I'm beginning to think that this mindset isn't actually unusual or unprecedented. We throw out any kind of reason, plan, or ideology in favor of a vague personal loyalty all the time. Moreover, is this really any different from the "I'll always support the Democrat in an election" mentality? The only difference is that now it's applied to a single person rather than a party, but I wonder if maybe that's not actually a meaningful distinction.
It isn't unusual, it happens all the time in other areas. Blind support is pretty much never a good thing. What we have here is an excellent and well-documented example of it, with a community whose voting power exceeds that of most other Americans. These people have a mountain of evidence that their town is dying, and at least a few of the people interviewed appear to know about Trump's failures on almost every policy point that he campaigned on, and they refuse to even acknowledge any possible failure on his part. Like the article says, it's less that goalposts have been moved and more that they have been eliminated altogether. If I may go beyond the article for a bit, the emergence and newfound prevalence of this aptly described "vague personal loyalty" is now combined with a disturbing rejection of former consensus sources of facts. The people interviewed in the article probably watch Fox News exclusively, listen to talk radio when they drive, and go to a church where the pastor is not above shoehorning political issues into his sermons. I understand that this is conjecture, but it accurately describes many of my friends and family who hold similar views to the people in the article. The worry here is that this complete alternate ecosystem of information is leading to a fundamental split within America where opposing views can't even come to the table, let alone reach meaningful consensus. Additionally, toxic or distracting viewpoints can be much more easily circulated within these alternate ecosystems: Schilling looked at her husband, Dave McCabe, who’s 67 and a retired high school basketball coach. She nodded at me. “Tell him,” she said to McCabe, “what you said the NFL is …” McCabe looked momentarily wary. He laughed a little. “I don’t remember saying that,” he said unconvincingly. Schilling was having none of it. “You’re the one that told me, liar,” she said. She looked at me. The NFL? “Niggers for life,” Schilling said. “For life,” McCabe added.“The thing that irritates me to no end is this NFL shit,” Schilling told me in her living room. “I’m about ready to go over the top with this shit. We do not watch no NFL now.” They’re Dallas Cowboys fans. “We banned ’em. We don’t watch it.”
Yep, I think you're right. The Republicans have dog-whistled this shit for a couple decades now, but Trump came along and brought it out in the open. He, in so many words, came out and said "it's fine to ignore facts you don't like." It's hard to process facts that contradict what you already think, and human nature is to take the path of least resistance. When someone says that you were right all along, that you don't have to worry about those pesky opposing points of view, it's very seductive. Trump and the Republicans give people a safe haven from the cultural changes they don't have the self-discipline, empathy, and/or education to embrace.
This is why I didn't bother commenting on you suggestion that outlawing gun wouldn't reduce the number of mass killings.I'm beginning to think that this mindset isn't actually unusual or unprecedented. We throw out any kind of reason, plan, or ideology in favor of a vague personal loyalty all the time. Moreover, is this really any different from the "I'll always support the Democrat in an election" mentality? The only difference is that now it's applied to a single person rather than a party, but I wonder if maybe that's not actually a meaningful distinction.
Was it that or the fact that I've never actually made that suggestion?
It doesn't automatically follow, you might need to ponder it for a split second. If you meant to suggest something other than getting rid of guns probably wouldn't reduce the chance of mass murder you were so unclear that no one should be faulted for misunderstanding you. It also goes back to a conversation from a while back where I said that gun owner that don't admit that they are a greater statistical danger of dying by a gun are hypocrites who are denying the evident reality of academic data, and that every gun owner is the safest and wisest gun owner of all time until they aren't. You're position was that you were in no way less safe because you owned a gun. I find that hypocritical. The only gun legislation I actively support is that all gun sales have go through a rigorous and timely background check. I think I'm the person who doesn't have any dog in the gun legislation fight, I don't own a gun but also believe that the 2nd amendment should allow any citizen to own a gun. I don't believe that you are dispassionate and objective in your views on the subject, I only have my perception of what you've said about it judge your position.To me this is a really shallow look at things, though. I mean yes, if we were able to magically hand-waive away all guns we'd probably have fewer mass shootings. But it doesn't automatically follow that we'd have fewer mass murders. (The prime example is that the deadliest U.S. mass murder in a school was committed with dynamite.)
I mean, I don't see the words "doesn't automatically follow" as being somehow ambiguous. The only hypocrisy I see is your saying that the academic data is unassailable while then accusing me of not being dispassionate or objective.It doesn't automatically follow, you might need to ponder it for a split second. If you meant to suggest something other than getting rid of guns probably wouldn't reduce the chance of mass murder you were so unclear that no one should be faulted for misunderstanding you.
It also goes back to a conversation from a while back where I said that gun owner that don't admit that they are a greater statistical danger of dying by a gun are hypocrites who are denying the evident reality of academic data, and that every gun owner is the safest and wisest gun owner of all time until they aren't. You're position was that you were in no way less safe because you owned a gun. I find that hypocritical.