RFK was also a lifelong Democrat. Not that long ago anti-war, pro free speech, anti 'big brother', anti illegal-immigration, anti political violence, anti mega-corp (especially big pharma), and other such stuff was all part of a very typical liberal 'resume.' Now it's more or less the exact opposite on many of these points.

It's not people's views that are really changing, but those of the parties. A complete liberal from not that long ago would now be deemed a conservative by the DNC. I think that's a problem for the DNC that needs to be tackled, because it's self defeating.

2028, after this presidency, should be an overwhelmingly massive landslide the likes of Reagan-Mondale. But it's going to be a coin flip, and this sort of otherizing is precisely why.

▲

slg 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>A complete liberal from not that long ago would now be deemed a conservative by the DNC.

You say this like it isn't inherent to the nature of liberalism versus conservatism. A liberal of a prior generation is almost always conservative compared to liberals of the current generation. It just feels different this time because you're actually witnessing it change in real time rather than learning about it from history.

▲

somenameforme an hour ago | parent [-]

But in this case we're rather going in quite the opposite direction! For instance broad opposition to free speech has no place in any sort of formulation of liberalism, and so you find yourself in a scenario where a certain brand of liberal today would hold values deemed quite conservative, even by the standards of the past.

But this is also not particularly unprecedented. In the early 20th century the Republican and Democrat parties largely swapped roles. There was no formal agreement or acknowledgement of such. It happened quite organically, spurred along by decades of relatively significant events. I think we're seeing the outlines of such happening again, in much the same way.

When one debates aforementioned 'certain brand' types today, it often feels like a blast to the past. They share many of the characteristics of the die hard conservatives of times past - self assuredness bordering on divine authority, seemingly blissful ignorance of their numerous self-declared 'enemies', that trademark rabid intolerance, and more. The main thing that's changed is the dogma of choice.

	▲	mitxela 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Who besides the conservatives right now is broadly opposed to free speech?

▲

bluegatty 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

RFK is a socialite born into centre left 'American Nobility', who, throughout his life was able to get by by being 'the face' of whatever organization, on the magazine cover of whatever.

Eventually, he touched a real nerve by speaking against vaccines, and had an instant following of very devoted crazy people.

He grifted that carefully for a while and partnered with DJT - a very similar kind of grifter of a different kind.

Neither of them are particularly principled, it's not reasonable to put them into some kind of camp.

RFK probably does have some very legit ideas about 'organic and environmentalism' I have no doubt, but they're behind layers of egoistic and geriatric incoherence. Just like DJT.

Greenwald might be just as close to RFK than he is to Snowden, who is relatively consistent. (Assange surely is).

▲

somenameforme 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Or, perhaps people can see the same evidence and come to different perspectives and conclusions. All without it being some malicious conspiracy, insanity, stupidity, or however you would like to frame it. If you look at society on a holistic level, it looks pretty bad. Mental illness rates are skyrocketing, testosterone is plummeting, IQ is declining, obesity is skyrocketing, and so on and so forth. The status quo isn't doing so hot.

Why? Well it's fairly obvious that some things like the internet are having some sort of a role, but in general nobody knows for certain. And so it's, at the minimum, quite reasonable to suggest that something, or more likely - some thingS, that we believe are completely safe, are not.

In living memory we believed that lobotomy was a great idea as a cure for various mental issues, that DDT was perfectly harmless - to the point that you'd have children playing in the large DDT fog clouds from neighborhood sprays, and so on. To imagine we now aren't doing the same thing, in ways that will seem equally absurd in the future, requires quite an unreasonable degree of arrogance and/or ignorance of the past and present.

▲

bluegatty an hour ago | parent [-]

"It's obvious that the internets is doing something so let's blame vaccines for autism ...

... because hey, look at the thing we used to do that was bad!"

Is exactly the kind of absolutely horrible logic that RFK Jr. spews to his acolytes that causes the problems.

It's fine to be be an antagonist, but you have to have a high bar, which RFK Jr does not have, therefore, he's a liar and a scammer, along with the rest of them.

He's chosen for his position for his 'Tabloid PR' and appeal to people who want 'slogan solutions' to problems of our era.

We have to understand things before we start throwing around sand.

▲

somenameforme an hour ago | parent [-]

Are you capable of having a debate without relying on straw men and ad hominem? You probably lack the ability to understand how you seem to people who don't already agree with you. This sort of behavior and attitude is why 2028 will be close, even though it shouldn't be.

	▲	bluegatty 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You need to look up what 'ad hominem' and 'straw' men are because you've also misused those terms. --> "Why? Well it's fairly obvious that some things like the internet are having some sort of a role," <-- This is nonsense. That's not sraw man or ad hominem. Your attempt to defend RFK Jrs nonsense and misrepresentation of reality, but using your own 'stream of consciousness logic' is exactly the problem with RFK Jr himself. Done with bad faith, at scale, it's destructive tabloidism.