At this point, radical online ideologies have become a consumption good, consumed by A) young people bored with video games, and B) older people who incorrectly think that things really might be totally different going forward.
One result of this is that as general popular unrest recedes and lots of people get bored or jaded or exhausted and walk quietly away, the radical ideological entrepreneurs who sprung up to take advantage of the boom are now fighting each other over a shrinking pie.
As the market size for radical online ideology decreases, we see some ideological entrepreneurs frantically trying to pivot; this explains Nazbols, Jacobin praising QAnon, tankies embracing right-wing elements, and so on.
There are already small signs everywhere of a rotation away from radical online ideology back toward more traditional types of entertainment products:
Eventually, the people who are still into consuming radical online ideology will be seen as uncool. It will be like in the movie Slacker, when hipster Austinites politely walk away from a guy telling them that "terrorism is the surgical strike capability of the oppressed!".
The online ideological products that remain popular will add elements of irony. They'll slowly stop selling themselves as something that might change the world tomorrow, and brand themselves as something the world isn't yet ready for.
As long as America's slow-moving normie institutions don't push us into a civil war (which would make ideology very important and no longer mainly an entertainment product), I expect the rotation out of the ideology sector to make America feel less crazy by late this decade.
As usual, all my predictions for American society this decade are just "the 70s, but with the internet this time". But I think the phenomenon of "radical online ideology as consumer product" is under-studied and deserves more attention from researchers, writers, and marketers.
As for what sort of leisure good consumption takes off next, I really can't say. But I hope it's something with a lot of silly clothes, a lot of sappy romance, and a fair amount of nerdy futuristic dreams.
(end)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of America's central problems is that we don't believe in our people. We've been brainwashed to think large segments of our people are just useless trash, so we think giving people money is just a handout to people who have no other option.
If we believed in our people more, we'd understand that they have a ton of potential. Giving them money is often (though of course not always) a way of giving people a boost so they can realize that potential instead of just scrabbling for survival.
Actually this is all very good news IMO. The "investment" and "redistribution" parts of the bill are the new centerpieces, while the "cost disease" parts of the bill have been de-emphasized. This is better and more focused than I expected.
I expected the bill to be a bag of stuff I wasn't enthused about, but the new proposal emphasizes the stuff I'm most enthused about.
I'm not on Team Transitory or Team Persistent when it comes to inflation. I'm on Team Conditional. Whether inflation persists or not will probably be dependent on what the government does, and on how people respond to it.
In other words, Team Transitory says "The Fed doesn't ever need to tighten because inflation will go away on its own. Look, markets expect low inflation in the future."
To which I respond: "Yeah, probably because people think the Fed will tighten."
While Team Persistent says: "Inflation is spiraling out of control, the Fed needs to drop the hammer."
To which I respond: "Not yet; merely a slightly more credible commitment to dropping the hammer if things get worse will probably be enough to prevent the spiral."
Wealth tax is better. Just raising the regular old capital gains tax is better. This tax (an accrual tax) will cause markets to crash, which will hurt Democrats electorally as well as hurting the economy.
And if you don't have the political capital to raise the capital gains tax rate, why do you think you have the political capital to implement a completely new kind of tax? This is highly unlikely to fly, not sure why they're trying it.
Finally, if you're worried about rich people borrowing against their unrealized gains in order to consume, just tax *that*.
This is what Dems are largely missing right now. Biden needs to adopt more natsec framing for his agenda. Other Dems, and supporters in the media, need to echo that framing.
And the thing some progressives do when they CONTRAST Biden's agenda with defense spending?