This is a little bit different in cartoon media, because there is more bandwidth available… but I digress.

When it comes to text, it’s one-dimensional – a linear string of signs – and the signs are restricted by economy into a finite set, denoting a matrix of quite vague meanings.

Communication is not precise, which is why I am wary of messages that unintentionally segue well with a harmful society-wide discourse.

OTOH, I also think I get what you mean, I’d just use different words to build it from.
A coupld of examples, to check if I got it right:

Bandwagoning around an unanalyzed ideal, then letting that ideal herd you along, without ever checking how reality matches up.

Bunkering down in an echo chamber of Enlightened Pioneers, rejecting all visions not perfectly parallel to one’s own, thereby disregarding the people who follow those visions as irrelevant or worse, unworthy of consideration.

Both of those are pretty complex, a simpler one might be:

Losing track of reality in favor of an idea.

That one should apply pretty universally. I first had “ideal” instead of “idea”, but even the anarchocapitalists who are motivated entirely by selfishness would be painted with “idea”.
I also first had “without caring about how to achieve that ideal”, but that’s implied in “losing track of reality”.

Anyway, good discussion.

My point is that there comes a time when you have to put down the “relative viewpoints,” especially when it comes to self-assessment. I’m asking you to use your own rationality and make sure you aren’t sliding into two-dimensional thinking or wild, irresponsible generalizations. (For instance, you don’t have to say “all 70 million Republican voters hate the environment and want to burn the world” to say that Republican environmental policies have been disastrous. Institutional brainwashing is a hell of a drug.)

Radicalism isn’t what you think as much as how you think. The further outside the norm it is, the more likely it is to be diagnosed as such, but the norm is often an unreliable guide.

Let’s take some of the relative viewpoints. The reluctantly replaced president, a literal Nazi who if his followers had been a bit more willing to kill and die, would have destroyed democracy on Jan 6th, like Hitler did before him after HIS period in elected office ran out. To him, anyone who isn’t rabidly in favor of Trumpezian misrule is a “dangerous radical”.

Ultra-mainstream Dems, on the other hand, feel that anyone who doesn’t feel that More of The Same is the only way to deal with a crisis is a “dangerous radical”.

Almost everyone on the political spectrum feels that anyone even mentioning Reparations for slavery and institutionalized racism is a “dangerous radical”.

In such a climate, I (as evidenced above) feel it’s rather unwise to strongly communicate “don’t go too far” as absolute wisdom.

Because there’s a deeply corrupt status quo saying exactly the same thing, and listening to it is going to lead away from necessary changes.