Hacker News Reader

Comment by pqhwan | Hacker News Reader

Growing up in a country where I was in the ethnic majority, I went through a period of right-wing political bent as a teenager. Then I came to the US, where I found myself in the minority and leaning left. So I feel that I have some personal insight into the mindset that pushes people right. But... maybe it’s that my past right-leaning self was a teenager with half-baked ideas about the world, when I reflect on what drove me that way, I cannot point to any coherent, constructive thought, mostly feelings of entitlement and an unwillingness to put myself in the other’s shoes. And that’s what I see in the right-wing of today in the US. I guess I empathize with their fear and anger better because of my experience, but I don’t buy that their arguments are just a “different” way of looking at the world; a narrower, myopic way, maybe.

View on HN

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.

> literal Nazis

Is it all the swastikas? Maybe it’s all the swastikas.

It’s disingenuous to suggest that far-right extremists aren’t dominating the messaging from the right, and that Donald Trump isn’t amplifying them.

Agree - Literal swastikas. In America, a country whose most patriotic war was the one where we kicked the shit out of swastikas

many people who have nothing to do with swastikas have been called literally nazis

including myself,an israeli jew

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

Nazism is formally known as National Socialism. (Wikipedia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

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.

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.

> The question is why some on the left think they are fighting nazis.

Using the labeling of the opposition as Nazis as the proof that they are Nazis, is one hell of a circular argument.

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?

> 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.

> Who was trying to remove statues of Lincoln?

Both Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt statues were torn down: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/portland-protesters-tea...

Sure, you could say, “oh but that was two years later”. That’s not a coincidence, it’s the slope of the line when the left encourages an insurrection.

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].

[0] https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity... [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bGtLQh...

> 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.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25019361

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?

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

> Genuinely interested when/where Trump disavowed right wing extremists.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-...

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54381500

> 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.

Here's a compilation of some of the instances he's done so: https://streamable.com/sr9o2s

Title of that one says 20 times, here's one with 38 times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc

> 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?

This isn't specifically about Trump, but about the political tactic of accusing the opponent of "enabling extremists". Both sides are using it.

Let's focus on the falsifiability: What would a candidate have to do in order to disprove the accusation?

If there isn't a clear answer to that question, then how is this tactic materially different from name-calling?

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.

This is probably a bad thing.

Extreme wanting to be like denmark?

> 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.

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.)

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZfzJATDmXs

[1] https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/state-of-the...

[2] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/joe-biden-record-on-...

[3] https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/920385802/biden-vows-to-ease-...

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]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54554286

[1] https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/09/09/...

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.

Can you provide some example links? Maybe in a gist or something.

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.

Meanwhile, stuff like this is pretty mainstream.

WAPO opinion writer and MSNBC contributor - https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/1324792225260253184

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1324807776510595078

The Trump Accountability Project (There are two, the original has now distanced themselves from this one) - https://www.trumpaccountability.net/

MSNBC Host Chris Hayes - Tweet deleted, found this instead https://twitter.com/VoteMarsha/status/1325477249697673217

Thank you for posting this, it was a very helpful perspective for me to hear.

One thing I am curious about – what sorts of people do you see posting things like "We need to make lists of every trump supporter"?

I've seen a bunch, just a few quick ones I've noticed most recently.

WAPO opinion writer and MSNBC contributor - https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/1324792225260253184

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1324807776510595078

The Trump Accountability Project (There are two, the original has now distanced themselves from this one) - https://www.trumpaccountability.net/

MSNBC Host Chris Hayes - Tweet deleted, found this instead https://twitter.com/VoteMarsha/status/1325477249697673217

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.

Thanks, that does sound upsetting.

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.

Here's hoping...

> 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 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 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."

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.

My understanding of other people's experiences is not based on imagination. I've been there. I've seen it. Have you?

Guilt tripping and emotional blackmail is not a path to social justice or any kind of justice. It's a dead end.

"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.".

How deluded do you have to be to think that I'm "puting down" his experiences, just by pointing out that he doesn't speak for everyone?

I hear a lot of Americans saying "I really wish we had socialized health care" and "I wish that women made as much money as men did."

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.

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 think you speak as if you don't currently have a bias. yet something I've noticed and even had to correct amongst coworkers who came to the United States via a student visa and then eventually obtained a green card is that they have a huge bias towards large parts of the United States. This bias has been created in their minds by university professors who have never been to these parts of the country themselves. The bias manifest in things like a coworker being afraid to accompany me on a business trip to Walmart headquarters in Northwest Arkansas thinking it was dangerously racist. I had to explain to him that there are multiple cricket leagues in the area in that racism is not nearly as prevalent in the south as Hollywood would have him believe. He ended up enjoying it so much there that he later relocated there from Fremont. Living near Boulder I routinely encounter the exact same ideological brainwashing amongst people who came to the US as students. I say this is someone that is done extensive volunteer consulting work for the Democratic party including my last gig in 2014 for the midterm elections. I agree with the vast majority of the Democratic party platform but have become very dismayed at them overemphasizing race as a motivating factor for their opposition. I can promise you that for most southern Americans that vote Republican abortion is a much bigger factor in their vote than race. and economics is much bigger than either those categories.

As a foreigner not living in the US of A, I feel that your last paragraph outlines it perfectly. Also, a lot of the outspoken left wing is about groups and not about individuals. To mind comes: institutional racism, gender equality, white privilege, mandatory healthcare/insurance, high taxes on the rich, minimum wage

>I cannot point to any coherent, constructive thought, mostly feelings of entitlement and an unwillingness to put myself in the other’s shoes.

You point this out as if it is some moral failing on the right. In fact, this is a personal failing. It should be simple enough to recognize that for any ideology that is large enough there almost certainly exists coherent and constructive thoughts within it. If you have yet to discover them, this is not because they do not exist, it is because you're not actually looking for them. I think this is done by people on both the left and the right all the time. They fail to deeply investigate the ideas of the other side, and then criticize the other side for having no good ideas.

case in point are the left and right's rhetoric on abortion, which each intentionally bypass the other side's argument. i.e. pro-life rhetoric does not acknowledge that women are inherently stakeholders, while pro-choice: woman's right to choose doesn't address whether the fetus has rights (or choice). It is difficult to make progress when rhetoric pretends that the other side does not have reasoned arguments, but is instead based on toxic masculinity/sexism/paternalism while the other side pretends that those who get abortions are just loose immoral women.

I see no end of this, and that is why I choose to think about actually constructive policies: e.g. free, prevalent, effective birth control for both men and women.

> You point this out as if it is some moral failing on the right.

It’s not a comment on conservative politics as a whole, it’s a reflection on my own past immaturity, and how I recognize it in others when I see it. And I’ve had 4 years to observe Trump’s tweets, Breitbart, alt-right, Qanon, Proud Boys, so if you want to convince me that there’s constructive, long-term thinking behind any of that, you’ll have to be a little more specific than “look harder”.

Funny but the stereotype is the opposite from the 60s. As the saying goes

If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/

Note: I'm not conservative and I don't necessarily agree with the quote. The point is not that the quote is correct, the point is someone (not me) thought it was the unthinking young person that thought alone liberal lines and the experienced wise person that thought along conservative lines.

Again, not agreeing, just pointing out some feel the opposite, that more experience and exposure to the world leads to more conservative thinking for some people.

I believe there is some evidence to suggest that there was a mistaken correlation between getting older and getting more invested in the world as it is (i.e. getting richer).

Given that the age at which people tend to switch is increasing, I wonder if there may be something to it.

I don't think "I didn't have a good reason for being conservative, therefore conservatives in general don't have good reasons" is a very strong argument...

> Growing up in a country where I was in the ethnic majority, I went through a period of right-wing political bent as a teenager.

I think it's inevitable when majority of people that surround you have conservative views. Don't feel bad about that.

> don't feel bad that you were a conservative at some point we all make mistakes

My god, the sense of moral superiority.

When innocent people are murdered in their homes, who would you say are more moral? The people protecting the murderer or the people seeking justice for the murdered?

Conservatives as a cohort are murdering and/or support murdering people in their homes?

What in the world are you talking about?

" maybe it’s that my past right-leaning self was a teenager with half-baked ideas about the world, when I reflect on what drove me that way, I cannot point to any coherent, constructive thought, mostly feelings of entitlement and an unwillingness to put myself in the other’s shoes. And that’s what I see in the right-wing of today in the US. "

It seems you had a bad experience with what you felt were 'right wing' ideals but probably had little to do with that, as it would be a pretty intellectually shallow description of any kind of Conservatism (although understandable if one were to equate 'Trump' with 'Conservative' and I don't think many people would in the intellectual sense) and also oddly experientially 'upside down'.

Most 'young people' are progressive, people tend to get more conservative as they get older.

Cynically, one could say it's due to age and myopia, but more likely it has to do with responsibility, perspective, maturity and frankly living through decades and seeing how the world adapts.

Believing in the institutions of family (and monogamy as a commitment to that institution), the objective rule of law, moral obligation through duty of various kinds of community service, prudence, faith as an integral part of worldview, a sense of community that can possibly be expressed through nationalism, the notion that people must act responsibly to the extent they are able and assume responsibility for their actions - these are not ideals of 'entitlement' frankly.

Barack Obama, for example, is a 'Progressive Conservative', and he is in many ways in his own personal life a model 'cultural conservative': religious, church going, mild mannered, straight forward marriage, traditional formal education. He speaks formally and graciously, and is literally a living embodiment of many cultural historical artefacts. He didn't serve in the military but he very well could have, it's totally within his character.

He's not at all that far away from Mitt Romney for example.

Donald Trump is not a 'Conservative' or even 'right wing' really, he's just a jerk who found a 'following' in appealing to the worst qualities of 'bad right wing tropes'.

"In 1999, Trump described himself as "very pro-choice" and said "I believe in choice." (Wikipedia)

Donald Trump was a tough-guy New York 'kind of Democrat' most of his life. He always supported gay marriage. The Clintons were literally at his wedding to Melania.

He's a serial scammer, effectively a polygamist who marries woman purely on the basis of their attractiveness and then dumps them later, cavorts with prostitutes, lies, cheats, steals.

He changes his political views to suit the day, because they don't matter to him - he's just about being rich and popular.

He's managed to convince a lot of people that he is something that he is not, and that's sad, and it's brought out the worst in so many people, and that's what we are seeing today.

Have a look at this Charlie Rose interview with Senator Jeff Flake who's a much more traditional conservative, and FYI detests Donald Trump and 'fell on his sword' rather than go along with the toxicity. [1]

[1] https://charlierose.com/videos/30822

Excellent analysis (not sarcasm; I enjoyed reading this)

I guess what a lot of us are struggling with is how anyone cannot see these truths for themselves in Trump. I don't need to listen to anyone but Trump himself to realize he lies constantly and has only a rudimentary grasp of how government and society functions. His history in popular culture speaks for itself. So what is going on with the 70 million people who can't see that plainly? The only conclusion we can reach is "he says the quiet part out loud" and that resonates with a lot of people. "They are sending us murders and rapists" was an early example that has stuck with me. Perhaps it is not a charitable view but nearly every office holding member of the GOP lined up to lick his boots after he said thousands of things like that.

As near as I can tell, Conservatism is deader than disco.

I would agree. The explanation I have for it in the US is tribalism. Thats it. I'm an immigrant to the US and feel like I have an outsiders perspective. I find that American's suffer a from a severe case of Proportionality Bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_bias when they think about American Politics. They think that because Trump has had a large effect on American Politics, there has to be larger forces at play. "He's some kind of political genius", "He's playing 3D chess", "There is some kind of unexplained magic to his words" etc etc. It's much more basic than that, he found a way to speak to the baser parts of one of the tribes and turn them against the other tribe.He makes his tribe feel good and promises to get the other tribe who are very bad people. It's amazingly and shockingly basic.

It is both incredibly simple and readily apparent. What is interesting/amusing is how the further up the right-wing food chain you climb the closer you get to people who you _know_ understand the difference and can see what is happening and what is being said, but who will deny and justify for the sake of eliminating the cognitive dissonance between their own reasoning and what the leader of their tribe is saying.

Here on HN if is almost funny to watch the different flavours of Trumpkin try to explain and justify themselves. You have the hard-core believers who only barely manage to keep the racism and xenophobia in check but can still throw out a dog whistle all the way to the ones who probably once thought of themselves as principled conservatives but who are reduced to simple projection when presented with facts ('no, we are not the ones driven by fear and anger, it is the left...') As unpleasant as the Trump experience has been, one of its few benefits has been to let the truly cretinous among us feel like they have permission to drop the mask and show us who they really are.

While I'd agree Trump has indirectly revealed the priorities of many, let's take care not to permanently label people.

I was on the right most of my life and hated Trump. Yet he seemed to be the least worst for many single issue voters. Thankfully forums like this helped challenge my worldview enough to overcome the indoctrination of my youth. Now my entire perspective had flipped.

Everyone has the capacity to change. And that's much more likely to happen in a welcoming and curiosity friendly environment than an echo chamber.

As they say in Germany, if there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis. There is a lot of variation in political opinion that I enjoy and solicit and I enjoyed having some honest conservatives as friends, but to support Trump four years ago is bad and to support him today is unconscionable. I am happy to write-off those who spent the past year supporting trump and do not care if they have the capacity to change because as far as I and a lot of other people are concerned they decided to sit at the table with the Nazi.

This sums it up. Trump took low participation voters and made politics sport for them. The slogan "make libs cry again" - it's not about what he can do for them, it's about how he can hurt "the other". That his supporters identified with him so much every attack against him they felt was an attack on them.

The rabid cult of personality that popped up around him has been highly disturbing to watch. Decking everything out in shirts, hats, flying his name as a flag, painting your house with his name, covering your vehicle with flags. The non-stop rallies and campaigning even after he was elected.

And no, before someone trys to compare, it was not like that with Obama. People were excited about him but it did not become an everyday identity alongside a never-ending campaign.

The only conclusion we can reach is "he says the quiet part out loud"

If you ignore the last 4 years of analysis of what motivates Trump voters, why he's popular despite his personality issues and so on, then sure, you can "only" reach one conclusion. But it's the wrong one.

Still, it's great fun believing half of America is filled with racist hatred isn't it?

As near as I can tell, Conservatism is deader than disco.

It just drew basically level with the left despite Biden being far more presidential than Trump, and despite nearly the entire media and tech industry pulling every lever they could for Biden. That seems very far from dead.

I think that this is what cost him the election. Some people voted for Trump, some against Biden, some for Biden, and some against Trump. The latter two groups are 7 millions bigger than the first two groups. That's what we know. Looking at the Senat/House races, there seems to be a sizeable group of people voting Biden, and then pro Republican further down. I interpret that as "against Trump, but also against the general goals of Democrats as perceived by them". I believe this is because the Republicans managed to paint all Democrats as Bernie-like Socialists, while the Democrats did not manage to paint all Republicans as Trump like Idiots/Racists/Liars.

I'm not saying the Democrats should, but they should try harder not to be painted as Socialists, if they are not. Or be socialist. I don't think the latter is a winning strategy in America, but at least they would lose for what they stand for, not for what they don't stand for.

I'm really sad to see so many Trump supporters as well, but ... but maybe you are young?

Bill Clinton banged a very young intern in the Oval Office.

Bill Clinton lied, deceived, distorted, mislead - and then very 'point blank' lied about that directly to the Justice system, which is illegal.

Do you remember that? I do.

Bill Clinton has legitimate accusations of sexual assault hanging out there against him - just like Trump.

Why did Democrats (and others) 'forgive him'? And 'look the other way'?

How was the Democrat Brand not 'destroyed forever' by a 'Serial Abuser in Chief' in Office?

Democrats (and others) forgave him, because they think it was not so bad, that ultimately he was a good person, the act was ostensibly consensual, the Republicans were making to much of it - etc etc..

Some people simply don't see a 55 year married old man, banging a 22 year old intern in a prestigious office as hugely relevant. Others do.

I think most Donald Trump supporters believe that he 'Loves America' that he's a 'Business Genius' who just 'Speaks Plainly' and sometimes says aggressive things, but that it doesn't mean much.

I personally don't think any of those things are true, but it's not hard to see how people watching Fox News might be 'believers'.

To some people 'they are sending us their rapists' is like an inappropriate Chines accent or an off colour joke - inappropriate and little bit offensive, but not existentially so.

"I guess what a lot of us are struggling with is how anyone cannot see these truths for themselves in Trump. "

I don't think they do see 'Traditional Conservative' in him - I think they see mostly something else and that's my point.

If the GOP base wanted a 'Traditional Conservative' there are a dozen other, more obvious choices.

But it's all moot: Trump really isn't much of a 'Conservative' in any way, it's a 'Bully Nationalist' which unfortunately 1/2 of Republicans will vote for because they want to, the rest will vote reluctantly.

Both traditional Conservatism and 'American Socialism' (i.e. Centre Left) are not 'dead' - they are everywhere but it's that populism is having it's time, and supported in the press.

The Intersectionalist Reactionaries on the Left are very close to taking over the Democratic party, much as Trump 'barn stormed' the GOP.

I'm old enough that I voted for Clinton, and yes I did see it that way and since then I haven't criticized any politician about sexual indiscretions. I think it reflects negatively on character but its a common flaw.

I try to look past Trump's character flaws but they are so embarrassing and cringe inducing, and when you add the poor foreign policy, bungled COVID response and really very serious incitement of hatred, violence, and division he's created its really still quite perplexing but I appreciate your thoughts on it.

Trump's character flaws are clearly existential and deeply problematic, I think to any mature observer.

Not only is he a brutal narcissist who cares only about himself, he's willing to throw a democracy away for his vanity and power.

My articulation is more about 'mass perception' not so much what he actually is.

Clearly Bill Clinton is a good man, so are McCain, Romney, Obama, even Bush etc..

'Understanding Trump Support' is hard because what 'smart people see' is something completely different than what the plebes see. They think he's a genius, brilliant businessman, and probably don't realize how powerful his negative language about migrants etc. really is, they just don't understand what statesmanship actually is or how important that it is that he is a role model as well. I guess it's one of the more obvious problems of raw populism.

> Believing in the institutions of family (and monogamy as a commitment to that institution), the objective rule of law, moral obligation through duty of various kinds of community service, prudence, faith as an integral part of worldview, a sense of community that can possibly be expressed through nationalism, the notion that people must act responsibly to the extent they are able and assume responsibility for their actions - these are not ideals of 'entitlement' frankly.

I kind of agree with you. However - maybe I am wrong - but you seem to equate these values with "conservatism" and believe other people think these are ideals of "entitlement". I don't think non-conservatives, myself included think that way or don't believe in these values. But feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you.

You make a good point.

A lot of classical left/liberal and conservative values are not 'opposite' so much as 'orthogonal' and it's a matter of relative importance, focus etc..

That's really strange because I agree with exactly everything that you said except swap Democrat for Republican I was a Democrat when I was young didn't care about anybody else now I'm a Republican and I have morals

I would say you’re definitely misunderstanding the right in the US. It has nothing to do with that here. It’s largely the left showing fear and anger, although many seem oblivious to it.

> maybe it’s that my past right-leaning self was a teenager with half-baked ideas about the world, when I reflect on what drove me that way, I cannot point to any coherent, constructive thought, mostly feelings of entitlement and an unwillingness to put myself in the other’s shoes.

Thank you for saying this. It's hard to admit an error.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com