[flagged]
Saving money on social security because more unhealthy people died doesn't directly make anyone in charge any more rich. Unless I missed something you can't short Social Security liabilities.
The last 6-8 years has largely seen democrats deriding republicans (or MAGA specifically) for sharing unproven claims of a deep state, pedophile rings, etc. Now we're seeing a growing list of conspiracy theories related to what and why the Trump administration is up to.
The theories may even be right in the end, that does happen. They're just currently based on speculation and presumed intent.
I didn't actually mean to imply that I was calling you out as a conspiracy theorist here. I replied here because it seemed to fit well with the comment thread, but was more trying to comment on the general ethos I've seen here in the US and how many conspiracy theories now seem to be talked about in the media from the other side of the aisle as it were (Democratic leaning media instead of Republican leaning).
This is the comment I was replying to. I at least haven't seen any direct acknowledgements if this being the goal, and the comment or even refers to it as collusion with predictions of what comes next. That seems squarely in the conspiracy theory realm to me, in line with all the theories thrown around while Biden was in office or Hillary was running.
Steve bannon, part of the first trump presidency
There's nothing wrong with a conspiracy theory. They're just often backed by anecdotal or circumstantial evidence and aren't yet really proven. This still falls into that bucket.
Interestingly enough, plenty of conspiracy theories turn out to be at least partially true, the same could happen here.
So whatever hurt these people suffered wasn't material. It's just resentment about other people (minorities, the "urban elite") having status or power.
It's just a game, and winning the game feels good.
The people who voted Trump and don't wear the paraphernalia occasionally check news and from what I can tell aren't regularly doomscrolling. They'll probably get disagreeable if you talk politics with them. But in general daily interactions, they are polite and helpful. (Not to say I agree with their vote-- you're just asking about their temperament.)
But to a person the diehards I've met seem to be plugged in for a good portion of the day to their devices for outrage porn doomscrolling and posting incrementally angrier content.
Digression-- One time I looked up a Bill Burr bit about sandwiches on Youtube. For weeks it recommended manosphere bullshit and white-supremacist-adjacent conspiracy theory content.
MAGA is just one of the set of social media users who, for various reasons, clicked their way down those recommendation rabbitholes.
I'd bet there are at least a dozen devs reading this who could find the exact commit that Youtube began sending a predictable portion of their userbase down radicalization rabbit holes like these. Perhaps some time in the future there will be a memorial where that diff is etched in a large slab of stone.
I don't consider many of them hateful though, and they are helpful to neighbors.
The last 2-8 years has felt very strange to me comparing what I experience day to day and how I often see our society more broadly described.
I've lived in Seattle, Europe, and the southern US over that time. Everywhere I've been I found people in the area to be friendly and helpful. Watch TV though and it sure seems like whoever the "other side" for a particular context are a bunch of horrible, hateful, angry people that just don't get it.
With regards to MAGA specifically. I don't find most of the ideas I hear floated as more hateful than the overtone coming from the democratic side of the aisle during the pandemic response. Anyone who chose not to get vaccinated was demonized and painted as a murder who hates old people. Anyone who disagreed with the main narrative was generally ostracized and slapped with labels like "anti-vaxxer" or "anti-science".
This is not to say that your neighbors are evil people - I'm just saying that you can't just judge people by how they interact with people in their in-group.
In most cases I've had pretty wildly different political and religious views, and for a period was myself an immigrant that could hardly speak the local language.
My honest view is that people individually and in small groups are surprisingly friendly, helpful, and welcoming. Its only when the community or group gets too big and people start defining teams that things get nasty.
This is eyebrow-raising. I have no defense for any political party for all the un-subtle criticisms they inevitably put out, Democrats or otherwise. But to suggest that MAGA are, on par, less hateful than Democrats, begs expounding. In other words, you can certainly make that argument, but it flies in the face of common understanding - which doesn't mean it's not true! It just means you have to give a little more than just stating it. It's like saying, "Actually, Genghis Khan didn't conquer very much", and leaving it at that instead of presenting some kind of insight.
Of course, there is always simply the bubble explanation (my bubble is not representative, or your bubble is not representative), however... regarding the degree of MAGA's hatred for liberals and the people liberals defend? I hate being curt but: Come on.
I experienced plenty of hate thrown my way for 2 or 3 years after that decision, including in speeches from the president.
I don't know how to quantify hatefulness, especially in a large group, well enough to absolutely compare the two. I do strongly stand behind the fact that plenty of hate was thrown towards anyone who disagreed with the narrative during the pandemic response though. More than MAGA? No clue, but a relative comparison doesn't make it better in absolute terms.
We in the US still haven't fully come to grips with the loss of over a million people to COVID. And now we're going to kick the can on proven public health measures, that have nothing to do with COVID, because of the off chance someone will become socially isolated / "less cool" to take care of their "freak" neurodivergent child.
That was actually one of the key lessons I heard from virologists early on in 2020 - viruses like this tend to mutate quickly and escape vaccine-induced immunity. It wasn't until the vaccines were announced that the story changed and we were being told that the vaccines were effective and would only require one or two shots for permanent protection.
It got ugly because scientific study, and more importantly the limits of scientific understanding, was thrown out in favor of a more religious take on the whole field. Media organizations, late night talk shows, and even comedians were doing segments shaming anyone that was attempting to do their ow research (aka learn, consider the trade offs for themselves, and practice informed consent).
I had a coworker try to explain how 5G caused covid. Granted there is no technical reason why an EMF couldn't cause similar symptoms, there just wasn't any well founded research showing that and a much more simple explanation already had better scientific support (the novel virus).
Mockery is a tricky one though. Mocking any particular idea seems reasonable enough. Most people at the time were lumping in anyone that chose not to get the vaccine as an anti-vaxxer, wacko, conspiracy theorist, etc.
I took issue with Obama-era ICE raids, Biden's speeches regarding anyone that decided not to get vaccinated, Bush's description of really most of the middle east. Hell, even how many have talked about Russians as though every single Russian citizen supports the Ukraine war is hateful.
Hate is almost a given when groups are given a name and we begin othering people. That's nothing new to human history and has seemed to be more and more common over the last decade or two.