CharonY

No that wouldn't have happened. The power grab is not one of Trump alone. Over half of the congress have worked towards the goal. Collectively they have erased January 6, they have invoked the culture wars even way before Trump was a candidate. Heck, they looked at Project 2025 and decided to like it. They just want power. The voters are those who should have read it, but as MigL mentioned, they probably wouldn't have understood. Regarding Ukraine, it is possible that they will abandon Ukraine. But regarding deaths, the dismantling of USAID will ensure that there will plenty of them coming in pretty soon regardless. Edit to add: reports are coming in that in various parts of the world nutrient paste funded by USAID has run out. Children are starving now. Meanwhile close 500 million in food might be rotting because their delivery has been cancelled. All that to "prevent waste". In addition, Ebola outbreaks might expand. Both, the callousness as well as shortsightedness is astonishing and with regard to critical thinking that goes beyond just being biased. After all, just a few years ago we learned collectively how much diseases respect borders. And because of the pace of freezing and firing people something like 8 billion dollars cannot be tracked anymore, because the folks responsible for it are gone or have no access anymore. Again, just because someone made tons of money it doesn't mean that they are critical thinkers. If he was he might have figured out that the systems he is breaking are vastly more complicated than those he used to deal with. Even if we assume that he has no regard for human life in the first place.

The issue is you identified correctly that folks vote them in because they are afraid of something. What you miss or at least do not seem to acknowledge is that the threat is something that the right has constructed so that folks allow them to grab the power. And this is the crux and what Snyder alluded to when he shortly discussed Schmitt. Make people believe that the situation now is exceptional. Make them afraid without any evidence and they will hand you their liberties on a platter. And as I mentioned the only part one can nail them down is somehow convince folks that there is a reality. Otherwise anything you try to do in good faith to address these fears will be ignored (like the increasingly aggressive stance of Dems on border crossings).

I am somewhat surprised then that you seem to repeat some of the issues that have been outlined in the book. The point is that despite the fact that we do not have communists on the street, we got fascists authoritarians in power. They took the power and folks supported them. No one made them. Heck they had to invent an all-powerful gender identity conspiracy to build a new bogeyman. With bathrooms as the battleground. Again think about Snyder's book and consider what he explicitly points out. As you have the read the book, there are a couple of suggestions there. One is somehow to bring the public to focus on facts (Chapters 10 and 11). Avoid amplifying falsehoods (such as "open borders"). Don't blame the issue on the ominous others (be it the left, antifa, immigrant or whatever). Investigate specifically how the folks who took over power got it. It is never because someone else made them. It is because they dismantled institutions, made people believe lies en masse and avoided any responsibility by blaming others for their actions. So our job is to identify these things, and demand from our leaders to do better and hold them accountable. That being said, once they have successfully dismantled all these institutions who could do that (say, the judiciary), it will be too late.

Oh yeah, that was one of the things that blew even my cynical mind (in this case it is about cat litter boxes). There is even a wiki for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_boxes_in_schools_hoax But in short, there was a hoax that claimed schools would put out litter boxes for students who identified as cats or furries or something like that. And then this thing spread among conservative media leading to very upset parents. Utter failure of critical thinking.

No, you are exactly right, which is why I think it is together with the other elements (and more which I have not mentioned) that play a role. Basically an emerging property of ignorance. And I do think that the overinundation with social media shapes what folks are worried about. For example, folks have been complaining about chemtrails and litter boxes in school. They clearly did not get that idea from traditional media. I mean, perhaps I am in my own bubble, but in my feeds that is literally on top. I have way down something about sports. The other news I see are regarding talks between Trump and Putin. But at the same time, I will also acknowledge that there is so much going on that I do selective reading (I am not sure where the lawsuits regarding federal grants are, for example though my colleagues will tell me, for sure). And given the fact that Trump tries to suck out all the oxygen, I am sure I am missing a lot stories. But that exactly is the tactic of flooding the zone, it is virtually impossible to use normal news to stay on top of these things. As such, it is easy to miss and/or deliberate zone out of important events (I just hope that there are good long-form articles to summarize aspects at least). I guess he is on the way out. Edit: I just realized that a dog show is also on it. I have no idea why. Perhaps the algorithm figured out I am an immigrant and wants to make a menu suggestion? And worse than that- this talk has led Dems starting with Obama to align their border approach with Republican desires. And it is startlingly clear that it did not matter. At best it motivated Reps to become even more extreme, so just they can "outshine" efforts by Democrats.

Again, some of the mechanisms are well-known, misinformation on the internet, heavily driven by radical-right populist groups and parties: https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612241311886 Often under the guise of free speech or related concepts, they systematically misinform people. And again, not all groups are equally likely to abandon facts. Also, I have no idea what your various anecdotes about ticks are supposed to tell me. I suspect they are part of your personal experiences that have formed some kind assumptions, but the deeper meaning eludes me. All I can see that there is an MD who you think is incompetent and somehow it is an example of failure of critical thinking? Or maybe not? Also your sweeping generalizations are obfuscating parallels to the past due to altered mechanisms now. I think Snyder's book (you really should read it) does actually a decent job translating what was happening then to what is happening now. Misinformation was rampant also in the past, but they were broadcasted in different venues at much smaller scale. It was therefore a somewhat slower process but also driven by some more severe challenges. The same number of folks can be reached now from the comfort of your home. Horse carts vs cars. Also, I think you are assuming things to have a rather simplistic relationship, a bit like a seesaw or pendulum, where you seem to argue that the rise of the right is somehow just a response, rather than the intended action. In Weimar, the right was not rising as a response to communism, for example. In a way it was the other way round. Communism rose in response to rampant capitalism and corporatism, benefiting nobles and the new class of industrialist. From an US viewpoint you could imagine the robber barons. You have to remember, Weimar rose from the German Empire that went form a monarchy to a republic. In many aspects, conservatism was the default and there were laws to prevent parties with socialist leanings (such as the SPD) from power right to the later parts of the German empire. But their success was ultimately fueled by anti-elite and nobility sentiments. The KPD (the communist party) was formed as an anti-war outgroup from the socialist parties. In 1920, the governing Weimar Coalition (SPD, Centre (catholics), DDP, a conservative-liberal party) suffered major losses. The communists remained marginal, with major wins for the right wing parties (e.g., DNVP). In 1924 in the aftermath of hyperinflation (then stabilized), Ruhr occupation, beer hall putsch and so on has seen again losses in the center and only now the far left is also seeing gains, as well as the far right. I.e., the far right gain was not a response to a far left threat. And again, what we see today is not really a real far-left threat. Instead it is a bogeyman fueled by erroneous slogans (open borders being one). Which makes it even more nebulous than it was in Weimar (though again, being nebulous was a fascist tactic). Again, no pendulum or seesaw just movement in one direction.

I think you are touching a range of important points here and I will say that these not only impact politics but also to some degree also science (or at least science education). The last paragraph is a good explanation on the why, I believe. I think there are a few processes working together to further our idiocracy. First, there is the flood of information. Originally we thought that was a good thing, and I believe we had some discussions (maybe a decade or longer back) on how competition of ideas could be important to further knowledge in an unbiased way. However, mis- and disinformation is flooding the channels making it difficult to sort through the information. Second, we are not equipping folks to deal with this information flood. Most people lack the ability to sort through the mess and to filter out the nonsense. In many groups, including young folks, there is a sense that all information is fake, which is a very dangerous situation. Third, the attention industry, including social media, floods the brain of folks with distractions to make money. Few folks take a breather to e.g., read long texts or even books to contextualize information or try to figure out what is going on. This exacerbates the second issue and makes them even more vulnerable to misinformation. Fourth, because folks are unable to sort through information and consider traditional sources suspect, they increasingly rely on familiarity with sources to evaluate veracity. This includes shares from folks they know but also influencers. Ironically uncritical use and sharing of information makes folks extremely vulnerable to propaganda, while making them feel to be in control of information flow. I think we are in the age bracket where we still saw the information age as something incredibly, a way to evaluate human knowledge and revolutionize the way we see and, more importantly, understand the world. We have seen how tedious information gathering is and entered a world where it almost became trivial. What we (or at least I) did not realized at that point is that we would also unlearn our ability to understand information. I thought the information age would see unprecedented gain of knowledge and a future generation of highly educated and skilled students and scholars who would surpass us without breaking a sweat. Instead we got TikTok and college students who struggle with high-school level questions. Sorry, sorry, old man and cloud situation again.

You are missing the broader point, or perhaps approach the issue for a certain fixed position. The broader point is really why are folks so upset about certain things (outside of their tribe) as you mentioned? Are these threats real? For example, do you think that nudity inevitably leads to autocratic leanings? All you are saying about tribalism is that folks do not follow logic and facts. That might be true to various degrees, and yet, we see a rise of right-wing autocracies across Europe and the US, yet very little in the area of left-wing autocracies. Why is that? Just because voters might ignore facts, it doesn't meant that they don't matter.

What is really troubling is that apparently web pages with information on health risks in youth, HIV testing and prevention and so on were pre-emptively removed. There is now an injunction to restore them. But it is a very bad sign that FDA, CDC and so on are removing information just because they might be affected by the executive order. This pre-emptive obeyance which clearly goes against the mission of the respective agencies is a sign that the dismantling is happening much faster than anticipated and is likely going have deep impact on public health and science in the USA. https://www.citizen.org/news/judge-grants-temporary-restraining-order-orders-cdc-fda-hhs-webpages-to-be-restored/ Also, multiple states have started a lawsuit against the 15% limit on indirect costs (may only apply to approved grants). The issue here really is that it will lead to collapse of the research landscape in the USA.

This is a prime example of made up threats. None of the things you mentioned here are real. And because of that the threat perception can persist forever. You could point out that the only arrests made not for protesting, but e.g., for blocking access to clinics. You could even point out that they are able to legally form fake clinics where women are given misinformation. But none of it would change the idea of victimhood. Heck, even the pope criticizing Trump doesn't do much to move the needle. As mentioned, merely existing and made visible seems to be proselytizing to some. And even worse, even when invisible, as they were before, they would just be attributed nefarious actions. After all, once invisible how would they be able to demonstrate that this not true? Open borders are an outright lie just as the idea of demographic change is just a thinly veiled version of the great replacement. In fact, it is very telling as there is the underlying assumption that anything but being white is a threat to their position (especially considering that many immigrants are socially conservative). Why is that, I wonder? You mentioned Snyder's book earlier. While I am not a big fan of such short reads I suggest you take a look at it, specifically: Among the four modes there is: - hostility to verifiable reality ("they are locking up abortion protestors") - endless repetition or incantations ("open borders", "LGBTQ agenda") Also from the Snyder: Not sure what you are trying to do here. The right has organized across borders, ample help from social media. Of course Europe is at risk, has been for a while. Specifically the refugee crises has led to the demise of many establishment parties and the rise of more radical parties. Yet again, folks found a threat, heavily amplified by some facts and a lot of fiction. To change ideology you don't need a war. Being lied to works just as well.

Uhhh, it only mentions one aspect that could be a liberal policy and that would be I mean, if trying to get folks equal rights results in autocracies, I would imagine that the democratic principles ain't that strong to begin with. Also I find it very interesting how that is phrased. Right-wing conservatives have worked very had to undermine democratic principles ranging from spreading blatant misinformation to incite culture and race wars, forming think tanks and societies that undermine checks and balances and putting anti-democratic forces into key positions, sowing mistrust into systems and also attempting the odd coups. And yet it is somehow liberal policies that caused all that? I mean come on, at least try to find Ockham's razor here. I will also note again that part of the autocratic playbook is to blame others for their actions. "Look what [they] make me do? Because of them I just had to overthrow democratic principles and build concentration camps. And taking away your rights is the only way to protect you from [them]." This has been best explored in fascism, where fascination with victimhood served as justification for the committed atrocities (and it is a common element in the identification of the rather diffuse characteristics of fascism). Also, how about I cite a few points from the book you mentioned and see if you can spot some overlap (BTW the book was published sometime around the first Trump administration): Why do we have something as stupid as the culture wars? Because some kind of enemy had to be found. And in recent times our lives have to be become so comfortable that folks decided to make up enemies and/or revive old tropes, such as immigrants. Again, there are no new ideas here.

Hugenberg's party (DNVP) has been discussed a lot also as an enabler of the NSDAP. The DNVP was a monarchist, national-conservative party which eventually tried to mellow up right before Hugenberg took over. He moved the party more to the right (closer to its origins) and advocated rule via non-parliamentary means. He did supported the NSDAP personally as they saw them as a means to combat the left parties and to make more inroads with the working class. At a range of events they enabled Hitler to be considered a respectable figure after his failed coup. I mean, where could one possible see any parallels to current events?

Liberty Cabbage https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100104899

Exactly, we have historic precedence and much of it is appealing to base human nature. If folks are afraid and feel that they are victims of something, you can make them to do virtually anything. Up and an including genocide. There are many, many books on fascism and other authoritarian systems and one can use those as a framework to describe the current situations. It is certainly not new. The only thing that really changes is the various mechanisms (e.g., social media). But the dismantling of protective (democratic) structures is very similar- erosion of power separation (Gleichschaltung) control of public narratives and so on. The issue is mixing up terminologies and methodologies from other areas really just obfuscate matters. And where things go is fairly simple, either the structures hold up and resist further erosion, or it doesn't. We have seen that cruelty is really only relevant to a minority of Americans at this point (and to be fair, same can be said in Europe, potentially Canada, too). So rather than thinking we are in unprecedented territory with only guesswork available to us, I would argue that we are stepping in very precedented territory and can draw hypotheses from there.

I think building a representative sample with an N of 30 is a bit too ambitious. Even with 100 it can be tricky but casting a wide net might makes things very difficult. Also, as it involves children, the ethics process is fairly involved. My suggestion is to try to make a more focused study and build a connection to an area or even just a school. Ideally a supervisor should be able to help out or at least provide some guidance. There are also additional rules working with minors in some jurisdictions, such as background checks, but I think it may mostly apply to direct interactions, rather than surveys. You will need to build a consent process involving the parents that has to pass the ethics review, which can take fairly long. I think your best chance is to get into contact with schools and ask them to help you to contact parents and discuss your project. Such projects take a surprising amount of legwork.

A lot of groups, including universities and societies are involved in the process and are trying to scrape as much as possible from webarchives. An early report on it was here https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/upshot/trump-government-websites-missing-pages.html?smid=url-share It is a bit of a repetition of what happened 2016- but in a much larger scale. And clearly not only things related to DEI will be targeted. In a way it is a scary experiment to see how fast one can plunge a nation into (deeper) ignorance.

Just so to outline that not only women and issues related to gender are targeted, the Trump administration is also trying to kill biodiversity and related environmental studies. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/climate/nature-assessment-trump.html?smid=url-share

Not a fan of this statement, are you?

I think I have been unclear, my apologies. What I was referring to is not the range of potential outcomes, but the false equivalency of the outlined outcomes. I.e. in an earlier post you have placed a variety of outcomes with vastly different likelihoods next to each other. So continuing the grab of power seemed, in your argument, just as likely as stopping and then suddenly do all the good things (or at least what his voters want). Or that voters despite already having voted him in once and then giving him an even stronger mandate the second time around, despite him and his group outlining all the stuff they want to do being so shocked that they will give Dems enough power for impeachment. Or now false flag operations (where the more likely targets would be folks he withdrew security details from...). Again, probably they are all non-zero likelihoods given how crazy things are going. However, the most likely scenario is a continuation of things he only has been started to do. In my mind, it does not make sense to make up all possible scenarios and treat them as roughly equivalent, especially as it would ignore the ramifications of ongoing events. There is a non-zero chance that he dies from a stroke in a few weeks. But clearly that is less likely than the ongoing dismantling of American institutions. I also have no idea what your idea of a psychopathology is. What is wrong with this government is fairly simple, they want to amass power in few hands. That is not a mental illness. But a threat to democracy and the power of the people. Where is the need to reframe it to something more abstract? Why be vague when we have specifics?

Going back to OP and reflecting on I use the forum, I noticed that my motivation is largely to look for perspectives of folks who I never met but had many interesting conversations with (OP is such an example). I actually think because I am surrounded by scientists in my job, I gravitate a bit more to things that I would rather discuss with friends rather than colleagues. I am not sure how true that might for others, though.

Or national-socialism (nazism) vs socialism. I honestly couldn't believe how otherwise seemingly very intelligent folks fall for that one (strangely, all examples were libertarian with small vs large government perspectives).

A couple of other issues that are happening in all this shit storm. The NIH is cutting overhead funding to 15%. These are funding in addition to the actual project cost (such as personnel and materials) that universities get. These cost fund things like building costs (space, electricity, heating etc.) and administrative cost (including HR, financial services, etc.). These were often up to 50% of the project cost. E.g., if you get funding for a project costing 200k to execute, the univ would get up to 100k in assistance. While there is some argument to be had whether that is really how things should be, in the US it has become a critical element to keep the research alive at universities. One big reason on the reliance for overhead is that public funding for universities has stagnated (or even been reduced) despite rising costs. However, cutting to 15% puts it in line with philanthropic donations, which clearly shows that the conservative idea of research and education should be controlled and disbursed by rich folks, not unlike how arts and science were conducted in before modernity. On another front, grant agencies are scrutinizing active grants and are using keywords to find grants that go against the administrations directives. The lists I found are (again) very telling and include for example: Advocacy, Biases, Barrier, Female, Minority, Trauma, Systemic, Victims, Socieconomic, Oppression, Polarization, Inclusive, Women. I will note that none of the lists mentioned "men" and and "male" only appeared as "male dominated". So in summary, the US is on a good path make folks (male and not-male) stupid again. Clearly, the current trend in the conservative mind (and they are too dominant to be called the far-right) is to use "free speech" as a cudgel and then do everything to not only limit free speech but also to limit thought. In a way it is quite clever, as they get to play both sides of the game (and it is also something that incidentally authoritarians are very good at). The number of folks losing their jobs and careers due to this administration's stance on DEI makes the long discussions we had on this forum regarding whether transgender rights could somehow potentially lead to someone losing their job quite ridiculous.

Very true and examples are already happening.

And then it can result in a cycle of purges which will severely undermine the mission of each agency (not only the FBI). Institutions work to a large degree because institutional knowledge is retained in the mid-ranks, so that even when leadership changes, things kind of continue to work. Techbros believe they are more clever than anyone else and have little issue to break things. After all, it is not them who need to fix things. They learned the master of pitching, though. Also, the whole mess will again move the baseline of what is acceptable. The US system is built on elements of outreach, and also a certain code of conduct where violating them could result in triggering some of the checks and balances. Now we are going to learn what happens if we throw away norms and let folks game the system.

The issue is that the core defenses are severely crippled and the scenario you outlined would basically require an 180 of the current situation. I think the way you describe things are actually a bit of black and white as the current trend is a slide into weakening of structures. I.e. it is a quantitative decline (which can become qualitative at some point) rather than a black and white situation (i.e. fascist or no). Basically it assumes that a sudden reversal is equally likely as a continuation of the current path. Both have a non-zero chance. But giving the power situation it is also not at 50:50. Very fair point. Bondi has already indicated that the DOJ will be a tool of the administration rather than one of the people as originally intended. Oh didn't you hear, there won't be an awakening. "Woke" is been outlawed