[fwn]

Not the parent, but this comment is peculiar in the way that it makes several somewhat unconnected, requirement heavy statements.

> Are you really claiming that extremist militias are actually a valid reaction to some kind of political problem? What a bizarre stance.

In ethics, just terrorism is a well debated concept. A fairly famous thinker on the subject was Satre, who was influenced, for example, by the Algerian struggle for independence from French colonial rule, which involved both guerrilla warfare and acts of terrorism.

> We can solve political problems without resorting to extremism and violence

In a general sense, this should be trivially true for extremism. But it can be a tricky concept, as the term is also used in a prescriptive way with a politically charged intention, much like "hate".

Violence, it depends. If someone argues violence is never justified, that would be a pacifist position.

> inability to do so is not noble or caused by something external.

I don't see why moral superiority (noble) and external determination should be thrown together - or how either relates to the previous statements.

I would agree though, that one's own actions are never purely caused by external influences, as I'm personally feeling strongly against team determinism.

The previous commenter probably just wanted to highlight polarization as a driving force for radicalization, which isn't entirely untrue, but also, of course, complex. One needs to be able to call out the baddies, despite it being perceived as polarizing.

[Veraticus]

> In ethics, just terrorism is a well debated concept.

In what way is terrorism against an occupying external force, and violent extremists targeting the legitimate and democratic government of their own country, the same? Why are you conflating them?

> Violence, it depends. If someone argues violence is never justified, that would be a pacifist position.

I said specifically that violent extremism is not justified, and I feel pretty at peace (sorry!) with that statement.

I think there are morally and politically okay applications of violence, but this is a great example of something that is neither.

> or how either relates to the previous statements.

Because my point was sympathizing with violent extremists is politically wrong. They are not noble and they are not victims. They have chosen violent means to a violent end when much better alternatives exist. We have no responsibility to take anything they say seriously, and analyzing their disaffection seriously is not some lofty high-minded exercise in empathy, but a mistake.

[fwn]

> In what way is terrorism [...] and violent extremists [...] the same? Why are you conflating them?

I have cut out the insertion of your meta-narrative. Terrorism as a method is the use of deliberate violence in pursuit of political or ideological goals, and is a tool of choice for violent extremists.

> I said specifically that violent extremism is not justified, and I feel pretty at peace (sorry!) with that statement.

No, you actually connected both concepts with an "and", making your statement ambivalent ... but it's not a hill I care to die on. From a purely ethical point of view, there is nothing upsetting about this issue. It was well chewed over decades ago.

> I think there are morally and politically okay applications of violence, but this is a great example of something that is neither. [...] my point was sympathizing with violent extremists is politically wrong. They are not noble and they are not victims. They have chosen violent means to a violent end when much better alternatives exist. We have no responsibility to take anything they say seriously, and analyzing their disaffection seriously is not some lofty high-minded exercise in empathy, but a mistake.

We must separate the moral question from the political question. We can discuss ethics with rigor and eventually come to a position of clarity. With politics, it's all procedural and fuzzy.

In your last part you assert several positions: 1. rejection of their methods (twice) 2. sympathy (and later: empathy) is politically wrong 3. rejection of their belief system (moral superiority, victimhood) 4. recognition is a mistake.

1. and 3. are probably trivial and I won't argue against them. We're both clearly not on their team, so we don't like their methods or their narrative.

I'd disagree with 2. and 4. I get a lot out of reading and thinking about all kinds of fringe groups. It clearly gratifies many readers intellectual curiosity. Those who shun intellectual curiosity are also bad - or at least misguided.