"Radical Is Now Rational"

This seems to me to be a fair summary of a (non-deductively) valid radical/leftist argument. However, it isn't sound, as its premises are false. If we did have very strong reason to believe, say, that we face a climate apocalypse, then radical action would be warranted. But we don't--not so far as I can tell anyway. And, as many have noted, it's telling that they only radical measures the left is pushing are measures it already wanted for independent reasons. E.g. nuclear power, the best and only real replacement for fossil fuels. The left has always been against nuclear despite the evidence, and they remain against it despite apparently believing that fossil fuels are going to destroy the Earth. No one, anywhere, thinks that the risks of nuclear have any chance of doing that kind of damage. A rational person--even one convinced that nuclear is very bad--would accept it over destruction of the Earth. The author's other examples are even worse. And here's one of the general problems with radicalism--especially of the leftist variety--it' always claims we're immersed in crises that make its radicalism justified. It starts with radical "solutions," and then says--and often brings itself to believe--whatever it takes to make those radical "solutions" seem reasonable. We're not in a climate crisis. We're not in a race crisis. We're not in a police violence crisis. We're not in a campus sexual assault crisis. We are, however, in a "gender"/"transgender" crisis...because the left has manufactured that crisis with its own fantastical, pseudoscientific, anti-realist ideas and its illiberal attachment to propaganda and to brainwashing children. But that real crisis apparently isn't a crisis, you see. In fact, we need more of it!

   This is why I have to force myself to read more stuff on the other side--it just tends to drive me away more strongly. Granted, that's a really crappy essay. But it's damn close to par for the course over there.