Skip to main content
Post a Comment

A Response to Why More Democrats Are Now Embracing Conspiracy Theories

I wrote a few responses to an article, Why More Democrats Are Now Embracing Conspiracy Theories in the The New York Times, first here and then here.

The text of the first:
If nothing else, conspiracy theories allude to things, while not absolutely true, are certainly possible, or hint at things that, while not an outright takeover, are concerns.
  • Trump only needs an excuse, a terrorist incident, a violent leftist response, to initiate quasi-fascist control, a reduction in rights, harsh military responses to protests, increased surveillance, etc.
  • His coziness with Russia, if not quite indicating a puppet-in-chief, indicates a lack of wariness that might be necessary when Russia does decide to invade another Eastern European country, or say, deploy military that threatens Europe.
  • The fact that his advisors are all financial people, military hawks, with a [secretary] of state from Exxon, point to a possible war. A conspiracy theory would be that they are there to create a war, affecting the price of oil, forcing defense expenditure increases, with profiteers at the ready to make money. In truth, I can still see how the tendencies of those in power could lead to war, and while not quite intentional, could occur regardless.
  • Considering Trump's dark triad (narcissism, psychopathy, machiavellian) tendencies, and the what history has taught us about prior demigogs, we need to be wary.
The text of the second:
Although I am certainly aware of the concerns, of individuals seeing controlled plans where a more subtle analysis is required, of unconnected actors and actions are at play, I do believe you are engaging in a false equivalence.

Obama was a not secret Muslim Nazi about to take away Republicans' guns, and was, in fact, quite the opposite. Obama could not reasonably be likened to a Hitler or a Pinochet. On the other hand, Trump does seem like the kind of individual prone to authoritarianism and is compromised, with his obvious allusions and connections to Russia.
  • Is he Putin's puppet. Likely no, but is he someone that might be prepared to respond well to Russian aggression?
  • Will in implement martial law? No, he will slowly destroy as many protections against state overreach as he, and the Republicans can.
  • Will he force women to conform to an outdated role, e.g., wear burkas, or the modern equivalent, lipstick and dresses? No, but will women's rights and freedoms be eroded, will their quality life be diminished. I'd bet yes.
  • The Koch brothers and ALEC are perfect examples of a nefarious groups manipulating our lives and our legislature.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Meanings of Ender's Game

In response to an Ender's Game discussion (Goodreads), with a link from Reddit, I posted the following: Much of the Reddit stream seems to focus on military tactics, or the lack thereof, used by the Ender, but who reads Ender and thinks it about military tactics, except the 20-year old grunt that started the thread? For a book written in the 80's, then edited in the early 90's, it seems more prophetic, with its use of game immersion, remote military operations and portable computing. Then when you think about the use of children in military games, one can think somewhat more deeply about sociopolitical indoctrination.  The series itself becomes a broader exploration of empathy and foreign culture.  The criticism seems more like the problem of a man with a hammer, who thinks every problem is solved by hammering, but even worse, every problem is about hammering. An additional post, regarding suspension of disbelief: Some people commented on the suspension of disbelie...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Right to Write - NYTimes.com

In an article,  The Right to Write - NYTimes.com , I commented on the right to write, since writers are sometimes questioned on the validity of their writing, e.g., Harriet Beecher Stowe with Uncle Tom's Cabin: One, people always have the right to write, but readers concurrently have the right to reject said writing. Much personal criticism of depictions from writers is whether the depiction seems valid or plausible, but even that is an exercise in empathy, since it requires one to experience that depiction ideationally.  Two, there is a streak in Americans, and maybe anyone, that states that you cannot understand 'my pain', usually the death of a child or some horrific personal lose. Over a longer term I have sensed that people most easily accept empathy if it is expressed by someone with similar experiences, an aspect I believe is part of human nature. I find both irksome, since they deny empathy.
Post a Comment
Read more

Opinion | The Nation Betrays a Poet — and Itself - The New York Times

An interesting piece turning on freedom of thought and the press, coming against a tide of public opinion, fueled by concerns of racism, Opinion | The Nation Betrays a Poet — and Itself : My first thought was that the offense was a cultural appropriation, but I decided to go read it. On the first pass, maybe not reading so closely, it sounded like it might be sensitive to the plight of discrimination, and insightful about how perception is displayed to justify our self-perceptions. I read it again. Hmmm. Now, it sounds like a description of a deceiving street person, but still with an understanding that the world's perception is to justify their own self-worth. On some level, there are people like this, although the idea that it would be used to enable racist perceptions is plausible but unlikely. Does the fascist right-wing read The Nation, let alone poetry in The Nation? Have we all read great literature that stereotyped? Yes, but almost always it comes with a big dose of em...
Post a Comment
Read more