incrementalism doesn't mean no bigger changes

7. The primary motive for anti-choicers, in contrast to what they claim, is basic (though not necessarily overriding) loyalty to the status quo as it stands. They may protest individual aspects of it, but their worldview is basically in harmony with the prevailing WEIRD version. They keep any protests they do make to be well within bounds of "acceptable" political discourse, i.e., stances that may be controversial but are nevertheless considered "debatable" to mainstream liberal thought (as opposed to radical).

And what's your evidence for that? I think most people would like to see the world quite different from the way it is, but they focus on what's in front of them. If you can't get rid of civil commitment of ex-offenders, sex offender registries, or mandated reporting by therapists for future possible abuse, what's the practical benefit in talking about legalizing adult-child sex -- assuming that is your goal (not mine, of course)?

The differences between Bernie Sanders Democrats and Donald Trump Republicans may be so minor as to make you yawn, but they seem big to most people. What's more, if Bernie Sanders Democrats got firm control of government and policies, it would set the stage for debating other more profound transformations.

The benefit of radical thinking could conceivably be to awaken support of people who would only get aroused to action by the prospect of major, fundamental change. That take on the political situation is laughable under current conditions.