that there's a real lack of "political education" in the US; there seem to be countless books, radio shows, TV shows, magazines, newsletters, graffiti, what have you, trying to persuade one to think about their issue (or group of issues) in one particular way. The problem, or at least part of it, is that many people just have no way to get a sense of context for this tidal wave of information that suffuses their lives-- if they let it. Perfectly dressed men from think tanks can offer really just bat shit insane ideas on C-SPAN, while less nicely dressed folks will make reasonable points that sound unreasonable just because of their approach (argumentative, too much fervor, sarcasm, etc.) And this is if you can even take five minutes to watch or listen, always a good question when there's so many other sources of entertainment at your fingertips . . .
    What I've noticed more often is that people have one topic, sometimes two, in the political spectrum that they've thought about a little: guns, drugs, gay marriage, religion, what have you. The trouble comes when the confidence of knowing one thing pretty well make you think you know a lot better than you do. (The story of my early days on Plastic!) At least this has been my experience: a corollary is that most folks I've met have one thing they believe that's just way out there. Things like believing the Masons really run things, or that the government faked the moon landings, or that the Mossad killed JFK. The stereotype of the conspiracy theory fanatic who believes in all of it is far less frequent (though I've met a couple) than an otherwise normal person with one little quirk.
    Would increased attention and more consistency make things better? I dunno. From what little I've read of US cultural/political history, some of the best educated debates were the most ferocious, or at least the media in those days wasn't noted for subtlety-- check out some early Prohibition literature, not so much for the balance of the argument, but to think about what kind of rhetoric was considered acceptable at the time. Anyone making an anti-drug ad that was even close would be greeted with horror by the current media savvy audience.
    At least that's the way it looks from this keyboard :)

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

They just don't think shit through. I mean we all may disagree about plenty of stuff on here all but at least we've all thought our positions through in some logical manner. Most of my conversations in rl consist of asking genuinely interested questions to slowly draw out the internal contradictions within people's own beliefs to the point where they either go, "oh," or they storm off with their heads about the explode.

On pO's original thought, I think people just love a lynchmob. Viscerally, it feels highly satisfactory in an instant gratification way.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

The first time I read your post I thought you said you attended ACLU camp as a kid and I started to google it wondering why I missed out on all the fun.

That would be a crazy holiday camp. I'd buy that summer experience for a dollar.

Could the views be consistent, due to frustration?  After all, one could hear about dangerous child molesters, terrorists and other monsters all day long from watching the News, but what is the government doing to protect you from these threats in your own neighborhood?  It's giving you traffic tickets and weird "environmentalist" rules and other shit that's nowhere near as important as defusing that ticking time bomb at your kids' day care center.  So, they decide to make a difference themselves, go online, and round themselves up some hearsay.  I can't fault anyone who just wants to make a difference.

(is 3fingerspointback)