The difference this time is that the underlying debate is around the definitions of good and evil.
A lot of people over the last ten years have heard about the evil things some people have done and plan to do and gone “yup, sounds good to me.”
The difference this time is that the underlying debate is around the definitions of good and evil.
A lot of people over the last ten years have heard about the evil things some people have done and plan to do and gone “yup, sounds good to me.”
SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 3 days ago
I tend to doubt it’s as different as you think. IMHO, the majority of people want good, but are clueless as to what exactly that looks like when it comes to more complex topics like managing the wide variety of people that make up a society. Understanding that usually requires a LOT more time and effort into reasoning things out than they’re willing/able to put in, anyway.
They therefore pick someone to trust who seems (read: cons them into believing) like they know “the truth” to do all their thinking for them. Those arrogant enough to portray themselves as such are almost always malignant personality types interested primarily in manipulating others to do their bidding in order to benefit themselves. They “know” everything, and either are exceedingly unlikely to admit to human failings such as not knowing something, or always have a ready excuse that puts blame upon their enemies for their failings.
They divide people up & pit them against one another to distract, ensure loyalty, and keep control.
Any of this sound familiar? It’s a pattern repeated among humans throughout history.