politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
No, it's not an argument, and it's not about blame, it's about the causation of an emotional narrative that gets constructed, and it's that emotional narrative that drives irrational levels of political support.
Your criticism of my comment is rational.
Rationally it's clear that Trump causes Trumpism, his followers are stupid or misfits for going along with it.
But that overlooks my purpose. I'm answering why they do it, I'm telling you the irrational and emotional causes... Not who is rationally "to blame" on a logical level. That's already known.
Because the thing is - people are often driven by their emotions. For many people, right now on the planet you have to live on, for many of those people - logic and reason are after thoughts... Things they decorated their excuses with after the (emotional) fact. It's the superficial dressing they put on and over their emotions, and often on their emotional wounds.
...and all this may be what determines the election outcome.
Okay, let's go down this road. I think you've touched on something important, so I genuinely want to get this.
How have the left played a "huge emotional role" in the polarization? I suppose you could argue that "the libs" or progressives have essentially started to shun those who they find don't agree with them on certain key issues (abortion/birth control, immigration, etc.).
But how does this differ from how political discourse has been for the last few decades? People want to act like cancel culture is this new thing that Millenials invented, but societies have utilized shame in order to shun unwanted or undesirable opinions forever. Really, the only thing that's changed from my perspective is that people have started drawing lines in the sand, and conservative reactionaries stamp all over the lines, then go Pikachu-face when they're boycotted.
.
Yes, that feeling about having said Pow Wow, and being called out on it in the most gentle and polite manner, must he a very small version of the inciting incident many MAGA types probably went through, or feel they went through.
Abd where you were self aware enough to reel in that indignant feeling of being corrected, they can't. They didn't have that, for whatever reason.
It may have been knee jerk, it may have been poor cultural timing, or part of a group looking to exclude them for any reason, it may have been part of their divorce, or maybe they just weren't politically aware enough to deal and cope with being called out. Or maybe they were just a bit slow. But whatever it is, they're stuck there and so are gonna try to alter society to what they said, rather than admit they were out of line, or out of date with current standards of propriety.
Interestingly enough Thomas Piketty the Marxist theorist who wrote Capital in the Twenty First century, predicted that as the wealth gap got larger society would return to Victorian era ideas around social classes, the idea of not marrying below your station, and of not fraternizing with commoners or the poor, or bwong uncouth like them.
I don't know if this might be part of that, but it seems you understand some of the emotional aspects of gow someone slips into the MAGA mindset. The sense of betrayal they must feel.
.
I appreciate the anecdote, because I think it's happened to all of us. I had a similar interaction with someone who balked at my usage of the word "homeless" (I live in a city, so it's come up once or twice), insisting that I should instead call them "unhoused".
I think the important point in your anecdote is saying "it's unsettling and angering to be called out for doing/saying something racist when you in fact are not racist". My stance on this issue is that everyone's a little bit *-ist. Instead of concluding "people can do and say racist things while not being racist", I think a more helpful conclusion would be "people do and say racist shit all the time without meaning it because we have a lot of racism built into our brains".
I agree with you on the othering, however. I dislike when people try and put racists, sexists, etc. in a timeout corner, mostly because it seems to be with the aim of declaring themselves A Good Person rather than actually affecting any social change. I think it's more helpful to say "hey, look, we're all born with a lot of baggage from our environments and parents, and we don't get to choose how our brains are molded".
.
That's anecdotal, but it does display the frustrations that people have with what they perceive as injust wokeness.
I think it's important to mention that shitty people are everywhere and in all shapes and colors; these two may just stand out because he does feel like he has to walk on eggshells around them.
What I will say is that I think it's a mistake to assume that people who are minorities or other discriminated classes are also progressive by nature. In a perfect world, your race and gender would have nothing to do with what political ideology you subscribe to, but we live in a far from perfect world.
.
I didn't say you did, but I can see how you got there.
I don't think cancel culture is a thing. You literally can't cancel anyone in this day and age. Ben Shapiro, Hulk Hogan, Jordan Peterson, Trump, Elon Musk, none of these people who "got cancelled" ever suffered anything other than an opportunity to get their names out there. The controversy is the point, they got clicks out of it. So there's that. Cancelling isn't a thing. It just gets you views.
...that usurps the politics of shame, and it's a very recent change. It now functions as a signal amplifier and makes things into a constant moralization machine. A machine that creates judgementalness. Like, an unnatural and exhaustive amount of judgementalness which starts to come off as fragility. Frailty, weakness, "victim culture" whatever you want to call it. It's a space ripe for trolls who want more views. Like there's a reason Matt Walsh can make millions from the "documentaries" he makes.
Anyways, I don't have a coherent answer for you. I've come to the conclusions I have, seen what I've seen and tried to explain it - it's all very new to me. I realized whilst trying to explain the garbage truck thing on here today.
...that there's two narratives on Trump the garbage man, and that they don't connect, and only one explains Trump's strange behaviours, appearances, and strategies.
Some of the credit for me seeing this, goes to monitoring right wing spaces, and videos like this one from ShoeOnHead - who says she's a progressive leftist, but essentially supports and explains the positions of young right wing men.
...and that probably ties into part of it, gender, race, class, ethnicity. These things are close to people's emotions. To their emotional identities.
I don't think I'm giving a good explanation here because I'm still figuring out how to explain it. But it has to do with
the digital landscape changing the function and profitablity of the politics of shame (Jordan Peterson brags about it this way "I've figured out how to monetize the Social Justice Warriors").
The moralization and judgemental landscape this creates being ripe for more trolling.
Identities being core to what emotionally drives people's responses. Whether that's fragile white masculinity, or Black Lives Mattering, or Trans rights.
An exploitative fascist like Trump coming along who understands PR.
All of this coming together at once creates a digital and emotional landscape that can be manicured by fascists in a way that may get them into office.
Re: coherent answer, that's okay. I'm rarely coherent.
Cancel culture is most certainly a thing. It has the effect of saying to people "hey, if you don't change your views, then your life is going to be a little more unpleasant." You'll get dirty looks when you order coffee with your MAGA hat on, or get laughed at when you drive your Cybertruck down the street. No one is entitled to not have these things happen to them, so in my mind they're fair game.
The reason cancel culture has largely failed is because instead of hearing numerous people say "hey, your opinions and actions make me a little uncomfortable to engage with you as I normally would another person, and so I'm going to not engage with you", conservatives have instead retreated to their own corner (think treehouse that says No Girls Allowed) to all gather and complain that no one else will play with them. In short, they've taken the wrong lesson from it.
The way that podcasts and other methods of engagement have changed the way shame works is an example of this, not evidence that it doesn't work. I would argue that if your identity is built largely on being disrespectful of certain groups of people and looking down upon them, your identity doesn't really deserve to exist. I disagree that Trump "understands" just about anything he says. He has ridden a wave of podcast bros, crypto fanatics, undercover racists, gun nuts, and other people who have taken the wrong lesson from the admittedly annoying moralizing that people have sent their way.
Fascists have most certainly taken advantage of the landscape to boost recruitment and foment dissatisfaction and anger, but I think once again, we're learning the wrong lesson. We need to stop being so tolerant of those who do not in turn show tolerance.
But they do exist, and they're winning the average of polls right now, by 0.4%. They're in place to win the election. That's the problem, they do exist. It's not about that, it's about why they exist.
If you're still "arguing" something, then I don't think you get what I'm saying. There's not a rational explanation. It's emotional. They're operating on emotional paradigms and responses.
Someone wearing a MAGA cap hence, can't be proof cancel culture still exists. You explained peoples reaction to the hat, as cancel culture; the shame the wearer gets, the looks, how uncomfortable that must be - but you didn't explain why the MAGA person still wears the hat!
They've not been cancelled - they're trying to be. They want that level of attention.
They're wearing the hat to "flaunt the law". They're wearing it as a fuck you, I'm part of the club that I think is cool, and we're on Trump's side and they'll all defend anything I do in this hat so you better watch out. It's the Christian side, the family side, the white side, the side that sticks together and are sick of woke, left, moralists. "Tell me I'm wrong, so I can tell you I don't care what you think!" That's their mindset.
They're people who will use the N word if you discuss ethics and morality with them too long. Because that would show you they don't care about that stuff, it hurt when it got pinned on them (before they found MAGA). They didn't like the shame, so now they bask in it, and they think they're good and true and right for doing so. Because no one has a right to judge them (except maybe Trump).
That's not cancel culture working.
They want the intolerance you want to be shown to them. They're celebrating that Biden called them garbage, they see it a chance for a response, and as proof of their emotional position.That: "See! The left were the bad guys all along, they are the moralist bullies we said they were. Mean to us for no good reasons." That's their premise.
They want those things so they can claim that they're being bullied. It's Christianity all over again - a group of people who historically have been pandered to and coddled claim that everyone is being mean to them and so we should be instituting some sort of theocratic state. That'll show them.
I'm not arguing with them, though, am I? I'm making the argument to you and others who (seemingly) aren't all the way down the rabbit hole.
My overarching purpose with all these comments is to dispute the idea that the left is somehow responsible for how the right has gone full-on fascist over the past 4 election cycles. The right is responsible for their own logical and moral failings.
No, the left aren't in any way responsible for the right's fascism, but understanding the role they/we have played in the Trumpist manufacture of a kind of "emotional pornography" that gets used in their propaganda narrative for their fascist outlook, might help in better responding to it, and avoiding the further adoption of that role in the cycle of its production.
Having an emotional role, a part you fall into playing in something, isn't quite the same as being responsible for it. Because this role just comes naturally for a lot of people.
But yeah, thanks you for clarifying your purpose, the right will try regardless, so I agree with what your purpose, and that the left is not responsible for the right, even if the right will sometimes use the left's outrage as a cog in their propaganda machine.
Using shame isn't new. Using shame in this particular way at this particular time appears to be a poor strategy. It's deliberately divisive and conservative reactionaries aren't the only ones who are motivated to vote against it. By now many people who call themselves liberal and have a history of reliably voting for Democrats oppose it too. I think Nate Silver does a good job of expressing why in the context of Israel, although he's looking at a much bigger picture. Most of these people are still voting for Democrats, because Harris is a centrist and Trump is, well, Trump. It's still not helping.
Lemmy is a place where it often seems like leftist views are almost universal among Democrats, but Lemmy is not representative of the large majority of Democratic voters. I don't think most Harris voters (as opposed to just the vocal Democrats online) despise Republicans.
.