Replying to Avatar Chris Liss

Most of the political violence in recent years has come from the left, but I think that’s more due to ideological capture than anything inherent about left vs right.

Because the left captured all the institutions — tech, media, academia — people on the left were able to live in a bubble. They were able to avoid the unpleasant cognitive dissonance that comes with encountering opposing viewpoints. It was like being in a very large cult.

When this persists for long enough, it’s easy to become a fundamentalist of sorts, someone who views contrary viewpoints not just as incorrect but evil. It’s easy to see how this would happen — as your worldview gets ever more affirmed, it becomes ever-more painful to have it exposed to contradictions and internal incoherence.

People on the right the last few decades were constantly told they were bad and wrong by the media. It was almost impossible for them to live in a bubble. When you don’t live in a bubble, you are exposed to cognitive dissonance all the time, and you have less absolutism and fundamentalism. Less existential dread when someone disagrees with you, more rigor in formulating your worldview.

What the right should not want is to swap places with the left where their views become fundamentalism, dissent from them is verboten and their side gets radicalized when challenged.

Free speech you disagree with has to be protected no matter what. Unfortunately, I think it’s just the nature of power that it corrupts, and when the right re-takes it (they have in the US, but not entirely as the institutions are still very much leftist), they’ll probably do stupid shit like outlaw mocking Charlie Kirk’s assassination as “hate speech” or outlaw flag burning.

"The left" encompasses both progressives and liberals. Liberalism is very civil and tolerant, while progressivism is strident and intolerant. It would be somewhat surprising to see violence coming from liberals, but not surprising from progressives.

Also, conventional blowback theory would predict more violence from the right, if that's the side being marginalized by the institutions, especially if violence is being allowed against them. However, we were in a strange place where the side holding power also believed they were the ones being oppressed.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I don't know -- most individuals of any political stripe won’t commit violence until things get really dire but A LOT of people were really intolerant of opposing views or at least condoned intolerance to the point where they wouldn’t stand against it even if it were done to a friend of theirs.

Think the majority of people just believe not what is true, but what is beneficial in their social and professional spheres. And when there is enough capture and detachment from real-world feedback, when they become absolutely convinced of their righteousness and the evils of those who disagree, you get violence.

If the right gets power in the institutions and starts to view itself as superior and righteous, there would be a reversal IMO. And it is interesting, as you point out, the dynamic of being in power and oppressed. Only possible in a cult.

Have you heard Michael Malice's theory that most people don't have minds, in any meaningful sense.

It's similar to your description of "beliefs" being entirely due to conformity.

The right will obviously use violence once in power. Traditionally, they use violence to prevent social change, while progressives use violence to advance change. Liberals are the weirdos who don't like violent enforcement of their preferences.

I haven’t heard of it, but I know people like that! I always wonder the extent to which some people are pot committed to the tribe, right or wrong, from the start and the extent to which some actually know better.