Trump’s base was vocally divided over the prospects of direct U.S. attacks up until the moment they happened.
The MAGA movement’s top influencers were divided over bombing Iran until Donald Trump did just that Saturday night.
Now, at least for the time being, the lay leaders in Trump’s base appear to be rallying around a position that spares Trump criticism: Direct attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities are justified, as long as American troops aren’t sent into a third full war halfway around the world in the last quarter of a century.
I’m not saying you have to forget what they did or advocated for, directly or indirectly, but ffs if someone is genuinely struggling with a belief/ideology, would you rather offer them a soft landing into a much more normal and moderate position, or that they get burned publicly and are lost forever to the echo chambers?
Do we ostracize the people who may be on the boundary of genuine evolutionary self-discovery, and exploit their moment of public vulnerability for what - smug hubris for the in group who were always on the right side? Or do you accept the Klansman’s contrition and disarm that hate via genuine dialogue, and maybe potentially you too might understand their base motivations that got hijacked by political grifters. And maybe in the future their problems aren’t ignored and don’t grow to the point where it becomes a political wedge issue…?
Or y’know don’t; farm those internet karma points. Post that hot take, then shy away from the follow up dialogue and comments. Block the people you mildly disagree with, whilst chiding everyone else’s echo chamber. Pontificate without praxis in friendly spaces. Downvote the dissenter, instead of dissecting their ideas. I know I’m guilty too and it’s hard to keep yourself in check - but it’s essential to keeping both yourself intellectually honest, and your arguments firmly based in reality.