It’s wild.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    You can read “The Paranoid Style In American Politics” from 1964 for some insight: https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

    American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.

    It’s written at a higher than 6th grade target, so it might be a challenge for anyone who’s not used to that. Please give it a good faith effort to read.

    Thinking about it, the low literacy rate in the US might be an aggravating factor. Something like half of US adults cannot read at a 6th grade level. That’s going to hurt their ability to deal with complex topics.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      “Read at a 6th grade level”

      I thought it worked like, when you know how to read, you know how to read, and if you don’t, you won’t.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        There are different reading levels, but I don’t know a lot about them because I’m not in education.

        You can probably recognize it even if you never thought about it before. “See spot run” or “Green eggs and ham” are very simple texts. Something like “the Great Gatsby” or “the Hobbit” are more complex, and a 2nd grader would struggle to read them even if they technically know how to read.

        Technical manuals, works on a specialist topic, or … my knowledge fails me a little here, but like more complicated novels, may be more advanced. More advanced in vocabulary, sentence structure, and things like symbolism, metaphor, or whatever cool shit House of Leaves was doing.

        I don’t know how legit this site is, but it seems to cover the topic https://www.weareteachers.com/reading-levels/

        I think this is a sample of a text written at the 6th grade level https://www.oxfordonlineenglish.com/english-level-test/reading . I looked it up when that article about how most adults can’t read and comprehend at that level was going around.

        • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          The Great Gatsby is shit, and the Hobbit is even worse. It doesn’t affect the situation here, but just wanted to make sure we’re on the same page.

          So reading level is basically a stupidity meter. If you can read this text, you’re a moron. But you’re less of a moron if you can read this text.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I don’t think we’re really on the same page. Literacy and intelligence aren’t the same thing. But if you take nothing else away from this, I think you got the “higher reading levels are more complex” thing. Maybe.

            Also I think you have a typo and one of your can should be can't

            • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Bold of you to assume I have a point, and that’s not a typo. That’s the duality of existence.