0

Looking for a term, not "radical" or "extremist" - but something that encompasses Nazis, Pedophiles, Terrorists, etc.

As an example, a psychologist might reference that "My field includes interviewing many of those who are...pathologically despised by society". (except "despised" or "reviled" may emotionally wound the subjects).

Doesn't have to be one word, but something bordering on sympathetic or at least not clearly blaming the subjects themselves. The banner under which they might group themselves.

Improve this question
5
  • Delinquents, criminals, pariahs, outcasts, the lowest of the low? Try putting those in a thesaurus. There are many shades of meaning which you don't really indicate (religious, sociological, common, colloquial), and nor do you explain if you mean those who have chosen to follow that path, or include those who society despises for other reasons. Also, you say you don't want to emotionally wound the subjects, but surely classifying them alongside pedophiles and neo-Nazis will do that no matter what term you use? Anthropological terms have a history of being offensive.
    – Stuart F
    Commented Feb 2, 2023 at 8:56
  • 1
    'Sympathetic' names for things will not help. You can be objective (unemotional) about them, without changing the names. I remember when the word 'pedophile' (like 'bibliophile' or 'francophile') came into use. It was in fact 'invented' by people who wanted to justify what was previously called 'pederasty' (sexual use of children by adults). It didn't work, of course. The word acquired the overtones of the word it displaced. Changing words does not change the reality. What can be done is to choose objective (unemotional) language to write about them.
    – Tuffy
    Commented Feb 2, 2023 at 17:19
  • Psychotic is the most sympathetic term available; it casts the evil behavior as a medical symptom, which needs treatment instead of imprisonment or death.
    – John Lawler
    Commented Feb 2, 2023 at 17:42
  • 'Marginalised' is a less emotive term than 'ostracised', and perhaps even deflects some blame onto those doing the avoiding. But shouldn't terrorists say be labelled as such?
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Jul 3, 2023 at 12:01
  • 1
    Just call them republicans
    – John Lawler
    Commented Jul 3, 2023 at 16:55

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
1

You could say that these are people who have been ostracized. Cambridge defines "ostracize" as:

to prevent someone from being part of a group because you dislike the person or disapprove of something the person has done

Improve this answer
1
  • But they're not necessarily ostracized: Despite harboring those feelings, and perhaps even secretly acting on them, they still go to church, take their kids to soccer games, etc. Society might like to ostracize such people, but that hasn't actually happened (and may, in fact, never happen).
    – MarcInManhattan
    Commented Jul 3, 2023 at 17:14
0

You might like the term outcast which my dictionary (Chambers 11th edn) defines as

someone who has been cast out or rejected by society or home and family

I think that fits the idea that the groups identified in the question owe their status to their distance from the 'centre' of society. There have been times and places where what we now call 'nazis' were at that centre of their societies, paedophily (as we understand it today) has not always been either a crime nor morally offensive to the majority, and terrorists are just freedom fighters who haven't won yet.

Improve this answer
1
  • As an example of your last point, the US founding fathers would have been considered terrorists by the British.
    – Barmar
    Commented Feb 2, 2023 at 19:49
0

These folk are the fringe:

fringe, n.: 3b: a group of persons occupying a marginal, extremist, or markedly deviant position (as economically, socially, politically, or culturally)

(M-W Unabridged)

Improve this answer
-3

The problem is that criminals are criminal; terrorists are ideological and Neo-Nazis are political. It is hard to lump these together.

My field includes interviewing many of

1. those with

personality disorders

anti-social personality disorders:

the more severe forms of anti-social personality disorder:**

  1. Those who society views less than sympathetically
Improve this answer
3
  • 2
    Hmm, it's questionable that any of the types listed in the question qualify as having personality disorders. And if one regards a personality disorder as a form of mental illness, it's downright insulting to many sufferers to lump them in with Nazis, paedophiles and the rest of the list above. Number 2 in your list, I have no problem with.
    – High Performance Mark
    Commented Feb 2, 2023 at 17:03
  • 2
    From Psychology of Terrorism: "Mental illness is not a critical factor in explaining terrorist behavior." Stop stigmatizing mental illness.
    – Laurel ♦
    Commented Feb 2, 2023 at 17:10
  • "Mental illness is not a critical factor in explaining terrorist behavior." The significant word is "critical". A acting on the delusion that flying aircraft into buildings or suicide bombing a market will finally solve something definitely seems to be the act of someone with a personality disorder. All terrorists have a personality disorder, but not all those with a personality disorder are terrorists.
    – Greybeard
    Commented Feb 2, 2023 at 19:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.