Adam Eyves
2 min readDec 6, 2022


Ha! You're baiting me. I'll bite.

The following is just talk, but you asked. :-)

Stupid is what stupid does, regardless of labels.

While I see their usefulness, I'm not a fan of definitions like "far-right" or "far-left" when they end the discussion, split society, or are used to promote agendas.

But in the way you are using them, you are right. For every moral action, there seems to be an equal opposing reaction." The alt-left pushes their "perverted" social agendas, and the alt-right digs in their "intolerant bigoted" heels. It plays out as "whack-a-mole" morality. Knock one type down, and another type pops up from another hole. I would agree that the moral momentum has swung to the left.

Back to definitions, a person likely wouldn't know that they are a social or political extremist if someone (mainly the media in today's culture) didn't define them as such.

For example, I think it's ludicrous for a biological male, born with a penis, to be able to redefine their gender based on feelings and be granted "specially protected rights" in a given class of society (let's call that alt-left extremism).

So am I an alt-right extremist for holding that view? No one would have thought so 30 years ago.

Today, if I point out that the self-defined woman has a dick, I am slurred as a bigot, my opinion is labeled hate speech, and the next thing I know, I am culture-canceled and lose my job.

That's a lot of power to wield by a person who would have been diagnosed with a dysmorphic disorder 30 years ago. Yet, now LGBTQ+ lobbyists are dictating social and political policies across the globe, redefining and normalizing all forms of historically taboo sexual deviations. That's pretty extreme, in my opinion.

But here's my main point.

Our political, moral, and social dilemmas within cultural constructs are always and historically moving targets. Of course, you know that. The difference now is how fast those agendas are moving forward (lightspeed) thanks to the entertainment media, social media, and the internet.

I doubt either of us would view our current political and social positions the same way 50 years ago. Many concepts we deal with today didn't even exist in the mainstream media back then.

The bottom line is this; personal destructive behavior, left or right, erodes society as a whole, and divisive labels aren't fixing anything.

That said, at least extremism from any direction helps us define where a balanced center is, which is a good thing if we can talk about issues openly without creating a civil war.

Speaking of the 'center,' with how the media bullhorns extremism from both sides, wouldn't it be ironic if a person's most radical act in society was simply to be normal? We are almost there.

PS: Also, I'm aware you are a therapist, and using words like "normal" are frowned upon in clinical circles. I'm using loaded words intentionally (creative license) to emphasize how the two sides view each other.

And all you wanted was a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer… :-)



Adam Eyves

Writer, editor, storyteller, sailor, and coffee drinker. I think, I question, I imagine. I am a philosopher at heart, and a connoisseur of all good things.