Thread by @sunnshiiny

It’s abundantly obvious that basic logic has been replaced by demagogic rationale in some left wing factions.

It’s obvious where it’s originating. Which is why ethical leadership is so crucial to a social movement.

When you demand allegiance to an ideal, refuse to consider other perspectives and assign enemy status to those who refuse to adopt your worldview, you’ve crossed over into extremism.

If you can’t recognize your behaviour and rationalizations are the same as religious fundamentalists who use terrorism and bombs, or fascists who commit random acts of violence with weapons, you’ve become a radicalized extremist.

It is not toxic ideology that creates extremism. It’s the moral reasoning that one version of the ideal is the only acceptable option permissible.

When violent behaviour is rationalized as a valid response to political provocation, you are an extremist yourself.

Radicalization is a psychological process being weaponized by aspirational opportunists and unethical political leaders to gain support and advance their agenda.

It’s being employed on the right AND THE LEFT!

This same political strategy (radicalization on opposing ends of the political spectrum & rationalization of violence as acceptable) has contributed to the start of countless wars, ongoing conflicts, and precedes EVERY genocidal rampage.

Political leaders who use this strategy should be charged with criminal incitement of violence and removed from power. Banning them from using public platforms to spread their toxic & dangerous rhetoric.

Almost exactly what was done to Trump.

On the contrary, the left’s propensity for sanctimony, righteous indignation, moral absolutism, mob mentality and mob enforcement as replacements for the political power they lack, often gets legitimization, not condemnation.

But we can not be persuaded to excuse demagoguery and the rationalization of self imposed notions of superiority.

Individual humility and respect for other’s humanity is essential in any social movement. Attempts to dehumanize need to be called out and rejected.

There is no room for rationalization of violence. Zero tolerance. But we are well beyond that guideline.

I won’t list those responsible. If you don’t know who they are, that should be a clue that your perception of acceptable moral behaviour is indication you’re ignoring cognitive dissonance.

But to demonstrate the horrific danger a moral rationalization of a single ideal as superior is, I’m going to review a historical example.

Calling you an extremist is only going to get you to dig your heels in and fight the cognitive dissonance. We can only judge ourselves.

One of the main fears for those leery of communism is the extremism used during the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Where does that originate?

From those who witnessed or learned about the extremist violence used to gain control of the Russian Empire.

Many left leaning political factions jockeyed for power. History records that the Bolsheviks lead by Lenin won out. But that’s because they eliminated their completion, literally, and killed any who dared to dissent.

That’s where the justification of small acts of violence can lead.

If you have any respect for social democracy, you’ll stop rationalizing destruction of public property and reassess your beliefs and values. If you believe only your ideals are valid, you may be an extremist.

I don’t care whether your level of frustration is through the roof.

No one has the right to impose their beliefs and values on everyone else in a free nation. Even if you are a disadvantaged minority or advocating for them.