bastion ,

It's kinda funny how fanatically people point out that it's the other side that's the problem.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

Get out of here with your "both sides" garbage.

I've never had someone left of center tell me a whole group of people deserve to be locked up or killed. I had a right wing nut tell me just yesterday that all lgbtq folk are complicit in rape and pedophilia and deserve to be hanged. Sadly, that's not even close to the only time someone has said that to me.

Both sides might be part of the problem here, but only one side is off their fucking rockers.

bastion ,

Nah. Both sides are off their rockers. Absolute fucking nutters. One's just more violent. But neither can be trusted with any kind of control over others.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

🙄 "Both sides"

Vote 3rd party and shut up then. I'm tired of hearing about how both parties are "equally bad"

The fact is that things tend to change for the better under democrats, albeit slowly. Republican judges just today gutted a long standing regulatory precedent that's going to pave the way for capitalists to bleed Americans dry.

One party is luke warm. The other one is actively and progressively destroying our nation. I won't entertain the idea that they are even close to the same.

bastion ,

The debt is going to come calling, and I'm sure you'll blame Republicans, and I'm sure they'll blame you.

Perhaps I'll have my place self-sustaining by then, perhaps not. But I'll be sure to keep plenty of popcorn stocked.

Seasoned_Greetings ,

The debt will never come calling if calling on the debt means destabilizing the world economy. I'm sure you'd like to see that, but virtually every single player in that debt doesn't.

So take your cryptic misinformation and go hide in a cabin in the woods. Meanwhile, the adults who understand that shit doesn't get done by itself will be picking up the mess that political pacifists like you leave when you cower behind the notion that both sides are the same.

Illuminostro , (edited )

No. The United States government was designed to be ruled by white land owning men. An aristocracy. The only difference from an outright monarchy is that the "King" is to be elected by white land owning men, the "King" or any of his barons or earls can't have you outright killed on a whim (at least, legally,) and there is no state religion that can have you killed on a whim for a being a "heretic."

The current aristocracy is tired of these limitations interfering with their greed and need for control, so they want to set up a Russian style oligarchy with a puppet "King" that they control. And it appears they've already won. The fascists control SCOTUS, both The House and The Senate. Trump will never be prosecuted for insurrection, and what we know as "American Democracy" will be dismantled. Expect to see the return of debt slavery, introduction of pro religious discrimination laws, imprisonment of gays/transpeople, reintroduction of racial miscegenation laws, abolisment of Social Security and Medicare in favor of some 401k invesment scam, and every other hateful form of fuckery for a profit you can imagine.

Leave now, if you can.

fruitycoder ,

If every person that desperately wanted change for a better world fled for hills the world would be worse for it.

Illuminostro ,

Tell that to the descendants of the survivors of the Nazi concentration camps.

fruitycoder ,

Only possible because of those that choose to fight. Discretion is the better part of valor and everything but we have to stand up when and where we can.

mojofrododojo ,

why? because it's all they have left.

demographics are changing. their population is aging. their kids hate the way they live and move away.

intensely_human ,

Why don’t you ask a conservative or a republican?

hydrospanner ,

Because they've also got the lie-a-beetus.

intensely_human ,

So your philosophy has the effect of cutting communication between you and about 50% of your countrymen? Doesn’t that make you feel like you’re being used?

Illuminostro ,

They love money, are afraid of losing a single cent of it, and want to control the government so they have to pay as little taxes as possible. That's it. Everything else, the culture war stuff, is just to get the stupid poors to vote against their self interest.

BonesOfTheMoon ,

Fanaticism is overcompensation for doubt. They're afraid.

cmeu ,

Yep this. They are afraid that their way of life is being threatened... Just like the other fanatics
There are religious fanatics, sporta fanatics, Independent fanatics prepping for the aliens to come and kill them, etc.
Mobs are dangerous no matter the flag they wave.

fruitycoder ,

Radicals radicalize radicals.

Only stable conditions, equaliberiam or entropy deradicalize.

Social was a flash point. Large parts of society interacted for the first time. Echo chambers formed, energy level increase, radical leave the bubbles and new groups militerize in defense.

It made less sense to people out of the loop though. Nazis, antifa, police are raciest, lgbtq, Christian nationalism, socialism, etc. All of these ideas were subcultures that grew bubble online cause they could (much like the Arab spring), and the radicals that formed and took action made big moves from everyone else's ignorance.

The majority didn't have the means, and frankly still don't, to hold the concepts or ideas as unique groups so instead they mapped onto the two party system warts and all. Because "right wing" was Republican the opposing side told everyone "right wing" is Republican. So Republican had to either disavow or defend them, but when these groups wanted to act politically they had almost no choice but to fit in predefined parties.

Its been mostly good, that's the crazy thing, gay rights, trans rights, police reforms, the DoJ has how many anti trust cases going on now?, how unions are forming?, etc

masquenox ,

Tell me you don't know what the term radical means without telling me you don't know what the term radical means.

fruitycoder ,

Riots, terriost plots, open calls for revolutions, etc all fall in that camp in my mind

masquenox ,

Should you be using terms if you don't actually know what they mean?

fruitycoder ,

I mean I guess I could use the Victoria 3 definition but I chose this one since its more contemporary

masquenox ,

I mean I guess I could use the Victoria 3

Is that one better than the cheap one CNN (and you) are using?

fruitycoder ,

Radical is just further left than reformer.

Is that better?

I use it more like free radicals but applied as people. Little agents of chaos that disrupt the system.
Again for better and worse.

masquenox ,

I was going to say radicalism (as a political concept) refers to the practice of looking for the root causes of society's ills as opposed to merely fixating on (if we're going to be charitable about it) superficial ones as reformist and reactionary politics would have us to do, and this makes radicalism an inherently left-wing thing and something reactionaries (and most of their reformist allies) will take extreme measures to prevent - including completely handing the state and it's repressive apparatus over to reactionaries (ie, what we call fascism today).

But you know what? This...

Radical is just further left than reformer.

...is, so far, the only half-way decent response I've ever had to this in about five year's time - so I'm just going to leave it as is.

freeman ,

Didn't you shoot university students for protesting the Vietnam war?

barryamelton , (edited )

Climate change is real. We either do nothing and everything changes, or we change our way of living to save humanity. Either way, change is coming.

There's nothing to conserve. Conservatism doesn't have a ground in facts & reality, if it ever had. Hence conservatism now fights fanatically for its own survival, and capitalism survival, at the behest cost of all us, the progress that humanity has achieved so far, and the planet that we all share.

Sconrad122 ,

FYI, I'm pretty sure "at the behest of" means "as requested by", but it looks like you meant something more like "to the detriment of" or "at the cost of"

barryamelton ,

You are right, thanks! Edited

GlendatheGayWitch ,

The rejection of fanaticism went out the door along with E Pluribus Unum in the 50's when the Christian nationalists forced their religion on the national motto. Then over the next decade black people were lynched and attacked with fire hoses when they were asking for basic rights.

They also started conversion camps where they emotionally and sometimes physically and secually abuse minors in conversion camps to attempt to change sexual orientation.

I believe it was Nixon who helped foem fox News to pull the Republicans further right and we've been seeing the consequences of that.

Basically the fanaticism has always been there, but with the internet and social media, it's easier for them to make their voice heard.

Neato ,
@Neato@ttrpg.network avatar

We have never rejected fanaticism.

The revolution was built on fanatical ideas and ideals of American exceptionalism and where was propaganda to support that.

The civil was started primarily because the wealthy didn't want to give up free labor (slaves) but a lot of individuals supported it because they felt the big scary northern government was attacking their homes and they had to defend them and their way of life (still, slavery,).

Pretty much every war is sold based on fanaticism. The Spanish American war was wholesale created by yellow journalism. The world wars were a bit different because America was very isolationist then and it needed a push.

Overall America isn't an exception here. Most humans need to be fanatical to really do big things like war or revolution.

fruitycoder ,

Actually a lot of the southern secession was built on the so called conserstone of the Confederacy that maintaining a racial heirachy of white supremcey was the only way to preserve the white race and avoid total violent retribution from the freed slaves.

And I mean the latter idea really wasn't crazy most slave rebellions had very very bloody, because obviously they would be (and very justifiably so).

bear ,

Immigration. In 20 years Texas has changed from 70% white Americans to 50%. In 30 years all of America has changed from 80% to 60%.

Sidyctism2 ,

Is that just down to immigration though? To me it seems that it is in part also because of the common understanding of what "being white" means: racial descriptions often still come down to a sort of visual one-drop-rule. If somebody looks even a bit off-white, they are seen as black. Common example here would be Obama, who is mixed race, but universally seen as a black man, even though thats just half the truth. With such an understanding of what it means to be black or white, a lowering percentage of white people is inevitable, even without immigration.

fruitycoder ,

That's honestly a good point. Anti immigration rhetoric is wildy different across the US in part from this. Where some Hispanics are extremely raciest reasons for being anti immigration with the belief that they are "white" but the Midwest or southern definitions of whiteness excludes them.

jubilationtcornpone , (edited )

During WWII the United States government rounded up tens of thousands of people, including many US citizens, and put them in internment camps because they looked sort of similar to the people who bombed pearl harbor. Why? Because fear is a powerful drug and when people are afraid, logic tends to go out the window, if there was any logic to begin with. If you pay attention to conservative rhetoric, you'll notice that much of it is intended to stoke fear, while inserting themselves as the solution. They do it because it works.

Way out in the Arkansas Delta, in a soybean field 50 miles from anywhere, there is a memorial where one of these internment camps stood. If you aren't looking for it, you'd probably drive right by it unnoticed. All around the camp there are these little voice boxes that you push a button on and it explains what you're looking at. The voice providing the narration is none other than George Takei who was held there with his family as a child.
Spend a little time at a place like this and it will quickly disabuse you of the notion that America has always rejected fanaticism.

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/22f24dab-f14c-434e-9185-e4c516faa22e.jpeg

fruitycoder ,

There was also the very real fear of spies during WWII. Not that at all excuses interment camps.

Gabadabs ,

I think it's important to question the idea that the US has "always rejected fanaticism". Sure, our state doesn't want to be viewed that way. I just think that looking at our history shows a lot of fanatic shit, from the way settlers treated the native population, to all of our conflicts in the 1900's to now.

beebarfbadger ,

Mention the concept of a daily stand-up pledge of allegiance in schools in any other democracy and get laughed at.

hydrospanner ,

Hell, in the inter-war period, mainstream America was even generally pretty comfortable with...uh...if not actual fascism, at least things that looked and sounded a lot like fascism.

D1stractableSocSci ,

Buddy sent me this link. I'm a professional social scientist who works in this area. There's a lot, but I'm gonna focus on two things.

  1. Donald Trump, 2) Slanted elections
  1. Donald Trump. He has been the de-facto party leader since his nomination for the presidency in 2016. He has repeatedly endorsed and encouraged violence among his supporters, culminating with the January 6 Capitol Attack. And he hasn't stopped. (The opinions and beliefs of leadership trickle down to shape the beliefs of their supporters--see an example here. Despite many of their misgivings, one of three things happened to Trump's GOP opponents:
    -A) They voluntarily left elected office (Bob Corker)
    -B) They were punished for criticizing him (Liz Cheney), or
    -C) They fell in-line (Ted Cruz).
    Those who left the GOP or were forced out have been replaced by more extreme leaders yet--folks like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Few left in the GOP openly challenge Trump because they've seen what happens to those who do. So there's no one of much influence within the GOP capable of leading a credible anti-Trump charge.
  2. The GOP is better shielded from the electoral consequences of extremism than Democrats.
    Owing to aggressive partisan gerrymandering after Republicans swept statehouses in 2010, MANY state and U.S. House districts were drawn to maximize the number of uncompetitive elections that would all but ensure Republican majorities. You see this in many states that are very competitive at the state level like North Carolina and Wisconsin, but Republicans have locked up enough statehouse seats to retain control of legislatures, even when most of the state's vote went to Democrats. Uncompetitive elections mean that incompetent, corrupt, and extreme candidates who alienate most voters can still defeat moderate consensus-builders. What happens is Democrats have to run candidates with exceptional cross-appeal (i.e., moderate consensus-builders) if they want even slim electoral wins. Meanwhile, Republicans can hold onto those majorities without having to moderate.
Rekorse ,

This answers the question of why republican politicians are behaving the way they are, but not the republican voters.

Presumably none of these people would have any power were they not voted in, even with gerrymandering.

Can you give another answer focusing on the average republican voter as well?

UltraGiGaGigantic ,

first-past-the-post voting artificially limits the number of viable political parties. This reduces the competition in the electoral system, reducing the quality of the representation across the political spectrum.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •