[harrumph]

> People think they are Rosa Park

Rosa Parks gives us a model for behavior, for bravery in the face of institutionalized injustice. We want as many of her as we can get, because left radical ideas make the world fairer when they become mainstreamed by people like her.

> So instead they look to make issues

No. If you had ever been on the receiving end of what radicals exhibiting bravery actually get as response, you would understand that nobody prefers that kind of abuse.

[mythrwy]

Yep. I have political opinions also. But I've learned they aren't worth arguing about nor making claims of superiority in most cases.

Incremental changes work. Radicals causing destruction very seldom do. Unless the injustice is manifestly extreme and intolerable enough. And the causes most radicals espouse today, well, speaking of weaksauce.

[harrumph]

>I have political opinions also.

Good for you. The thing is, it's not a matter of opinion: radical left ideas do, in fact, improve the society and do, in fact, become mainstream.

>Incremental changes work. Radicals causing destruction very seldom do.

The only thing Rosa Parks destroyed was the unchallenged idea that she was rightfully subject to lesser treatment. What she did was not incremental in the slightest, though, so, lame centrist chiding that would have her act "incrementally" is at best meaningless and at worst openly supportive of the unjust status quo of the time.

[mythrwy]

Claiming your opinion is absolute fact doesn't make it so.

There are plenty of counterexamples but again, not worth debating.

Rosa Parks all great and good. Not really that radical. Burning ghettos a decade later did what exactly? What we get from that? The ghettos are still there.

"meaningless", "openly supportive".

Like many of your stripe you appear to want to mostly be combative and argue and sling accusations. It's counterproductive and if I weren't in a shitty mood myself from too much time in Vim wouldn't even engage.

You can't burn everything to the ground for every perceived slight. Makes nothing better. Fortunately most people in modern society recognize this. Communism failed and will continue to fail indefinitely (at least until strong AI comes about). Better ideas don't always come from the left. Sorry.

Both sides have their share of dumb ideas. The progressive timeline in which I speculate you think you are participating, "taking up the mantel" as it were is mostly bullshit. Not that respect for basic human freedoms and respect for others and basic human decency is bullshit. But all too often leftists have forgotten about that part.

Oh, not a "rightist" in case you misunderstand.

[harrumph]

> Claiming your opinion is absolute fact doesn't make it so.

Sorry, it's not an opinion: the examples given in the first paragraph of the article are nothing but left radical ideas that became mainstream. Don't mistake plain, historical, uncontroversial fact for opinion. They are left radical ideas that, like others of their kind, became mainstream and made the society fairer and better. It seems you don't want to admit it -- probably because it would interrupt your pose of above-it-all detachment -- but the good thing is because we have a shared history, you don't actually have to admit it. It's true anyway.

[mythrwy]

You may think what you are saying is "true" but I challenge you to find counterexamples yourself. I believe you will find plenty which negate what you are saying. It's too simple of a narrative and lacks real world nuance.

Also perhaps think about what being a "radical" entails.

In short, don't be exactly what the studies in the parent article found.

[harrumph]

> I believe you will find plenty which negate what you are saying.

No, there are no serious counterexamples to the claim "allowing women the vote improved society and made it fairer", nor to "ending official, normalized white supremacy improved society and made it fairer." These outcomes were mainstreamed only after appearing as left radical ideas, a plain fact that weak, doltish centrists don't wish to admit, believing as they do in "incrementalism" and "nuance", which in the context of historic change served only as codewords for "abetting and protecting the status quo, no matter how unjust".