• pr06lefs@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    266
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Rich shitbags funding divisive propaganda to make the plebs fight each other and vote against their own interests.

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        JK Rowling is just mad that gender doesn’t fit the sorting hat.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          For an ugly fucking lady like Rowling, you’d think she would understand that going down the path of “that woman isn’t feminine looking enough to really be a woman” is anti-feminist at it’s core and could hurt her in the long run when people begin questioning her gender for being an ugly ass.

          Or does she really think she’s some hot shit and not some ugly twat?

          It’s literally already happened to Kyle Rittenhouse and Andrew Tate. She’s making this worse for herself in the long run.

          • BCsven@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            ? I mean here personality is ugly, but google images make it seem like she is not physically ugly. Not that that really matters.

          • Mac@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            Perhaps you’ve been projecting the ugliness within you all along and that normal looking non-supermodels can be shitty people for things separate from the way they look.

          • Thassodar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            She may be making it worse but she has made enough money to not give a shit.

      • son_named_bort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 month ago

        They both genuinely hate trans people though. Hell, Musk disowned his own trans daughter. Like if he was just in it to divide the population he wouldn’t be treating his trans child so horribly.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          I mean, you seem to be assuming that muskboy cares about any of his children.

          He just hates that one more because she exposes him for the hateful shitbag he is.

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Exactly. Its no coincidence we went from Occupy Wall Street and national level discourse about actual healthcare and UBI, to such debates as ‘is genocide okay?’ and ‘are nazis bad?’ Purposeful misdirection that in it’s staunch opposition to anything left of capitalism, created fascism.

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        You know, it’s perfectly OK to group voters by identity, so long as that identity cannot exclude “Normal” people. Soccer Mom, Six pack Dad, Middle class, working poor, labor, Small Business owner, Rural, Urban, and Suburban are all perfectly fine to promise these groups political power. But you do the exact same thing for queer people or black people and that’s identity politics all of a sudden.

        • ganymede@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          can you please explain further what you mean? it could be interpreted a number of different ways.

          i’m not sure if this is your point or not? but there is obviously overlap between each of those groups, there’s black sixpack dads, and poor/middle class lgbqti etc etc

          anyway imo none of this revived division appears organic. there’s always going to be the odd biggot, but afaict the majority of modern biggots are being indoctrinated and radicalised by an organised media effort (and our leaders are either complicit or ‘inexplicably’ powerless at protecting us from it). for sure these radicalised biggots should do better, but we’re also talking about average people going up against billion dollar propaganda machinery. it’s certainly asymmetrical warfare.

          • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            The sad truth is that the right are pandering to homophobia because it’s a vote getter for them not because they really care about it.

            A huge portion of religious people believe that homosexuality is an especially dangerous sin because it’s a social contagion, they see the increased popularity of gay things and the decreased respect for religion as a clear sign that the devil is winning and faithful, godfearing society is collapsing. To an extent they’re right, modern views on self determination and respect for others is anathema to Christian society as it’s been for over a thousand years - to the faithful it’s like saying the sky is pink or fish live in trees.

            There are of course now grifters using homophobia to draw people into their political ideologies but it’s generally people from homophobic families in homoohobic communities that get drawn into it, it’s easy to forget that when you see a twenty something year old kid making homophobic comments it’s likely at his age his dad was going ‘queer bashing’ for fun with his friends and certainly wouldn’t have hesitated to beat up a gay person in a bar or in the street if encountered.

            Even big artists like Eminem had deeply homophobic messages in his music, now that’s backtracked and he’s friends with Elton - this isn’t entirely because he’s grown as a person but because at the start of this century it was unconscionable that rap or hip hop could be anything but homophobic. School kids used the word ‘gay’ to describe uncool or disliked things so commonly it was even part of my own vocab despite being raised in a progressive and accepting family in a liberal area.

            Things have changed so much just in my adult lifetime but it’s not universal, a lot of religious and conservative people see the ‘gay agenda’ exactly as you see the ‘homophobic agenda’ in that they believe it’s political narrative being pushed just to destabilize morally virtuous power structures to allow corrupt and evil people to take power and steal money.

            Companies that shoehorn a poorly written gay character into everything for the sake of inclusivity feel like a pandering cash grab to me but to the homophobic Christian it feels like asymmetric warfare from a deranged and selfish elite hellbent on ruining western society.

            It’s a hugely complex issue for me, I honestly have no idea what the best thing for the greater good is. Forcing things too hard can be painful for those unready which causes resentment and reaction but holding back and allowing non-violent homophobic behavior to exist in our society is hurtful to those struggling to find snd accept themselves. (For example being 17 and trying to reconcile popular music explicitly talking about how your unexplored sexual desires are disgusting, realizing you have to make the choice between humiliation and self denial - and this is probably a big part of other emotional troubles which can lead to rejection of otherwise sensible social norms leading to unhealthy drug use, self endangering behavior and other things that still have lasting damage to my life to this day)

            I don’t know what will solve these complex issues in our society, maybe making certain concessions to mildly homophobic sections of society would stop driving them into full on culture war crusaders? Maybe highlighting that it’s not only possible but probable to be gay and boring would help ease the anxiety? I actually kinda think straight pride type events and companies pandering to heterosexuals could be normalized and accepted more - not in a way that pits them against everyone else but more of a everyone gets a party kinda way. Stop heteros feeling attacked or at least make those who want to paint that picture looking silly.

            It’s sad to admit but humanity is naturally kinda selfish and shitty, bigotry and group thinking is as natural and easy to us as breathing while compassion and understanding takes effort and the right circumstances to flourish.

            • ganymede@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              excellent writeup

              i agree with alot of what you said and will try to hit a few key issues and hope i can add something to the excellent perspective you’ve cast.

              The sad truth is that the right are pandering to homophobia because it’s a vote getter for them not because they really care about it.

              exactly, they know its a very useful mechanism to accumulate power. so imo we should constantly remind ourselves - they’d be doing this anyway. if homosexuality didn’t exist or was non-viable for this, they’d be onto something else. they’d have used any topic to get what they want. (you could ofc have a metadiscussion about why certain topics are more powerful than others. but thats a different discussion).

              anathema to Christian society as it’s been for over a thousand years

              another critical point, as you correctly identified, this is how christianity has become, not what christianity was even purportedly about. if you take the actual words attributed to jesus in the bible, afaict never said a god damn thing about being gay trans whatever. according to their own book - after centuries of fucking with the bible - it STILL says the greatest commandment of all is to love your neighbour as yourself and you can’t judge cos you’re all fuckin sinners afterall.

              so it’s all hypocrisy built upon hypocrisy , basically typical “there are 5 lights” bs. in other words it has all the fingerprints of a propaganda pathology not an expression of positive spirituality.

              Things have changed so much just in my adult lifetime

              yeah to that end i think the OPs timeline of 40 years was a bit optimistic, or we at least have to recognise that represents a cross-section of OPs experience which wasn’t necessarily universal 40 years ago. that said i feel there has been a backslide in the last say 10-15 years)

              conservative people see the ‘gay agenda’ exactly as you see the ‘homophobic agenda’ in that they believe it’s political narrative being pushed just to destabilize morally virtuous power structures to allow corrupt and evil people to take power and steal money.

              tbh i think thats because its probably both at the same time, its a documented soviet technique to covertly fund two sides of an issue to control the outcome. not picking on the soviets btw, just that they did a great job perfecting these kinds of things, wrote it down and then the power structures keeping them secret began to collapse and the methology leaked to the public.

              we see this in a simpler form where corporations invest in pride month and also unironically heavily invest in homophobic organisations, (so i guess it doesn’t always have to be a cold war operation for powerful entities to effect control via seemingly conflicting interests).

              and in what is presumably a less consciously aware context, consider how jk rowling veils her attacks on the trans community behind a thin veneer of “caring about gay people”. i’m strongly of the belief if she’d been born 50 years earlier she’d be jumping on the homophobia bandwagon instead of the currently “trendy” transphobia bandwagon.

              to say another way, not everyone pretending to be our friend has our interests at heart, infact sometimes they’re just trying to accumulate power by taking the positive stance on this issue - probably for no other reason than the negative position won’t currently yield them as big a return.

              and this can lead to eg. conservatives becoming outraged about a stance taken by someone who is vocal and politically motivated, but who has no business speaking on our behalf, then conservatives end up feeling like they’re “under attack from the homosexuals” when it wasn’t even a homosexual who said it!!

              next the conservatives says some hateful thing in retaliation, people respond to that and it spirals…everyone loses (except perhaps the actual perpetrator). this is definitely a flaw in human thinking where our tribalism clouds our perception, we feel under attack and in the heat of the moment incorrectly assess which side someone is taking (or even that there’s only 2 sides, when in life there’s probably rarely ever only 2 sides).

              Companies that shoehorn a poorly written gay character into everything for the sake of inclusivity feel like a pandering cash grab to me but to the homophobic Christian it feels like asymmetric warfare from a deranged and selfish elite hellbent on ruining western society.

              again, its probably both? tbh i don’t think that laziness is the only explanation for the woefully shoehorned characters we’re currently getting. honestly its fucking insulting (to us, not the biggots - though the biggots might feel insulted too?). as you mention its a profitable cash grab, and i’m sure it hasn’t escaped their notice that a certain type of aggressively half-arsed inclusivity will provide alot more value to them from the hysteria it generates vs actually doing it ‘right’ in a sensitive and compassionate way, which might actually lead to healing.

              if healing is what they actually wanted i think it’d look very, very different than how it currently looks. and the kindest interpretation is they’ve realised it’s more profitable short-term to produce hysteria instead of healing.

              compare in contrast to what i still think (despite modern news) was a great example of inclusivity characters with the lesbian main characters in buffy:

              in 1999 no less, it showed a lesbian couple in bed and instead of a cheap sexiness grab, they’re literally sitting up in bed reading & having a mundane conversation. no sexualisation of the lesbian relationship as something existing only for hetero male gratification, or out attacking heteros. just plain, believable real life characters living a boring normal part of their life. so yes i very much agree that the boring normality is a very powerful thing. surely ALOT more positive overall than aggressive hysteria.

              In summary my take-aways are:

              • their MO is to use a scapegoat, they’d be attacking someone vulnerable, regardless of whom

              • not everyone pretending to be our friend actually wants to help us

              • hysteria is sadly apparently more profitable (short term) than healing

              A positive note?

              I honestly have no idea what the best thing for the greater good is

              i really don’t either, though something think how homosexuality has been hijacked in modern perception (by that 1000 years of fake christianity as you mentioned). in eg. parts of ancient societies, men could love men and women could love women, someone could be a third gender, and it wasn’t even a thing to get upset about it, because it was just normal life. why do we suffer when they didn’t even know they were supposed to be suffering?

        • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          queer and black people don’t have money. those other groups do.

          if all the sudden queer people were billionaires, you can sure as shit bet they’d be promised political power. in exchange for their money. they’d be running corporations, in political office, etc.

          it just turns out that it’s mostly white dudes who have all the money, and some white women, and the occasional random other non-white person has it. in USA at least. obviously different in other countries.

          • jerkface@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            Gay people have exactly as much money as everyone else. There are proportionately as many gay billionaires as there are gay homeless people.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Astroturfing.

    Also, look up the genesis of the conservative media apparatus - specifically, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, and how that whole thing came to be in the post-Nixon era. There’s a lot of context, and none of it was done in good faith. The intent was always to game social norms and leverage populist appeals to emotion into tribal ideologies (I.e. us-vs-them/ingroup-vs-outgroup). That’s ultimately the fundamental basis for conservatism.

    These days, foreign influence operations (often based in authoritarian countries) aimed at increasing the polarization of a target population also play a major role.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Conditions have gotten worse and the ruling class has chosen a scapegoat to distract people from the ongoing class war.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Everyone is in ‘a’ class. It’s a classification of the populous. Do you work for money, or does your money work for you?

        If you receive a paycheck or have to budget what so ever, chances are you are not part of the classification of shitbags that push the propaganda.

        • Don_Dickle@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Ok probably a stupid question how do these rich shitbags get their money to work for them when in the public they, as you called them shitbags and push propaganda? To me pushing an agenda would do more harm than good instead of using it to organically grow itself without any interference

          • hakobo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            They (the investment/owner class) make their money work for them by investing and by playing the banks. Generally, they want to invest the vast majority of their money, and never cash out of their portfolio. When they need “cash” to buy something, they do it with loans and there’s lots of tricks (that I’m not super familiar with) to make loans as cheap as possible, and potentially even profitable if their investments are doing better than the cost of the loan.

            Now, why would they spend money pushing propaganda when instead they could be investing that money? Well, when you are that rich, you don’t actually have to spend that much to push propaganda. People are already clamoring for your opinion, because they see you as successful and think, if I copy you then I too can be successful. And when you do need to buy an article, it’s pocket change compared to your vast wealth. And if instead you need to buy a TV news network, a newspaper, or a website, that itself can be an investment. As long as you don’t run it into the ground, it may make you money at the same time as allowing you to push propaganda.

            And why do they want to push propaganda in the first place? Because if the working class (those that live off paychecks instead of investments) has the time, energy, and knowledge to do something about wealth inequality, then the investment class will start to have to pay their fair share and lose a bit of their wealth. The investment class doesn’t want that to happen so they need to rob the working class of those 3 things. Manufacturing a culture war is one way to steal time and energy from the working class, because they now have to spend that time and energy on defending personal rights. Busting unions is another way to rob time and energy, as the fewer rights workers have, and the less they are paid, the more time and energy they have to spend to stay out of poverty.

            It’s all a ploy to get people to pay less attention to how the investment class gets their money so that they can keep racking up the score without interference.

            That said, some of the investment class actually truly holds hateful views, as does some of the working class, but the working class has nothing to gain by acting on that hatred except a sense of personal fulfillment. The investment class benefits financially, so they may act out the hatred even if they don’t feel it.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    You’ve gotten enough good answers that I think it okay to address a tangent.

    Things are definitely at the point where christofascists, and other hate driven ideologies are getting louder.

    But, and this is vitally important as to why the pushback is making it a matter of public discourse at the level you’re asking about, there’s more allies now than ever.

    Be ready for old man talking here, and ignore if not interested. Disclaimer: I have arthritis, and it’s easier to type gay than LGBTQ, so I’ll be using the shorter word for that reason, not as an exclusion.

    Back in the seventies and eighties, gay rights was a thing for mostly gay people. Before that it had been gaining minor support, and the eighties were when social restrictions started changing enough that gay people were allowed to have some degree of public awareness in both news and fiction.

    I keep bringing it up in various places, but Billy Crystal played the first recurring openly gay character on television. That was in 1977, and ran until 1981. I don’t think it can be said enough how huge that was in bringing awareness of gay people as just people was. That role brought gay into our homes and lives in a way nothing had before.

    When something makes a group real to the majority, makes things stop being a dirty secret and just another part of life, you get kids growing up that are more open and accepting. As acceptance grew, so did the amount of people coming out.

    As people came out, the straights realized that not only had they always known gay people, but they liked them, and even loved them for years, sometimes a lifetime. When that starts spreading, you have more people that are willing to support gay people and their rights as fellow humans.

    Instead of being pariahs, gay people became part of life, part of our hearts. Eventually, more and more people that didn’t have direct relationships with someone gay became allies, supporters.

    However, the more gay people became a part of life, the more noise bigots made, in their own homes and in public. So, instead of it being a dirty little secret nobody talked about, that way of thinking got nastier and louder. Before, it wasn’t something everyone would even know about until much later in life, but as the gay rights movement in the seventies started building up steam, you had more hatred being spewed as well. There had been before, but it was more likely to be handled with dismissive or contemptuous remarks rather than outright venom and bile in the open.

    Now, us folks that were kids during the late 70s and early 80s didn’t just accept gay folks. We would often defy elders that opposed gay rights or bad talked them. As time passed and we grew up, the segment of that generation that became allies tended to be more and more vocal in our support. By the nineties, my generation was moving into adulthood and willing to vote our conscience. We were willing to put our time and money into the cause. Sometimes, we’d put our bodies on the line when things got ugly.

    Move forward to now, and you’ve got two or three generations actively and loudly opposing the bigots, and not just the gay people. The bigots are smaller in number, but have been pandered to by political groups around the world, so have more weight than their numbers should give them.

    Mind you, the bigots also include people of every generation too. Don’t imagine that there aren’t kids even that spew the same kind of nastiness that’s been used since before the 70s. But there’s more in direct opposition to them, and plenty of passive dismissal of the bigotry. Bigotry is not a relic of the past, nor is it limited to older generations; some of the loudest and most obnoxious hatred gets spewed by younger adherents. But the seeming percentage of hate is lower in younger generations, and the seeming percentage of outright support is higher.

    That puts us in the situation we’re in, where hate has a bigger voice than it should, and love/acceptance has to shout louder to oppose it.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Hey.

      I really enjoyed your comment. It’s very well written. Nice job. That’s it; that’s all.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Things are definitely at the point where christofascists, and other hate driven ideologies are getting louder.

      Good time to bring up how their numbers are drastically thinning. This is a big win and part of why we need to fight them hard as their fear of marginalization causes them to switch from dirty tactics to outright fascism to cling to power.

      Survey: White Christianity is declining while the religiously unaffiliated keep growing

      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        they are popular because they provide simple answers to complex issues.

        People like that. Esp younger folks.

        Just like the alt right is so popular with them, because it gives them simple answers.

        Left doesn’t have simple answers. Wants you to listen to a college course type of lecture on every issue… people don’t care about that. They want a simple soundbyte they can emotionally respond to. Left is very poor at that… there are some examples, but they dont’ really get much traction outside of leftist/socialist circles.

        • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Also you can spend thirty seconds as a right winger and have them all tell you that you’re great, important, clever, worthwhile, and all those things – spend twenty years dedicating your adult life to leftwing values and you’ll still get spat on by your political peers because your opinion on some obscure issue is 2% different to theirs.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That bump in 2020 is kind of interesting. The reason seems obvious, but correlation does not equal causation and all that. It does make me wonder if a big chunk of people claiming to be unaffilated are doing so because they think it’s the correct answer to give, not because it’s actually true. (My theory being that the pandemic made them decide they better stop denying Jesus for awhile or whatever)

        • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Religion is an opiate. The best way to reduce its abuse is by addressing the underlying pain. When people conditions get worse they look to things to help numb the pain.

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      it really feels like it’s at a boiling point though right now. World governments have all shifted more to the right on average than they have in the last 80 years.

      • ganymede@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        governments have all shifted more to the right on average

        it appears to be the case. though afaict none of it appears to be organic.

      • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        There’s been some surprising upsets recently though! We were all bracing for a fashy-wave but lots of progressive leaders have been elected lately, after it looked like their hardline iron-fist nationlist counterparts were gaining ground.

        By no means a reason to take it easy and give them a breather, oh no! But we should definitely acknowledge every little bit of dystopia we manage to collectively avert. Even if only a little.

        • eldavi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          the fashy-waves were manifested by centrists leaders that we learned were very fashy-friendly after those upsets made those leaders intrigue with the far right; as is happening in france with macron; or clinging on to conservative policies; as is happening in the uk with starmer.

          the people voted left; but all of the leaders went right anyways.

          harris and trump are doing something similar with harris ignoring the will of 68% of americans when with comes to the genocide and trump with project 2025.

      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Because the right offers people stability, authority, etc. People like that.

        They don’t like left because it’s too vague and complicated to understand their points of view.

        Trans people = bad is a lot easier for the average person to understand, than explaining to them what a transsexual person is and isn’t, and the various types of trans/queer identities. That shit requires a dictionary of trans terminology and hours of time to understand.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      A little late-80s perspective: when I was growing up, “gay” was an insult we’d call eachother jokingly. Nobody “was gay” because that’s a (light, funny) slur. Hell, it wasn’t till I was 28 I realized it didn’t “have a dating-girls phase” that I never grew out of, I was just bi.

      The homophobia is still pretty deeply ingrained even in people who aren’t that old and are really trying. I can only imagine how bad it is for those who aren’t and don’t.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I still have a hard time digesting “gay” as a slur. We simply didn’t use it that way, ever. F@g could go both ways and my gay friends happily slung it at each other. An attempt to take the word back from the haters I guess. At least that word was sometimes used as a real insult.

  • neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Because right wingers spent the past ten years repackaged the fear mongering about “The Gay Agenda” and call it woke instead.

  • demesisx@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Wedge issues.

    Equal rights for

    everyone

    regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity are something that we, as a society, actually solved decades ago that aren’t even a question. They were brought back into public discourse by corrupt people that seek to keep us distracted while they rob us all blind. The two party system in the US (and any nation that uses a FPTP voting system that limits us to a MAXIMUM of two viable parties) is a HUGE reason why they still exist.

    The reason we still argue endlessly about these solved issues is that the two parties are so similar in their other policies that they have decided to highlight those issues (as if there’s even a debate about them) because the two parties align in lockstep behind the other issues. The super wealthy people at the top don’t want us talking about things that will cause ALL of us to stand up and demand improvements to our material conditions so they have their demagogues loudly trumpet the absolutely miniscule differences between them and the conservative parties to whip their voters into a frenzy in support of voting against their best interest.

    Then, I have to fight with unwitting dupes in the comment section that have fallen victim to the marketing gimmick that the black female version of Reagan is “fighting for good” despite her being politically aligned with Reagan on virtually every issue other than identity politics.

    I’m calling the DNC technique of wrapping Reaganomics in a friendly identity politics outer shell “woke-washing” because of how similar it is to “green-washing”.

    Chomsky proved this conclusively.The democratic party’s policy summed up in one image.

      • demesisx@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Yup. The DNC should use that in an honest rebranding.

        Equal rights for all (except the poor).

      • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        That rock is inclusive! It doesn’t let any homeless person sleep there. The rock does not care about skin color, race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.

    • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m calling the DNC technique of wrapping Reaganomics in a friendly identity politics outer shell “woke-washing” because of how similar it is to “green-washing”.

      Some More News did a segment on how Regan forced the Democrat Party to go further right in order to achieve power. Same thing happened in the UK after Thatcher. The Labour Party swung right to get votes.

      I don’t have the data however I would imagine, that after the the conservative 80s, a lot left wing parties moved to the right to capture votes.

      Also Regan elevated Jerry Falwall and the Christian Religious Right.

      Coverage naturally gravitated toward Lynchburg, Virginia, preacher Jerry Falwell, who had supported Anita Bryant’s 1977 anti-gay-rights crusade, and Virginia Beach television mogul Pat Robertson, who was involved with the Washington for Jesus rally of April 1980 (scheduled to coincide with the anniversary of the first landing at Jamestown).

      Falwell, head of the Moral Majority (another nod to Nixon), was more eager to enter the political arena. He thus became the first anointed spokesperson of what was then commonly called the “Religious New Right.”

      During the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan and the evangelical conservatives engaged in a very public courting ritual. Evangelicals had entertained possible GOP alternatives to Carter since at least 1979. Options abounded— ranging from right-wing purist Philip Crane of Illinois to early front-runner John Connally of Texas—but Reagan, long a darling of conservatives in general, was an especially compelling choice. By the time Moral Majority executive director Robert Billings signed on as a Reagan campaign adviser, the deal was pretty much sealed.

      Truly Regan was a piece of shit.

      • demesisx@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 month ago

        First past the post. Here’s my go-to graphic to describe how it affects democracies.

        First past the post’s affect on Sweden’s government as a point of comparison.

        • NickwithaC@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          How the Swedish parliament would look is how the current British government does look. For exactly this reason.

          • demesisx@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I was thinking about that just now.

            They did Corbyn dirty in almost exactly the same way that they did Sanders. It has been worst-case-scenario from there on out.

            Have they fully privatized NHS yet?

              • demesisx@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                If it’s as bad as it is in the US, they ALL want to privatize it.

                I’ll never forget Joe Lieberman swooping in and literally letting health insurance companies completely rewrite (destroy) the Affordable Care Act from an incremental step toward Single Payer into a law that codifies their profiteering. It put everyone into three categories:

                A.) people who make more than their incredibly low income means testing are required to shop for expensive private health insurance on the free market. Health insurance companies literally raised their rates right after this. Because of Joe, health insurance profits, medical bankruptcy, and death from being under/uninsured (70,000 people per year) are at an all-time high! Any real illness won’t be covered and you’ll be forced to cover it with a GoFundMe!

                B.) people who face stiff fines if they don’t have health insurance (neoliberal paternalism much like charging people for plastic bags and sugary drinks)

                C.) people who somehow manage to sneak in under the means testing income bar! If you are 300% or more below the actual poverty line, you get the most bare bones medical insurance possible!

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s not “all of a sudden”. And it’s not “the world”. And it’s not even “America”. Rather, you’re now consuming media that’s exposing you to thoughts that have always been around, often on the fringes.

    Remember, bigots have always existed, and polite bigots toe the line as much as they’re forced to. They aren’t going to disappear, ever. (That being said, we can make them less relevant and powerful.)

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      exactly. and bigotry isn’t limited to sex or race stuff.

      people pretty much hate anyone who is different than them. even so called progressive inclusive hippie types… will express crazy bigotry towards groups they don’t like based on crude stereotypes that are largely not true.

      our brains love to generalize. They don’t like treating people who are different than us as worth our acknowledgement and esteem.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    these things come up whenever the right wing needs a distraction. they have to keep finding new groups to blame society’s ills on, so that conservatives don’t realize it’s their politics that lead to those.

    whenever a group inevitably becomes too accepted (or at least not feared enough) to be a distraction, they move on to the next group. sometimes they bring an oldie back because that’s fashion for you.

    • demesisx@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      If that were the case, the Dems could just stand up and say, “You and I both know that those aren’t even issues. They are open and shut case of right vs. wrong. Here are the issues that actually matter to people on both sides of the political spectrum:

      • stop sending our tax money to bomb people
      • give us Single Payer
      • break up monopolies
      • make it possible to afford a home
      • make college education free
      • increase wages
      • help labor
      • etc”

      and they would win in a landslide (if elections were even fair in the first place).

      But they don’t because they know that it allows them to give the donors (who are considered PEOPLE with ability to funnel ANY amount of money to a candidate because of Citizens United) what they want (more money) while doing ANYTHING to distinguish themselves to their sheeplike electorate.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    According to the GSS, only 10% of Americans reaponded “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to the statement “Homosexuals should have the right to marry” in 1988 (first year the question was asked).

    In 2004, it was 30%.

    In 2022 it was 67%.

    Also according to the GSS, 40 years ago a third of Americans thought homosexuals shouldn’t have the right to speak.

    We’ve made remarkable progress in a very short period.