They're wired to be better than mainstream Democrats and to know it, yet doomed to never be able to prove it to anyone else. Just imagine. And we think we're frustrated.

Shining some sunlight on it. Letting them know they are t fooling me. Maybe they can use the information for.some much needed introspection?

Or not. Really it's no skin off my nose. I fancy myself a student of human behavior.

They have a great deal in common, and the greater the tendency toward real extremism the more so. All are uber-righteous in their views, are sure they are the only ones who know the truth, and are always convinced we are on the brink of some disaster that only following the leaders they choose for us all can save us from.

They can't cooperate with others. Others must cooperate with them if they are to save us. And that never happens.

Frankly, reading about them, their political lives sound a bit hellish. Occasional periods of political euphoria always destined to be smashed by those who don't see.

But I still have to say too that I don't completely understand why radicals want to be jerks. Can they be both radical and have good manners?

As for rightists I consider them to be radical as well. I mean look at their #fakepresident and his governance by chaos. Its reckless and radical.

but it's all been blurred over time.

As for jerks, aren't we in a jerky, severely ill-mannered, boorish time? It's catching, and I don't think they have a lock on it, just more of a tendency arising from frustrated zealous passions. Sanders tends to act out his contempt for lesser people with boorish impatience, right on on camera a number of times, and that doesn't seem to disturb his adherents.

Now that you mention it, though, the Democratic Party doesn't have anyone prominent like that. In fact, now that I think of it, our leaders are all very well mannered.

Isn't that in the Constitution somewhere, the clause about having the right to be a jerk?

In between being deliberately obtuse.

That happens on the left and the right.

Especially when a movement is led by men. Hence, the women's movement broke off from the "left."

And we see it still....

From me

And there is only one way forward.

Don’t get me wrong, each one will tell you a different truth and path forward. Overall, it’s based in ones self.

Still, radicalism is damn near non-existent in this country. There is very little that is radical about Cruz. There is very little that is radical about Sanders. They do attract more radical elements in society as supporters. It’s kind of amazing how in-radical we are.

Jackasses sure are loud.

the current environment and what people like religious right Cruz and democratic socialist Sanders might attempt to achieve if they could. They both have to get elected in this environment, not their ideal ones.

Cruz made the mistake of revealing too much of himself and has alarmed and repelled most of the right and of course virtually all of the left.

Sanders not so much. His senate record of sponsored legislation defines the far left border of the cluster formed by all Democratic senators, and his rhetoric has carefully stayed within what range of what liberals eager for progress will support. But I've wondered each time I've seen it where his dot would be if not constrained by the reality of having to caucus with Democrats instead of a far left party.

I don't think it's amazing how un-radical we are, though. For one, radicalism arises from radical personality, not issues. Liberals can support out-of-the-box issues that might be referred to by media as radical, but they're really just desired advances whose time is hoped to have come. Radicalism is what we see trying to happen around Nader, Stein, Sanders.

But the other thing I think I see is far more sinister. The right has moved strongly right, and their leadership, controlled by their dark-money donors, has moved farther still -- is genuinely right-wing extremist. We may have gotten accustomed to the right's plan to destroy the VA, SocSec, Medicaid, etc.; transfer our national wealth and power to a ruling class; and pounding on doors to arrest immigrants and carry them off to holding camps, but this IS right-wing extremism.

And because the right's gone there, Democrats don't have the luxury of progressing with more of our outside-the-comfy-box liberal goals, but rather need to concentrate on conserving what we have. As a matter of survival of democracy itself, we've been forced to back-burner progressive goals, with the most vital need being to rebuild our democracy's vital electoral center. Which frustrates the hell out of radicals, who simply don't understand the need.

“For one, radicalism arises from radical personality, not ”

Historically there have been many failed and successful radical movements. Most come about as a form of resistance during extremely difficult times. A persons ideological views are rarely extremely stable. History has shown that large segments of society can become radicalized.

Ghandi, MLK, Marx, John Brown, Chomsky, Zinn, the Berrigans, Chris Hedges, Norman Thomas, Eugene Debs, all radicals by any commonly held definition of the word and all jerks in your book. And your post is probably within du's rules because you haven't insulted any one individual, only broad-brushing. Though By any commonly accepted definition of jerk you just insulted anyone who supports some of the most intelligent and/or influential people in history.

I'm guessing you have no idea of the insulting and divisive nature of your post. I don't have to guess, because it's obvious, you don't understand the debt you pwe to radicals who led the way to many of the social benefits we enjoy today. You have completely missed the historical truth that the only real change comes from radical action against entrenched and reactionary power.

Who's the jerk here...or am I just another obtuse radical?

It's hard to come by around here.

And you take it personally.

You want me to be more specific? When one goes beyond the actual argument and makes it about me, personally, they're being a jerk.

What was it you were trying to say about me?

1) my post was clear, if you can't understand it, that's your problem.

2) you dare accuse me of making assumptions (without specifying what those assumptions are). You may think you specified those assumptions, but you didn't.

3) You also did not say in what way I went beyond the "actual argument."

4) Your "argument" was itself a provocative statement of assumptions: a) radicals are jerks, b) they try hard to be that way.

5) Regarding "taking it personally": I also made myself clear. Your "question,"Why do radicals try so hard to be jerks?" was an obvious provocation and affront to anyone who holds what you consider to be "radical" views (never, of course, stating what you mean by "radical," or why it makes them jerks to hold such views. Why would anyone holding "radical" views NOT take that personally?

To tell you, "You suck!" would be against the rules, so I'm NOT going to say that. We're supposed to have civil discussion. Civil discussion starts with a civil post. Yours was decidedly not.

I wish it were against the rules to label a whole group of people "jerks," when they're not. It should be. It should NOT be against the rules to tell an obviously real jerk that they're a jerk. But, alas, it is, so, again, I'm NOT going to tell you, "You're a jerk."

Get it?

You're trying so hard to convince me that I suck.

You have a good one going right here.

No skin off my nose.

If you have a problem with that then you have a problem.

nor idea why you think I might.

That figures.

doesn't get less so regardless the speed of the reading.

#1 is being a real jerk.

not that I care. However, I think you and cary are proving my point.

If you care to address anything I've said in this thread in particular, rather than pile on with in provocative and obtuse fashion, have at it.

in general. That's the word used with toddlers to teach them not to do things that "aren't very nice."

It seems you agree that radicals try to be jerks, but I'm an ingrate for pointing it out.

Do I read you correctly?

Nor does it have anything to do with my question.

Given your non-sequitur I can only surmise that you agree that radicals try hard to be jerks and that I'm an ingrate for pointing that out.

<shrug>

My question didn't have to make you defensive. You chose to deflect.

people other than radicals make up the majority who elect the people who pass the laws.

to calm the f%*k down!

Some people take themselves too seriously. Conflict can be constructive, or it can be toxic.

Because others can be jerks so effortlessly...

it's a fine line, i know, but sometimes ya just get tired of the pedestrian, not this again, line of argument.

DU was never perfect. We always had off with their head type moments. But generally, if I'm not mistaken, we found common ground and respected each other. Back in the Bush days I didn't post much but felt at home here.

Now when I express my opinions I get peppered with thinly-veiled attempts to divert the issue to some nonsense about me, personally.

I don't mind pedestrian. Not all of us can be fascinating and unique. I do mind rude and stupid. I used to think we were better than that. I used to think "conservatives" had a stranglehold on ad hominem.

MLK, of course. Gloria Steinem...Harvey Milk...

They were radicals. But they were actively working for change, putting their ass on the line, and when or if they were to be obnoxious or something it was forgiven because they earned it and overt behavour was necessary.

I am not saying any of these people did that.

There are thousands of "radicals" and yet someone like Bill & Hillary Clinton do more for those in need in one day or week than most others in a lifetime times a thousand.

I keep saying that yet it is ignored by some radicals who think their overt actions somehow do the same, they dont.


Forgot one very important radical

I don't pretend to be perfect, or to have perfect labels. There are and have been certain radicals who were righteous.

I doubt any of them were obnoxious internet trolls.

Always needing to appeal to others sense of logic is a road to nowhere as far as I can see. Especially when some of that logic is transferred to them via people needing to extract the maximum amount of resources in the shortest amount of time.

We might not have never have learned there are hundreds of billions of galaxies not named the Milky Way if Albert Einstein had thought that his calculations and math should match everybody else's. It's not the need to be different but rather the need to see where your logic leads you. Being different or the same, what will be the trade-offs?

Do you not find it odd? Do you suppose that I would care if you "lulz'd?" I mean I don't even care what you think you may be referring to, and so what?

Why do people try so hard to be jerks? I'm curious. Why take things on an internet b.s. board where we don't even so seriously? Why take oneself so seriously?

by definition they are not average or "normal"

it is what makes them a radical.
would only follow then their views and actions would be thought of as being a jerk

Radicalism on the left is mostly about process, and.being a jerk about it.

and a fascist?

um, OK.

By my definitions.

so there's good socialists and bad socialists? or are some not socialists at all?

I was referring to radical and moderate leftists. But don't let that fact deter you.

"...radicals would be at both ends of a normal distribution" with your "no different" characterization. But don't let that fact deter you.

Whatever.

Radical leftist are boring.

Sociopaths, on the other hand, tend to wind up as a

Lawyer. ...
CEO. ...
Clergy. ...
Surgeon. ...
Politician. ...
Salesperson. ...
Police Officer.

Which radical was being a jerk?

But if you want to see my inspiration there are plenty of posters in this thread playing insipid games with me.

I explained it above.

I was just wondering if there was some specific incident that you had observed.

Its not easy to sort the sincere from the hoi polloi. If you're sincere I'm happy to drill deeper.

My overall goal is for Democrats to coalesce and focus to win elections. Some posters.here clearly have another, such as "Cary sucks."

I may indeed suck but so what? Look at how hard some here are trying.

I support your overall goal.

They are my lab rats. These people exist. What's the best way to deal with jerks?

And to just try to be courteous and polite even in the face of the opposite.

They deflect. They change the subject to me.

I don't get defensive. It seems to work well.

Certainly you can see that.