- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The calls for Joe Biden to step aside have been met with furious accusations of treason, disloyalty, and betrayal. This is bad for the entire country
Is the Democratic party, the self-proclaimed party of liberal values and scientific data, morphing into a Maga-like cult in front of our eyes?
Over the past few weeks, the calls for Joe Biden to step aside have been met not with thoughtful critiques or reasoned counter-arguments but with furious accusations of treason, disloyalty, and betrayal.
Whatever happened to the importance of voicing dissent? Of speaking truth to power? Weren’t liberals supposed to be the folks who value open debate and discussion?
especially online; of elected Democrats on Capitol Hill; and of the Democratic president himself, since the CNN debate on 28 June, will have spotted some of those “tell-tale signs”.
Let’s start with the Democratic base – those “hyper-partisans” who “act like members of a cult because they treat their political party like a religious identity”, to quote the political strategist Chris Sosa. I have spent the past few weeks watching the Very Online members of the base embracing an endless stream of “Blue Anon” conspiracy theories, pushed on behalf of the Dear Leader.
General reminder that online radicalization efforts are targeted at the extremes of both ends of the political spectrum, not just one. Destabilization and violence is the goal, not the slow, hard work of reform.
Incorrect.
People at the ends of the spectrum have already been radicalized.
Online radicalization efforts are targeted at “moderates” who have not yet been.
That’s a silly take.
A radical is not someone with a strange opinion. Opinions are fine, and protected by our Constitution. A radical is someone that does something illegal about theirs.
Radicals are defined by their immoderate ideals. Whether or not they are criminal depends on the legal superstructure they exist in.
Communists are illegal in America but moderates in China.
China does not have freedom of opinion. Regardless, this is a semantic discussion on the definition of a radical anyway, it’s not particularly important. Perhaps if I reframed my position as violent radicalization being aimed at the extremes of the spectrum, you might find it more acceptable? It’s what I meant in my comment anyway.