'at the root,' to better align with their religion
See what I did there? I helped you not spread misinformation - ain't I nice?
Soooo... a fundamentally white supremacist nation is turning to christofascism to protect the fundamental white supremacism the nation was founded upon?
Yeah... you really got the "radical" part nailed, genius - tell me another one.
You're adorably confidently incorrect.
It's not fun watching liberals turn to copium when they find out they they are no less right-wing than the (so-called) "conservatives" they love looking down upon - but I'm afraid it's true... your investment in maintaining the status quo means it can be no other way.
Your pretense that the term radical can be conflated with the term extremist does not make that any less true.
Lol man this conversation delivers
Don't get over-excited now, Clyde... we haven't even gotten started yet.
ISIS.
Since when is fundamentalist right-wing Islamism not fundamentalist right-wing Islamism?