Of all the schisms that cleave contemporary America, few are more stark than the divide between those who consider themselves to be victims of US history and those who fear they will be casualties of its future.
Of all the schisms that cleave contemporary America, few are more stark than the divide between those who consider themselves to be victims of US history and those who fear they will be casualties of its future.
Well, it’s very accurate from one perspective anyway. The author is obviously a Democrat/progressive.
That’s a convenient way to dismiss something that doesn’t fit your view.
Based on op comment, I thought it was going to be an objective assessment of different views and perspectives, but it obviously isn’t. Maybe that was my bad assumption.
In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one’s view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you’re not being fair at all; you’re giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don’t want to admit you’ve been played
Yeah, historical accuracy is implicitly anti-Conservative. Before you know it you’ll be asking for such biased things as “evidence” and “accountability”.
I don’t believe in putting the worst possible spin and interpretation on one person or party and giving the other a complete pass. I was hoping for an objective assessment of conservatives motives and beliefs, but it was pretty much the same old “conservatives are racist”. Trying to distill it down to racism is ignorant at best, but is more likely just another opinion piece with an agenda. Is Trump tapping into nationalist tendencies? Well yeah, but that’s not what characterizes conservatives in general, and it’s not racist in and of itself. Nationalism isn’t necessarily racist (though it can be, and to some it is), specifically it’s pride in what the nation stands for and what is required to maintain the nation the way it is. Or at least the essence that makes the nation. Again, to some this has racism at its roots, but to most (in my experience), it’s about ideals and values that are irrelevant of race. What do you think are the core differences between progressives and conservatives? What is the true, fundamental difference in world view between one who is conservative and one who is progressive?
One believes government can be leveraged to encourage/enact positive change, that a lot of people need to be coerced into doing what’s right (read: business owners) and that a population doesn’t need to reenforce or retain one race as their majority, that a diverse population breeds creativity and growth is inspired by such.
The other believes that government shouldn’t be responsible for anything other than the defense of the country, that the society of that nation is almost entirely decided by the race and culture of a given majority and that it should always remain as such. (Read: there’s your racism) and that might makes right (money = power. You gained that money however you did and therefore what you do with it is always morally correct.)
Thanks for actually answering the question! I would distill it down a little further though, and say that the difference between conservative and progressive is that progressives believe that human nature is malleable and that the system can be used to drive humanity in a positive direction. On the other hand, conservatives believe that human nature cannot be fundamentally changed and that attempts to do so will result in dystopia of some kind, or an overall decrease in happiness as humankind strays further from it’s nature. Obviously there are people within either of these camps who take things way too far. I don’t remember where I read this theory, but it’s the only one that has held up over the years and in various contexts.
Human nature has nothing to do with it, and whoever gave you that theory was selling something.
“Progressives” are a form of liberal that seek to preserve the status quo by allowing minor alterations to relieve the pressure of the system’s internal contradictions. “Conservatives”, in contrast, are liberals who want to preserve the status quo by enforcing its hierarchies against whoever they perceive as being an outside influence.
Classical Liberals, the whole lot of them.
I suppose the third type of person is a revolutionary, who wants to throw it away and start over. But then what, continue the cycle of revolution once the next generation arrives? Or is there an end point? Do you think it can actually be achieved? From a practical perspective, does human nature allow that?
Regressives are racist, though. They specifically chose to be racist theocrats as part of Southern Strategy. They ran a racist who said Mexicans are rapists and thieves (ironically he is a rapist and a thief). They are currently running a racist who is saying Haitian people are stealing pets and eating them.
“This article is too biased because it correctly presents the racist nationalism party as participating in racist nationalism.”
You literally made no effort to understand my comment.
You literally made no effort to understand the article
The current GOP is still entrenched in their Southern Strategy. To quote Lee Atwater:
This plus fundamentalist Christianity is the basis of the modern GOP playbook, only now it’s Latinos that are the target, at least moreso than blacks
Sure we can’t distill it down to just racism since the GOP has become so entrenched with the religious right, so let’s just call it Christofascist Racism, but let’s not ignore 60 years of Republican racism and bullshit
Edit: Lemmy blocks the n-word even when it’s a direct quote, but Atwater was using that derogatory term for blacks in the above quote
That’s just demagoguery. There’s a guy I know who thinks progressives hate America and everything they do is for the sole purpose of destroying it. It’s like that. I get that it’s far simpler to reduce your (political) enemies that way, but it’s lazy and uninteresting to me.
Your guy isn’t in the inner circle of the highest ranking members of a party. Atwater was, and refer to the quote above. Rather than being overt, they couch the racism in other terms, but it’s the same terms.
Since the 1960s and the ERA and Nixon, racism and fear-of-the-Other has been intrinsic to the Republican party.
Like… Per their own words. In the quote I referenced. From someone in the inner circle of the Republican party, and who helped them get elected. How? By preying on the fear-of-the-Other ie racism
Defending nationalism. Great stance.
If you have no interest in a discussion, you can just say that.
Except he is not American.
No need to be pedantic. My point is that the author clearly likes Harris and doesn’t like Trump. The author does a good job illustrating the perspective of people who like Harris and don’t like Trump. But someone who likes Trump and doesn’t like Harris would say that the author doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Nobody who likes Trump is worth listening to. Nobody.
Not even to try to understand them so that you can address the root cause of why they like him? Or is the fact that they like him evidence of them being irredeemable and flawed humans? In that case, how should they be dealt with?
The root cause is immaterial, because those people don’t like Trump. They like an idea of who Trump is, an idea that is informed almost exclusively by PR teams and marketing campaigns.
The appropriate way to “deal with” people who are trapped in a media filter bubble is to ignore them. They are of no consequence until they try to leave their bubble and interact with those outside it, at which point they are forced to either come to terms with their deception or else double-down and retreat even deeper into it.
I mostly agree with you about the bubbles. Getting outside your bubble is extremely important. It’s important that they get outside, but additionally it’s important for each of us to step outside our own bubble to make sure it isn’t happening to us. None of us is above that affect, and it’s instinctive to seek validation of our own preconceived notions. Trump has a propaganda machine working for him, but his opposition has an equally powerful machine working as well. Would you recognize it? Can you tell when it’s the machine and when it’s the truth? It’s pretty tough to separate out the noise, especially in a place like this that has an overwhelming sameness of opinion.
I’m not a Democrat either, but I am so familiar with their machinations that I correctly predicted the last 9 years of national politics based on how Dems did Bernie dirty in the 2016 primary, all the way down to knowing Biden would have to drop out to give Harris a chance this year.
I’m autistic, which doesn’t make me immune to propaganda but does makes it very easy to recognize when someone is trying to manipulate public opinion. The truth has almost nothing to do with politics, ours is an entirely vibes-based government.
The noise is especially important, because political machines are colonial superorganisms. Their leadership likes to pretend otherwise, but they don’t speak with one voice, they are more like beehives where each individual has to coordinate their activities with the rest of the swarm. It’s important to know the range of acceptable opinions within the in-group and those that are tolerated outside it, and the noise is where human political organisms do their bee-dancing.
Journalists have been talking about how we need to understand them for 8 years now. What more is there to understand beyond what’s common knowledge already? They’re extremely gullible and most of them are extremely racist and uneducated. Some of them think they’ll benefit from Trump’s tax policies.
Gee, it’s almost as if – how’s it go again? – “facts don’t care about your feelings.”
Are you saying that there is no opinion in that article? That it’s all facts?
No it’s just that it’s written for a much smaller audience than I thought it was going to be. The article is fine and seems to accurately depict the position and perspective of people who don’t like Trump or conservatives.
Did you even read the rest of the article? Or did you just Ctrl+F “Trump” and “Harris”?
It’s just that I thought it was supposed to be objective and a fair representation of different perspectives, and it clearly isn’t.
In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one’s view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you’re not being fair at all; you’re giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don’t want to admit you’ve been played
It’s that gosh-darn problem with facts having a liberal bias again.
“Objective” and “fair” is when reading facts doesn’t hurt their feelings by correctly stating that the entire Republican party is rotten with bigotry and is actively working on dismantling the government so the wealthy can rule without nasty obstructions like environmental laws.