Except I did make consideration of the makeup, hence the fact I specified "Pro-Palestine politics" from the start and throughout the thread, YOU'RE the one who changed the makeup to fuckin Obamacare, and asked me "is Obama radical?"

Pro-Palestine (radicalism) + Reach (millions of viewers) = More radical than forum users

Yes, if you change the formula you're gonna get a different answer, good thing I didn't just say radicalism without any qualification and specified from the beginning, but that didn't matter three comments ago, because we had to dunk even tho the dunk didn't make any sense

[–] MizuTama@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes you said pro-palestine politics with the loudest and most visible voice.

Everyone on this site is pro-palestine (dubiously with some of the shit I see but I digress) thus making it seem that radicalism is more with a bigger reach.

And typically when doing word equivalency equations, the core component is that in the parenthesis and the part on the outside is treated as instantaneous not as qualitative so I read it that way as well as the fact you've reference the radicalization separately:

radicaliztion and the normalization of pro-Palestinian politics

So you've mentioned it in an instantaneous way that makes it seem like the form of radicalization is instance based for what you were saying.

I'm not dunking on you and was seeking clarification because I've seen an opportunist suspectable bent on this site and thought your statement had room for those susceptible to misinterpret. I don't know what your problem with me is, but I thank you for sufficiently clarifying.

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Like I said in another comment to another user, One's expression of radicalism is often ELEVATED by one's reach, and one's reach can be defined by one's radicalism, that's been my point from the start, far from being "unrelated" or even "equivalent" they interact with each other

Reach helps with the radicalization of other people, one's personal radicalism can define HOW you use your reach, this describes Hasan Piker perfectly, I'm not saying radicalism and reach are the same thing

I'm been saying they can be linked, they can have a relationship, radicalism without any degree of reach is simply someone talking to themself, it's still radical, but it's not useful is it?

I'm pointing at an interaction between two things and the resulting utility and making a comparison, frankly I'm shocked how this went over so many people's heads

[–] MizuTama@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago

I'm at work and responding from my inbox not the thread so if you addressed this somewhere else I haven't seen it and I'm sorry if you've had to repeat yourself because of that.

This comment I fully agree with.