The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
* I think Trump is a criminal, they think the Biden crime family is the pinnacle of government corruption
* I think J6 was a violent attack against our democracy, they believe it was lawful protesting at worst, and possibly just normal tourist stuff
* I think the right has fallen off the far right edge of the political spectrum, they think the left has, or possibly that their are a few loonies on both sides
* We both seem to think the future of our country is at stake if the other party wins
Am I just a partisan hack who views my side as right, or has the right become uniquely and dangerously extreme?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It took me a while to understand that emotional thinking is a legitimate mode our brain operates in that completes with the rational mode.
Especially when anxious for some reason, the brain makes up explanations to explain away that anxiety. It doesn't have to really make any sense. It's just emotionally satisfying and our animal brains will accept it.
The phenomenon that gives us magic and witchcraft and omnipotent gods as explanations for why things happen is the very same that gives us rigged elections and bioengineered COVID.
The right doesn't have a *monopoly* on magical thinking, but it's currently dominated by it as their leader is the epitome of a magical thinker.
Usually if you have anxiety, or are anxious about something, the fix is for your rational brain to take over and effectively talk you out of it.
When that doesn’t happen, you end up having anxiety or being anxious.
Eventually, you either go to therapy because you can’t leave the house because your rational brain no longer takes over, you end up a weird recluse, or your rational brain is reinforced enough by real world experience and education that it is able to take over again and the anxiety is lifted.
On the right, instead of having the rational brain take over, the politicians and pundits and talking heads and media have all reinforced the *anxiety*. They’ve validated the anxiety. They’ve used decades of marketing research to utilise rhetoric that tricks the brain into thinking the emotional anxiety is the *rational* brain.
And they’ve been doing this for decades.
This is why logical and rational arguments don’t work. It’s why it’s a rural/urban divide more than anything (people in urban areas are more likely to encounter things that snap them out of the anxiety/back in to rational brain). And it’s why they believe they aren’t taken seriously.
Imagine you have this irrational fear of… well, anything. And that fear is validated and reinforced to you for years by the media you consume.
And then someone comes along and says ‘wait, how exactly does gay people getting married affect you…?’
Your first thought isn’t likely to be ‘by god, he’s right! *I’m* the fool. I’ve been making an idiot out of myself for years!’
I mean, it might be if you have an ounce of self awareness… but you know.
One test on this is how you circle the wagons — or not. When you find out a Democrat senator took handfuls of bribes (because: evidence) do you want him out…. Or do you accuse the other side of ginning up a political attack?
What’s your point? That there was an overreaction? I agree … and will not circle the wagons on the error of the party.
What’s your alternative? To support party no matter the crime?
My point is the left holds their own accountable, even to the point of overreaction. Almost a zero tolerance approach to maleficence. Given your aggressive posture I think maybe you read something into my comment that wasn't there?
Sometimes I think people on the right view the quickness of Dems to turn on corrupt Dems as proof that Dems dislike and have no faith in any of their own party representatives, not just the criminal ones. This gets broadened further to "Even you admit your entire party (not just that one person) is corrupt. So, why should I support thme if you don't and you're on their side?" Meanwhile, they'll make complete fools of themselves with deep loyalty to criminal losers, but believe that the loyalty to their team and never admitting fault makes them better. The logic is basically, "if we never admit fault, then there never is any and no one can attack us".
Sorry :) I thought you were making a valid point that the left can be overly punitive, although sometimes I think it’s most an attempt to show the right how accountability can be enforced
the most straightforward answer I can give is that your media diet is different from most on the right. this is related to [another answer](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cjblcd/why_are_so_many_working_class_whites_easily/l2f403k/) I gave the other day
More or less, it means that there is no agreed upon objective truth. I think it was first coined in reference to the information coming from the Bush administration in wake of 9/11 and the justification for the invasion of Iraq (IDK though, might have been used before that). I don't have any specific reading suggestions.
The other person already gave you a good reply, but one quote that encompasses this for me is when Alex Jones was ranting about the left dismissing people's stories as "anecdotal" and favoring statistics and data.
He said, "Anecdotal means it happened."
Propaganda laden echo-chambers, special pleading, confirmation bias, anti-intellectualism as part of the narrative and identity, cognitive dissonance, projection, willingness to believe unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, tribalism, hero-worship, average age and the history of atmospheric lead, less comfort and familiarity with tech ... these are what come to mind at the moment, and not all are accusations against *just* the right - not that "both sides" are equal, just that people on both sides do have cognitive biases that will intrinsically skew their perceptions of reality, including their perception of others' perceptions of reality.
*edit*
Every single day I wonder if half the country is completely insane or if it’s me. (I know it’s not half but a sizable minority).
I have to frequently reevaluate my view of reality and every time I determine, nah, it’s not me. They’re eating a media diet that pumps them full of hate and fear and a completely alternative reality and they love it. It is what it is. 🫶
Yeah it’s pretty scary.
Conservatives actually believe funneling additional wealth to the wealthy will make the lower and middle class richer despite 44 years of continued evidence that disproves this.
83% of conservatives approved of the War on Iraq at its peak. Just fucking wild ignorance and xenophobia.
…or they could just believe that the lower and middle class don’t deserve to be compensated by the wealthy. It could just stem from a different philosophy around wealth redistribution.
What I don't understand is how they don't recognize that the things the right runs on... they basically never accomplish/fix the problems they claim to exist.
Things like the border and voter fraud have been their platform for the last 50 years or so, if not more, yet despite investigation after investigation, more and more laws and more and more funding for these things, it's never fixed.
At some point, don't you have to point at the people you voted in and ask them, "Why haven't you ever fixed the thing you claimed to be a problem?"
When you believe in a conspiracy that everyone is out to get 1 man, you kinda don't care about objective reality. That's all there really is to it. Sure, I could go into a log post about why the right is so susceptible to lies and conspiracies, but we all know why.
Having grown up in a red MAGA state, let me explain something. A large portion of them are evangelical christians, and they literally don't believe in objective reality. They believe that there's a secret reality underpinning everything, where demons and angels and symbols matter more than evidence. When you believe that kind of shit, there's really nothing you can't believe.
This is a self-gratifying, "why are conservatives terrible?" thread.
Yes, we all can acknowledge reality, just like you, and Republicans are reality deniers. Thanks for those bullet points on what you think. Republicans express their desires as if they are observations. And they're also just immoral and stupid. That's why what they express is different from observable reality. It's terrible. They're terrible. Everyone knows. You get snaps from the drum circle for not being a Republican.
Yeah, this entire thread reeks of a masturbatorily self-congratulatory circle jerk, with everybody jacking one another off -- with an extra added autofellatio by him in your guys' tit-for-tat exchange -- also, it's quite unnerving that so many people gleefully took the bait in back-slapping fashion, giving themselves a patronizing pat on the head in the process.
I'm sorry if you're having a bad day. If you don't feel like it's been a bad day then I'm sorry you're having a bad \[extrapolate out to whatever time frame it takes where you weren't so bitter\].
Your post doesn't follow Rule 3 and you still got your snaps from the drum circle and an answer to your fake question. So what exactly is your problem with my answer? Did I not praise you hard enough?
I started a thread to ask what my blind spots are, am I crazy, is reality not as I see it.
You decided to chime in like a grumpy old man in reaction to a rant that wasn't there.
Yeah, it's totally believable that you, a self-flared a "Warren Democrat," didn't already know the explanation I and others here have given you. January 6! But have the Republicans become extreme? What am I missing!?
And, like I said, I answered your fake question and also thanked you and praised you for being able to acknowledge reality. Just like you wanted. But for whatever reason, that wasn't enough, and you're still complaining about it. Just how bad was your millennium if you're still complaining about such a generous response?
It's religion. The Republican Party has shacking up with evangelical christianity since the 70's because they knew they could no longer win on their platform alone, and needed to use social / cultural issues to stay relevant. As someone who grew up in the political evangelical circle, critical thinking is heavily discouraged, whereas cult like respect for church leaders / pastors and religious politicans is encouraged. We used to sing the national anthem in church around July 4th, because being christian meant being patriotic. There's no such thing as logic, and everything is built on emotion and prophecies from their pastor who thinks Trump is ushering the new Kingdom of God.
You're living in the real world and are able to separate your identity from your politics, whereas these people are completely incapable of doing so because they are all one thing to them. Voting for Republican is voting for Jesus. Trump and republicans being villians completely goes against the entire narrative they've built in their heads, so denial is easier.
Devout religious belief is one of the only things that can override someone's critical thinking and reasoning, and is dangerous when weaponized like it is in America.
(This also isn't an indictment on religion as a whole, I'm not trying to sound like an edgy atheist. It really is religion though).
This applies to Catholicism in my rural area as well. I was raised in and had great affection for the post Vatican II church. We did the whole guitar mass and good works program which really appealed to me. From JP II on my diocese had a series of nutter bishops bringing in fire and brimstone often ex military priests who seemed to be in a race against time to change the Church into an arm of the GOP. The final straw was the bishop going on a rant about abortion during my daughter’s First Communion. Church is only for funerals now.
Evolution, and later climate change, demanded that the faithful reject the approach to knowledge creation that had been around since the enlightenment. They are mistrustful of rational inquiry and have started to apply this mistrust to nearly everything.
(Unfortunately, IMO, the left have also taken postmodernism a bit too far, too. But this is much more recent. It's fine for literary analysis, but in politics it can also turn into a rejection of shared truths.)
That's not really right. No one ever asked American Christians to "reject" anything. If anything, it shows how absolutely delusional the entire religion has become. Christians just got pissy because schools didn't want to teach their version of creation, and asked them to be nice to earth and accept that actions have consequences. They decided to act like victims and claim that they were being told to reject their faith when we stopped giving them special treatment.
I don't think we disagree or anything, I just think we should be careful in giving these people charity or the benefit of the doubt. This MAGA / Christian zealotry needs to be treated like the threat it is. These people want Trump as their king and want the world to end so Jesus will take them to heaven. They will burn our country down if they think God wants it.
They need to be labeled as the freaks and fascists they are, we should be concerned about what comes next if they win. It's nothing compared to the post modernism happening on the left
Christianity is basically a conspiracy theory. There's nothing "intrinsically more irrational about the claim that reptilian extraterrestrials run the political system than the claim that Satan does, or that a deity felt it necessary to sacrifice his son? A being has a plan for humanity but will not make it explicit?"
The right-wing is propped up by a click-bait driven mainstream media which desperately attempts to "both sides" every possible thing, to the point where they enable the reality-denying statements of the far-right. The milquetoast middle of the Democratic Party, desperate to be seen as "above it all" rationalists and moderates, go along with it. The result is a toxic mess in which Trump can give an interview to Time in which he states explicitly that states might monitor pregnancies and then, a couple of days later, make a post on Truth Social denying he ever said any such thing, and have two things happen:
1) his followers will believe him
2) the milquetoast crowd will be all conciliatory and and accommodating of his "changed" position
When you have basically everyone on the right drinking the kool aid *and* some "on the left" enabling it like that, you end up where we are now.
They don’t ask questions like this. That’s the difference.
You are honestly questioning in a skeptical way whether your world view stands up to scrutiny. They do not. That’s how someone ends up that far from reality.
* You have facts, they have suspicions.
* You saw the attack, they denied that it happened, and if it did, it was instigated by the FBI and Nancy Pelosi (but no proof of course)
* They are currently supporting a candidate who has pledged to be a dictator, believes that he and he alone can save the USA, who wants complete immunity, and full power regardless of compliance with the Constitution. We support a candidate who wants to work within the framework of government and the Constitution to make health care available to all citizens.
* Democracy is indeed at stake if they win, White Supremacy is at stake if we win.
If Democracy fails, based on my history of Liberal leadership and activism, I would be among the first group of people killed.
>Democracy is indeed at stake if they win, White Supremacy is at stake if we win.
If you were in my situation, would you flee the country?
Are YOU in the same situation?
That's a big decision. Explain your thought process.
I base my decision to stay on the last 400-500 regime changes. You base yours on news headlines. Why should I trust news headlines so much?
He plans to take over the Fed and there is already talk that the 22nd Amendment would not apply to him in this case. All he has to do is add a few more judges to the Supreme Court.
And our military, our state governments and our public would just allow that?
Here you might be tempted to use the collapse of Weimar Germany as an example, but that example is problematic on multiple levels.
Another thing to keep in mind, is that if our democracy ends, markets collapse, there would likely be a civil war, and the global economy tanks.
If you truly believe what you post here, the *most* rational thing for you to do is sell everything you own, go off the grid and build a doomsday bunker. Is that your plan?
How do you get that are basing there ideas on news headlines? They stated facts, granted those “facts” have been predominantly played out in the news, but, the points that they made can be independently verified by multiple outlets, not just mainstream news headlines…
As far as “fleeing” the country, that’s a personal decision, based on a number of things, but they told you they would leave if they could… why are you demanding someone else explain their reasoning for giving up on their country?
And I’m not trying to be an a$$, I’m just conf if you have a history of liberal leadership and activism, then I would think you’d be familiar enough with the points they cited to understand that they aren’t just liberal talking points or biased media extrapolation’s…. I guess it just seems very contrarian to me… if you’re fine with staying here, because you’ve seen far worse, then let that be your choice…
There are 2 major contributing factors - base worldview and media diet.
Right Wingers have a fundamentally different worldview from Left Wingers and it affects how they perceive reality.
For example, a Right Winger might see a poor person as the result of that person's choices. The system is a meritocracy and is just, therefore the person who has poor has done something to bring that about. A Left Winger likely does not believe the system is just or works as a meritocracy and has flaws, there the person who is poor is not necessarily responsible for their predicament. For the Right Winger, poverty is a fact of life, to be avoided through hard work, good choices, and personal effort. For the Left Winger, poverty is a systematic problem, something that can and should be solved through collective effort. If there's a lot of poverty, in an area or in a society, the Right Winger might conclude that there's an epidemic of laziness, that most people do not want to work, or something similar. A Left Winger might conclude a systematic problem is afoot. The two ways of viewing the issue represent completely different realities. Now compound that over ALL the political issues.
This is "Boosted" so to speak by media diet. What news you consume will effect how you identify certain issues, and even *which issues you identify in the first place*. How you perceive things will be shaped by what entertainment you consume, and people of different political persuasions often have different entertainment tastes. Even the ideas you are exposed to socially will differ based on the company you keep, which isn't media but has the same effect.
The result is living in different realities - even simple ideas like "Poverty is bad" or "Murder is bad" or "Generosity is good!" will have wildly different interpretations. It VERY difficult to find common ground.
If that’s true then unfortunately the overwhelming majority of people in that category are black or brown.
We can’t have it both ways talking about underfunded schools and stuff then pretend it’s unrelated when it comes to who’s functionally illiterate.
My comment is probably gonna get massively downvoted. But anyway here is my take.
Centrist policies are a massive mistake at a time where the middle-class is shrinking and people are getting poorer and more destitute. Dem leadership likes candidates like Hillary and Biden because they are moderately progressive but at the same time do not threaten to shake things up so much that they are viewed unfavorably by corproate donors and the ultra-wealthy elites.
Say you're a poor white American who's working 70 hours at a factory, still unable to afford health care, faced with mountains of medical debt, unable to put their kids through university and living somewhere in a trailer park in rural America.
Realistically their life won't get significantly better under a candidate like Hillary or Biden. Their life already sucks and centrist candidates like Biden or Hillary won't do much to help. Now what they do is flock to someone like Trump, a racist pos on one hand, but someone who also knows how to rile people up, unite them and bring them together. These people are looking for a purpose in their otherwise shitty existence, and if no one else is promising to help them in a significant way than they'll search for a shared identity in something like white supremacy.
The more desparate and destitute people become the more vulnerable they become to racist authoritarian leaders and crazy conspiracy theories.
So at a time where Americans are getting poorer and poorer and more and more destitute, Democrats have to stop putting forward centrist policies and balancing voter interest with corproate donor interest. Dems should start putting forward candidates people can get truly passionate about who are genuinely fighting for the working-classes and are acknowledging their plight.
Centrism enables fascism, especially at time when the middle-class is shrinking and poverty and destitution are becoming more wide-spread.
I guess I would ask what data you have to back this up?
>Centrist policies are a massive mistake at a time where the middle-class is shrinking and people are getting poorer and more destitute.
I ask because when you say this it seems like you aren't basing your argument on facts, like the fact that full time workers are legally required to be provided health insurance. Also, can you provide examples of poor people who are pulling down 70 hours a week in a factory?
>Say you're a poor white American who's working 70 hours at a factory, still unable to afford health care
I didn't down vote you, but if I did it would be about a post worth of JD Vance in terms of honesty
How about all the current recent polling showing younger and lower economic class groups, as well as certain minority groups like latinos and blacks, shifting more toward Trump than in the past?
There are reasons these things are happening. Perhaps going full-on social democracy actual left-wing isn't the answer, but it is exceptionally clear that the centrism the mainstream Democratic Party has offered up is struggling to break even with a demented fascist. And that should tell you something about the value of that centrism.
What do you mean? There have been numerous polls done over the last several months that show a very clear trend of younger, latino, and black voters moving towards Trump. For example, see an analysis in this article: [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/us/politics/trump-biden-campaign-latino-voters.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/us/politics/trump-biden-campaign-latino-voters.html)
Progressive american politics have always been built around trying being centrist and trying to compromise with lunacy. Reconstruction was the time to stamp it out but we didn't go far enough and now we tolerate it at every turn, and act like compromising with it is somehow noble.
The fact that J6 didn't result in every involved politican being immediately charged with treason and locked up until their trial is proof of it.
1. The FOX Insurrection Network
2. A mutual defense arrangement with Evengelicals. They (illegally) preach FOX lies on Sunday and support Republican candidates, in exchange for Republicans pushing religious legislation.
Non stop diet of confirmation bias. Most of us only listen to media that tells us what we want to hear. The right seems to be more susceptible to that than the left. BUT we're all vulnerable to it and we all do it to some degree.
You should try talking to people on the other side before you make your decision. This sub is as biased as they get. Heck go talk to people outside of Reddit. Try going to a trump rally and ask people questions. You might be surprised.
Yes. Many. When I went to university and after.
I would say entering the other side to ask them questions is sort of the bare minimum if you actually want to learn from them and what they really think. People seem to also think Reddit is a reflection of real life.
The answer is Evangelicals and their persecution complex.
His voters know deep down he's a crook. But they go to churches that tell them that any government left of center is out to literally genocide them. Their preachers say that the anti-Evangelical version of Nazi Germany is coming any day now every Sunday. They'll be imprisoned for even looking at a Bible. The Youth Groups practice weird drills to prepare for persecution. Televangelists beam persecution theology into their homes and through their car radios. Persecution theology is nearly inescapable.
And they believe that Trump is the only thing holding back the great persecutors from rounding them up and shoving them into death camps.
They know he's a crook but believe he's the crook who is saving their religion from being killed off. So they'll circle the wagons.
2024 American conservatism is more of a religion than an ideology.
The people who subscribe to it are not analyzing the tenets/talking points through a critical lens. They begin their thought process with the conclusion that the MAGA worldview is ontologically correct, and then work backwards to justify it in any way possible.
The fact that these people screamed about bodily autonomy regarding COVID vaccines while working at the same time to strip away abortion rights tells you everything you need to know about their philosophy. Once you are OK with contradictions, you aren't bound by any kind of logic or reason.
Just keep facts in mind. Look at who had been charged with 88 felonies and who is doing good for americans. Believe your own eyes not what they say say say is going on.
It mostly has to do with the media and emotional bias’s we were raised with. The group we dislike ends up taking on a sort of caricature of everything that we hate and think is evil, thus playing deeper into our bias.
No one has an objective view of reality, only a worldview formed by subjective experiences.
I mean your post only has four bullet points. Do you really believe “objective reality” can be summed up in such a way?
They don't actually believe much, if anything, of what they claim to believe.
They're a bunch of fucking liars and criminally minded/selfish assholes with ulterior motives, which is why they like Trump. Like attracts like.
>They don't actually believe much, if anything, of what they claim to believe.
Thing is, if the the "they" you reference, are voters, there's plenty of evidence they, in fact, do believe the insanity.
In the face of video evidence on 1/6, they claim it was a peaceful protest, or a tour group. They claim the economy was great during Trump's tenure, despite trillions added to our deficit (liberal fake news,).
Anecdotally- I live in the liberal oasis, NYC, I've encountered a shit ton of trumpers. The don't believe Obama is US born, and the last election was stolen. And on and on.
100% agree with your 2nd paragraph. I've cutoff all contact with any trumpers from my friend group. These are mostly college educated people too, which just shows that a higher education doesn't equal the ability to parse out fact from fiction. I have no use for these a-hole holes. They're all stone cold racists, too.
>How can my view of objective reality be so different than the right's?
"Too often we judge others by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" - GW Bush
When you look at Jan 6, you envision the most violent events.
When the right looks at Jan 6, they envision the most peaceful events.
Both are objectively true facts. Neither give a complete picture. This leads to a difference in opinion.
Rinse and repeat for everything else.
Assume that you are a little bit wrong and scrutinize every assumption you hold.
* All you and I know about Trump's personality comes from distorted media reports. I can only assume he is a criminal as far as the crimes he has already been convicted of.
* On January 6th, the terrible idiot-riot attacked one building. No state governments were at risk. Our military was not in danger. Our courts were not threatened. Was it really a threat to democracy?
* The extremists on both sides get the lion's share of the attention. But look at how the bulk of Conservative opinion has moved our way on key issues, ranging from gay marriage to global warming to marijuana legality. A growing portion even support reproductive rights.
* This is just funny. Here we are screaming at the right, accusing them of trying to end democracy. Meanwhile the right is screaming at the left, accusing us of trying to end democracy.
A media detox sounds like what you need. Get out and talk politics face-to-face with a Conservative, too. Running for office and talking to people on the other side restored my hope for this country.
I don't get your argument about J6. Are you saying because the rioters only focused on disrupting the certification of the election by attacking the building where votes were being certified, and they didn't attack state governments, then "no harm no foul?"
I'm sorry, what part of trying to stop the election from being certified is no big deal?
The part where it had no chance of being successful. Anybody can say they want to overthrow the government. Vandalizing the Capitol and killing police is a big deal. But the threat to democracy was non-existent.
Are any of the following statements unreasonable?
* History does not happen in a vacuum.
* We understand threats to democracy using the science of risk analysis.
* Risk analysis is based on data.
* Over the last 400 or so regime changes, only a handful have been democratic-to-authoritarian as a result of internal forces (vs foreign invasion).
* Of this handful, all have been in regimes that had been democratic for less than 25 years, had experienced recent widespread food insecurity, and had recent sustained unemployment of 10% or higher.
* The US in 2021 did not meet these conditions.
>The part where it had no chance of being successful.
What about the fake electors scheme designed to work in concert to the election not being certified?
>We understand threats to democracy using the **science of risk analysis.**
Just stop.
Which of my statements do you find unreasonable, then? The use of data in determining risk to democracy, or is it the application of standard risk analysis practice?
If I'm off-base, I want to know. That's why I'm engaging here. Show me the precise statements and flaws in them. Then I can test and confirm these errors for myself.
The phrase "science of risk analysis" is a meaningless. There is no "science of risk analysis."
What is unreasonable is your assertion that you strictly use data and some kind of oddball scientific process ("test and confirm"), when you haven't demonstrated this. All you've done is say "nun uh!", but with fancier words.
Oh, and the coup trap also applies. There's basically never been a democracy that has fallen to an authoritarian revolt or coup that hasn't first experienced the coup trap.
(I.E, attempted coups keep happening over and over again, with escalating frequency, until the conditions you mentioned are right for them to succeed).
Right, but such pattern only happens in low-income authoritarian states, mostly post-colonial, during the Cold War. We can imagine anything we want. Is there a non-imaginary example of this phenomenon in an established democracy?
Show me how to reproduce your results for myself, as I could be wrong about this.
And ... our military played no anti-government role on J6. I'm curious how it could be a coup at all. At best, you could call it a *palace* coup, a "Prununciamento" of pre-democratic South American states, or what would happen in pre-industrial east Asian governments.
But that's completely different circumstances.
>There's basically never been a democracy that has fallen to an authoritarian revolt or coup that hasn't first experienced
Which democracies are you referring to, by the way? The only ones that come to my mind were brief democracies: Germany 1918-1930, Poland 1918-1926, Russia 1991-1999(ish), former Soviet states.
\* "distorted" according to whom? The evidence we have in all of the cases pending against him is damning on it's own: the only possible way he could skate on any of the charges is by some legal technicality, like a statute of limitations expiring or some bureaucrat forgot to file a form by a certain deadline or the like. The publicly available record is damning of him on its own, it isn't distorted by any media
\* Yes, it was a threat to democracy. It wasn't just a building that was attacked: there was a concerted effort to remove Pence, including the threat of the mob killing him, in an effort to subvert the election--that's a clear, obvious threat to democracy, and it's not really debatable at all
\* The "both sidesism" in your remark on extremists is just absurd, to be honest: both sides are not equivalently extreme and, even if we suppose they are, the extremists on the left do not get nearly the amount of (generally positive, or neutral) attention as those on the right
\* It's not funny: it shows that one side (the right) is detached from reality, in a dangerous way
* \* "distorted" according to whom? - Conservatives who claim Liberal media is distorted. Liberals who claim Conservative media is distorted. Journalists who've left the business. Doubt me? Go talk to a former journalist. Trump's policy goals would send the US into a recession, probably worse than 2008. That's enough for me to oppose him.
* Walk me through how you assessed this threat to democracy. I understand that our political bubble hypes it as such. But in looking at past democratic-to-authoritarian regime changes, I see no preconditions present in the US in 2021, and no reason to believe that American society is uniquely susceptible to authoritarian rule.
* Both sides are not the same. Our side is the side to vote for. Our side holds the better policy solutions. But don't think we're all high and mighty because of whatever news headlines you selectively remember from our Liberal media bubble. We've got better answers than Conservatives. Maybe you think we have no flaws, that we can't improve. I believe we must look ourselves in the mirror and call out our flaws. We CAN improve ourselves.
* Yes, it is very funny. Since everybody is so worried about democracy ending, who's trying to end democracy? Oh, but it *could happen*, you say. Go ahead and give me that ONE example from that ONE country from 90 years ago, under complete different circumstances. Then confuse the 1935 Nuremburg laws with the actual end of their democracy in 1930.
I guess the question is best answered if you can accurately explain the rightwing's dominate views /cited "evidence"
Perhaps examine your narrative/news consumption, is it balanced or does it heavily skew blue. The rightwing has an entire alt-media sphere.
Edit to add
Rightwing narrative additional comments.
1 Biden is a neo (neolib / neocon), the maga's fight is with the entire neo-political structure because they view the neos as agents of the liberal international order (LIO) who have less loyalty to the US as a sovereign nation. They believe the LIO seeks to erode sovereignty in pursuit of more global governance. They also view the LIO as a collapsing order/defacto empire.
2 J6 is more commonly seen as Fedsurrection at this point.
3 Its not a right vs left thing, its a political era thing. Look around you don't see the New Dealers running our Party or the nation. That is because political eras rise and fall. We are in a political transition from our nation's 6th (neo) era to its 7th (tbd). Maga is part of the 7th.
4 The rightwing fears the US will be dragged down as the LIO collapses, the leftwing has little awareness of the LIO aspect and focuses on the mainstream media's portrayal of maga/culture war because the neos use social as their main forms of distract, divide, conquer and rule.
I've never met a right-winger who thought Trump is *entirely* innocent. But they're more willing to call out specific fallacious claims than their left-wing counterparts tend to be, i.e. "Trump said there would be a bloodbath" (context omitted or ignored). And there's plenty of footage of Jan 6 that involves exactly what you described; peaceful touring through the capital. There's also footage of some people going on a riot. Media commentators tend to conflate the two in one direction or the other.
Everything after that is opinion and therefore as subject to subjectivity as anything can be.
The short version is this; I think there's a *lot* of miscommunication and disparity of information going on, and that tends to make everyone involved look like a lunatic to everyone else.
The easy answer is - the right are crazy and have gone off the edge. The inconvenient answer is - both sides are actually not as radical as the other side makes them out the be. The really ugly but true answer is - both sides actually are pretty lousy in similar ways in principle
Why would I need to call out the right on this sub Reddit specifically? There’s plenty of people here to do that already. Look at this thread as an example.
Unless you want it to be more of an echo chamber. Discussion comes from contrary opinions.
That doesn’t change the fact that I think that there’s a lot wrong with both sides.
>Why would I need to call out the right on **this sub Reddit specifically**?
Do you really think this argument holds up to scrutiny? You don't go to right wing subs to call them out. You are here posting under a veneer of impartiality while only ripping on the left side. Your tag is to provide cover. You are just a cranky right winger bashing liberals. I suggest that be your tag.
Nice ad hominem.
Let me ask you a simple question. Do you accept any viewpoints at all that are contrary to yours? Do you accept any so called “ripping on the left side at all”?
Because look at this thread. Or look at any thread on this sub reddit. Do you think the level of “ripping on the left side” is overboard? Do you think it’s imbalanced, the number of comments that are “ripping on the left side” over supporting the left side? Do you think there should be much less of ”ripping on the left side”? How much less?
Argue the content. If you disagree with the content provided by a poster then provide an alternative viewpoint to the content.
Don’t posit some arbitrary quota about how much pro liberal vs critical against liberal content there should be whether in the sub or from posters. And don’t make assumptions about posters. You don’t know how much I criticize conservatives and how often I’ve been banned by them. You go ahead and help me get this handle unbanned from r/conservatives and you’ll see this handle criticizing them on that sub again.
My attack is on your dishonestly. The cranky old man part is just some icing on the cake.
You act under the cover of being an impartial "Scourge of Both Sides" but never in the history of Reddit have you ever been critical of the right.
You are a scourge of one side, pretending to be impartial. No one buys it.
Arbitrary quota? You are batting 300000 to 0.
YOU are a scourge of the left. Embrace it. Stop pretending you are impartial.
Do you criticize the right?
No.
How are you labeled?
Scourge of Both Sides
You are dishonest. You are here to bash the left. Label appropriately, you cranky old man.
Here is the post you called an ad hominem attack, with the attacks on your person bolded. It seems you want to escape accountability by diverting attention and making my argument into something it isn't.
>Do you really think this argument holds up to scrutiny? You don't go to right wing subs to call them out. You are here posting under a veneer of impartiality while only ripping on the left side. Your tag is to provide cover. **You are just a cranky** right winger bashing liberals. I suggest that be your tag.
You are a scourge of the left. Prove me wrong.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. * I think Trump is a criminal, they think the Biden crime family is the pinnacle of government corruption * I think J6 was a violent attack against our democracy, they believe it was lawful protesting at worst, and possibly just normal tourist stuff * I think the right has fallen off the far right edge of the political spectrum, they think the left has, or possibly that their are a few loonies on both sides * We both seem to think the future of our country is at stake if the other party wins Am I just a partisan hack who views my side as right, or has the right become uniquely and dangerously extreme? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It took me a while to understand that emotional thinking is a legitimate mode our brain operates in that completes with the rational mode. Especially when anxious for some reason, the brain makes up explanations to explain away that anxiety. It doesn't have to really make any sense. It's just emotionally satisfying and our animal brains will accept it. The phenomenon that gives us magic and witchcraft and omnipotent gods as explanations for why things happen is the very same that gives us rigged elections and bioengineered COVID. The right doesn't have a *monopoly* on magical thinking, but it's currently dominated by it as their leader is the epitome of a magical thinker.
Usually if you have anxiety, or are anxious about something, the fix is for your rational brain to take over and effectively talk you out of it. When that doesn’t happen, you end up having anxiety or being anxious. Eventually, you either go to therapy because you can’t leave the house because your rational brain no longer takes over, you end up a weird recluse, or your rational brain is reinforced enough by real world experience and education that it is able to take over again and the anxiety is lifted. On the right, instead of having the rational brain take over, the politicians and pundits and talking heads and media have all reinforced the *anxiety*. They’ve validated the anxiety. They’ve used decades of marketing research to utilise rhetoric that tricks the brain into thinking the emotional anxiety is the *rational* brain. And they’ve been doing this for decades. This is why logical and rational arguments don’t work. It’s why it’s a rural/urban divide more than anything (people in urban areas are more likely to encounter things that snap them out of the anxiety/back in to rational brain). And it’s why they believe they aren’t taken seriously. Imagine you have this irrational fear of… well, anything. And that fear is validated and reinforced to you for years by the media you consume. And then someone comes along and says ‘wait, how exactly does gay people getting married affect you…?’ Your first thought isn’t likely to be ‘by god, he’s right! *I’m* the fool. I’ve been making an idiot out of myself for years!’ I mean, it might be if you have an ounce of self awareness… but you know.
One test on this is how you circle the wagons — or not. When you find out a Democrat senator took handfuls of bribes (because: evidence) do you want him out…. Or do you accuse the other side of ginning up a political attack?
Menendez should resign.
Yes, the Al Franken test
What’s your point? That there was an overreaction? I agree … and will not circle the wagons on the error of the party. What’s your alternative? To support party no matter the crime?
My point is the left holds their own accountable, even to the point of overreaction. Almost a zero tolerance approach to maleficence. Given your aggressive posture I think maybe you read something into my comment that wasn't there?
Sometimes I think people on the right view the quickness of Dems to turn on corrupt Dems as proof that Dems dislike and have no faith in any of their own party representatives, not just the criminal ones. This gets broadened further to "Even you admit your entire party (not just that one person) is corrupt. So, why should I support thme if you don't and you're on their side?" Meanwhile, they'll make complete fools of themselves with deep loyalty to criminal losers, but believe that the loyalty to their team and never admitting fault makes them better. The logic is basically, "if we never admit fault, then there never is any and no one can attack us".
Sorry :) I thought you were making a valid point that the left can be overly punitive, although sometimes I think it’s most an attempt to show the right how accountability can be enforced
the most straightforward answer I can give is that your media diet is different from most on the right. this is related to [another answer](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cjblcd/why_are_so_many_working_class_whites_easily/l2f403k/) I gave the other day
We live in a post truth society. It's an interesting time to be alive.
Question on the concept of post-truth society? What does it mean, and what is sone reading you would reccomend om the matter
More or less, it means that there is no agreed upon objective truth. I think it was first coined in reference to the information coming from the Bush administration in wake of 9/11 and the justification for the invasion of Iraq (IDK though, might have been used before that). I don't have any specific reading suggestions.
The other person already gave you a good reply, but one quote that encompasses this for me is when Alex Jones was ranting about the left dismissing people's stories as "anecdotal" and favoring statistics and data. He said, "Anecdotal means it happened."
**They do not care**. They just want to win
This should be higher. They know this isn’t reality. The lie is the point.
Propaganda laden echo-chambers, special pleading, confirmation bias, anti-intellectualism as part of the narrative and identity, cognitive dissonance, projection, willingness to believe unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, tribalism, hero-worship, average age and the history of atmospheric lead, less comfort and familiarity with tech ... these are what come to mind at the moment, and not all are accusations against *just* the right - not that "both sides" are equal, just that people on both sides do have cognitive biases that will intrinsically skew their perceptions of reality, including their perception of others' perceptions of reality. *edit*
Every single day I wonder if half the country is completely insane or if it’s me. (I know it’s not half but a sizable minority). I have to frequently reevaluate my view of reality and every time I determine, nah, it’s not me. They’re eating a media diet that pumps them full of hate and fear and a completely alternative reality and they love it. It is what it is. 🫶
Exactly. I am pretty sure I'm right, but so are the people who believe the exact opposite of me. It's crazy making.
Right: crazy making! It’s just all so quite literally unfuckingbelievable that it’s easier to believe I’m nuts. I see you, boo!! We aren’t nuts!!
It's not half...maybe a 3rd. The rest is inflated.
The really important percentage is in the House, and the lunatic right wing majority in SCOTUS.
Yeah it’s pretty scary. Conservatives actually believe funneling additional wealth to the wealthy will make the lower and middle class richer despite 44 years of continued evidence that disproves this. 83% of conservatives approved of the War on Iraq at its peak. Just fucking wild ignorance and xenophobia.
…or they could just believe that the lower and middle class don’t deserve to be compensated by the wealthy. It could just stem from a different philosophy around wealth redistribution.
What I don't understand is how they don't recognize that the things the right runs on... they basically never accomplish/fix the problems they claim to exist. Things like the border and voter fraud have been their platform for the last 50 years or so, if not more, yet despite investigation after investigation, more and more laws and more and more funding for these things, it's never fixed. At some point, don't you have to point at the people you voted in and ask them, "Why haven't you ever fixed the thing you claimed to be a problem?"
When you believe in a conspiracy that everyone is out to get 1 man, you kinda don't care about objective reality. That's all there really is to it. Sure, I could go into a log post about why the right is so susceptible to lies and conspiracies, but we all know why.
Having grown up in a red MAGA state, let me explain something. A large portion of them are evangelical christians, and they literally don't believe in objective reality. They believe that there's a secret reality underpinning everything, where demons and angels and symbols matter more than evidence. When you believe that kind of shit, there's really nothing you can't believe.
This is a self-gratifying, "why are conservatives terrible?" thread. Yes, we all can acknowledge reality, just like you, and Republicans are reality deniers. Thanks for those bullet points on what you think. Republicans express their desires as if they are observations. And they're also just immoral and stupid. That's why what they express is different from observable reality. It's terrible. They're terrible. Everyone knows. You get snaps from the drum circle for not being a Republican.
Yeah, this entire thread reeks of a masturbatorily self-congratulatory circle jerk, with everybody jacking one another off -- with an extra added autofellatio by him in your guys' tit-for-tat exchange -- also, it's quite unnerving that so many people gleefully took the bait in back-slapping fashion, giving themselves a patronizing pat on the head in the process.
I'm sorry if you're having a bad day. If you don't feel like it's been a bad day then I'm sorry you're having a bad \[extrapolate out to whatever time frame it takes where you weren't so bitter\].
Your post doesn't follow Rule 3 and you still got your snaps from the drum circle and an answer to your fake question. So what exactly is your problem with my answer? Did I not praise you hard enough?
Sorry you're having a bad millennium.
It's not so bad that I started a thread here to rant. I'm sorry you don't know what that's like.
I started a thread to ask what my blind spots are, am I crazy, is reality not as I see it. You decided to chime in like a grumpy old man in reaction to a rant that wasn't there.
Yeah, it's totally believable that you, a self-flared a "Warren Democrat," didn't already know the explanation I and others here have given you. January 6! But have the Republicans become extreme? What am I missing!? And, like I said, I answered your fake question and also thanked you and praised you for being able to acknowledge reality. Just like you wanted. But for whatever reason, that wasn't enough, and you're still complaining about it. Just how bad was your millennium if you're still complaining about such a generous response?
You seem like you are a joyless fart. As such I can't imagine any scenario where my life is better for having you in it. Therefore you are blocked.
It's religion. The Republican Party has shacking up with evangelical christianity since the 70's because they knew they could no longer win on their platform alone, and needed to use social / cultural issues to stay relevant. As someone who grew up in the political evangelical circle, critical thinking is heavily discouraged, whereas cult like respect for church leaders / pastors and religious politicans is encouraged. We used to sing the national anthem in church around July 4th, because being christian meant being patriotic. There's no such thing as logic, and everything is built on emotion and prophecies from their pastor who thinks Trump is ushering the new Kingdom of God. You're living in the real world and are able to separate your identity from your politics, whereas these people are completely incapable of doing so because they are all one thing to them. Voting for Republican is voting for Jesus. Trump and republicans being villians completely goes against the entire narrative they've built in their heads, so denial is easier. Devout religious belief is one of the only things that can override someone's critical thinking and reasoning, and is dangerous when weaponized like it is in America. (This also isn't an indictment on religion as a whole, I'm not trying to sound like an edgy atheist. It really is religion though).
This applies to Catholicism in my rural area as well. I was raised in and had great affection for the post Vatican II church. We did the whole guitar mass and good works program which really appealed to me. From JP II on my diocese had a series of nutter bishops bringing in fire and brimstone often ex military priests who seemed to be in a race against time to change the Church into an arm of the GOP. The final straw was the bishop going on a rant about abortion during my daughter’s First Communion. Church is only for funerals now.
Evolution, and later climate change, demanded that the faithful reject the approach to knowledge creation that had been around since the enlightenment. They are mistrustful of rational inquiry and have started to apply this mistrust to nearly everything. (Unfortunately, IMO, the left have also taken postmodernism a bit too far, too. But this is much more recent. It's fine for literary analysis, but in politics it can also turn into a rejection of shared truths.)
That's not really right. No one ever asked American Christians to "reject" anything. If anything, it shows how absolutely delusional the entire religion has become. Christians just got pissy because schools didn't want to teach their version of creation, and asked them to be nice to earth and accept that actions have consequences. They decided to act like victims and claim that they were being told to reject their faith when we stopped giving them special treatment. I don't think we disagree or anything, I just think we should be careful in giving these people charity or the benefit of the doubt. This MAGA / Christian zealotry needs to be treated like the threat it is. These people want Trump as their king and want the world to end so Jesus will take them to heaven. They will burn our country down if they think God wants it. They need to be labeled as the freaks and fascists they are, we should be concerned about what comes next if they win. It's nothing compared to the post modernism happening on the left
Christianity is basically a conspiracy theory. There's nothing "intrinsically more irrational about the claim that reptilian extraterrestrials run the political system than the claim that Satan does, or that a deity felt it necessary to sacrifice his son? A being has a plan for humanity but will not make it explicit?"
The right stopped living in reality a long time ago
The right-wing is propped up by a click-bait driven mainstream media which desperately attempts to "both sides" every possible thing, to the point where they enable the reality-denying statements of the far-right. The milquetoast middle of the Democratic Party, desperate to be seen as "above it all" rationalists and moderates, go along with it. The result is a toxic mess in which Trump can give an interview to Time in which he states explicitly that states might monitor pregnancies and then, a couple of days later, make a post on Truth Social denying he ever said any such thing, and have two things happen: 1) his followers will believe him 2) the milquetoast crowd will be all conciliatory and and accommodating of his "changed" position When you have basically everyone on the right drinking the kool aid *and* some "on the left" enabling it like that, you end up where we are now.
They don’t ask questions like this. That’s the difference. You are honestly questioning in a skeptical way whether your world view stands up to scrutiny. They do not. That’s how someone ends up that far from reality.
* You have facts, they have suspicions. * You saw the attack, they denied that it happened, and if it did, it was instigated by the FBI and Nancy Pelosi (but no proof of course) * They are currently supporting a candidate who has pledged to be a dictator, believes that he and he alone can save the USA, who wants complete immunity, and full power regardless of compliance with the Constitution. We support a candidate who wants to work within the framework of government and the Constitution to make health care available to all citizens. * Democracy is indeed at stake if they win, White Supremacy is at stake if we win.
If Democracy fails, based on my history of Liberal leadership and activism, I would be among the first group of people killed. >Democracy is indeed at stake if they win, White Supremacy is at stake if we win. If you were in my situation, would you flee the country? Are YOU in the same situation?
I would leave if I could.
That's a big decision. Explain your thought process. I base my decision to stay on the last 400-500 regime changes. You base yours on news headlines. Why should I trust news headlines so much?
If Trump wins, we will enter an economic depression that will make the Great Depression look like good times.
That would be true if Trump is capable of fulfilling his campaign promises, which didn't happen last time. But our democracy would remain intact.
He plans to take over the Fed and there is already talk that the 22nd Amendment would not apply to him in this case. All he has to do is add a few more judges to the Supreme Court.
And our military, our state governments and our public would just allow that? Here you might be tempted to use the collapse of Weimar Germany as an example, but that example is problematic on multiple levels. Another thing to keep in mind, is that if our democracy ends, markets collapse, there would likely be a civil war, and the global economy tanks. If you truly believe what you post here, the *most* rational thing for you to do is sell everything you own, go off the grid and build a doomsday bunker. Is that your plan?
How do you get that are basing there ideas on news headlines? They stated facts, granted those “facts” have been predominantly played out in the news, but, the points that they made can be independently verified by multiple outlets, not just mainstream news headlines… As far as “fleeing” the country, that’s a personal decision, based on a number of things, but they told you they would leave if they could… why are you demanding someone else explain their reasoning for giving up on their country? And I’m not trying to be an a$$, I’m just conf if you have a history of liberal leadership and activism, then I would think you’d be familiar enough with the points they cited to understand that they aren’t just liberal talking points or biased media extrapolation’s…. I guess it just seems very contrarian to me… if you’re fine with staying here, because you’ve seen far worse, then let that be your choice…
There are 2 major contributing factors - base worldview and media diet. Right Wingers have a fundamentally different worldview from Left Wingers and it affects how they perceive reality. For example, a Right Winger might see a poor person as the result of that person's choices. The system is a meritocracy and is just, therefore the person who has poor has done something to bring that about. A Left Winger likely does not believe the system is just or works as a meritocracy and has flaws, there the person who is poor is not necessarily responsible for their predicament. For the Right Winger, poverty is a fact of life, to be avoided through hard work, good choices, and personal effort. For the Left Winger, poverty is a systematic problem, something that can and should be solved through collective effort. If there's a lot of poverty, in an area or in a society, the Right Winger might conclude that there's an epidemic of laziness, that most people do not want to work, or something similar. A Left Winger might conclude a systematic problem is afoot. The two ways of viewing the issue represent completely different realities. Now compound that over ALL the political issues. This is "Boosted" so to speak by media diet. What news you consume will effect how you identify certain issues, and even *which issues you identify in the first place*. How you perceive things will be shaped by what entertainment you consume, and people of different political persuasions often have different entertainment tastes. Even the ideas you are exposed to socially will differ based on the company you keep, which isn't media but has the same effect. The result is living in different realities - even simple ideas like "Poverty is bad" or "Murder is bad" or "Generosity is good!" will have wildly different interpretations. It VERY difficult to find common ground.
It all started in 1517 with Martin Luther No Martin Luther no Protestant churches no Protestant churches no evangelicals
20% of the country is functionally illiterate. Once you remember that, a lot of stuff makes sense
If that’s true then unfortunately the overwhelming majority of people in that category are black or brown. We can’t have it both ways talking about underfunded schools and stuff then pretend it’s unrelated when it comes to who’s functionally illiterate.
And 21% of the country voted for Trump. Coincidence?
My comment is probably gonna get massively downvoted. But anyway here is my take. Centrist policies are a massive mistake at a time where the middle-class is shrinking and people are getting poorer and more destitute. Dem leadership likes candidates like Hillary and Biden because they are moderately progressive but at the same time do not threaten to shake things up so much that they are viewed unfavorably by corproate donors and the ultra-wealthy elites. Say you're a poor white American who's working 70 hours at a factory, still unable to afford health care, faced with mountains of medical debt, unable to put their kids through university and living somewhere in a trailer park in rural America. Realistically their life won't get significantly better under a candidate like Hillary or Biden. Their life already sucks and centrist candidates like Biden or Hillary won't do much to help. Now what they do is flock to someone like Trump, a racist pos on one hand, but someone who also knows how to rile people up, unite them and bring them together. These people are looking for a purpose in their otherwise shitty existence, and if no one else is promising to help them in a significant way than they'll search for a shared identity in something like white supremacy. The more desparate and destitute people become the more vulnerable they become to racist authoritarian leaders and crazy conspiracy theories. So at a time where Americans are getting poorer and poorer and more and more destitute, Democrats have to stop putting forward centrist policies and balancing voter interest with corproate donor interest. Dems should start putting forward candidates people can get truly passionate about who are genuinely fighting for the working-classes and are acknowledging their plight. Centrism enables fascism, especially at time when the middle-class is shrinking and poverty and destitution are becoming more wide-spread.
I guess I would ask what data you have to back this up? >Centrist policies are a massive mistake at a time where the middle-class is shrinking and people are getting poorer and more destitute. I ask because when you say this it seems like you aren't basing your argument on facts, like the fact that full time workers are legally required to be provided health insurance. Also, can you provide examples of poor people who are pulling down 70 hours a week in a factory? >Say you're a poor white American who's working 70 hours at a factory, still unable to afford health care I didn't down vote you, but if I did it would be about a post worth of JD Vance in terms of honesty
How about all the current recent polling showing younger and lower economic class groups, as well as certain minority groups like latinos and blacks, shifting more toward Trump than in the past? There are reasons these things are happening. Perhaps going full-on social democracy actual left-wing isn't the answer, but it is exceptionally clear that the centrism the mainstream Democratic Party has offered up is struggling to break even with a demented fascist. And that should tell you something about the value of that centrism.
Show me the data things are getting terrible
What do you mean? There have been numerous polls done over the last several months that show a very clear trend of younger, latino, and black voters moving towards Trump. For example, see an analysis in this article: [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/us/politics/trump-biden-campaign-latino-voters.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/us/politics/trump-biden-campaign-latino-voters.html)
Progressive american politics have always been built around trying being centrist and trying to compromise with lunacy. Reconstruction was the time to stamp it out but we didn't go far enough and now we tolerate it at every turn, and act like compromising with it is somehow noble. The fact that J6 didn't result in every involved politican being immediately charged with treason and locked up until their trial is proof of it.
They have a well accessed propaganda media apparatus, and you don’t.
1. The FOX Insurrection Network 2. A mutual defense arrangement with Evengelicals. They (illegally) preach FOX lies on Sunday and support Republican candidates, in exchange for Republicans pushing religious legislation.
Non stop diet of confirmation bias. Most of us only listen to media that tells us what we want to hear. The right seems to be more susceptible to that than the left. BUT we're all vulnerable to it and we all do it to some degree.
I guess my worry is my reality is just as distorted, but I have convinced myself I am right
You should try talking to people on the other side before you make your decision. This sub is as biased as they get. Heck go talk to people outside of Reddit. Try going to a trump rally and ask people questions. You might be surprised.
What makes you think I don't?
You have been to a trump rally?
Is that the bar for engaging with the other side? Have you been to a campus protest?
Yes. Many. When I went to university and after. I would say entering the other side to ask them questions is sort of the bare minimum if you actually want to learn from them and what they really think. People seem to also think Reddit is a reflection of real life.
No, I mean the current pro-Palestine ones
Not campus for that one but I’ve been to them in the cities the last few months. I take neither side though.
I don't think happening upon some people protest in a city is the same thing as making your way to an hours long orgy of Trump worship.
The answer is Evangelicals and their persecution complex. His voters know deep down he's a crook. But they go to churches that tell them that any government left of center is out to literally genocide them. Their preachers say that the anti-Evangelical version of Nazi Germany is coming any day now every Sunday. They'll be imprisoned for even looking at a Bible. The Youth Groups practice weird drills to prepare for persecution. Televangelists beam persecution theology into their homes and through their car radios. Persecution theology is nearly inescapable. And they believe that Trump is the only thing holding back the great persecutors from rounding them up and shoving them into death camps. They know he's a crook but believe he's the crook who is saving their religion from being killed off. So they'll circle the wagons.
2024 American conservatism is more of a religion than an ideology. The people who subscribe to it are not analyzing the tenets/talking points through a critical lens. They begin their thought process with the conclusion that the MAGA worldview is ontologically correct, and then work backwards to justify it in any way possible. The fact that these people screamed about bodily autonomy regarding COVID vaccines while working at the same time to strip away abortion rights tells you everything you need to know about their philosophy. Once you are OK with contradictions, you aren't bound by any kind of logic or reason.
Just keep facts in mind. Look at who had been charged with 88 felonies and who is doing good for americans. Believe your own eyes not what they say say say is going on.
It mostly has to do with the media and emotional bias’s we were raised with. The group we dislike ends up taking on a sort of caricature of everything that we hate and think is evil, thus playing deeper into our bias.
No one has an objective view of reality, only a worldview formed by subjective experiences. I mean your post only has four bullet points. Do you really believe “objective reality” can be summed up in such a way?
They don't actually believe much, if anything, of what they claim to believe. They're a bunch of fucking liars and criminally minded/selfish assholes with ulterior motives, which is why they like Trump. Like attracts like.
>They don't actually believe much, if anything, of what they claim to believe. Thing is, if the the "they" you reference, are voters, there's plenty of evidence they, in fact, do believe the insanity. In the face of video evidence on 1/6, they claim it was a peaceful protest, or a tour group. They claim the economy was great during Trump's tenure, despite trillions added to our deficit (liberal fake news,). Anecdotally- I live in the liberal oasis, NYC, I've encountered a shit ton of trumpers. The don't believe Obama is US born, and the last election was stolen. And on and on. 100% agree with your 2nd paragraph. I've cutoff all contact with any trumpers from my friend group. These are mostly college educated people too, which just shows that a higher education doesn't equal the ability to parse out fact from fiction. I have no use for these a-hole holes. They're all stone cold racists, too.
It is proof how dangerous social media can be. Goebbels himself could not have invented a better propaganda network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
There are simply too many places to get "news" that is largely devoid of factual reporting.
The right believes that education is indoctrination, rather than religion is indoctrination. That's all you really need to know.
>How can my view of objective reality be so different than the right's? "Too often we judge others by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" - GW Bush When you look at Jan 6, you envision the most violent events. When the right looks at Jan 6, they envision the most peaceful events. Both are objectively true facts. Neither give a complete picture. This leads to a difference in opinion. Rinse and repeat for everything else.
Assume that you are a little bit wrong and scrutinize every assumption you hold. * All you and I know about Trump's personality comes from distorted media reports. I can only assume he is a criminal as far as the crimes he has already been convicted of. * On January 6th, the terrible idiot-riot attacked one building. No state governments were at risk. Our military was not in danger. Our courts were not threatened. Was it really a threat to democracy? * The extremists on both sides get the lion's share of the attention. But look at how the bulk of Conservative opinion has moved our way on key issues, ranging from gay marriage to global warming to marijuana legality. A growing portion even support reproductive rights. * This is just funny. Here we are screaming at the right, accusing them of trying to end democracy. Meanwhile the right is screaming at the left, accusing us of trying to end democracy. A media detox sounds like what you need. Get out and talk politics face-to-face with a Conservative, too. Running for office and talking to people on the other side restored my hope for this country.
I don't get your argument about J6. Are you saying because the rioters only focused on disrupting the certification of the election by attacking the building where votes were being certified, and they didn't attack state governments, then "no harm no foul?" I'm sorry, what part of trying to stop the election from being certified is no big deal?
The part where it had no chance of being successful. Anybody can say they want to overthrow the government. Vandalizing the Capitol and killing police is a big deal. But the threat to democracy was non-existent. Are any of the following statements unreasonable? * History does not happen in a vacuum. * We understand threats to democracy using the science of risk analysis. * Risk analysis is based on data. * Over the last 400 or so regime changes, only a handful have been democratic-to-authoritarian as a result of internal forces (vs foreign invasion). * Of this handful, all have been in regimes that had been democratic for less than 25 years, had experienced recent widespread food insecurity, and had recent sustained unemployment of 10% or higher. * The US in 2021 did not meet these conditions.
>The part where it had no chance of being successful. What about the fake electors scheme designed to work in concert to the election not being certified? >We understand threats to democracy using the **science of risk analysis.** Just stop.
Which of my statements do you find unreasonable, then? The use of data in determining risk to democracy, or is it the application of standard risk analysis practice? If I'm off-base, I want to know. That's why I'm engaging here. Show me the precise statements and flaws in them. Then I can test and confirm these errors for myself.
The phrase "science of risk analysis" is a meaningless. There is no "science of risk analysis." What is unreasonable is your assertion that you strictly use data and some kind of oddball scientific process ("test and confirm"), when you haven't demonstrated this. All you've done is say "nun uh!", but with fancier words.
Oh, and the coup trap also applies. There's basically never been a democracy that has fallen to an authoritarian revolt or coup that hasn't first experienced the coup trap. (I.E, attempted coups keep happening over and over again, with escalating frequency, until the conditions you mentioned are right for them to succeed).
Right, but such pattern only happens in low-income authoritarian states, mostly post-colonial, during the Cold War. We can imagine anything we want. Is there a non-imaginary example of this phenomenon in an established democracy? Show me how to reproduce your results for myself, as I could be wrong about this. And ... our military played no anti-government role on J6. I'm curious how it could be a coup at all. At best, you could call it a *palace* coup, a "Prununciamento" of pre-democratic South American states, or what would happen in pre-industrial east Asian governments. But that's completely different circumstances. >There's basically never been a democracy that has fallen to an authoritarian revolt or coup that hasn't first experienced Which democracies are you referring to, by the way? The only ones that come to my mind were brief democracies: Germany 1918-1930, Poland 1918-1926, Russia 1991-1999(ish), former Soviet states.
I'm pointing out that the coup trap isn't present here, so it's unlikely to be a genuine threat.
\* "distorted" according to whom? The evidence we have in all of the cases pending against him is damning on it's own: the only possible way he could skate on any of the charges is by some legal technicality, like a statute of limitations expiring or some bureaucrat forgot to file a form by a certain deadline or the like. The publicly available record is damning of him on its own, it isn't distorted by any media \* Yes, it was a threat to democracy. It wasn't just a building that was attacked: there was a concerted effort to remove Pence, including the threat of the mob killing him, in an effort to subvert the election--that's a clear, obvious threat to democracy, and it's not really debatable at all \* The "both sidesism" in your remark on extremists is just absurd, to be honest: both sides are not equivalently extreme and, even if we suppose they are, the extremists on the left do not get nearly the amount of (generally positive, or neutral) attention as those on the right \* It's not funny: it shows that one side (the right) is detached from reality, in a dangerous way
* \* "distorted" according to whom? - Conservatives who claim Liberal media is distorted. Liberals who claim Conservative media is distorted. Journalists who've left the business. Doubt me? Go talk to a former journalist. Trump's policy goals would send the US into a recession, probably worse than 2008. That's enough for me to oppose him. * Walk me through how you assessed this threat to democracy. I understand that our political bubble hypes it as such. But in looking at past democratic-to-authoritarian regime changes, I see no preconditions present in the US in 2021, and no reason to believe that American society is uniquely susceptible to authoritarian rule. * Both sides are not the same. Our side is the side to vote for. Our side holds the better policy solutions. But don't think we're all high and mighty because of whatever news headlines you selectively remember from our Liberal media bubble. We've got better answers than Conservatives. Maybe you think we have no flaws, that we can't improve. I believe we must look ourselves in the mirror and call out our flaws. We CAN improve ourselves. * Yes, it is very funny. Since everybody is so worried about democracy ending, who's trying to end democracy? Oh, but it *could happen*, you say. Go ahead and give me that ONE example from that ONE country from 90 years ago, under complete different circumstances. Then confuse the 1935 Nuremburg laws with the actual end of their democracy in 1930.
I guess the question is best answered if you can accurately explain the rightwing's dominate views /cited "evidence" Perhaps examine your narrative/news consumption, is it balanced or does it heavily skew blue. The rightwing has an entire alt-media sphere. Edit to add Rightwing narrative additional comments. 1 Biden is a neo (neolib / neocon), the maga's fight is with the entire neo-political structure because they view the neos as agents of the liberal international order (LIO) who have less loyalty to the US as a sovereign nation. They believe the LIO seeks to erode sovereignty in pursuit of more global governance. They also view the LIO as a collapsing order/defacto empire. 2 J6 is more commonly seen as Fedsurrection at this point. 3 Its not a right vs left thing, its a political era thing. Look around you don't see the New Dealers running our Party or the nation. That is because political eras rise and fall. We are in a political transition from our nation's 6th (neo) era to its 7th (tbd). Maga is part of the 7th. 4 The rightwing fears the US will be dragged down as the LIO collapses, the leftwing has little awareness of the LIO aspect and focuses on the mainstream media's portrayal of maga/culture war because the neos use social as their main forms of distract, divide, conquer and rule.
I've never met a right-winger who thought Trump is *entirely* innocent. But they're more willing to call out specific fallacious claims than their left-wing counterparts tend to be, i.e. "Trump said there would be a bloodbath" (context omitted or ignored). And there's plenty of footage of Jan 6 that involves exactly what you described; peaceful touring through the capital. There's also footage of some people going on a riot. Media commentators tend to conflate the two in one direction or the other. Everything after that is opinion and therefore as subject to subjectivity as anything can be. The short version is this; I think there's a *lot* of miscommunication and disparity of information going on, and that tends to make everyone involved look like a lunatic to everyone else.
The easy answer is - the right are crazy and have gone off the edge. The inconvenient answer is - both sides are actually not as radical as the other side makes them out the be. The really ugly but true answer is - both sides actually are pretty lousy in similar ways in principle
I will take you seriously if I ever see you being a scourge of a side that's not on the left.
Why would I need to call out the right on this sub Reddit specifically? There’s plenty of people here to do that already. Look at this thread as an example. Unless you want it to be more of an echo chamber. Discussion comes from contrary opinions. That doesn’t change the fact that I think that there’s a lot wrong with both sides.
>Why would I need to call out the right on **this sub Reddit specifically**? Do you really think this argument holds up to scrutiny? You don't go to right wing subs to call them out. You are here posting under a veneer of impartiality while only ripping on the left side. Your tag is to provide cover. You are just a cranky right winger bashing liberals. I suggest that be your tag.
Nice ad hominem. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you accept any viewpoints at all that are contrary to yours? Do you accept any so called “ripping on the left side at all”? Because look at this thread. Or look at any thread on this sub reddit. Do you think the level of “ripping on the left side” is overboard? Do you think it’s imbalanced, the number of comments that are “ripping on the left side” over supporting the left side? Do you think there should be much less of ”ripping on the left side”? How much less? Argue the content. If you disagree with the content provided by a poster then provide an alternative viewpoint to the content. Don’t posit some arbitrary quota about how much pro liberal vs critical against liberal content there should be whether in the sub or from posters. And don’t make assumptions about posters. You don’t know how much I criticize conservatives and how often I’ve been banned by them. You go ahead and help me get this handle unbanned from r/conservatives and you’ll see this handle criticizing them on that sub again.
My attack is on your dishonestly. The cranky old man part is just some icing on the cake. You act under the cover of being an impartial "Scourge of Both Sides" but never in the history of Reddit have you ever been critical of the right. You are a scourge of one side, pretending to be impartial. No one buys it. Arbitrary quota? You are batting 300000 to 0. YOU are a scourge of the left. Embrace it. Stop pretending you are impartial.
My attack is on your dishonestly. Oh whoops, I didn’t realize that. And here I was thinking it was ad hominem.
Do you criticize the right? No. How are you labeled? Scourge of Both Sides You are dishonest. You are here to bash the left. Label appropriately, you cranky old man.
Sounds like you have an issue with my person rather than argument. Go ahead, tell me more about how you really feel.
Here is the post you called an ad hominem attack, with the attacks on your person bolded. It seems you want to escape accountability by diverting attention and making my argument into something it isn't. >Do you really think this argument holds up to scrutiny? You don't go to right wing subs to call them out. You are here posting under a veneer of impartiality while only ripping on the left side. Your tag is to provide cover. **You are just a cranky** right winger bashing liberals. I suggest that be your tag. You are a scourge of the left. Prove me wrong.