Having a thought or discussion outside of the Overton Window, the range at which normative views are held, does not mean that the views are irrational or unreasonable. Many of the normative views and values that we hold today would have been considered radical in the not too distant past, and views and value they held in common would be inconceivable today. Limiting or classifying views based on how “radical” they are, only serves to stifle discourse from occurring, and prevents the creation and synthesis of new ideas.
It is understandable as to why the majority of people hold views that more or less held by the majority of everyone else in society. Humans are social creatures, and social cohesion is generally held in high regard in virtually every single society. Cohesion is a survival mechanism to ensure that the tribe as a whole survives, as humans do not survive or thrive without a greater tribe. In game theory terms, the Nash Equilibrium results with the majority of people holding the views they do because those in their social circle hold those views as well.
Radicalism exists in a similar way for opposite reasons. A value, thought, or norm that changes the rules or function of a social structure are created as a survival mechanism to continue the group. If someone with a radical idea figures out a successful way to gather more resources more efficiently, it will benefit the society that risks radical idea.
This brings into conflict non-radicalism and radicalism, with non-radicalism having the home field advantage. This home field advantage exists as a “frame”, a reference point, the “Overton Window” of reasonable ideas and discussions. Non-radicalism is always on the defence, and radicalism is always on the offense. The goal of radicalism is to eventually become a non-radical value, one that is held by the rest of society.
Let’s do a small thought experiment: Say there is a paved path to a destination that everyone wants to walk to. This path is built across a grassy plain, and the path is winding back and forth. The non-radical normative ideal for the society is to walk on the path. A radical ideal would be to cut straight across the winding path, taking the shortest direct route to the destination. The goal of radicalism is to normalize the idea of taking the shortest distance route, and the objective of non-radicalism is to explain and justify in a compelling way as to why the winding path is the path that everyone should take.
In an ideal world, both sides (or many sides, as paving a direct path is an even more radical option that was not discussed), would give tempered yet firm points as to why their position is the most correct or reasonable cause of action to take. The problem is that non-radicalism is also incentivized to prevent discussion and discourse from occurring, as the non-radical position has nothing to lose, whereas the radical position has everything to gain. This leaves a situation where paradigm controlling views exist in a sort of ivory, and radical ideas almost always appearing aggressively and violently.
This is true for whatever section of the socio-political spectrum you find yourself in. Even amongst revolutionary leaning ideologies and societies, there is a sort of conservative-traditional nature in which the revolutionary ideals are brought forth, discussed, and implemented. There is always structure within any society, as society exists with commonly held structures to begin with. As such, not only are radical ideas always at a disadvantage, even within a structure that is intended to foster those ideals, the radical ideas that have larger effects on a greater number of people within society is less likely to be implemented.
This leads us to the current situation we find ourselves in: We are caught in a loop of two large groups of non-radical values that see the other grouping of non-radical values as radical, offering no new solutions to the problems that our current, modern society is encountering, all while discounting and preventing the discussion of truly radical ideas, of which may or may not actually solve the issues that we encounter today, from being heard. The Overton Window has been nailed into place, unhappily between the two groups of non-radical values on the extreme edges of the Overton Window, with reasonable yet radical solutions existing outside of the Overton Window, with an impossible likelihood of the Overton Window shifting enough for even a somewhat reasonable discussion of the radical ideas from occurring.