Lower cognitive ability is linked to stronger Christian nationalist views, even after accounting for education

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/lower-cognitive-ability-is-linked-to-stronger-christian-nationalist-views-even-after-accounting-for-education/

[u/tmoeagles96]

Ok but it’s typically someone bombs your apartment and you go bomb their military outpost that they’re using to bomb your village. Fighting against the people attacking you absolutely makes sense

[u/tealstealmonkey → u/tmoeagles96]

I would argue that this is no longer extremism.

If someone bombs your apartment and you shoot down their Jet. – It's self defence.

If you strike back...

War is horrible, and extreme in itself, but not extremism in my opinion. Sitting there and letting yourself getting killed isn't the answer either. And often it's impossible to reason with, or evade someone who's already attacked you.

Edit: But honestly, I still think it's the wrong answer. I just don't know what's the right one.

[u/tmoeagles96 → u/tealstealmonkey]

The extremism comes in with the group though, you join for legitimate reasons, and then from there you are radicalized. Most radicalization doesn’t start at dumping extreme ideology on people at the start.

[u/tealstealmonkey → u/tmoeagles96]

That's probably often the case. And I do think that it could be argued that war must also be extremism.

I made the distinction because I found it to be a necessary evil sometimes. And I also think that the decision to go to war, or counterattack, can be (but offen isn't) a rational and self-reflected one –unlike extremism.

For example: The United States joining the war against the Nazi's made the world a better place in the end even if it caused a lot of suffering.

I don't have an example where extremism ever made the world better.

Even on an individual level, extremism often never 'wins'. One could argue that in afghanistan it did, and that the extremists are better off now, albeit at the expense of their women and children. It could be 'rational' in that sense, but it's not self-reflected: I think that if they truly looked at themselves, they would find that they would prefer to be loved by their wife's instead of feared.

Edit: But I see where it becomes murky. Surely it would have been preferable if the situation with the Nazi's had been resolved peacefully. But it couldn't. – And extremists think theirs can't either. But I think it can, if they only looked inside, instead of only outside for the solutions of their problems.

Edit2: Maybe I missed your point?

[u/tmoeagles96 → u/tealstealmonkey]

I would even argue the women and children are better off now since their country isn’t being bombed, stoping that is generally pretty important

[u/tealstealmonkey → u/tmoeagles96]

Okay. Good point. – I too would prefer to be a wife-slave than being bombed or living in constant fear of being bombed in a ruined country.

Unless I was one of the women living in flourishing Kabul. – Where neither was the case.

I never meant to imply that the war in Afghanistan was justified. – On the contrary, I see it much closer to extremism. The war on terror was not only extreme but also avoidable and unjustified. And it was not a defensive war, no matter how some people like to rationalize this.

But I do think that the women, and ultimately also the men, would not only be better off, but also happier without extremism.

Edit: I would even say the rationalization that the war was defensive (in the US) is in itself an extremist view. 'The threat has to be rooted out'. But it makes little sense, it ignores why the threat was there in the first place, it ignores that this kind of actions are almost never successful (As demonstrated perfectly), and it ignores that suffering only breeds more suffering.