Yes. They're ok. You decide to chose what belief system to subsccribe to,and the highest authority within your belief system decides right and wrong(absolute right and wrongs being decided by absolute authority)

While you're bored and comfortable,others are in horrific pain and suffering.

It seems you prefer comfort and well being over doing what's right. In essence,if you (not society) believe doing something is right,you should at the very least not be be vocally against others who are doing it.

Would you be willing to expand on which radical progressive positions ended up being bad? I'd especially be interested to hear examples from the US.

Those aren't progressive positions at all, those are internet bred radical identity politics issues that have nothing to do with progressivism, and stem out of liberalism which is meant to further divide the country. Most people on the true left wouldn't identify with those positions.

Edit: People downvoting need to look at a political spectrum of the left and research the viewpoints of progressive, democratic socialist, and socialist individuals in history. They would all denounce these radical identity politics positions as liberalism that don't end up helping anyone in any way -- especially joining together the working class. This only splits the working class. Identity politics is liberalism and liberalism is very close to centrism, not left politics.

>On Thursday, March 14, 78 “non-black” leaders traveled to Atlanta from 17 states for a planning meeting of the Poor People’s Campaign Steering Committee. They came from Native American, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, and white communities, representing 53 organizations. “It has been one of my dreams that we would come together,” King told the gathering. Their “declaration of unanimous support” for the Poor People’s Campaign, writes Stewart Burns, was “a breakthrough of major proportions, the high point of the entire campaign.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/mlk-las...

Fred Hampton on Race: https://youtu.be/fJSqZrVjDds?t=1m14s

Identity Politics is incompatible with progressive or further left politics.

This is an example of what the article is discussing. Essentially, content on open platforms, (this thread), tend to link to more extremist content, (the thread you're pointing out). Then that content links to more extremist content, and on and on and so on and so forth.

So your comment is a good "for instance" of why YouTube does what it does as an algorithm. In essence, what YouTube's algorithm does is the exact same thing that we, as humans, do in any given discussion. We just don't get to the extremist content as fast as YouTube's algorithms get us there, so we don't notice that tendency in our face to face discussions.

In a very real way, YouTube is trying to be more human. With all of the negative implications that entails.

Interesting ideas. I don't know that "extremist" is the right word though. It seems that it's just further investigation into any particular topic (for instance I replied to a direct question asking for an opinion). "Extreme" is a very subjective term and when talking about sensitive topics, it would be easy to label any further research as such.