Warning: This work has been rated 16+ for violence and mature content.
Tw: politics, mentions of racism and sexism and all that is unholy.
The world’s woes are not so simple as it having a “liberal” bias. Indeed, with my defense of the Associated Press (formerly described as centrist, now classified as far-left by media bias sites), the American political spectrum as a whole has shifted away from liberal views towards centrism and individualism yet again. This new establishment has torn down global constants and factual accuracy in favor of alt and pseudo-science that justifies their actions as “protecting” social and ethnic classes from the new “woke” science. Bothsidesism, practiced as both a form of increasing mass media consumption and technoslop by major media and entertainment outlets, attempts to find justifications for these claims by featuring them in “showdowns” instead of calling them out for what they are. Years of campaigning by online far-right and “freedom” activists, as well as the rise of short-form content, have succeeded in bringing these fringe and unsubstantiated theories to the limelight as Americans experience real-time economic backsliding and increased dissatisfaction with society. This spin caters to their disbeliefs, lending a package that they can wrap their anger in, while also allowing the proliferation of racist, sexist, and conspiratorial ideas in mainstream media. No longer are politicians afraid to admit they hate minorities, immigrants, and gay people; now they are also openly celebrated by swastika bearers and white Christian extremists and Fox News pundits who decry political correctness as an attempt to silence them. In reality, they openly seek to undermine modern studies that have increasingly established progressive theories as confirmed science. The loss of family values decried by these extremists is in truth, at their own fault for refusing to adapt them to modern society, and the rejection of groupthink and charity originally espoused by the bible in favor of racial crusadery.
In the case of immigration, while prior democratic administrations have deported individuals in excess of current figures, not only did they comply with legal rulings, but also attempted to prevent and reform illegal border crossings; this is not the case for Trump 1.0 or 2.0, whom not only use manufactured violence and fear tactics to pressure immigration enforcement, but also reeatedly violate due process by sending migrants to foreign prisons where they are subject to beatings and torture and left without legal representation. Interestingly, they are also worse at it.
The slow decline of true libertarianism, a leftist concept at its origin, into an extreme form of far-right ideas that value guns but not gun violence victims, is another tragedy of the modern political compass. As far back in the 1910s, it was recognised that regulation of the market was necessary to ensure personal freedom from the shackles of relentless enshittification and cost cutting; those movements led to the current safety of food products and consumer regulations, as well as, later, sweeping gun reforms that would have created a safer america; these were unfortunately struck down in the halls of the Supreme Court. Now, those articles have been abandoned again in favor of embracing a new form of government that guarantees your liberty but not safety; in fact, it really gives you neither. You are chained to the whims of a market that serves the richest of the rich, without any safety net if you are to misstep; instead, you are taunted with the claim that you are in the freest and most independent nation; bereft of any sort of concern for its people. You return home from work and drink radioactive water, and eat food with microplastics that will kill you; of course, you pay more for it as well.
Points:
Time spent:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
125,022 Literary Works • 672,751 Reviews
hiya! i know it's been a little while since this was published but i realized i hadn't gotten around to reviewing any of your stuff yet, so here i am! :3
also i have to disclaim that i am not educated enough on the topics you touch on to argue your opinions or anything like that, so i'll be looking at this through a purely structural lens.
first of all, the title is quite long but i think it fits. a title's main purpose is to draw the reader in and give them a brief understanding of the text's context, and usually that means something short and direct, but i really like this title.
however, i think you should consider adding a clear thesis. you start off pretty strong by immediately going against a common belief and it gives us a good idea of your opinions, but a good and functional thesis is to die for in these types of texts.
i really like the language you use. i thought this would be a factual text, but reading it makes me feel like it leans more heavily toward argumentative/persuasive. for example 'swastika bearers and white Christian extremists and Fox News pundits' is very evocative language, and 'microplastics that will kill you' feels simplified/exaggerated to be more expressive.
that being said, most argumentative or persuasive text-guides will highlight the importance of clear arguments. the formula i was taught is that the standard argumentative text contains title, thesis, intro, three arguments, counter argument and optionally a summary. at the moment this text can be a bit difficult to get through and fully comprehend as you mix very long sentences with dense paragraphs.
for example; 'This new establishment has torn down global constants and factual accuracy in favor of alt and pseudo-science that justifies their actions as “protecting” social and ethnic classes from the new “woke” science' spans three rows and is immediately followed by another long sentence. i'd recommend defining your arguments more and dividing the text up more, as well as breaking up some sentences to improve readability.
finally i just want to say it's really refreshing to see that there are still young people scrutinizing their society and taking time to understand politics and form solid opinions. that's how democracy survives, after all.
From a global perspective the USA was never centrist to begin with and liberalism by itself is already an ideology of some level of individualism.
The mistake made often by US political commentators is to assume the Overton window is a singular window, but the data is showing that there is growing "extreme" positioning on both sides of the US political spectrum.
Of course with the exception of the absolute fringes there are actually very few true communists in the US and even the "Democratic socialists" tend to be just Social Democrats instead. Which on a global perspective is closer to center than the American "centrists" are.
This is a strategy with a long history, inconvenient science is branded as evil and vilified.
Of course there is a certain problem here which is the biased nature of social sciences and their encroachment into more mathematical sciences. This has led to a counter-culture within academic spheres which has allowed political pundits looking for excuses to undermine proper scientific methods to butt in. The issue isn't helped by academics then moving into their trenches rather than taking an analytic look at how prevailing societal schema and modernity mortality supremacy may affect the way that they are interpreting data.
Yes, the no-prejudice ideal has really come back to bite us in the ass. Indeed there ended up being dumb questions, and not all opinions are equal in merit nor do they deserve the same screen time.
Extremely debatable, see above point about modern academia.
While certainly some level of regulations are necessary. There is much o be said about the way corpoptocracy and american oligarchy functions through the state regulatory frameworks.
When companies become the arms of the state (or the state of the corporations) the regulations become a tool to combat real competition, which creates corporate complacency and poor practices when consumers lack real choices.
Acting like regulations are inherently good is a bad starting point.
I am sorry, but this is hard to read. I get it, when you're angry you write in big blocks of running text. I suppose thinking about a purpose behind your article might be helpful in deciding how you want your paper to look and sound. I'd love to see defined terms, a thing which may help everyone in the political sphere.
Hello, noperfectformula! Happy Review Month! Valkyria here to leave a short review for your work. I don't usually review from the political genre, but I'm excited to read yours. Let's get into it:
I really enjoyed this piece. It's so good to see young people, especially teenagers be so interested in politics. As someone who is actively involved in civic education and engagement for other college students, a lot of kudos to you. You do a good job in staying to the point of your essay-- that certain politics are no longer based off real, factual evidence.
You show plenty of supporting evidence. Immigration, gun use and its subsequent violence, and pseudo-science are presented well as subtopics. You also give short explanations for each of them, and they hold up for the main thesis. The peer tutor in me would like to see sources for each of them, showing how you found this information, but this is an optional suggestion, and one you absolutely don't have to follow!
Overall, this was an intriguing essay. Your passionate voice came through on the page. Well done!
Wow...this is like my second time reviewing something, so I might be off, but I really felt it...the way you link politics, media, and fear–it's intense and kind of overwhelming,...but it feels real...I especially liked how you pointed out bothsidesism and how hate is no longer hidden....the immigration and libertarianism parts confused me at first but then made sense..it's kinda scary how freedom is being twisted into something dangerous...
It's not super organized...but that actually fits the message...it's like chaos mirroring what's happening in the world....some parts could use more explanation, but the message is clear...honestly, it's brave and raw, and even if it's messy, it makes you stop and think...cuz it made me feel that..I'm not sure if I reviewed it perfectly, but it stuck with me... definitely thought-provoking..