extremism isnt an objective thing though, just like centrism, its always dependent on the overton window. thus imo trying to tie any meaning more specific than “outside the frame of common political discussion” to extremism is a fools errant.

besides that, i think we simply speak on different terms. with “libertarians” i refer to both left wing and right wing, while your last post indicates to me that you are specifically talking about right wing libertarians (i.e not anarchists) correct? in that case i agree that this form of libertarianism inevitibly leads to rule of oligarchs.

right, my objection came more from you making it seem like extremism=authoritarianism, as if libertarianism isnt an extremist idea.

the second paragraph was mostly me having a bit of fun, though tbh i still dont see how a cirular political model holds any merit except that it gives one the ability to say: “look at those extremists, they are all the same!”

i know that shitting on bethesda is en vogue (and for good reason) but you know what: if i want to slaughter thomas the flying tank engine in skyrim for WHAT HE DID to our athmosphere, todd just lets me. because he is cool like that

this is a ridiculous take, just entirely forgetting the existence of anarchists, it seems. by that logic, anarchists are the enlightened center now, by virtue of being as far removed from authoritarianism (and therefore political extremism) as possible.

also, how does that form a circle? if i go even further left than left-auth, would i go over right-auth, right, right-moderate, until i end up at… where exactly?

lemmy was literally started by radicals

just out of curiosity: does anybody know what they mean by “nuclear war apologist”?

nah, thats adam conover

can you do me a favor and just provide me all of your alts in one go? blocking them one-by-one is tedious