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.

> 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.

I was trying to think of examples of violence, and January 6th came to mind, how do you think about that?

Thanks.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

who was killed on January 6?

Some cops, right? Six of them, I think. Also, I recall a video of a woman being shot by a cop after being the first through a door. Not sure.

I doubt anyone on the left thought the election was rigged, but many were convinced on the right.

Seems like a bubble there.

Or perhaps instead of a bubble, as you say, they were exposed to both sides. But, in that case, the dissonance didn’t temper the violence.

There were zero cops killed on January 6. The only person killed was a protester, shot by Capitol police.

Ah, thanks for the correction. Also just read that some cops later committed suicide.

I find it hard to believe that social media algorithms don’t put people on the right in a bubble.

Since learning about Bitcoin and using nostr, my YouTube feed has definitely shifted.

I expect most people in the right bubble avoid late night talk shows like left bubble avoids Fox News or whatever. And neither gets served that info as time goes on.

I agree that it’s probably harder for the left to inadvertently see the edge of their bubble. Especially the academic portion of it. “But the studies show” is a common refrain I hear, and explaining that money can easily influence research outcomes is not accepted. There must be a refuting study.

Anyway, I’m thinking out loud and trying to get my head around things. Thanks for engaging.