As a minority considered “disadvantaged” in the US I’d like to counter that there’s a lot more to the right than lack of empathy for minorities or fear. I’m very appreciative of the opportunities provided to me here and don’t appreciate the recent cultural tendency to privilege shame people or to look back on the history here as only cruel or exploitative.
Trump saw the highest turnout among minorities for republicans in 60 years and it’s for a reason. I look back at Ben Franklin or Jefferson or Washington and feel inspired, I don’t think “oh, I’m not privileged I could never do what he did.” I can see people as products of their time and separate the good from the bad. As someone who grew up in an apartment shared between 2 families and worked my way up into college and the tech field I’m just shocked at how many people today have grown into learned helplessness and think that the system is so bad and irreparable that they need to vandalize and protest in cities for months.
The left has done so much more to insult me and my appreciation for this country than the right, and it’s just tragic that they think they’re the only good guys. I really do believe that foreign interference to agitate our society is real, as discussed by Tristan Harris in his interview by Joe Rogan, and it’s convinced millions of young Americans that they’re somehow resisting literal Nazis.
It's great that you feel empowered and have been successful in this country. Lots of minorities haven't been, and for reasons outside of their control, based in historical inequalities.
The fundamental problem of the entitled right is that they can't imagine that other people have had different experiences than they have, and therefore attribute their disadvantaged state to "victim mentality."
Poverty and suffering is not a left vs. right thing, it affects people all over the world. This doesn't mean that those people are morally superior to others who are e.g. rich or that they have the right to demand certain things from them.
They can make their case just like everybody else and negotiate in good faith for a better position. If because of their situation they cannot do that, others typically do it for them.
But you coming here and diminishing someone's experience, just because there's someone somewhere who isn't successful is merely an attempt emotional blackmail. This kind of emotional blackmail seems to work a lot better recently than in the past, but let's not confuse it with good arguments.
Would you say that the movement to abolish slavery was based on "emotional blackmail"? How about the movement for women's suffrage? No, I think that "emotional blackmail" is an attempt to color negatively any attempt at progress towards equality.
I'm not diminishing anyone's experience. I'm just pointing out that he doesn't have the right to speak for everyone.
The fundamental problem of the entitled left is unchecked imagination of other people experiences completely divorced from daily realities of those people.
You have someone from a minority describing his experience to you and you feel the need to put him in his place immediately because there is an unknown number of people who have it worse. The entitled right at least donates a lot of money to charities (more than anybody else in the world) and helps a lot of people through various kinds of organizations. But hey if you say they can't image other people's experiences than it must be so.
"Charity is not a substitute for social justice."
Of course it is not. Charity is real and it helps people right now where they need help the most. Social justice is a fantasy dreamed up in ivory towers. But only the left is compassionate, right?
"I've been there. I've seen it."
Where have you been and what have you seen to feel the need to put down experiences of those in minority who have succeeded in life? What have you as a member of the compassionate party done to help the poor people since charities aren't you thing?
"Have you?"
I have never ever once heard a migrant say: "I hope those nice social justice people succeed with their big ideas.".
It was always: "Look what those nice people from the church down the road did for us.".
Sure. And the fundamental problem of the entitled left is that they think they're standing up for minorities, but often speak over them, just like the right, while telling them it's for their own good, which is a dividing force just like the strawman right-winger in your head. They internalize so much racial shame that they casually walk straight away from being egalitarian, while claiming they never have.
You're reading an awful lot into people who you've apparently never spoken to. Do you think anyone who makes an attempt to help other people and improve equal treatment is motivated by "racial shame"? By your logic, we should have kept slavery and denied women the vote.
I don't advocate for those things because I'm egalitarian. I don't think internalized shame is the only motivation for equality. I think we all are born with a little bit of universal empathy and we shouldn't be afraid to tap it. I've seen a lot of social justice that is motivated by the thrill of the attack more than simply achieving equality, and it easily falls away from the delicate balance they claimed to want at the start.
> I’m just shocked at how many people today have grown into learned helplessness and think that the system is so bad and irreparable that they need to vandalize and protest in cities for months.
It's quite right to be shocked so many people protested, because it's a strong signal that there's something drastically wrong with the system; something that nobody has any problem understanding and accepting when protests occur in other countries.
Aren’t the only countries where people don’t protest in cities for months totalitarian ones? Having protests seems to me to be a sign of a free country.
It's also disingenuous to suggest the extreme left isn't dominating the messaging from the left.
The extremes tend to dominate the messaging on both sides. And frankly, the internet being dominated by younger people, there is a good case to be made that the extreme left's voices are louder.
>It's also disingenuous to suggest the extreme left isn't dominating the messaging from the left.
Except it's not disengenuous to say that at all. We can see that by the candidates each party has supported. Biden is considered a pretty centrist democrat by pretty much any metric. Trump, however, can't be considered a moderate. He's enabled fascist White nationalist supporters. Biden hasn't done the same.
Also, for the record, BLM and SJWs aren't equivalent extremist left compared to literal Nazis - the left wing extremist equivalent is Communism and the position to kill and eat the rich. That is the level of extremism that Trump has facilitated in office. If Biden also enabled people who explicitly call to overthrow the US government, I'd say you have a fairer point.
The 2 extremes are indeed closer to each other than they are to the center, the Horseshoe theory. Of course, extremists on either side would hate to be bundled together, their ideology is different but their extremist approach is not.
But I can't help but think this is a very asymmetrical horseshoe where the right side extends much further then the left side ever did. The problem is not even necessarily the particular ideology but rather that the right side is willing to be far more extreme in their views. That in itself is exceptionally dangerous no matter what the views are because it implies a very, very unpleasant life for those who don't share them.
It's the reason why today the US is so divided, there's no more overlap, the 2 sides each sit in their corner. The only possible response to increasing extremism on one side is increasing extremism on the other side until one has enough power to quash the other.
> The only possible response to increasing extremism on one side is increasing extremism on the other side until one has enough power to quash the other.
I think this statement is wrong. There are a lot of other possibilities. For example: "A minority that is agressively vocal for extremism in one aspect could be cushioned by a strong general consensus for a political culture of reasonable cooperation and discussion."
There are extremists on the left, Biden disavowed them publicly.
There are extremists on the right, Trump disavowed them publicly.
Nevertheless, media commentators on either side try to portrait these candidates as if they supported, or at least "enabled" extremists.
Can you be more specific on how either of these candidates "enable" or "do not enable" extremism? How would you falsify an accusation of "enabling" something?
What you are pointing out here is fundamentally true and verifiable. I think I find myself, along with many other americans, in a bizarre position where we see comments like this which we know are accurate get barraged by downvotes or whatever system in Internet commentary exists to decrease the visibility of the comment, and I find this troubling. This mostly happens, from what I've seen, if there is any suggestion within the comment that the right is in some way defensible. I think many internet forums have tried to use downvotes as a signal for validity, but so frequently that signal is obviously misapplied, making it almost entirely meaningless. In fact, it is has become a signal for the direction of the political leanings of the majority, rather than anything having to do with the usefulness or appropriateness of any given comment.
Genuinely interested when/where Trump disavowed right wing extremists. I've seen him refuse to denounce white supremacy in the first debate but I haven't seen him denounce anyone who might vote for him
> I've seen him refuse to denounce white supremacy in the first debate...
That was clearly a missed opportunity to clear things up, but the counter-question "Who do you want me to condemn?" is a fair one. It's easy for Trump to condemn the KKK, not so easy to condemn militia groups in general. Similarly, it's easy for Biden to condemn rioters, not so easy to condemn Antifa in general. Effectively, both candidates dodged that question.
> ... I haven't seen him denounce anyone who might vote for him.
That's moving the goalpost a bit too far for my taste. Trump has condemned white supremacists, that at least is on the record.
"to condemn Antifa"
Antifa is a construct from Fox News to designate a broad category of mostly young people that range from anarchists calling for direct democracy to people who are against racism and intolerance that have in common that they are not against clashing with police forces. So condemning Antifa does not make much sense. Maybe he could have condemned violence in the protests but anyone who has been in a demonstration knows elements in both the protesters and the police are looking for the clash. But the police always has the upper hand and violently crush what is mostly damage to property. Just tell me how many people have been killed by so called "Antifa"? Is that comparable to the number of people that have been killed by right-wing activists? Why is it always the progressive leaders that get shot? Right wing activists always say they are here to "defend" against something but they are the one attacking.
> Can you be more specific on how either of these candidates "enable" or "do not enable" extremism? How would you falsify an accusation of "enabling" something?
I can indeed do this, but the question itself seems to be asked in bad faith. How on earth do you need me to report to you on Trump's behavior and words even into the final debate?
> It's also disingenuous to suggest the extreme left isn't dominating the messaging from the left.
Except they're not. Your country has drifted so far right, every opposing voice may look like "extreme left", but it's not. Nowhere close.
If you want to argue about the actual extreme left, go right ahead. I'm as left-leaning as they are, but I'll probably agree with you. There's some idiots.
But the extreme left isn't really that vocal at all in the US right now. It's the moderate leftists trying to restore some sense of normalcy.
Wearing a mask is just a simple precaution that everyone should take. Using pictures of you wearing a mask rather than not, is just leading by example.
> @moderators: have I earned the automatic downvote? Whatever I post shows zero points as soon as it is posted.
Not a mod, but I'll take an educated guess that this is what ires someone:
> What is called far right in USA is the same thing we call neo-fascism anywhere else
The rest of your post is spot on IMO but I hesitate to upvote because of that part, and not because there isn't a point but because it is a whole lot more nuanced:
Yes: a number of wackos exist on the "far right" (I hate that term as it frames conservatives with totalitarian ones.)
But there has also been a tendency by media to abuse the term as a rubber stamp for "anything conservative we don't like". It's either that or a large number of facists are the ones to defend the jews this year, and despite 2020 being odd I don't think that will ever happen.
(I collected a fair number of downvotes myself last election season, seemingly from both sides, which is why I feel somewhat qualified to explain ;-)
To be honest I don't care if someone is ired or not, being ired is a choice and usually doesn't depend to what other people do, but how we react to them
It is my understanding that over the years people have developed various software to follow threads and users' comment streams so it is conceivable that some bored zealot took it upon himself to police every single thing you post in real time. Or set up a downvote bot as others suggested. There are some genuine weirdos here.
I haven't been here for a few years (green account again, yay), but at least back then, moderators weren't know for f...ng with anyone like that. Warning, maybe another warning, shadow ban and good bye.
At any rate, posting "@moderators" in the middle of a 4000 comment thread will get you nowhere. There is a contact email at the bottom if you want to ask for investigation.
I've never heard or seen anything like what you suggest.
It has been admitted I think that one is aware of certain bots (not affiliated with YC) that vote in certain directions.
I think I have even seen one popular HNer admit that he thought there was a bot who would upvote all his answer irregardless of who low quality they were.
Maybe someone has something like that and have pointed it at you.
More likely though you annoyed someone and they went in to your profile and looked at your other answers.
Edit: I looked into your comments and here are two notes.
1. Your comments are a mixed bag. Saying Trump brought war to American soil for example isn't anywhere near true and also inflammatory.
2. Some of them are insightful but ires one side without delighting the other. The result is you get a downvote from those who are annoyed and no support from the other side.
> What is called far right in USA is the same thing we call neo-fascism anywhere else
The US far-right includes camps that don't exactly fit that definition (though there is plenty of overlap), like christian dominionists, corporatist right-libertarians, and the misogynistic PUA/incell/MRA crowd (which is more of a feeder system than a political philosophy per se).
That used to be the case, but it has changed. The last 10 years the extreme left in the US has shifted left, passing even the European left, at least according to Pew[1]. I don't think this particular report mentions the European part, can't find that right now, but they mentioned it in another report on it.
I would like to add that the Critical Race Theory (where DEI originates from) is only recently starting to get traction in for example The Netherlands, traditionally an already pretty left-leaning country.
> The last 10 years the extreme left in the US has shifted left, passing even the European left
Whether or not it's true, the “extreme left” in the US that may or may not have shifted that way is politically irrelevant.
Meanwhile, of the major parties the Democratic Party has been stable for decades while the Republican Party has shot to the extremes, a process that has continued at a rapid pace over the last decade.
What page in [1] do you refer to? While I believe it could be democrats are more left than european sozialdemocratic parties, I would doubt they are left to succesor party of the communidt aera.
But that doesn't mean that the Democratic party message comes from the far left.
Biden can't pronounce the word "free healthcare" for fear of losing votes.
That's what I was contesting: far right is right at the centre of the political scene side by side with Trump, far left is not because it has no direct representation in the political system.
Unless you consider someone like Sanders a far left extremists, which is not.
> @moderators: have I earned the automatic downvote? Whatever I post shows zero points as soon as it is posted.
Hacker News tends to be pretty good about people not just downvoting posts because they disagree with them. However, that goes out the window when the discussion gets political.
I'd be really interested in seeing the numbers for upvotes and downvotes on political topics vs other topics. I wouldn't be surprised if you could train a classifier to spot political articles based on this distribution.
Down voting is a very blunt tool. Enough down votes can hide a comment. This means you aren't just saying "I disagree" but "this is so wrong no one should read it." It has its place but there's a reason you don't get to do it until your account has received enough upvotes.
National socialism is philosophy, which can be applied everywhere, including Israeli.
If somebody thinks that his nation is "gifted", while others are not, so government must support gifted people and punish other peoples, then it's National Socialism, regardless of country and nationality.
The formula “government must [support] X people, and [mitigate] Y people” seems like a pretty consistent formula for all collectivism. They only differ in the reasoning.
It could be anything: smart/dumb, peaceful/violent, weak/strong, poor/rich. And in any order. Today people seem to be fixated on race. I wonder if we’ll ever get past that.
Nazism is one thing , national socialism is another (with non-capital letters)
to my understanding , national socialism is in principle a socialism that is tooled to deliver social policies within a ntaion-state , which is not a very controversial idea .
there is no intrinsic need to punish anybody for anything
and frankly , thinking that one's nation is "gifted" is not an illegitimate opinion, even if its probably wrong ,as long as it doesnt translate into any kind of racist or expansionary policy
Yeah but what about the ones holding swastikas saying chanting "Blood and soil, Jews will not replace us" who were not condemned by the to of GOP leadership. The left uses their words like a shotgun, however, theres still nazis out there.
Not condemned? He literally used the phrase “condemned totally” referring to them. How much more condemned can you get?
Here’s a direct quote from Trump’s press conference:
> “It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?”
It’s an outright lie to claim otherwise and the media was complicit in allowing Biden to do so. Over and over.
The first statement said both sides, the second statement 2 days later tried to clarify the statement with an excuse that he was saying other people that walked amongst nazi were the good people. As a constant pattern of trumps presidency, he throws out a dog whistle and then walks it back 2 days later sayig he was taken out of context, misspoke, or was joking. You can claim he's fighting against antisemitism and racism, but I just straight up don't trust his good faith. My jewish eyes see him as supporting nazis and a supporter of those who walk with nazis. Him being a poor communicator is a lackluster excuse why I should trust him.
All those other good people walked under those nazi flags. Why would I trust them either?
> The first statement said both sides, the second statement 2 days later tried to clarify the statement with an excuse that he was saying other people that walked amongst nazi were the good people.
The first statement is in regards to people protesting to bring down monuments. There’s clearly two sides to that argument and there are many fine people, myself included, that do not want to see statues of Lincoln torn now.
> As a constant pattern of trumps presidency, he throws out a dog whistle and then walks it back 2 days later sayig he was taken out of context, misspoke, or was joking. You can claim he's fighting against antisemitism and racism, but I just straight up don't trust his good faith.
If your own biases interpret everything in some perverted negative light, then it’s an impossible standard to meet.
> My jewish eyes see him as supporting nazis and a supporter of those who walk with nazis.
And yet his grandchildren are Jewish and he’s had more success negotiating Middle East peace deals that benefit Israel than any other president.
If he’s Nazi supporter he’s doing a pretty crappy job at it.
> Him being a poor communicator is a lackluster excuse why I should trust him.
If you refuse to ever give the benefit of the doubt then why even argue about it?
> All those other good people walked under those nazi flags. Why would I trust them either?
Nobody says to trust them. But they’re not the only ones that wanted to preserve historic statues.
That’s like reducing all of recent racial / police protests to a bunch of looters robbing a Best Buy.
> there are many fine people, myself included, that do not want to see statues of Lincoln torn now.
Who was trying to remove statues of Lincoln? In all the reporting I've seen on this issue I've only seen people trying to remove statues of Confederate generals and leaders. I, like many people, have no problem with these statues being moved into museums. They just shouldn't be public monuments.
I wasn't aware of that incident. This does appear to be a single isolated case and not a widespread issue.
> That’s not a coincidence, it’s the slope of the line when the left encourages an insurrection
I can see how you'd make a slippery slope argument here. However you're mixing it with some serious hyperbole that diminishes your argument. The left in the US isn't some homogenous, well organized group. You're taking millions of people, many of whom would not be consider "the left" in other countries, and lumping them all together. That's a huge oversimplification.
Can you show me where there are calls for insurrection? Most of the protests in the US in the last year that I'm aware of have been non-violent or were intended that way by their organizers. Some have had violence break out. While I'm sure some of the people involved have been on the far left wing you can't blame all of the violence on the left wing protesters[0][1].
The question is why some on the left think they are fighting nazis. I think I answered my anectdotal view sufficiently. There are people out there at protests acting under the symbols of nazism and the chief executive charged with assuring those who are concerned fails again and again to ease that concern. Defend his actions all you want. The vote has come in, you can look at that for it's democratic feedback and mandate on preferred leadership.
Ignoring the Nazi flags hanging over the argument is a questionable way to claim circular logic. People think they are Nazi, Nazi sympathizers, Nazi allies, because these people were standing beside Nazi flags, within the people yelling blood and soil, Jews will not replace us. There is a distinct start to the argument. Do you not care to recognize that?
> Here’s a direct quote from Trump’s press conference:
That's a quote from August 15th. Trump had made statements about the murder in Charlottesville as early as August 12th, when he famously walked out of the interview after being asked to condemn white supremacists.
Please see my post here on HN about this incident[1]:
> You've linked to the second interview he gave about Charlottesville. In his first statements in an interview on August 12th, 2017, he famously didn't condemn white supremacists who murdered someone, saying instead that he condemns "egregious displays of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides".
> Then, several days later in the second interview on August 15th that you linked to, he equates the violent white nationalists that murdered someone with what he calls the "alt-left", the purported group that the murder victim belonged to, saying that he thinks there is blame on both sides. After asking for further clarification, he says that there were fine people on both sides. Only after further questioning, and in a separate statement, does he condemn white supremacists.
> People were criticizing him for his initial equivocation on August 12th, comparing the white supremacists who murdered a person to the victims of their violence, and the fact that he didn't name or condemn white supremacists. In fact, when journalists asked him to condemn them, he walked away from the interview. He refused to differentiate between the two.
> Then, on August 15th, he defends his initial comments through his continued equivocations in the second interview.
Not sure what “victim mentality” is trying to imply. Sometimes people really are victims. Did European Jews during WW2 have a “victim mentality”, by your standards?
> Is it all the swastikas? Maybe it’s all the swastikas.
The only swastikas I've seen are on public bathroom stalls and I've seen them for many many years and they haven't increased in frequency in recent years. Increase in visibility isn't equivalent to increase in frequency.
I'm conservative. I'm active on social media. I don't see what you're talking about at all. My feed is constantly being inundated with "We need to make lists of every trump supporter" and similar, but never do I see the supposed ultra-widespread nazi/alt-right hate.
Trump, for all his flaws, has disavowed white supremacy so many times it hurts to watch and even the most famous "very fine people" quote was [0] taken out of context (if you can call that anything but an outright lie, frankly).
The membership of racist organizations like the KKK is small, vanishingly small. It's not even .1% of Trumps base. [1] And, more importantly, it's shrinking. It has been for a very long time.
[1]Despite their diminishing numbers, there are still approximately 3,000 Klan members nationwide, as well an additional but unknown number of associates and supporters. Even with relatively small numbers, groups like the North Carolinabased Loyal White Knights (LWK), perhaps the most active Klan group in the United States today, have a fairly expansive geographical reach. In 2015, with just 150-200 members, they were able to draw attention to themselves in 15 different states (mostly in the south and east), typically through fliering, which requires only a single participant.
[2][3] It is a matter of public record that Biden supported segregationists, voted against integration-supporting policies like bussing (which Kamala Harris roasted him for repeatedly), and pushed legislation that disproportionately harmed black folks.
Ultimately, there's plenty of good reasons to dislike Trump that are completely and unarguably valid. Covid, John Bolton, numerous conflicts of interest (like using personal assets for the military and government functions) are a small piece of that. But calling Trump racist or a nazi is just taking the bait that his political opponents have set out.
In my personal opinion, Biden is the worse choice for president purely on the basis of his likelihood of supporting additional war efforts (whereas Trump is the first president in 40 years not to start a new war - AND has helped bring about a series of peace treaties in the middle east.)
I'm totally with you on Trump not starting any wars (which is a low bar for a US president, but one which is rarely hit).
However, his treatment of Israel and Saudi Arabia were perhaps 100 times worse than any previous president.
He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, which was incredibly inflammatory to both the Palestinians and the wider world, and will make it very, very difficult for any peace deal to be signed there (as the Palestinians want it as their capital).
His support of Saudi Arabia, regardless of their extra-judicial killings was another low point in the US relations in the middle east.
The other "peace" deals he signed were more caving to particular factions rather than bringing them together.
Each deal can be criticized and certainly worth exploration, but the overall trend is, at least in my opinion, quite clear. Comparing Trump's record on international conflict to any president in my lifetime makes him look like a saint. And all of the criticisms levied at him (in my opinion) pale in comparison to stopping the literal mass-murder in the middle east. If the US reverses course on vying for peace, and instead picks up the big stick approach, it will make it clear what the policy of established politicians really is. If that happens I hope America has the conscience to remove them all.
> Although Trump has talked of withdrawing completely from Iraq, Pentagon officials have cautioned that a U.S. troop presence remains necessary to guard against an IS resurgence and to help the Iraqi government limit the political and military influence of Iran, which supports militias operating inside Iraq. [1]
His actions in the middle east have been far from universally positive (not that any American president in 50 years has done any good there).
He has supported Saudi Arabia with weapons to help their slaughter in Yemen.
He has reneged on the Iran nuclear deal, proving for the second and probably last time that making deals with the USA is a fools errand (it's the second time the US has reneged on a deal with Iran; I doubt there will be a third).
He has publicly assassinated a high dignitary of Iran, during an official visit to a different country, an act of war by any measure.
He has moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, an extremely inflammatory decision that further stops any remaining chance that the USA can ever be seen as a negotiator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Overall, while maybe not as bad as Bush and Obama in direct deaths, his legacy has shut down any hope of peace in the region with America's involvement. So I wouldn't rank him too highly on this area.
Let's also not forget that he has unilaterally cancelled the USA's nuclear disarmament deal with Russia, another extremely anti-peace move, one that will have far-reaching consequences.
The only truly decent external policy that he has shown is his handling of the North Korea crisis - that was a true diplomatic success by any measure, which I gladly admit.
And of course, we shouldn't forget that all of his other horrible decisions pale in the face of his anti-climate moves, which have likely helped push the world over the brink.
I don't disagree with a single thing you've said. That said, when comparing presidents you have to compare them to each other, or to candidates that might replace them.
In that light the bar is set so appallingly low that even Trump managed to get across it. Presidential candidates in the US are almost universally pro-war and pro-military escalation, even while pretending otherwise.
It's great for you that your Twitter feed has managed to avoid the most depraved, violent side of the right. I'll attribute that to the relatively rarefied air of Twitter broadly. Fact is, the Internet skews left; Twitter skews left of that; and the Twitter feed of an educated Hacker News commentator (which I presume you are) skews even lefter. So you might not be getting an accurate reading of the temperature of the country.
Go visit r/The_donald (or wherever they find themselves these days), 4Chan, or just go to any small town in the South. Violent racism is a badge proudly worn.
I think you’re underestimating the power of filter bubbles. I’m very left, mostly live in SF and LA, and browse r politics. I’ve never seen what you’re talking about. R politics has an strong point of view but if anything is posted along those lines it gets downvoted to oblivion.
I think you need to reassess how your feeds are being filtered because they appear to have zeroed in on ultra extreme pockets. Either your clicks or the algorithms have put your feeds in a skewed place. It sounds like you’re being shown the right wing caricature of the left. Of course that makes them look insane.
I follow primarily esports players, a handful of folks like Patio11 and Paul Graham, some constitutional conservatives, a handful of John Locke style liberals, a few gun people (Colion Noir, and others) and that's it.
Despite this, I am rarely shown anything conservative on Twitter. If the algo gods have decided I'm extreme left, then they are broken beyond repair. It seems more likely to me that Twitter simply de-prioritizes conservative media.
Rhetoric that I've seen is essentially that "anyone who voted for, donated to, or promoted Trump's policies should be on a list which should be used to remove them from 'polite' society."
Use of the words polite society has popped up quite a few times as well. I'm sure you can find substantially more by googling around.
What I meant to ask, though, was whether you saw liberal or conservative folks sharing these?
Personally I'd only seen them shared in conservative circles... Wondering if it's more an example of "one side taking an extreme comment and applying it to everyone on the other side" (like many on the left have done with racism etc) or an actual movement of mccarthyism.
I've seen this get traction in both circles. The left leaning people I know are what I would describe as "sane" but they are still willing to like/retweet this message.
Of course the conservative leaning people are responding more along the lines of "And you called US fascists?!"
I think having mainstream media writers and hosts, as well as an elected representative promote this message is enough to suggest that it's spread too far already. Hopefully this sort of rhetoric dies down and the legal claims about the election are resolved through fair evidence-based examination. If not, I think we might be headed towards yet more unrest.
Thanks! It's so hard to find out what the world looks like from other people's digital/social bubbles...
I totally agree - it's really, really important that conservatives don't feel attacked (let alone hunted) and that concerns about election integrity are taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.
Trump saw the highest turnout among minorities for republicans in 60 years and it’s for a reason. I look back at Ben Franklin or Jefferson or Washington and feel inspired, I don’t think “oh, I’m not privileged I could never do what he did.” I can see people as products of their time and separate the good from the bad. As someone who grew up in an apartment shared between 2 families and worked my way up into college and the tech field I’m just shocked at how many people today have grown into learned helplessness and think that the system is so bad and irreparable that they need to vandalize and protest in cities for months.
The left has done so much more to insult me and my appreciation for this country than the right, and it’s just tragic that they think they’re the only good guys. I really do believe that foreign interference to agitate our society is real, as discussed by Tristan Harris in his interview by Joe Rogan, and it’s convinced millions of young Americans that they’re somehow resisting literal Nazis.