Arguing against extreme positions

[SciFiFisher]

sometimes change is messy. Sometimes it happens in small unnoticeable ways. For example, prior to 1990 it was perfectly acceptable for police to use certain types of choke holds. When more black people than whites died from these choke holds a prominent police chief explained it as being a flaw in black anatomy. Fast forward to today and virtually every police department in the country bans choke holds. It didn't take a radical change such as toppling the entire government. It was messy in some cases. In other others there were thoughtful debates.

Yes, it still happens but now the police officer(s) involved are more likely to lose their jobs, be tried for civil rights violations, or face disciplinary action for violating department policies. And in some cases they do get charged with wrongful death, manslaughter or even murder charges.

What is even more remarkable is that in 1950 the predominant sentiment would have agreed with the prominent police chief. In 1982 people (including white people) were outraged that such an argument was even considered as logical.

[Rommie]

Sorry, I'm not clear- do you think those with radical politics to the point of advocating violence are the ones who are mainstream these days in American politics?