William Rivers Pitt, Truthout

[Hortensis]

152. Me too, and thanks for that link.

I've bookmarked it.

As for influences like this Pitt guy...? The internet we thought was going to be a great advance for understanding has become a giant new threat to understanding. But still a leap for mankind. Someday, after we've stopped the spreading of toxic lies to deceive whole populations, the Pitts spreading their free-speech tracts on internet corners, and folk on political forums , should mostly just be a normal manifestation of a healthy liberal democracy.

Regarding our conversation, though, we really need some new vocabulary! Scientists studying personality and political personality have found that those inclined to fanaticism on both the "far" left and right are a lot like each other in important ways, including joint rejection of whatever mainstream thought might be at the moment and the irrationality and dishonesty required to maintain uber-righteous beliefs in the face of a contradictory world.

Whereas the beliefs and goals in the relatively rational mainstream of humanity, liberal and conservative, intersect at many common points. But that's being obscured by lack of accurate definitions. How can political dynamics be understood if people who are different in some important ways but alike in critical ways are falsely separated by labels that ignore commonality and instead firmly categorized with people who reject commonality with anyone but themselves?

The division between the more reason-based thought of majorities and the zealotry-driven reactions of those prone to fanaticism is being displayed absurdly clearly on this ridiculous thread.