Now you maintain that your positions are logical, well thought out, and sound, yes? If true, then by definition, regardless of what your positions actually are, they are extreme by merit of such positions being rare, as you noted.
You are quite a character!
...popular opinion is an important factor in establishing social "truths."
Ah. Social truths and other subjective truths always have two parts. Such truths are not actually "truth," per se, at least by my definition of the word. Consider the statement: "Your position is extreme because it is unpopular." Now, let us take this supposed position's unpopularity as a given. Even then, how can any statement of nature be made about the position itself--other than that it is unpopular? Any extremeness here is a function not of the position itself, but of its reception by the considering body. This is the difference between subjective and objective truth: Objective truths derive from the material nature of phenomena. But subjective "truths" derive from perception thereof. They cannot be objectively true because there is no object to measure. If a position is extreme because it is unpopular, then, all else being equal, the label of extremeness is an arbitrary declaration. It is significantly deficient in value. One could as easily use any of an exceedingly wide body of adjectives in place of "extreme."
The second part of a subjective truth, however, does indeed contain an actual, honest-to-goodness objective truth. For that matter so do all objective truths. This is the reflexive truth of the observer's interpretation. In our example here, once the label of "extremeness" is established, it is objectively true that
that is the interpretation in use (within the relevant parameters). In other words, the statement "Your position is extreme because it is unpopular" cannot be objectively true on its own, but the related statement "I take your position to be extreme because it is unpopular" is in fact objectively true (within the boundaries of our hypothetical scenario).
It's important not to mix these up, which happens all too often and leads to much confusion. I suspect you understand the difference, but your expression of it was subtle or awkward enough that I didn't realize what you were trying to say until your most recent reply. There is no controversy between us whatsoever that unpopular positions are (sometimes) taken to be extreme. The world of popular beliefs is under no obligations to represent in any way the world of objective truth. I am all too aware of that. I replied to Boo like I did because he provided a great opportunity for me to address the lazy or erroneous conceptualizations people often employ when considering and determining extremeness on the subject of ideology. Too often in our national discourse do we hear that Left and Right are both Wrong, with the insinuation being that Center is Right. That's not true in the least--
even in the weaker, subjective sense of the word as regards the supposed merits of consensus and compromise.
...it appears that you were rejecting a classification system on grounds that exist mostly in your perception of that system and not in the system itself.
I disagree with you here. I think you are reaching for a solipsist view of the universe. (Oh, burned!) To speak of my "perception" of the "system" of popularity as a determining factor of extremeness implies that I'm just expressing an opinion, and further that opinions are tentative and incapable of being substantiated in the sense of being proved true. On the contrary I am quite certain that popularity is an invalid measure of extremeness, because that conclusion is provided for, uncontroversially, with the recognition that popularity itself is not an evaluation of the objective nature of that which is being interpreted. (The objective truth of the interpretation, as per above, is of course in the nature of the observer and not the observed.)
In practical terms it makes sense to take into account all subjective truths when establishing policy. I'm not disputing that. But these practicalities are independent of the objects under consideration. To speak specifically of an object's
extremeness with any relevancy requires that some measurable, inherent attribute of the object be under consideration. To wit, it would have been sufficient simply to cut off our hypothetical sentence at "Your position is unpopular." The addition of the element of extremeness into the discussion is obfuscatory or at best arbitrary. To put it yet another way, it would have made more sense for "you" to be called extreme rather than "your position," because "you" is presumably a member of the considering body.
Boo's actual wording lies somewhere in between, so this isn't to say that he misspoke. Rather, I simply didn't make my earlier remarks with the degree of informativeness on this point that would have been necessary to preempt the contention--presuming that you will agree with all of the above (except possibly that "solipsist" part!).
But as for why I objected: among other reasons, it was because objecting in general is amusing to me. Given Boo’s brief comment and your reaction to it, this seemed like an interesting topic to object to in hopes of getting you to expand on it.
You have played me like a two-tone trumpet!
Reexamination commencing... … … … reticulating splines… … … Reexamination complete.
Isn't "reticulating splines" one of the things that shows up during loading screens in Spore?
The big amusement here is that I've reticulated many splines before. Not quite the way you would phrase it, though.
And SimCity 2000! (And presumably elsewhere in the Will-Wright-o-Verse.) I recognized the reference immediately. =)