Let's face it - it's always fun to play devil's advocate on the touchy issues. Getting people riled up is all but an art form here at USM, as well as in real life, and man do we love to push each other's buttons. But over a period of time, a pattern has presented itself to me concerning the position of "the bad guy." The one nuisance, the person or small group of people using their radical notions to make everyone else soil themselves, is never the same party for an extended period of time. As the taboo more rapidly becomes the commonplace, the seat of minority is constantly up for grabs to the next, even more outrageous idea. Let me try to explain this.
As an example, I will use the general public's view of homosexuality. Don't run away or rally your troops against me, it's just an EXAMPLE. Not long ago, homosexuality was the most notorious taboo - not to be spoken of or acknowledged, much less accepted. Somewhere along the line, Person A, brimming with unrest, decides to become an activist. Person A is now a radical, fighting - with impossible odds - a war against the oppressive majority and their antiquated beliefs of unacceptance. What's that, Person A? You believe gay people are morally acceptable? That is like, so cool and unprecedented! And thus Person A becomes the poster child of a stifled underground, netting a certain amount of coolness for being controversial.
Anyway, time passes, the public's views shift, and before you know it, Person A is right back in the majority again. Now EVERYBODY'S an activist! Everybody, that is, except Person B. Despite the current trend of tolerance, Person B decides to stick to the fundamentalist ideals and maintain the opinion that homosexuality is immoral. Person B is now a radical, fighting - with impossible odds - a war against the oppressive majority and their antiquated beliefs of acceptance. Are you kidding, Person A? You believe gay people are morally acceptable? That is like, so five minutes ago! And thus Person B becomes the poster child of a stifled underground within a formerly stifled underground, reaching even new, transcendent levels of coolness. And so rotates the cycle of radicalism.
This can be applied to almost any even remotely controversial issue in the country today, ranging from whether or not pop music is "cool" to how much George W. Bush is to be revered/ reviled at any given time. Basically, what I am trying to say is that so often in our present-day uber-society does taboo become mainstream belief that it is impossible to simultaneously maintain the position of "radical" and an constant set of shocking values to back it up. So what does this mean about the future of radicalism? Will the radicals of years to come be simple-minded putty people who's only goal is to challenge an ever-changing norm, so dedicated to anti-conformity that they themselves become conformists in a really weird, counterintuitive sense? Or will the throne of radicalism be occupied by a never-ending series of different people that fall from power as their ideals become outdated like some sick, politically incorrect game of musical chairs? Maybe the true radical is the person who maintains a set of concrete, self-formed beliefs, oblivious to outside influence - or is that person just stubborn and ignorant? What are your thoughts?
-Jeff
You can join Unsolved Mysteries and post your own mysteries or
interesting stories for the world to read and respond to Click hereScroll all the way down to read replies.Show all stories by Author:  30477 ( Click here )
Spring is coming |
