Ok. As far as nuance, I still assert he is a cause, not an effect. His choice to capitalize on rightwing audience doesn’t mean he didn’t already hold those beliefs. I got the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that you were asserting that he adopted those beliefs because there’s a market for them; I would argue he adopted that audience because they share beliefs he already had.
This would align him with many others who came from similar privilege. In fact, I’m more skeptical of those born in privilege who publicly denounce right wing ideology (although I absolutely do my best to judge by their actions when possible), given that concerning the status quo is obviously in their self interest.
Our apparent disagreement may be, at least partially, due to semantics. Yet, the words we choose do matter. I appreciate the thoughtful debate in either case!
Removed by mod
He is a right-wing nut job who creates chaos. Not the other way around. They flock to him because he is one of their own.
Removed by mod
Nuh uh. He’s not a victim. He’s part of the problem, and always has been. Don’t make excuses for that sociopathic freak.
Removed by mod
Ok. As far as nuance, I still assert he is a cause, not an effect. His choice to capitalize on rightwing audience doesn’t mean he didn’t already hold those beliefs. I got the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that you were asserting that he adopted those beliefs because there’s a market for them; I would argue he adopted that audience because they share beliefs he already had.
This would align him with many others who came from similar privilege. In fact, I’m more skeptical of those born in privilege who publicly denounce right wing ideology (although I absolutely do my best to judge by their actions when possible), given that concerning the status quo is obviously in their self interest.
Our apparent disagreement may be, at least partially, due to semantics. Yet, the words we choose do matter. I appreciate the thoughtful debate in either case!
Removed by mod