To any radical, if you don’t have an image problem, you’re doing it wrong.
Just so I understand… is the underlying model here that: a) the radical has certain goals, and society is such that the optimal path for achieving those goals will reliably result in an image problem; b) the radical has certain goals, and while it’s possible to achieve those goals without creating an image problem, anyone who achieves those goals that way isn’t a radical; c) the radical has the goal of challenging society, in addition to other goals they may or may not have; if society changed such that all of the radical’s other goals were achieved, they would still challenge society and thus still have an image problem; d) goals are irrelevant, challenging society is a duty the radical subscribes to; e) some combination; f) none of the above?
If it’s e or f, please don’t feel obligated to expand.
I resent the implication that I think current social roles and gender norms are not fucked up. Or that I think incremental change is inherently more desirable than radical change.
I find Desrtopa’s paragraph that eridu quoted highly problematic—but it’s just too hard to articulate why to an audience that doesn’t think historical contingency of moral values is a vitally important issue in any moral discussion.
I am confused. I certainly didn’t intend to imply anything about your thoughts one way or the other, and looking at my comment now I don’t see how I did so, though I can see where eridu is doing so. (Were it not for your second paragraph, I would assume you’d meant to respond to them.)
Can you clarify where the implication you resent comes from?
FWIW, I disagree with Desrtopa, but I understand their position; it’s a pretty standard one. I’m not sure I understand eridu’s understanding of radicalism, which is why I asked about it.
Just so I understand… is the underlying model here that:
a) the radical has certain goals, and society is such that the optimal path for achieving those goals will reliably result in an image problem;
b) the radical has certain goals, and while it’s possible to achieve those goals without creating an image problem, anyone who achieves those goals that way isn’t a radical;
c) the radical has the goal of challenging society, in addition to other goals they may or may not have; if society changed such that all of the radical’s other goals were achieved, they would still challenge society and thus still have an image problem;
d) goals are irrelevant, challenging society is a duty the radical subscribes to;
e) some combination;
f) none of the above?
If it’s e or f, please don’t feel obligated to expand.
I resent the implication that I think current social roles and gender norms are not fucked up. Or that I think incremental change is inherently more desirable than radical change.
I find Desrtopa’s paragraph that eridu quoted highly problematic—but it’s just too hard to articulate why to an audience that doesn’t think historical contingency of moral values is a vitally important issue in any moral discussion.
I am confused. I certainly didn’t intend to imply anything about your thoughts one way or the other, and looking at my comment now I don’t see how I did so, though I can see where eridu is doing so. (Were it not for your second paragraph, I would assume you’d meant to respond to them.)
Can you clarify where the implication you resent comes from?
FWIW, I disagree with Desrtopa, but I understand their position; it’s a pretty standard one. I’m not sure I understand eridu’s understanding of radicalism, which is why I asked about it.