In sheep's clothing

If yesterday's post was inspired by other people's concerns, today is about my concern about other people.

I'm going to link to a Clickhole article. You can read it if you want to, but it's not a great site and the headline gives you the gist:

Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point

https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/ 

My worry is not so much terrible people making great points, but that people with good intentions are going to grow more reliant and trusting of these terrible people.

You see, I have not completely given up on us regaining some congressional control in 2026, still being able to have an election in 2028, and that we might once again have a government that is not trying to kill us.

I've always been a dreamer.

As terrible as Republicans have been, a lot of us getting to this point has been the counter-efforts of progressives and leftists who have been sabotaging Democrats at every turn instead of paying attention to Russian interference, often repeating the propaganda.

So I see people re-posting Ryan Grim and articles about Bernie Sanders becoming the leader of the resistance and I feel distinctly less hopeful.

I am aware there is some danger in naming Bernie, as he has loyal fans. I have also been clear about him from the beginning.

The bigger danger is the worse people gaining an outsize influence.

The people who thrive on criticism and strife are going to be making hay now. They have targets and can tap into the anger and ride that wave. They can profit off of it. 

Don't buy it.

Sure, I could list names not to trust, but I would certainly miss some and there will also be more. There were politicians and journalists who seemed to start out pretty solidly back before Trump was a candidate, and some of them have changed. We have seen voters make the same transition.

For someone already named, Ryan Grim popularized Tara Reade's accusations against Biden, despite many indications that it wasn't true. He was also the first to release infromation about Christine Blasey Ford's letter accusing Brett Kavanaugh, which seems like something that could have been good, except that he seemed to be trying to discredit "#MeToo.

Yesterday talked about how some news sources may not always be reliable, but still not always wrong. People are going to be like that too.

As it is, there are people whom I consistently follow whom I disagree with pretty regularly. They are right enough about other things sometimes that it is worth following them, though I generally don't repost them even when I agree. Maybe there is an understandable anger that gets in their way, or a specific issue that overrides everything else for them, but there will be times when they are destructive so I don't want to do anything to popularize them. Is it a perfect system? None of this is.

That one issue that overrules everything else is one of the danger signs. Leftists whose care about Israel's genocide against Palestinians made them fine with selling out transgender people were suspect anyway, given that the current federal stance is much worse. I question their sincerity, then and now.

However, even if they were completely sincere, and Trump was actually going to be better for Palestine but with the same level of destruction for everyone else, should that issue override all others?  Someone who won't even acknowledge nuance is not a good source of wisdom and ethics. That would be true even if they were completely sincere.

That's why I worry about pundits capitalizing on this anger and building loyal followings. Once you decide someone is on your side it is easy to start making excuses for things that shouldn't be excused. If they do disappoint you the fall will hurt much more.

You are better off not having heroes, but accepting people as human with good and bad points. 

There are signs, but if you just post things that make you feel strong emotions, it is easy to miss those signs. 

If someone sounds a lot like the fascists -- so with an authoritarian bent, but about the issues you like -- that is still a bad sign. 

They tend to be racist and sexist, probably ableist and maybe transphobic. It's not that they say it that way, but somehow they are really good at discounting the voices of marginalized people. They maintain the marginalization.

Did I mention that Ryan Grim had this whole thing about how Kamala Harris is so bad at public speaking and must be anxious or maybe drugged came up in the thread, because she referenced a scripture that got hearty "amen"s at Essence Fest?

This goes along with many of the potential action items -- thinking about what you want to share, giving credit to others -- living in a state of constant anger can change your personality and cloud your judgment. Think about it.

It may not matter so much whom you are reading if you are critically engaging with the content.

However, if you want to get a better idea on the people who are more likely to be destructive in this manner, a good keyword search might be "ratfucker".

Related posts:

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2025/02/check-in-with-yourself.html