The MAGA movement has a strong anti-VC-and-BigTech bent. I wouldn’t be surprised if they do take action.
Cooption is not unique to that movement. Others (some on the left) have been coopted as well.
Some of it is driven by grift (gold coins, prepper supplies, assault weapons...) Some by political opportunism. Some by nihilistic accelerationism.
Absolutely none of it is a genuinely organic spontaneous bottom-up movement.
That turns out to be one of the worst things about the Internet. It just doesn't amplify culture. Bad actors with significant resources can use it to steer culture.
Any billionaire can seed a political movement now, and significantly influence elections.
That's a ridiculous amount of power and it has absolutely no democratic oversight.
To an extent that's always been true of media ownership. But where early 20th c. print was very much print-and-hope, with the Internet you can get almost instant real-time feedback of how an influence campaign is doing. And if it's not working you can adjust it to order.
At some point soon this whole process will fully automated, with AI running bot farms, creating content, supervising and steering forums, and collecting and personalising prospect details, all without human participation.
I grew up in MAGA-land. The MAGA people I know are mainly driven but what they see on TV and hear on the radio rather than any real experiences. I don't think you can call it 'grassroots' when there is a coherent right-wing strategy to radicalize a demographic
I don't think most conservatives could even begin to talk about public policy on a meaningful level.
Thank you for the real world demonstration of another contributing factor. Treating those who don't share your viewpoint with contempt is not likely to promote unity.
We can disagree on trade policy and still have respect for one another. When people have the same fundamental values they can disagree on lots of things.
We're past the point where we need to 'promote unity'. Anyone freedom loving American needs to fight to protect their ability to live in peace.
This whole idea that it's OK to hate people because because they hold some particular belief leads nowhere good. And in particular, the claim that it's OK to hate them because you perceive them to be hateful is so fundamentally hypocritical it would be comical if it weren't so counterproductive.
All conservatives are right-wing extremists at this point.
> You mention them wanting to enforce their ideology on others, but I'd wager they feel the same thing is being done successfully to them
Yes, because they are extremely ignorant and cannot understand that losing their ability to oppress others is not, in itself oppression.
>You advocate to "fight to protect [your] ability to live in peace." If that doesn't involve finding common ground, then what exactly does it mean?
For me it means fixing our electoral system so that a violent tyrannical minority can't impose their violent ideology on the moral majority of Americans.
>This whole idea that it's OK to hate people because because they hold some particular belief leads nowhere good.
Bruh, these people want to make it illegal for me to exist. This 'we need to understand rural white grievance' nonsense is so played out.
> And in particular, the claim that it's OK to hate them because you perceive them to be hateful is so fundamentally hypocritical it would be comical if it weren't so counterproductive.
I don't perceive them to be hateful, they are hateful violent people. This dumb paradox of tolerance stuff you are pushing is very freshman year of college.