i actually have encountered very few moderates in my life. but yes you are right that anti-extremism is not only held by conservatives (although it is emphasized more vocally). i simply disagree that extremism is the narrative. its just the twitter and namafia narrative.
the trouble with a distinction is two fold
(at least)
white people simply make up a majority of conservatives, and also the conservative view tends to deny the experiences of the oppressed.
never met a white woman who was conservative that wasn't also tragically sexist herself
Disagree with me = conservative
Disagree with me = racist
conservative = racist
It's just tribalism all the way down and it's the reason the left is falling apart. People hear "anti-racism" and say "of course I want to be anti-racist!" without fully understanding what comes with it
Perfect example
Pure tribalism and Kafka traps all the way down
asoul u are racist against extremists. you must understand their circumstances. i think some of them are probably extremists for good reasons. i dont rly understand ewiz tho.
note: am using racist to mean "tribalist against"
you're redefining racist to make that argument work
yes. but i think the mechanism is actually very similar
sure
what do you mean by extremism here?
the activists asoul disapproves of who are burning down buildings and breaking windows. also perhaps people who very seriously want to abolish the police.
i define this as extremist because i think most people would not support those things. so it is extreme.
furthermore i do not want to characterize BLM as "the kind of movement that burns down buldings and breaks windows and tries to abolish the police" because i dont think that accurately describes the people participating in it. but that kind of thing is overrepresented on twitter apparently
or am i wrong and is BLM actually about that 
well firstly i think you need to separate the people wanting to "abolish" the police full stop from the people who want to abolish the current policing infrastructure in order to establish something better. because you intimate that people are crazy for wanting to be rid a police force, when in actuality they are trying or aiming to create a better one.
just say "bigoted against" it's like the palatable way to equate all such prejudice/tribalism
i mean i know you probably have a rhetorical point of using the word "racist" for all those instances but if you wanna make that point you should just spell it out exactly in a self contained argument for doing so rather than using the generalized version rhetorically, because it'll probably get people to argue against it more than see the point you're trying to make
which i'm not sure is that enlightening a point but w/e
1 Like
yep. people mean nuanced things by "abolish the police". in itself its just a slogan. some (extremists) like ewiz want to literally remove the centralized police system. i dont think those people speak for the whole movement.
furthermore it's exactly the narrative that it's "extreme" to want to recreate a healthier police force in our society, that disallows for the changes we need. denying there are problems, constantly trying to prove how things don't need to change, or people are wrong about being marginalized...
uh huh. its a opposition tactic to paint BLM as an extremist movement. i claim it is not an extremist movement, and the extremist parts of it are overrepresented on twitter and other media. we should have a clear idea of the different kinds of things people actually believe and not get distracted rejecting the most extreme takes that dont represent the movement.
real talk tho
this idea of nonviolence is simply one that is espoused by someone who's never been that concerned or under pressure of threat to injury or worse.
you can choose nonviolence as an answer, but to ridicule others who feel the need to fight to live is somewhat absurd. as seeking the nonviolent path is one such that is spiritually or intellectually/morally driven(one would think) and should come with an understanding and acceptance that all life comes with a price. there should not be condemnation.
judgement and condemnation themselves come with a price, it causes negative affect. negative affect is destructive. at some point you have to recognize your self serving interest and bias when you condemn others for fighting for themselves, when your ultimate goal of nonviolence isn't actually one of nonviolence by virtue. it's in not upsetting a balance for yourself, and maintaining the survival of the individual as the primary ambition.
if you don't upset the lifestyle of someone who is relatively secure - they will continue to be relatively secure. if you seek to upset the balance of things in a society - things may no longer be secure for the individual who was previously experiencing relative safety in living.
the "nonviolence" path should be very carefully examined, if one thinks they are compassionate and considerate of others' lives and experiences.