# Extremism on the rise? **URL:** \ **Category:** General Philosophy\ **Created:** [September 12, 2026, 12:36pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028 "2026-09-12T12:36:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 12:36pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/1 "2026-09-12T12:36:38Z")
Many current commentators note a rise in extremism across the world. What I wonder is, does binary-thinking contribute to this? If we see the world as black and white, even though the action takes place near the centre of the **grey** area, then won’t extremism be the inevitable result? If a left-wing government fails, does that mean a right-wing government will succeed? If immigration is too high, does that mean that we must stop immigration altogether? If you’re not with us, you’re against us… Yes, there have been much meatier discussions here, but I don’t think my question is a trivial one. If binary-thinking is the only style we have, aren’t we doomed to adopt black and white solutions, ignoring or failing to notice **grey** , the middle path? Are humans propelled toward extremism by binary thinking, when something more nuanced might be more useful and appropriate? \*\*\*\*\*\* P.S. some sort of _forum software dalek_ has pointed out an older topic that explores along similar lines. You can find it [here](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/black-and-white-thinking/81). ---
**Author:** ![Thrifclyfe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/thrifclyfe/32/1132_2.png) [@Thrifclyfe](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Thrifclyfe)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 12:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/2 "2026-09-12T12:50:02Z")
Your premise is accurate: binary thinking is a prerequisite for political and social extremism. By flattening a complex world into a one-dimensional spectrum of absolute right and wrong, black-and-white logic makes extreme solutions feel like the only logical responses. Recognizing the middle ground isn’t just a matter of intellectual subtlety but a critical safeguard for democratic stability. Incidentally, black/white thinking is known as “splitting” in psychology. I won’t dwell on the reality that reality is many shades of gray. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 12:58pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/3 "2026-09-12T12:58:36Z")
> [@Thrifclyfe](#): > > black/white thinking is known as “splitting” in psychology Oh, thanks. I hadn’t heard of “splitting” before. For those like me, here’s the first part of wikipedia’s entry on the subject: > [@Wikipedia (Splitting)](#): > > Splitting, also called binary thinking, dichotomous thinking, black-and-white thinking, all-or-nothing thinking, or thinking in extremes, is the failure in a person’s thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both perceived positive and negative qualities of something into a cohesive, realistic whole. > > It is a common defense mechanism, wherein the individual tends to think in extremes (e.g., an individual’s actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground). This kind of dichotomous interpretation is contrasted by an acknowledgement of certain nuances known as “shades of gray”. Splitting can include different contexts, as individuals who use this defense mechanism may “split” representations of their own mind, of their own personality, and of others. Splitting is observed in personality disorders belonging to cluster B, such as borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder, as well as schizophrenia and depression. In dissociative identity disorder, the term splitting is used to refer to a split in personality alter-egos. \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* > [@Thrifclyfe](#): > > I won’t dwell on the reality that reality is many shades of gray. And yet, isn’t this the core reason why binary, fight-or-flight, thinking is not always appropriate to our needs? Black and white are the fence-posts; but the rest of the fence is where the action is. Black and white are merely the end-stops, beyond which we cannot go. In the real world, these extreme end-stops or fence-posts (VERY!) rarely, if ever, occur. ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/uploads/thephilosophyforum/original/2X/9/90063497c03f92ca2a2b8eb1c6899f27e2c73019.png) ---
**Author:** ![Jay](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/jay/32/206_2.png) [@Jay](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Jay)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 3:02pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/4 "2026-09-12T15:02:22Z")
Another concept I’ve found helpful for this general topic is John Keats’ “negative capability”: the capacity of “being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts.” For those who are made too uncomfortable by uncertainties et al., having a simplified binary choice can appear as a great relief. ---
**Author:** ![Joshs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Joshs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Joshs)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 3:15pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/5 "2026-09-12T15:15:54Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > Many current commentators note a rise in extremism across the world. What I wonder is, does binary-thinking contribute to this? It seems to me at the core of the word extremism is the connotation ‘extremely far removed from the way I and my community do things’. The judgement of another’s alleged extremism begins from the norms one is familiar with and embedded within. Once one has determined the other to be extreme relative to those norms a search begins to ‘explain’ their distance from us on the basis of some supposed dysfunction or pathology internal to them, like ‘binary thinking’. We tend not to ask whether they consider their position to be extreme or whether it is normative for them and it is we who appear extreme. So the question is, should we judge another to be extreme on the basis of their distance from our ways, or on whether their actions and thinking is practically useful and functional for them, given their own circumstances and culture? ---
**Author:** ![Hanover](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/hanover/32/38_2.png) [@Hanover](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Hanover)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 3:45pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/6 "2026-09-12T15:45:53Z")
Radicalization can arise from “push” factors, like poverty, disenfranchisement, oppression and feelings of unfairness. Then there are “pull” factors, like propoganda, indoctrination, group identification. Some psychologically are more susceptible. I see American radicalization more “pull” oriented. Even though economic disparity exists, we’re wealthy comparitively, and we don’t have a class so hopeless that it provides enough influence to fully push back. I do think American extremism increases are coming from group identification with ideological underpinnings of inequity, unfairness, and cultural oppression, although those have limited pragmatic affect. That is, people are pulled into these belief systems through group influence more than through being pushed into extremism in order to perservere. Whether I’ve got the American example just right, I’m not sure, but I do think it’s useful to divide being indoctrinated against being forced to react. This explains why you might see the clueless protester (from the right or the left) passionately protesting, yet entirely unable to tell you why because he can’t fully remember or understand why he signed up. Compare that to the landless peasant. He knows why he revolts. The interesting result is that one should therefore not expect pulled extremists to moderate by just changing social conditions. They want a new ideology. On the other hand, a pushed radical would moderate if his push were remedied. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 3:48pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/7 "2026-09-12T15:48:40Z")
> [@Joshs](#): > > It seems to me at the core of the word extremism is the connotation ‘extremely far removed from the way I and my community do things’. This doesn’t seem right to me. I don’t think it’s a matter of different perspectives. Although extremists presumably don’t see themselves and their beliefs to be as extreme as others see them. But the complement of extremism is _moderation_; either one precludes the other. Extremism is **BLACK** or **WHITE** , while moderation embraces all shades of grey, from the lightest to the darkest. I’m sure there could be particular instances where extreme behaviour seems necessary and justified. But, in general, moderation has a lot to recommend it. Extremism leads to intolerance and violence, while moderation encourages negotiation and compromise, I think. I.e. extremism leads toward conflict, while moderation leads us along more peaceful.sociable and co-operative paths. Which of these is more desirable? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 3:58pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/8 "2026-09-12T15:58:36Z")
> [@Hanover](#): > > The interesting result is that one should therefore not expect pulled extremists to moderate by just changing social conditions. They want a new ideology. That’s a depressing thought… Isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Joshs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Joshs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Joshs)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 4:24pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/9 "2026-09-12T16:24:17Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > I’m sure there could be particular instances where extreme behaviour seems necessary and justified. But, in general, moderation has a lot to recommend it. Extremism leads to intolerance and violence, while moderation encourages negotiation and compromise, I think. I.e. extremism leads toward conflict, while moderation leads us along more peaceful.sociable and co-operative paths. Which of these is more desirable The problem Insee with that reasoning is that both extremism and moderation are in the eye of the beholder. Let me ask you, what are examples of extreme vs moderate philosophical positions? Are postmodernists extremists? Schopenhauer? ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 5:07pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/10 "2026-09-12T17:07:09Z")
> [@Joshs](#): > > Let me ask you, what are examples of extreme vs moderate philosophical positions? Hmm. I think that a rigid and dogmatic position is more extreme? I can’t think of a term that might describe a philosophical position that is open to new information and ideas, but if I could, that would be my proffered complement to “extreme”. I’m not happy with that as a response to your question, but I can’t think of a better one. 🤷 ---
**Author:** ![Jamal](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/jamal/32/95_2.png) [@Jamal](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Jamal)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 6:06pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/11 "2026-09-12T18:06:47Z")
What is the middle ground between racism and anti-racism? ---
**Author:** ![invicta](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/invicta/32/1147_2.png) [@invicta](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/invicta)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 7:00pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/12 "2026-09-12T19:00:29Z")
Probably by a mindset change and developing tolerance and empathy, not suppressing racist thoughts but actual change so that such thoughts hold no rational or emotional ground for being held etc you can apply this to pretty much any forms of extremism including religious etc although dogma certainly makes this harder for sure ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2026, 9:22pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/13 "2026-09-12T21:22:31Z")
I think a lot of it is just the information bubbles that people live in now. Start to watch things slightly slanted to the right, say, and the algorithm will feed you more and more. And the things that go viral are often the things that make people angry (there’s data to support this: an article that provokes anger is most likely to be shared). This is one thing that can be frustrating when speaking to extremists : in most cases I would feel the same way that they do if I believed the same facts as them. I’d be pissed if other countries were emptying their prisons and “insane asylums” and America was letting them in to try to replace white people, and millions of illegals voted, and Fauci was working with the Chinese to make a biological weapon etc etc. In theory, de-radicalising someone should simply be a matter of refuting disinformation. In practice of course it’s very difficult to get someone to admit (to themselves) that they have built a whole worldview on a foundation of lies. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 12:55am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/14 "2026-09-13T00:55:26Z")
Extremism is not good. Binary thinking is also not good. We should pay heed to the grey zones in our world. Such entities completely ignore a totally real facet of life. Much of world’s problems would be solved if we weren’t so beholden to binary thought and extremism. We must tread the middle path - many philosophers have said so and they speak from a position of wisdom. For example if theists would only accept that God could be both good and bad they wouldn’t be in the quagmire of the PoE. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 11:55am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/15 "2026-09-13T11:55:54Z")
> [@Jamal](#): > > What is the middle ground between racism and anti-racism? Can we call racism “extreme”, given that it’s endemic in many parts of the world, especially those countries dominated by white-skinned people? They don’t euphemise it as “white supremacy” for nothing. But for our purposes here, let’s assume it is extreme. Anti-racism, on the other hand is only extreme if it’s taken to, er, extremes. If anti-racism means only to attempt to reduce racism by persuasion, and perhaps peaceful protest, then we could hardly call it extreme. But if we start lynching white supremacists, or making slaves of them, then it would be accepted by most as extreme. So, to answer your question, the location, or even meaning, of your “middle ground” is unclear, for the reasons I just described. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 12:01pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/16 "2026-09-13T12:01:20Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > I think a lot of it is just the information bubbles that people live in now. Start to watch things slightly slanted to the right, say, and the algorithm will feed you more and more. And the things that go viral are often the things that make people angry (there’s data to support this: an article that provokes anger is most likely to be shared). Yes, one reason for extremism these days is Capitalist in nature. Algorithms, and people too, are extreme when they persuade people to carry on clicking, as well as getting them angry, thus generating revenue for the media platform in question. But isn’t this just a _symptom_ of extremism? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin1](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mijin1/32/1180_2.png) [@Mijin1](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Mijin1)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2026, 12:27pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/17 "2026-09-13T12:27:35Z")
No, not in my view. Or rather: obviously extremists exist, and feeding them content they like is part of the business. But, the much bigger audience is reasonable people who can be coaxed into anger with false or misleading facts. ---
**Author:** ![creative](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/creative/32/1449_2.png) [@creative](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/creative)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2026, 7:33pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/18 "2026-09-18T19:33:14Z")
> [@Hanover](#): > > Radicalization can arise from “push” factors, like poverty, disenfranchisement, oppression and feelings of unfairness. Then there are “pull” factors, like propoganda, indoctrination, group identification. Some psychologically are more susceptible. > > I see American radicalization more “pull” oriented. Even though economic disparity exists, we’re wealthy comparitively, and we don’t have a class so hopeless that it provides enough influence to fully push back. > > I do think American extremism increases are coming from group identification with ideological underpinnings of inequity, unfairness, and cultural oppression, although those have limited pragmatic affect. That is, people are pulled into these belief systems through group influence more than through being pushed into extremism in order to perservere. > > Whether I’ve got the American example just right, I’m not sure, but I do think it’s useful to divide being indoctrinated against being forced to react. This explains why you might see the clueless protester (from the right or the left) passionately protesting, yet entirely unable to tell you why because he can’t fully remember or understand why he signed up. > > Compare that to the landless peasant. He knows why he revolts. > > The interesting result is that one should therefore not expect pulled extremists to moderate by just changing social conditions. They want a new ideology. On the other hand, a pushed radical would moderate if his push were remedied. Nice post! ---
**Author:** ![creative](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/creative/32/1449_2.png) [@creative](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/creative)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2026, 7:35pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/19 "2026-09-18T19:35:44Z")
> [@Joshs](#): > > It seems to me at the core of the word extremism is the connotation ‘extremely far removed from the way I and my community do things’. The judgement of another’s alleged extremism begins from the norms one is familiar with and embedded within. Once one has determined the other to be extreme relative to those norms a search begins to ‘explain’ their distance from us on the basis of some supposed dysfunction or pathology internal to them, like ‘binary thinking’. > > We tend not to ask whether they consider their position to be extreme or whether it is normative for them and it is we who appear extreme. So the question is, should we judge another to be extreme on the basis of their distance from our ways, or on whether their actions and thinking is practically useful and functional for them, given their own circumstances and culture? Also a nice post! I’m being reminded of the Overton Window. Much of what is being called leftist extremism in today’s United States would have been fairly centrist right policies/ideology in the mid 20th Century. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/frank/32/216_2.png) [@Frank](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2026, 7:44pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028/20 "2026-09-18T19:44:07Z")
Is socialism an extremist view? [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/extremism-on-the-rise/3028.md?page=2)