3 ms·

But I suspect for most them their real desire was simply long lasting harm to the federal government and pain and suffering inflicted on those who work for the

But I suspect for most them their real desire was simply long lasting harm to the federal government and pain and suffering inflicted on those who work for the government. I'm not sure why you think any of them would believe they were wrong. I don't think any of them were hoping for some kind of transformation other than destruction.

calvinmorrison 1y ago
> simply long lasting harm to the federal government and pain and suffering inflicted on those who work for the government. sounds about right
samdoesnothing 1y ago
Why do you suspect this? Is it your view that right wingers are inherently evil as opposed to, say, having different opinions about how things should be done? I urge you to find some empathy.
- thunderfork 1y ago
  [dead]
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  To be fair, many are evil and hold evil opinions about their fellow humans. How do I find empathy with someone who doesn’t subscribe to the same reality and does not value lives of even their own neighbors?
  - samdoesnothing 1y ago
    I think if you actually spoke with them, many would make the same claims about the left. Many right wingers see the left as being equally evil, that doesn't mean it's true.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      Where does the empathy come in to play?
    - kjkjadksj 1y ago
      I can’t find empathy for racists, bigots, nor fascists. Both sides are very much not the same. Enough with the false equivalencies.
- tomjakubowski 1y ago
  You can read Project 2025 and see for yourself that inflicting pain and misery on federal workers was the ringleaders' plainly stated motivation.
- acdha 1y ago
  I have friends who are gay, trans, non-Christian, or brown. Not all right-wingers say that they aren’t fully people but many do, and the more libertarian ones aren’t exactly rushing to shut that down. It is very hard to trust a group of people unwilling to recognize my neighbors as fully human. In the federal space, we’ve seen purges of women and minorities, shutdowns of groups which work on things like civil rights or pollution in poor communities, widespread refusal to pay money as promised, and attempts to punish organizations for 1st amendment activities. There is zero expectation of good-faith from anyone who supports that.
  - samdoesnothing 1y ago
    Uh, good for you? I do as well. You say that not all right wingers are bigoted, and then go on to proclaim the entire group doesn't recognize minorities as being human. Have you spoken honestly and in good faith with right wingers?
    - etchalon 1y ago
      I have had many such conversations (Texas is a fun state) and while many don't consider themselves bigoted, their policy preferences amount to, essentially, "but I'd rather we not treat people equally." They don't "hate gay people". (They have gay friends!) But they don't think gay people should be able to marry or adopt children. Sometimes Leviticus comes up. They don't "hate Black people" (They have black co-workers!). They just think the disparities in the justice, education and financial systems are all Black people's own fault. They don't "hate immigrants" (They love Mexico!), they just think they're not assimilating, taking American jobs and draining tax payer resources. Trans people seem to be the only group they'll outright admit to hating. Oh, and Democrats. They really hate Democrats. As I said, Texas is fun.
    - acdha 1y ago
      Let me clarify my point: I’m not saying every Republican is the same on every one of those issues, I’m saying that the people who disagree are not standing up to the people rejecting the idea that certain groups deserve full rights. I have a number of family and a few remaining right-wing acquaintances (all of the libertarians I knew are voting straight-ticket for Democrats against MAGA) – not “kinda liked Reagan” but people who’ve had worked published in national media or been invited to dinner at Rupert Murdoch’s estate. Privately, people express concern or distaste for anti-liberty actions - but not in public, never to the point of standing up for a group being targeted. Like the Mexican woman who cleans their house, she’s great even if her husband was originally undocumented, so of course ICE shouldn’t go after them – but they won’t speak up on behalf of anyone they don’t know personally, even just to call for due process. I left the Republican sphere during the Bush years when it became obvious that for all of the talk about ethics and the rule of law during the Clinton administration, there wasn’t a desire to hold their fellows to that same standard. Sadly, it’s only gotten worse since then – as we can see from the blatant lawlessness this year where even people who might share goals like reducing government spending or reconsidering industrial policy should feel safe saying there’s a better, legal way to do it.
- dbtc 1y ago
  Empathy is always good, but in this case, within your "right winger" party you've got powerful factions with active and explicitly stated intentions to dismantle the federal government.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    I'm not sure why empathy was even envoked here, what should we feel bad about and how is that related to DOGE
    - dbtc 1y ago
      Empathy doesn't always mean the feeling is bad, it's more of a general connecting - always a good thing.
- crystal_revenge 1y ago
  This is an odd comment, do you not know any right wing people? Especially in the non-coastal parts of the country? This opinion comes from having many conversations with (real, not online) people who literally state that they consider that the government is inherently evil and it's sole function is to rob people of their liberty and hard earned money. I've spent a considerable amount of time doing business travel and working in parts of the country where I've heard people, in an public office conversation, voice that support for public radio is literally fascism to nodding agreement among their peers. I once mentioned an experience I had in the beginning of the pandemic and the response was "oh yea, that's when people still thought it was serious right?" I don't think these people are inherently evil, they believe the government is evil and that those who work for it are working to undermine everyday Americans. If you actually had a conversation with anyone deep in the MAGA community you would know that harming the federal government, for them, is seen as a victory and virtuous. It's baffling to me that anyone can still not understand the foundation of the MAGA community and growing extreme right. For years they have increasingly felt that their way of life has been robbed from them (and to be fair, it has been, rural communities in the US are in trouble), and they sincerely believe that this is caused by sinister forces working in the federal government, immigrants, the global elite, and "radical" woke leftists that want to harm their children.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
leobg 1y ago
Hard not to read your view as a textbook example of projection, given your username.
- crystal_revenge 1y ago
  Really? Curious why you think a reference to Baudrillard’s Fatal Strategies would lead you to consider this projection (but always happy to meet another Baudrillard fan!)
  - leobg 1y ago
    No, not really. I didn't see the cultural reference. Never heard of Baudrillard before. I was just playing off the word "revenge". That being said, your take did stop me in my tracks. Even though it's not the first time I see sentiments like this on HN. You said: > I don't think any of them were hoping for some kind of transformation other than destruction. Maybe I read you wrong. But isn't that the opposite of "Don't attribute to malice ..."? I mean, come on. How many people grow up really wanting to do harm? Sure, there are some. For example, there are people who have no power to create anything. For them, being able to at least destroy someone else's creation can be a form of satisfaction. Like the kid in kindergarden that doesn't have the patience to build a brick tower, but takes joy in smashing down someone else's. It's a low-effort way on leaving some mark. "I destroyed, therefore I am." Such people exists. But those aren't the people you're targeting here, are they? As I read it, you're targeting Trump, Musk, and perhaps all the proponents of "small government". Who are, by and large, people who build, create and have an impact on our time. I'd argue that the idea of "small government" appeals first and foremost to those who stand to gain from lower taxes and less regulation - i.e. those who already do affect the world around them. There are many reasons why someone might disagree with these people's values. For example, one might argue that nobody deserves to be that rich, or that wealth should be distributed, etc.. You could argue that "small government" is really just the selfish interest of those who stand to gain from it, in just the same way as "big government" is just a selfish interest of those who stand to gain from that. That it isn't about right or wrong at all, but about what camp you are in. But the idea that "small government" people want to destroy America? That's a circle I can't square. There are interviews of Trump from the 1980s where he spoke about America vs. China, etc.. You may disagree with his ideas about how to make and keep America great. But the idea that he's driven by a desire of destroying the country? Is that rhetoric, or do you really think that's what he secretly dreams about? What about Reagan in the 80s? He talked about "small government", reducing regulation, agencies, etc.. Do you think he hated the country? And Elon Musk? The man has been talking about making human life multiplanetary. Heck, he's launching one rocket after another in order to get there. Every single endeavour of his (maybe with the exclusion of PayPal and Zip2), at least from his perspective, is explicitly pro-human in motivation: Sustainable energy, human-friendly non-monopolistic AGI, self driving, multi-planetary humanity. Again - I can understand if someone disagrees with these efforts. But the idea that this man is looking in the mirror every morning thinking, "Let's see how I can destroy this country"? Like, everything he does and says 24/7 over decades is just a façade to hide the real secret wish? All that work is supposed to be just a disguise? He pretends to love humanity, because, deep down, he really hates it? That makes my head spin. There was this debate in the 16th century between Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus said that a human is good if he strives to do good deeds. Being human, you don't see the whole picture, so you may err. But as long as you strive to do the best you can, to be courageous, to use what you've been blessed with for the good of all, you are good – and even if you err, you will be forgiven. Luther countered: No - an evil man can never be good. You're either one of the chosen ones that are good, or you're inherently bad. And if you're inherently bad, then whatever you touch is going to be tainted with evil. You're not a person, you're not a soul - you're a mere vessel for the devil, and it would be foolish to even argue with you. I'm quite sure there are people who hate society. But where I'd look for them is among criminals and fraudsters. Every crypto scam, every Nikola or Theranos. That's where I see a hatred of humanity. Or, if not hatred, then at least a disregard of everyone outside of their own circle, or of those who came before and who will come after them. Isn't it a much safer assumption that most people are trying to be good and helpful? They sure can develop a damn blindspot, or myopia. For example, in the internet space, I'd say Cloudflare is "destroying" a lot of the web's original openness. But that still doesn't make me believe they do what they do out of a desire to destroy. They just focus on one kind of stakeholder at the expense of some others. If I went out there on Hacker News and claimed the Cloudflare CEO was driven by a pure hatred of the internet, everyone would think that I must be a grumpy dude with anger issues. And rightfully so, as it would be just an over-emotionalized reaction to an adverserial situation. If you say you think the DOGE efforts were misguided, that the execution was flawed, or that the goal of downsizing government expenses in itself was the wrong thing for the country - that's an argument I can follow. Anyway. I'm off doing my homework - checking out Baudrillard!

calvinmorrison 1y ago

> simply long lasting harm to the federal government and pain and suffering inflicted on those who work for the government. sounds about right

samdoesnothing 1y ago

Why do you suspect this? Is it your view that right wingers are inherently evil as opposed to, say, having different opinions about how things should be done? I urge you to find some empathy.

thunderfork 1y ago
[dead]
kjkjadksj 1y ago
To be fair, many are evil and hold evil opinions about their fellow humans. How do I find empathy with someone who doesn’t subscribe to the same reality and does not value lives of even their own neighbors?
- samdoesnothing 1y ago
  I think if you actually spoke with them, many would make the same claims about the left. Many right wingers see the left as being equally evil, that doesn't mean it's true.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    Where does the empathy come in to play?
  - kjkjadksj 1y ago
    I can’t find empathy for racists, bigots, nor fascists. Both sides are very much not the same. Enough with the false equivalencies.
tomjakubowski 1y ago
You can read Project 2025 and see for yourself that inflicting pain and misery on federal workers was the ringleaders' plainly stated motivation.
acdha 1y ago
I have friends who are gay, trans, non-Christian, or brown. Not all right-wingers say that they aren’t fully people but many do, and the more libertarian ones aren’t exactly rushing to shut that down. It is very hard to trust a group of people unwilling to recognize my neighbors as fully human. In the federal space, we’ve seen purges of women and minorities, shutdowns of groups which work on things like civil rights or pollution in poor communities, widespread refusal to pay money as promised, and attempts to punish organizations for 1st amendment activities. There is zero expectation of good-faith from anyone who supports that.
- samdoesnothing 1y ago
  Uh, good for you? I do as well. You say that not all right wingers are bigoted, and then go on to proclaim the entire group doesn't recognize minorities as being human. Have you spoken honestly and in good faith with right wingers?
  - etchalon 1y ago
    I have had many such conversations (Texas is a fun state) and while many don't consider themselves bigoted, their policy preferences amount to, essentially, "but I'd rather we not treat people equally." They don't "hate gay people". (They have gay friends!) But they don't think gay people should be able to marry or adopt children. Sometimes Leviticus comes up. They don't "hate Black people" (They have black co-workers!). They just think the disparities in the justice, education and financial systems are all Black people's own fault. They don't "hate immigrants" (They love Mexico!), they just think they're not assimilating, taking American jobs and draining tax payer resources. Trans people seem to be the only group they'll outright admit to hating. Oh, and Democrats. They really hate Democrats. As I said, Texas is fun.
  - acdha 1y ago
    Let me clarify my point: I’m not saying every Republican is the same on every one of those issues, I’m saying that the people who disagree are not standing up to the people rejecting the idea that certain groups deserve full rights. I have a number of family and a few remaining right-wing acquaintances (all of the libertarians I knew are voting straight-ticket for Democrats against MAGA) – not “kinda liked Reagan” but people who’ve had worked published in national media or been invited to dinner at Rupert Murdoch’s estate. Privately, people express concern or distaste for anti-liberty actions - but not in public, never to the point of standing up for a group being targeted. Like the Mexican woman who cleans their house, she’s great even if her husband was originally undocumented, so of course ICE shouldn’t go after them – but they won’t speak up on behalf of anyone they don’t know personally, even just to call for due process. I left the Republican sphere during the Bush years when it became obvious that for all of the talk about ethics and the rule of law during the Clinton administration, there wasn’t a desire to hold their fellows to that same standard. Sadly, it’s only gotten worse since then – as we can see from the blatant lawlessness this year where even people who might share goals like reducing government spending or reconsidering industrial policy should feel safe saying there’s a better, legal way to do it.
dbtc 1y ago
Empathy is always good, but in this case, within your "right winger" party you've got powerful factions with active and explicitly stated intentions to dismantle the federal government.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  I'm not sure why empathy was even envoked here, what should we feel bad about and how is that related to DOGE
  - dbtc 1y ago
    Empathy doesn't always mean the feeling is bad, it's more of a general connecting - always a good thing.
crystal_revenge 1y ago
This is an odd comment, do you not know any right wing people? Especially in the non-coastal parts of the country? This opinion comes from having many conversations with (real, not online) people who literally state that they consider that the government is inherently evil and it's sole function is to rob people of their liberty and hard earned money. I've spent a considerable amount of time doing business travel and working in parts of the country where I've heard people, in an public office conversation, voice that support for public radio is literally fascism to nodding agreement among their peers. I once mentioned an experience I had in the beginning of the pandemic and the response was "oh yea, that's when people still thought it was serious right?" I don't think these people are inherently evil, they believe the government is evil and that those who work for it are working to undermine everyday Americans. If you actually had a conversation with anyone deep in the MAGA community you would know that harming the federal government, for them, is seen as a victory and virtuous. It's baffling to me that anyone can still not understand the foundation of the MAGA community and growing extreme right. For years they have increasingly felt that their way of life has been robbed from them (and to be fair, it has been, rural communities in the US are in trouble), and they sincerely believe that this is caused by sinister forces working in the federal government, immigrants, the global elite, and "radical" woke leftists that want to harm their children.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

leobg 1y ago

Hard not to read your view as a textbook example of projection, given your username.

crystal_revenge 1y ago
Really? Curious why you think a reference to Baudrillard’s Fatal Strategies would lead you to consider this projection (but always happy to meet another Baudrillard fan!)
- leobg 1y ago
  No, not really. I didn't see the cultural reference. Never heard of Baudrillard before. I was just playing off the word "revenge". That being said, your take did stop me in my tracks. Even though it's not the first time I see sentiments like this on HN. You said: > I don't think any of them were hoping for some kind of transformation other than destruction. Maybe I read you wrong. But isn't that the opposite of "Don't attribute to malice ..."? I mean, come on. How many people grow up really wanting to do harm? Sure, there are some. For example, there are people who have no power to create anything. For them, being able to at least destroy someone else's creation can be a form of satisfaction. Like the kid in kindergarden that doesn't have the patience to build a brick tower, but takes joy in smashing down someone else's. It's a low-effort way on leaving some mark. "I destroyed, therefore I am." Such people exists. But those aren't the people you're targeting here, are they? As I read it, you're targeting Trump, Musk, and perhaps all the proponents of "small government". Who are, by and large, people who build, create and have an impact on our time. I'd argue that the idea of "small government" appeals first and foremost to those who stand to gain from lower taxes and less regulation - i.e. those who already do affect the world around them. There are many reasons why someone might disagree with these people's values. For example, one might argue that nobody deserves to be that rich, or that wealth should be distributed, etc.. You could argue that "small government" is really just the selfish interest of those who stand to gain from it, in just the same way as "big government" is just a selfish interest of those who stand to gain from that. That it isn't about right or wrong at all, but about what camp you are in. But the idea that "small government" people want to destroy America? That's a circle I can't square. There are interviews of Trump from the 1980s where he spoke about America vs. China, etc.. You may disagree with his ideas about how to make and keep America great. But the idea that he's driven by a desire of destroying the country? Is that rhetoric, or do you really think that's what he secretly dreams about? What about Reagan in the 80s? He talked about "small government", reducing regulation, agencies, etc.. Do you think he hated the country? And Elon Musk? The man has been talking about making human life multiplanetary. Heck, he's launching one rocket after another in order to get there. Every single endeavour of his (maybe with the exclusion of PayPal and Zip2), at least from his perspective, is explicitly pro-human in motivation: Sustainable energy, human-friendly non-monopolistic AGI, self driving, multi-planetary humanity. Again - I can understand if someone disagrees with these efforts. But the idea that this man is looking in the mirror every morning thinking, "Let's see how I can destroy this country"? Like, everything he does and says 24/7 over decades is just a façade to hide the real secret wish? All that work is supposed to be just a disguise? He pretends to love humanity, because, deep down, he really hates it? That makes my head spin. There was this debate in the 16th century between Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus said that a human is good if he strives to do good deeds. Being human, you don't see the whole picture, so you may err. But as long as you strive to do the best you can, to be courageous, to use what you've been blessed with for the good of all, you are good – and even if you err, you will be forgiven. Luther countered: No - an evil man can never be good. You're either one of the chosen ones that are good, or you're inherently bad. And if you're inherently bad, then whatever you touch is going to be tainted with evil. You're not a person, you're not a soul - you're a mere vessel for the devil, and it would be foolish to even argue with you. I'm quite sure there are people who hate society. But where I'd look for them is among criminals and fraudsters. Every crypto scam, every Nikola or Theranos. That's where I see a hatred of humanity. Or, if not hatred, then at least a disregard of everyone outside of their own circle, or of those who came before and who will come after them. Isn't it a much safer assumption that most people are trying to be good and helpful? They sure can develop a damn blindspot, or myopia. For example, in the internet space, I'd say Cloudflare is "destroying" a lot of the web's original openness. But that still doesn't make me believe they do what they do out of a desire to destroy. They just focus on one kind of stakeholder at the expense of some others. If I went out there on Hacker News and claimed the Cloudflare CEO was driven by a pure hatred of the internet, everyone would think that I must be a grumpy dude with anger issues. And rightfully so, as it would be just an over-emotionalized reaction to an adverserial situation. If you say you think the DOGE efforts were misguided, that the execution was flawed, or that the goal of downsizing government expenses in itself was the wrong thing for the country - that's an argument I can follow. Anyway. I'm off doing my homework - checking out Baudrillard!