>Extremism is an abstract general concept, it is true, but one that while
only gaining particular meaning from association >with a particular cause or
issue, nevertheless is used to describe one's stance relative to that cause
or any cause in >particular, i.e. at one 'extreme' end or the other of the
spectrum of points of view regarding the cause or issue. The >opposite of
extremism may or may not be mainstreamism, depending upon how the spectrum
is weighted, but it is always opposed >to moderation, the golden mean, or
the middle way.
When asked to moderate your ideas... who is served and who is hurt? I would
suggest the "correct" view is hurt from moving off its opinion and the
"incorrect" view gains legitimacy. If extremism is "bad" then "moderatism"
certainly hurts correct viewpoints by muffling them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:17 MDT