I know many folks that don't have any animus to individual people. They just have been brainwashed since early childhood...
Man I love being right.
But people who have some level of fame who put their name behind it, and who had some influence in inspiring others down this wrong path most definitely need to address it. If you truly believe the intelligence of tech people over others in every field which led you down this path, follow the proper postmortem process.
You're also ignoring the candidates themselves
Smart people admit they are wrong and learn, then move on for the better. The stagnant macho person will never learn anything and just wants status quo in perpetuity, so long as it benefits them.
Usually I have a specific video in mind that is relevant, but this feels like a good time to link the whole series. It’s a good, informative, and (depressingly) humorous look at the alt-right - and while it doesn’t offer much in solid solutions, I think being able to understand how they operate and where they’re coming from allows us all to have a better chance in mitigating them and stopping the tide of fascism.
[1] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnz...
I'm not sure why you think any of them would believe they were wrong. I don't think any of them were hoping for some kind of transformation other than destruction.
sounds about right
In the federal space, we’ve seen purges of women and minorities, shutdowns of groups which work on things like civil rights or pollution in poor communities, widespread refusal to pay money as promised, and attempts to punish organizations for 1st amendment activities. There is zero expectation of good-faith from anyone who supports that.
You say that not all right wingers are bigoted, and then go on to proclaim the entire group doesn't recognize minorities as being human. Have you spoken honestly and in good faith with right wingers?
They don't "hate gay people". (They have gay friends!) But they don't think gay people should be able to marry or adopt children. Sometimes Leviticus comes up.
They don't "hate Black people" (They have black co-workers!). They just think the disparities in the justice, education and financial systems are all Black people's own fault.
They don't "hate immigrants" (They love Mexico!), they just think they're not assimilating, taking American jobs and draining tax payer resources.
Trans people seem to be the only group they'll outright admit to hating.
Oh, and Democrats. They really hate Democrats.
As I said, Texas is fun.
I have a number of family and a few remaining right-wing acquaintances (all of the libertarians I knew are voting straight-ticket for Democrats against MAGA) – not “kinda liked Reagan” but people who’ve had worked published in national media or been invited to dinner at Rupert Murdoch’s estate. Privately, people express concern or distaste for anti-liberty actions - but not in public, never to the point of standing up for a group being targeted. Like the Mexican woman who cleans their house, she’s great even if her husband was originally undocumented, so of course ICE shouldn’t go after them – but they won’t speak up on behalf of anyone they don’t know personally, even just to call for due process.
I left the Republican sphere during the Bush years when it became obvious that for all of the talk about ethics and the rule of law during the Clinton administration, there wasn’t a desire to hold their fellows to that same standard. Sadly, it’s only gotten worse since then – as we can see from the blatant lawlessness this year where even people who might share goals like reducing government spending or reconsidering industrial policy should feel safe saying there’s a better, legal way to do it.
Unfortunately your/US views have become simplistic (yes simplistic) along two hyper extremes. Both sides are wrong at this stage. Just wrong in different ways.
This opinion comes from having many conversations with (real, not online) people who literally state that they consider that the government is inherently evil and it's sole function is to rob people of their liberty and hard earned money. I've spent a considerable amount of time doing business travel and working in parts of the country where I've heard people, in an public office conversation, voice that support for public radio is literally fascism to nodding agreement among their peers. I once mentioned an experience I had in the beginning of the pandemic and the response was "oh yea, that's when people still thought it was serious right?"
I don't think these people are inherently evil, they believe the government is evil and that those who work for it are working to undermine everyday Americans. If you actually had a conversation with anyone deep in the MAGA community you would know that harming the federal government, for them, is seen as a victory and virtuous.
It's baffling to me that anyone can still not understand the foundation of the MAGA community and growing extreme right. For years they have increasingly felt that their way of life has been robbed from them (and to be fair, it has been, rural communities in the US are in trouble), and they sincerely believe that this is caused by sinister forces working in the federal government, immigrants, the global elite, and "radical" woke leftists that want to harm their children.
I didn't see the cultural reference. Never heard of Baudrillard before. I was just playing off the word "revenge".
That being said, your take did stop me in my tracks. Even though it's not the first time I see sentiments like this on HN.
You said:
> I don't think any of them were hoping for some kind of transformation other than destruction.
Maybe I read you wrong. But isn't that the opposite of "Don't attribute to malice ..."?
I mean, come on. How many people grow up really wanting to do harm?
Sure, there are some. For example, there are people who have no power to create anything. For them, being able to at least destroy someone else's creation can be a form of satisfaction. Like the kid in kindergarden that doesn't have the patience to build a brick tower, but takes joy in smashing down someone else's. It's a low-effort way on leaving some mark. "I destroyed, therefore I am." Such people exists.
But those aren't the people you're targeting here, are they? As I read it, you're targeting Trump, Musk, and perhaps all the proponents of "small government". Who are, by and large, people who build, create and have an impact on our time. I'd argue that the idea of "small government" appeals first and foremost to those who stand to gain from lower taxes and less regulation - i.e. those who already do affect the world around them.
There are many reasons why someone might disagree with these people's values. For example, one might argue that nobody deserves to be that rich, or that wealth should be distributed, etc.. You could argue that "small government" is really just the selfish interest of those who stand to gain from it, in just the same way as "big government" is just a selfish interest of those who stand to gain from that. That it isn't about right or wrong at all, but about what camp you are in.
But the idea that "small government" people want to destroy America? That's a circle I can't square. There are interviews of Trump from the 1980s where he spoke about America vs. China, etc.. You may disagree with his ideas about how to make and keep America great. But the idea that he's driven by a desire of destroying the country? Is that rhetoric, or do you really think that's what he secretly dreams about?
What about Reagan in the 80s? He talked about "small government", reducing regulation, agencies, etc.. Do you think he hated the country?
And Elon Musk? The man has been talking about making human life multiplanetary. Heck, he's launching one rocket after another in order to get there. Every single endeavour of his (maybe with the exclusion of PayPal and Zip2), at least from his perspective, is explicitly pro-human in motivation: Sustainable energy, human-friendly non-monopolistic AGI, self driving, multi-planetary humanity. Again - I can understand if someone disagrees with these efforts. But the idea that this man is looking in the mirror every morning thinking, "Let's see how I can destroy this country"? Like, everything he does and says 24/7 over decades is just a façade to hide the real secret wish? All that work is supposed to be just a disguise? He pretends to love humanity, because, deep down, he really hates it? That makes my head spin.
There was this debate in the 16th century between Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus said that a human is good if he strives to do good deeds. Being human, you don't see the whole picture, so you may err. But as long as you strive to do the best you can, to be courageous, to use what you've been blessed with for the good of all, you are good – and even if you err, you will be forgiven. Luther countered: No - an evil man can never be good. You're either one of the chosen ones that are good, or you're inherently bad. And if you're inherently bad, then whatever you touch is going to be tainted with evil. You're not a person, you're not a soul - you're a mere vessel for the devil, and it would be foolish to even argue with you.
I'm quite sure there are people who hate society. But where I'd look for them is among criminals and fraudsters. Every crypto scam, every Nikola or Theranos. That's where I see a hatred of humanity. Or, if not hatred, then at least a disregard of everyone outside of their own circle, or of those who came before and who will come after them.
Isn't it a much safer assumption that most people are trying to be good and helpful? They sure can develop a damn blindspot, or myopia. For example, in the internet space, I'd say Cloudflare is "destroying" a lot of the web's original openness. But that still doesn't make me believe they do what they do out of a desire to destroy. They just focus on one kind of stakeholder at the expense of some others. If I went out there on Hacker News and claimed the Cloudflare CEO was driven by a pure hatred of the internet, everyone would think that I must be a grumpy dude with anger issues. And rightfully so, as it would be just an over-emotionalized reaction to an adverserial situation.
If you say you think the DOGE efforts were misguided, that the execution was flawed, or that the goal of downsizing government expenses in itself was the wrong thing for the country - that's an argument I can follow.
Anyway. I'm off doing my homework - checking out Baudrillard!
I have no idea what kind of person thinks that was a good idea.
>money to people who hate you is insane
-Do all the people who receive the money hate us?
-Why does it matter if some people receiving help hate us? Why is this insane?
>And most of that money goes to warlords and dictators
How do you know?
Why?
>But government needs to live within its means.
Which is what? No deficit? That's not possible so if you will allow some debt then why not USaid but other programs are left?
It reminds me of Ancient Greece and the Sophists: they mastered persuasion as an art at the expense of reason, logic, and truth.
I mean… what additional evidence would it take? Police, DBI, his discord messages, the texts to his trans boyfriend?
Wow, that’s amazing, can you please post a source for that completely made up nonsense?
At the very best you'll get "the left forced them to do it" but blank denial of reality and invention of entirely fake parallel worlds is much more likely.
They've been doing that for climate, renewables, COVID, Trump etc. far longer than for DOGE with no sign of giving up.
For an example: Sergei Brin, Sebastian Thrun, and Elon Musk were all interested in self-driving cars. Musk has been making materially misleading statements promising to deliver L5 in the next year or so many times since 2013, and still doesn’t have more than L2. Waymo did not promise things they couldn’t deliver, treated safety as a top priority, and is expanding L4 taxi services around the country. They’re all interested, Waymo is serious, but Musk’s strategy has made him enormously rich and I think that’s always been his top priority.
Edit: and who TF would have thought putting "big balls doge kid" in a position of power would be a good thing? That kid, along with whomever hired him, would be tossed out of any professional corp env swiftly.
It started and ended with malicious intent and demonstration of power. Classic Trump.
The correct spirit is how it was done under Clinton / Gore. Slowly, thoughtfully, carefully, properly planned and delicately executed.
(and this says nothing of party politics or the quality of president that Clinton was, this is only commentary of that particular action as comparison)
Congressional oversight in combination with incorporating CBO[0] work products to perform the oversight obviates the purported need for DOGE.
> ... Elon was absolutely the wrong guy to put in charge of it. Misplaced incentives, lack of interpersonal skills, lack of respect and empathy, lack of organizational skills ...
A more succinct way to describe this is; corruption.
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office