this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
1106 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3199 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Copied this from another post I made.. things make more sense when you realize what their true core principle is.
There is a good Adam Conover podcast episode where he interviews Corey Robin. In the episode Robin states the main premise of his book, which is that the central underlying ideology of the right is the belief that some people are better than others and deserve to be in power. A lot of the rights' beliefs and ideas evolve over time but they evolve in service of that core idea. It's the one thing that stays consistent over time going back to the french revolutions.
Multiracial, multiethnic, international cooperation, helping the homeless, helping the poor. No matter how you spin it by trying to convince them of the benefits ect, the right will never be on board. They don't believe those groups deserve help or should be helped. They fundamentally believe it is morally good to depower certain groups and empower other groups.
That one idea explains so much of the rights blatant hypocrisy. Welfare disproportionality going to red states is good because it's going to the good people. Rich people getting richer is good because it's going to the good people. Hurting minorities is good because they are the bad people, helping them is bad. Some people are innately worthy and some people are not. Anything the good people do is good, anything the bad people do is bad. The same action can be good or bad depending on who is doing it.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
episode
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Why do you/the book propose they need to look down on someone else?
"Need" probably isn't the best word. It's not a "need" so much as it is a belief. They "believe" themselves to be better and more deserving. Everything else follows from that. Start plugging it into what you know about conservatives and you will immediately see that it's by far the best and simplest explanation.
Also bear in mind that people are often, and in fact quite usually, unaware of why they hold certain opinions and far from using reason to arrive at their opinions, tend to arrive at an opinion and then use reason to rationalize why it's correct.
The SCOTUS is a great example; we already know how the justices will rule because we already know their underlying opinions about the world. What we don't know is how they will justify their rulings. If this weren't true, then neither party would care about SCOTUS nominations. The fact that we care very much tells you that we all privately know that I am right.
You and I do it too. We all do. Some of us are more aware of it than others.