LateMechanic
No bio...
User ID: 1841
I agree that they are white people from those countries, descended from other white people also from those countries, who speak white languages and are members of European-descent cultures. So what? To the extent that they are ideologically committed to my destruction or immiseration, they are my enemies. In what specific ways does their genetics or their family history or the language they speak or the culture they grew up in make them less my enemies?
Blue Tribe is pretty clearly not a "fake ethnicity". You can go to any media organization, any academic institution, any school, any court, or indeed Bluesky or Reddit and see them, live in the wild. They are a highly cohesive socio-political culture, distinct in a variety of ways, and not even slightly shy about expressing their beliefs to the world at large.
What do you make of the possibility/propensity for people to change their ideology, either with age, changing life circumstances, or in response to the changing world? I'm an example of someone who would have been your ideological enemy Blue at age 21, but already by early 30s would have been your strong ally (even if not fully 'tribally' baked Red). It seems like culture & ideology are a bit too sticky to assume almost everyone follows that track, but that stereotypical 'maximum leftwing posture in early/mid 20s that peters out' shift can't be uncommon. Or for ideological enemies, do you mainly set your sights on older people who are no longer likely to change?
I tend to mostly agree with your takes, although the way you neatly bucket 'Blues' does sometimes come across like it's a heritable ethnicity, with the die fully cast. Wouldn't a culture war victory look like a nuclear vibeshift where most blues change into reds (sheepishly or zealously, we've seen both psychologies), rather than a civil war with fighting or physical separation? (If you're amenable to the idea that mainstream normie women are largely the ones determining and enforcing social consensus, with many men then trying to follow and appeal to them, this would just look like what's politically 'correct' changing again, as it does). Maybe the argument is that your ancestrally-identical democrat neighbor who grew up reading the same bedtime stories could themselves (or certainly their children) lose their ideological difference and be your identical tribal fellow in a way that cultural immigrants just can't (at scale).
This may be my own semantic skill issue, but it does seem like your shortening of his "state of emergency"ism to just 'emergencyism' loses something (even if you were trying to keep the idea but make the term more usable). It sounded like this concept was actually about there not even really being any emergency at all -- just the existence of political opposition as a boogeyman, which means all times can be characterized as being in a generalized potential state of emergency such that we can't afford to police political allies [right now]. Hence the classic example "this is the most important election of our lifetime, not the time to be overly-principled" every cycle.
Certainly seems like everyone partakes in this to varying degrees, although the anti-Trump era is characterized by a particularly zealous version of it for whatever reason. To find anyone avoiding the brainworm, you'd be looking for the heterodox/heretical people willing to be disagreeable (or at least those willing to talk to them). Or I suppose you'd be looking for a legit emergency, which may subjectively reach the level of being worth piping down and falling in line.
More options
Context Copy link