I think you have to play pretty fast and loose with the groups involved to come to these conclusions.
The OP characterizes this as a cultural revolution, but I don't think he made a particularly good case for it. Notably, I think "passively tolerating left-wing extremism while cracking down on right-wing extremism" is pretty weak evidence for CR. Rather, I would argue that CR begins when left authoritarianism begins--when the mainstream, majority viewpoint (the Overton Window) takes a back-seat to the left-wing extremist viewpoint due to intimidation.
If I were to argue that we're on the brink of a CR, I would sooner invoke cancel culture: threatening to get someone fired for espousing mainstream viewpoints (e.g., advocating for nonviolent protest or Tweeting an interview with a black man concerned about black-on-black crime). I would invoke BLM riots (no, I'm not talking about peaceful protests) and a media that refused to challenge the predominant narrative with obvious questions (e.g., "How are we collectively so sure that the cause of the shooting disparity is 'racist police' and not some other factor, to the extent that we are ready to burn neighborhoods to the ground rather than entertain dialogue?") and instead spent months rationalizing the violence. I would also note how remarkable it was that nearly every business in the hardest-hit areas were quick to hang "This business supports BLM" or "PoC owned business" signs, while their suburban and rural locations felt no such compulsion. I would invoke surveys showing chilled speech in newsrooms and the academy or an explicit willingness, pride even, from the same institutions to discriminate solely on the basis of politics.
Ultimately though, while left-wing extremism is concerning, I'm less interested in arguing over the threshold at which it becomes "Cultural Revolution". I think we should content ourselves to note that it is fundamentally illiberal and anti-human and continue advancing the causes of peace, justice, equality, and prosperity.
One strains themselves wondering how anyone could possibly know this as a fact. Take a breath and think about this statement for a second and it becomes absurd in the extreme. This is disinformation par excellence; it sounds great if you agree, but cannot possibly be a fact either way. Bravo
It is constantly amazing to me that although we had a white supremacist president in the US, HN commenters always want to stress how “illiberal and anti-human” left wingers are. If I recall correctly, there are about 525k bodies on that president to be accounted for first
To my mind the Capitol raid is playing a much larger role in their minds. The thought isn't "we need to create a far left America" but "we came way too close to the peaceful transfer of power being usurped."
In a country with more firearms in civillian ownership then every other countries military combined, Nobody in the Democratic party believes there was actually an insurrection. If there were, there'd be no place for congress or the senate to hide from the nationwide guerilla warfare.
As has happened so many times in politics, political parties get hijacked. The Democrats have been hijacked by foreign interests, the Republicans are in the process of being hijacked by domestic populists.
Er, Senate “districts” are States, it is impossible for them to be gerrymandered. So clearly that's impossible for 2 out of 3.
And while Pelosi is in the House, no one is going to point to CA-12 as much of an example of gerrymandering.
I caught them claiming a complaint about efficacy in the Pfizer vaccine was about safety, after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study. I read the study and you can go look at my response[1]. The tell of the troll is that he never comes back to finish arguments....
The fact that HN thinks they have a handle on the disinformation here is laughable. This site was featured in a New Yorker article, does not filter out obvious propaganda, and allows anyone to say anything as long as its cordial. To think they could combat nation state level attacks with two people is ridiculous. This is a soft target.
The only thing we can do is pay attention to what our eyes and ears tell us.
Really? Perhaps people on HN have lives and dislike engaging with hostile actors on the Internet.
>after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study
If you think I was putting you down, I sincerely apologize. I simply meant that anyone who understands the science well should read it. Nothing more. The insight of the knowledgeable on contradictory information is most helpful in challenging times.
I am surprised you appear to have engaged in a vendetta based upon a misinterpretation.
You have yet to come clean about the obvious disinformation you are spreading, and seek only to redirect the conversation to something interpersonal instead of factual.
Setting the interpersonal aside, How can one claim in good faith that they are representing the truth, when they demonstrably lie about the content of their citations to further their argument and refuse to reconcile with that?
State actor or not, you are using troll tactics to spread disinformation, and it is blatantly obvious. Receipts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280