7 ms·

As someone who'd consider themselves progressive by the yardstick of 10 years ago but not measured to the new progressives of today, the most visible toxic-but-

As someone who'd consider themselves progressive by the yardstick of 10 years ago but not measured to the new progressives of today, the most visible toxic-but-cozy-because-our-silo was that BIPOC people don't need to use content warning (CW) labels when site guidelines say use CW labels on political toots. The reason given was that white people must not be able to opt out of the BIPOC experience of political outrage. The New Left has become unrecognizable to me as a mode of liberal thinking and both sides of the political fence in the US appear to have escaped into a hole of myopic beliefs that mirror each other in their intensity and desire for control.

wolverine876 4y ago
What forum are you talking about. All of Mastadon? Doesn't each instance have its own rules? > As someone who'd consider themselves progressive by the yardstick of 10 years ago but not measured to the new progressives of today ... > The New Left has become unrecognizable to me That's an expected phenomenon. What was progressive yesterday becomes conservative today - think of women's rights, interracial marriage, etc. The same goes for 'who' was progressive. When people are young, they challenge the corrupt system. As those changes are enacted, those young people grow older and become the system. Then a new generation sees that 'progress' of your youth as the old, corrupt, scelerotic system; they have nothing invested in your achievements; they see the system's flaws and push to change them. The formerly-young-challengers, now old-system-members, say 'that's crazy, outlandish, outrageous, etc.' - exactly what was said to them when they were young. Oh yes, I know, 'this time it's different'. 'These kids really are outrageous.' Those words are also exactly the same as before. If you want to be progressive, you need to keep seeing the flaws, not accepting them, and keep pushing for change. The moment you stop, say 'far enough we've done a good job', you cease being progressive.
- Escapado 4y ago
  I would consider myself left leaning and still wish to see a lot of progress and change but I disagree with quite a few talking points of what might be considered the current “zeitgeist” of the far left. Would I consider misgendendering a _violent_ hate crime? No. Am I for more inclusion and free choice of gender identity? Yes. Do I think that pure socialism will save humanity? No. Do I think it’s bad we have people on the planet with more money than multiple countries combined? Yes. I would even argue most progressives are seeing flaws and don’t accept them and push for change but you don’t need to be “radical”(as in further from the status quo) in your views to do that and it doesn’t make you less of a progressive - you are just trying to push to a different spot on the manifold.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Who is calling for pure socialism? The only people I hear mention it are reactionary anti-progressives.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    If you want to set yourself an interesting challenge, try to figure out why it is you think being on the right wing of politics is incompatible with those opinions. The right wing is large and has lots of factions, with the only thing uniting them being resistance to the left's attempts to reform the system. The big divide isn't over specific beliefs and policies as much as whether you believe the current system tends to favour you or not.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      > The big divide isn't over specific beliefs and policies as much as whether you believe the current system tends to favour you or not. I'm not sure about that. I know some conservatives (which I'd consider myself as well, though leaning libertarian) who are very well off but didn't start that way, and their political ideas remained constant. I know others who aren't particularly wealthy, but hold the same ideas. Fundamentally, I believe it's more about "what will work?", in essence "if we organized our society along these lines, would it still function, or would it fall apart", and progressives and conservatives have vastly different opinions on that. For a single issue: conservatives generally believe that "if you pay people to do nothing, that's exactly what they'll do" and thus are opposed to high welfare (because people will stop working, and without people working, nothing gets produced), while progressives believe that people will be freed by not worrying about their income and will voluntarily work and become very productive, which is why they're very much in favor of high welfare (e.g. UBI). It's one side saying "don't change this, you'll break everything" and the other side saying "no, we need to change this, it'll get better". But it's not about your current status in the system. My political convictions haven't changed much since when I was pretty much poor vs now that I'm doing very well (though they've become calmer, but I'd attribute that mostly to age).
      - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
- emptysongglass 4y ago
  > What forum are you talking about. All of Mastadon? Doesn't each instance have its own rules? It's one of the larger instances but the top heaviest constitute the majority by far and they all enshrine these policies. I don't think you're really answering my criticism. You're lumping my "retrograde" progressiveness in with the well-worn wheel of timely revolts against the corruption of the past. I'm saying that both sides of the political aisle have become hives of extremism and that the left, particularly, has become the thing it once hated, an instrument of control in the service of the few.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > It's one of the larger instances but the top heaviest constitute the majority by far and they all enshrine these policies. So can you provide any evidence? Name this instance? > both sides of the political aisle have become hives of extremism It's laughable. Look at the people in power. What progressive is in any major office: Look at the President, the Minority Leader of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate, Democratic Governors, etc. etc. All are mainstream Dems, hardly a progressive to be seen. Meanwhile, a majority of the GOP in Washington voted to overturn democracy and as sided with the rioters who attempted a coup. > the left, particularly, has become the thing it once hated, an instrument of control in the service of the few What has the left controlled? The right wing has used governmet power to ban books, educational topics, political freedom for teachers, criminalized gender choices, protests, etc. etc. Even in colleges, the right has shut down dissent, including among faculty (e.g., at UNC, in Florida, Harvard, Yale, etc.). The right is trying to eliminate tenure and academic freedom. The left is trying to break the control of a few. Whether you like their tactics or not, they are trying to give power to minorities and other vulnerable people.
    - emptysongglass 4y ago
      > So can you provide any evidence? Name this instance? I've already shared the specifics I'm comfortable sharing. I have zero desire to start a witch hunt. > What has the left controlled? The right wing has used governmet power to ban books, educational topics, political freedom for teachers, criminalized gender choices, protests, etc. etc. Even in colleges, the right has shut down dissent, including among faculty (e.g., at UNC, in Florida, Harvard, Yale, etc.). The right is trying to eliminate tenure and academic freedom. You're perfectly demonstrating exactly the behavior I intended to point out. "Other-ing" the opposition into the Sith is not productive and the Left is as guilty of this as the Right. > The left is trying to break the control of a few. Whether you like their tactics or not, they are trying to give power to minorities and other vulnerable people. Through race essentialism? Or by what means are you specifically referring to? The common platform of the new left is that all white people are guilty of the original sin of their skin color. A platform based on enforced shame is not a platform for collaboration.
- makomk 4y ago
  > What was progressive yesterday becomes conservative today - think of women's rights, interracial marriage, etc. The same goes for 'who' was progressive. That's really not what's been happening here, though, and the extremely online activists are not simply people who are ahead of the curve on pushing to fix society's flaws. For example, take trans rights, the main weapon currently used to demand people get in line - in reality it was the boring, normie mainstream liberals who dragged the online activists into supporting that in the first place, not the other way around. Until just a few years ago they supported anti-trans viewpoints that were way out of kilter with mainstream society and demanded trans women shut up about harassment campaigns that went just as much against mainstream norms and values as the harassment that the online left is apologists for today. There's a good chance this changed through younger people with different views coming in, but they had those views in the first place because society as a whole had already shifted. The difference really, genuinely, and consistently is just toxicity, extremism, and a refusal to accept that anyone who deviates even an inch from their views is a decent person. Those are the things that have stayed constant even as the arguments and the targets have shifted. The culture shifts easily from expecting trans women to shut up about TERF harassment campaigns to justifying harassment of streamers who play a game based on a franchise by someone who liked tweets containing TERF views because the cruelty is the point. While the views go beyond what mainstream society is willing to accept, the direction is extremely questionable. (For example, there have been multiple ugly Mastodon disputes involving server operators trying to shut people up about the long trail of rape allegations that follow one specific trans woman around, pretty much all from other trans women. Paying attention to them is supposedly hateful and an attack on trans women. Again, this is one specific person who's allegedly doing it, the same one every single time - not trans women as a whole.)
  - ComposedPattern 4y ago
    I find this version of the story very odd. I'm in my mid-20s and figured out that I was trans about 10 years ago. The main reason I didn't get swept up in the anti-SJW craze of the time was because "SJWs" were firmly supportive of trans and non-binary people, while many of their opponents were either indifferent or comparing us to attack helicopters. Are you talking about more than ten years ago?
- ilyt 4y ago
  Weird excuse for rampant racism the "new" progressives are pushing.
- sillyfluke 4y ago
  >That's an expected phenomenon. What was progressive yesterday becomes conservative today - think of women's rights, interracial marriage, etc. The same goes for 'who' was progressive. I think it would have been worth it to give this more than a moments thought. A quick glance at 20th century events shows fascism and communist dictatorships being seen as more fashionable and modern than flaky Weimar republics and crumbling empires. The next 50-80 years nevertheless showed history bending haphazaradly away from these trends. In the least, taking for granted that what follows is inevitably more progressive seems a tad rash. What's far more interesting is examining the thoughts and actions of the inglorious bastards, both young and old, who at the time recognized early on that This Was Not The Way, and with what critera they did so.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    Fascism is explicitly and deliberately regressive. Its incarnations have all focused on building up the image and importance of both traditional values and a legendary heritage (often Rome or a Roman offshoot) which people are supposed to aspire to returning to and continue into the future.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  I think what OP is describing is the modern let's turn away from liberalism and in some cases embracing race essentialism
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    It's too bad that the word "liberal" got intertwined with "left politics" since mainstream Democrats and Republicans are both "Liberals", or at least subscribe to the "liberal intellectual system". It's about how knowledge is created and validated through public criticism and checks. No one and no ideal is above this system. It's about skepticism in that NO ONE get the the final say on anything and NO ONE has personal authority. A claim to knowledge can only be made if it is falsifiable and can be debunked. This is where modern Progressives (or wokes) diverge from Liberalism. It is a politics of radical egalitarianism and fundamentalism. The idea that certain people have access to certain knowledge and "other ways of knowing" that makes them the authority on a subject and them and only them should be listened to. And of course, using unfalsifiable methods to achieve this as evidenced in their most popular literature that states "All white people are racist and denial of this is evidence of their fragility, which is racist". This language trick is used over and over. And of course, creating a grievance hierarchy that intends to flip Liberalism on its head since clearly the Liberal intellectual tradition was created by and for white men to maintain their power over everyone else. Of course ignoring that all of the so-called "progress" we've made (women's right, gay rights, civil rights, etc) are from the Liberal tradition. Some people are bigots. But many people that are labeled bigots are simply skeptical liberals, which are often called fascists now.
- Vrondi 4y ago
  This is true to a point, but it completely disregards the historical phenomenon of the "witch hunt". McCarthyism seemed to originate in a "good place" at first, to most Americans (patriotism and anti-communism). It went so far off the rails that it did great social harm. The same phenomenon of becoming so strident in your position that you persecute "the other" (whatever "other" currently happens to be) is the same phenomenon that leads to things like the Holocaust and burning people at the stake at the extreme end. These extreme social moments in time originate from places of apparent good intentions at many moments in History. These pop up amongst the regular rolling generation gap phenomenon whenever polarization gets too extreme. Wise people should fear times when people on the ends of the political spectrum do not talk _to_ each other, but only _about_ each other. It should be VERY apparent that we seem to be getting to such a social time (exacerbated by technology driven bubbles), and anyone who dreads the next Burning Times is a wise person.
peterashford 4y ago
That's true of the instance you were looking at.
jeroenhd 4y ago
That's pretty ridiculous and doesn't match my Mastodon experience at all. What instance was this?
blueflow 4y ago
[flagged]
ilyt 4y ago
Same. Today world is some bizzaro dimension. For example, 15-20 years ago we had conservatives yelling video games are the devil and they need to be censored and some topics not even touched. Now I see same shit from "left" (it's not progressive, it's some fascist facsimile of it) and weirdly enough, a lot of gaming journalism that seems to hate their own audience now. > The reason given was that white people must not be able to opt out of the BIPOC experience of political outrage. ...or the modern left being by far the most racist ones out there
- andlarry 4y ago
  > For example, 15-20 years ago we had conservatives yelling video games are the devil and they need to be censored and some topics not even touched. My memory of the 2003 to 2008 time frame is different. I recall mainstream complaints about GTA 3, released 2001. Famously, Senator Clinton asked the FTC to investigate GTA 3 over the "hot coffee" mod in 2005. There was also the 2005 California Law [0] that banned the sale of violent video games to minors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association#California_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan...
  - ilyt 4y ago
    Before that we also had various moral panics, like the one about roleplaying games pushing "the devil". And for many years (still rears its ugly head from time to time) "the game violence causes real violence" garbage.
    - andlarry 4y ago
      > Before that we also had various moral panics, like the one about roleplaying games pushing "the devil". Ahh, ok. So the moral panic of the early 80s, about 40 years ago. The "video games cause real violence" argument was personified by Tipper Gore in the 90s, more than 30 years ago. I don't recall anything from 15-20 years ago particular to conservatives. It has been mainstream since the 90s.
- te_304950 4y ago

wolverine876 4y ago

What forum are you talking about. All of Mastadon? Doesn't each instance have its own rules? > As someone who'd consider themselves progressive by the yardstick of 10 years ago but not measured to the new progressives of today ... > The New Left has become unrecognizable to me That's an expected phenomenon. What was progressive yesterday becomes conservative today - think of women's rights, interracial marriage, etc. The same goes for 'who' was progressive. When people are young, they challenge the corrupt system. As those changes are enacted, those young people grow older and become the system. Then a new generation sees that 'progress' of your youth as the old, corrupt, scelerotic system; they have nothing invested in your achievements; they see the system's flaws and push to change them. The formerly-young-challengers, now old-system-members, say 'that's crazy, outlandish, outrageous, etc.' - exactly what was said to them when they were young. Oh yes, I know, 'this time it's different'. 'These kids really are outrageous.' Those words are also exactly the same as before. If you want to be progressive, you need to keep seeing the flaws, not accepting them, and keep pushing for change. The moment you stop, say 'far enough we've done a good job', you cease being progressive.

Escapado 4y ago
I would consider myself left leaning and still wish to see a lot of progress and change but I disagree with quite a few talking points of what might be considered the current “zeitgeist” of the far left. Would I consider misgendendering a _violent_ hate crime? No. Am I for more inclusion and free choice of gender identity? Yes. Do I think that pure socialism will save humanity? No. Do I think it’s bad we have people on the planet with more money than multiple countries combined? Yes. I would even argue most progressives are seeing flaws and don’t accept them and push for change but you don’t need to be “radical”(as in further from the status quo) in your views to do that and it doesn’t make you less of a progressive - you are just trying to push to a different spot on the manifold.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Who is calling for pure socialism? The only people I hear mention it are reactionary anti-progressives.
- roenxi 4y ago
  If you want to set yourself an interesting challenge, try to figure out why it is you think being on the right wing of politics is incompatible with those opinions. The right wing is large and has lots of factions, with the only thing uniting them being resistance to the left's attempts to reform the system. The big divide isn't over specific beliefs and policies as much as whether you believe the current system tends to favour you or not.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    > The big divide isn't over specific beliefs and policies as much as whether you believe the current system tends to favour you or not. I'm not sure about that. I know some conservatives (which I'd consider myself as well, though leaning libertarian) who are very well off but didn't start that way, and their political ideas remained constant. I know others who aren't particularly wealthy, but hold the same ideas. Fundamentally, I believe it's more about "what will work?", in essence "if we organized our society along these lines, would it still function, or would it fall apart", and progressives and conservatives have vastly different opinions on that. For a single issue: conservatives generally believe that "if you pay people to do nothing, that's exactly what they'll do" and thus are opposed to high welfare (because people will stop working, and without people working, nothing gets produced), while progressives believe that people will be freed by not worrying about their income and will voluntarily work and become very productive, which is why they're very much in favor of high welfare (e.g. UBI). It's one side saying "don't change this, you'll break everything" and the other side saying "no, we need to change this, it'll get better". But it's not about your current status in the system. My political convictions haven't changed much since when I was pretty much poor vs now that I'm doing very well (though they've become calmer, but I'd attribute that mostly to age).
    - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
emptysongglass 4y ago
> What forum are you talking about. All of Mastadon? Doesn't each instance have its own rules? It's one of the larger instances but the top heaviest constitute the majority by far and they all enshrine these policies. I don't think you're really answering my criticism. You're lumping my "retrograde" progressiveness in with the well-worn wheel of timely revolts against the corruption of the past. I'm saying that both sides of the political aisle have become hives of extremism and that the left, particularly, has become the thing it once hated, an instrument of control in the service of the few.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > It's one of the larger instances but the top heaviest constitute the majority by far and they all enshrine these policies. So can you provide any evidence? Name this instance? > both sides of the political aisle have become hives of extremism It's laughable. Look at the people in power. What progressive is in any major office: Look at the President, the Minority Leader of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate, Democratic Governors, etc. etc. All are mainstream Dems, hardly a progressive to be seen. Meanwhile, a majority of the GOP in Washington voted to overturn democracy and as sided with the rioters who attempted a coup. > the left, particularly, has become the thing it once hated, an instrument of control in the service of the few What has the left controlled? The right wing has used governmet power to ban books, educational topics, political freedom for teachers, criminalized gender choices, protests, etc. etc. Even in colleges, the right has shut down dissent, including among faculty (e.g., at UNC, in Florida, Harvard, Yale, etc.). The right is trying to eliminate tenure and academic freedom. The left is trying to break the control of a few. Whether you like their tactics or not, they are trying to give power to minorities and other vulnerable people.
  - emptysongglass 4y ago
    > So can you provide any evidence? Name this instance? I've already shared the specifics I'm comfortable sharing. I have zero desire to start a witch hunt. > What has the left controlled? The right wing has used governmet power to ban books, educational topics, political freedom for teachers, criminalized gender choices, protests, etc. etc. Even in colleges, the right has shut down dissent, including among faculty (e.g., at UNC, in Florida, Harvard, Yale, etc.). The right is trying to eliminate tenure and academic freedom. You're perfectly demonstrating exactly the behavior I intended to point out. "Other-ing" the opposition into the Sith is not productive and the Left is as guilty of this as the Right. > The left is trying to break the control of a few. Whether you like their tactics or not, they are trying to give power to minorities and other vulnerable people. Through race essentialism? Or by what means are you specifically referring to? The common platform of the new left is that all white people are guilty of the original sin of their skin color. A platform based on enforced shame is not a platform for collaboration.
makomk 4y ago
> What was progressive yesterday becomes conservative today - think of women's rights, interracial marriage, etc. The same goes for 'who' was progressive. That's really not what's been happening here, though, and the extremely online activists are not simply people who are ahead of the curve on pushing to fix society's flaws. For example, take trans rights, the main weapon currently used to demand people get in line - in reality it was the boring, normie mainstream liberals who dragged the online activists into supporting that in the first place, not the other way around. Until just a few years ago they supported anti-trans viewpoints that were way out of kilter with mainstream society and demanded trans women shut up about harassment campaigns that went just as much against mainstream norms and values as the harassment that the online left is apologists for today. There's a good chance this changed through younger people with different views coming in, but they had those views in the first place because society as a whole had already shifted. The difference really, genuinely, and consistently is just toxicity, extremism, and a refusal to accept that anyone who deviates even an inch from their views is a decent person. Those are the things that have stayed constant even as the arguments and the targets have shifted. The culture shifts easily from expecting trans women to shut up about TERF harassment campaigns to justifying harassment of streamers who play a game based on a franchise by someone who liked tweets containing TERF views because the cruelty is the point. While the views go beyond what mainstream society is willing to accept, the direction is extremely questionable. (For example, there have been multiple ugly Mastodon disputes involving server operators trying to shut people up about the long trail of rape allegations that follow one specific trans woman around, pretty much all from other trans women. Paying attention to them is supposedly hateful and an attack on trans women. Again, this is one specific person who's allegedly doing it, the same one every single time - not trans women as a whole.)
- ComposedPattern 4y ago
  I find this version of the story very odd. I'm in my mid-20s and figured out that I was trans about 10 years ago. The main reason I didn't get swept up in the anti-SJW craze of the time was because "SJWs" were firmly supportive of trans and non-binary people, while many of their opponents were either indifferent or comparing us to attack helicopters. Are you talking about more than ten years ago?
ilyt 4y ago
Weird excuse for rampant racism the "new" progressives are pushing.
sillyfluke 4y ago
>That's an expected phenomenon. What was progressive yesterday becomes conservative today - think of women's rights, interracial marriage, etc. The same goes for 'who' was progressive. I think it would have been worth it to give this more than a moments thought. A quick glance at 20th century events shows fascism and communist dictatorships being seen as more fashionable and modern than flaky Weimar republics and crumbling empires. The next 50-80 years nevertheless showed history bending haphazaradly away from these trends. In the least, taking for granted that what follows is inevitably more progressive seems a tad rash. What's far more interesting is examining the thoughts and actions of the inglorious bastards, both young and old, who at the time recognized early on that This Was Not The Way, and with what critera they did so.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Fascism is explicitly and deliberately regressive. Its incarnations have all focused on building up the image and importance of both traditional values and a legendary heritage (often Rome or a Roman offshoot) which people are supposed to aspire to returning to and continue into the future.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway6734 4y ago
I think what OP is describing is the modern let's turn away from liberalism and in some cases embracing race essentialism
- nemo44x 4y ago
  It's too bad that the word "liberal" got intertwined with "left politics" since mainstream Democrats and Republicans are both "Liberals", or at least subscribe to the "liberal intellectual system". It's about how knowledge is created and validated through public criticism and checks. No one and no ideal is above this system. It's about skepticism in that NO ONE get the the final say on anything and NO ONE has personal authority. A claim to knowledge can only be made if it is falsifiable and can be debunked. This is where modern Progressives (or wokes) diverge from Liberalism. It is a politics of radical egalitarianism and fundamentalism. The idea that certain people have access to certain knowledge and "other ways of knowing" that makes them the authority on a subject and them and only them should be listened to. And of course, using unfalsifiable methods to achieve this as evidenced in their most popular literature that states "All white people are racist and denial of this is evidence of their fragility, which is racist". This language trick is used over and over. And of course, creating a grievance hierarchy that intends to flip Liberalism on its head since clearly the Liberal intellectual tradition was created by and for white men to maintain their power over everyone else. Of course ignoring that all of the so-called "progress" we've made (women's right, gay rights, civil rights, etc) are from the Liberal tradition. Some people are bigots. But many people that are labeled bigots are simply skeptical liberals, which are often called fascists now.
Vrondi 4y ago
This is true to a point, but it completely disregards the historical phenomenon of the "witch hunt". McCarthyism seemed to originate in a "good place" at first, to most Americans (patriotism and anti-communism). It went so far off the rails that it did great social harm. The same phenomenon of becoming so strident in your position that you persecute "the other" (whatever "other" currently happens to be) is the same phenomenon that leads to things like the Holocaust and burning people at the stake at the extreme end. These extreme social moments in time originate from places of apparent good intentions at many moments in History. These pop up amongst the regular rolling generation gap phenomenon whenever polarization gets too extreme. Wise people should fear times when people on the ends of the political spectrum do not talk _to_ each other, but only _about_ each other. It should be VERY apparent that we seem to be getting to such a social time (exacerbated by technology driven bubbles), and anyone who dreads the next Burning Times is a wise person.

peterashford 4y ago

That's true of the instance you were looking at.

jeroenhd 4y ago

That's pretty ridiculous and doesn't match my Mastodon experience at all. What instance was this?

blueflow 4y ago

[flagged]

ilyt 4y ago

Same. Today world is some bizzaro dimension. For example, 15-20 years ago we had conservatives yelling video games are the devil and they need to be censored and some topics not even touched. Now I see same shit from "left" (it's not progressive, it's some fascist facsimile of it) and weirdly enough, a lot of gaming journalism that seems to hate their own audience now. > The reason given was that white people must not be able to opt out of the BIPOC experience of political outrage. ...or the modern left being by far the most racist ones out there

andlarry 4y ago
> For example, 15-20 years ago we had conservatives yelling video games are the devil and they need to be censored and some topics not even touched. My memory of the 2003 to 2008 time frame is different. I recall mainstream complaints about GTA 3, released 2001. Famously, Senator Clinton asked the FTC to investigate GTA 3 over the "hot coffee" mod in 2005. There was also the 2005 California Law [0] that banned the sale of violent video games to minors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association#California_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan...
- ilyt 4y ago
  Before that we also had various moral panics, like the one about roleplaying games pushing "the devil". And for many years (still rears its ugly head from time to time) "the game violence causes real violence" garbage.
  - andlarry 4y ago
    > Before that we also had various moral panics, like the one about roleplaying games pushing "the devil". Ahh, ok. So the moral panic of the early 80s, about 40 years ago. The "video games cause real violence" argument was personified by Tipper Gore in the 90s, more than 30 years ago. I don't recall anything from 15-20 years ago particular to conservatives. It has been mainstream since the 90s.
te_304950 4y ago