Cruelty already implies intent so even if this comment weren’t trite from being plastered absolutely everywhere, it adds nothing.
Comment on Why are Republicans undoing worker heat protections?
Malyca@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
Cruelty is the point
stickyprimer@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Malyca@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
I was trying to answer the question, why are Republicans going after these protections? Because of cruelty. Not very insightful or unique, as you said, but it is the main reason.
stickyprimer@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Here. Since I’m complaining about this empty phrase, it’s only fair to offer something better:
To a greater degree than during any other presidency, the Trump administration (and by extension Republican politicians generally) have not always needed a reason to inflict cruelty on Americans other than who they are.
Trump has governed not by allying with others who share his ideals or philosophies but rather those who show him personal deference and loyalty. In kind, he has won the votes of several groups of disgruntled Americans simply by hurting the groups they hate. The broad polarization of America sometimes called the “Culture War” has pitted Americans against each another across many real or imagined dividing lines, including race and religion but also more trivial matters such as whether you like the new Odyssey movie, in which a trans celebrity plays a part.
Trump has taken policy action against trans people, the country of Canada, blue states within America, specific companies he perceives to be “woke” and groups such as organized labor, since many Trump supporters consider Unions to be entitled proto-communist organizations that benefit unfairly through mass economic extortion.
It’s possible that with this backdrop, a ban on worker heat protections is simply a business-friendly gesture that Trump has made on behalf of a wealthy acquaintance who complained to him about the annoyance of following these regulations. Or it could be another in a series of actions taken along “culture war” lines to injure the perceived enemies of Trump voters, in this case workers rights advocates and laborers. An odd feature of the culture war is that, while many Trump voters themselves may be laborers at risk of heat injury, they may cheer for an action like this because they focus on the perception that it will harm illegal immigrant laborers or laborers in California, etc.
In this way the culture war takes precedence even over voting in self-interest. And this adherence to “helping our group” while we “hurt the other group” resembles one feature of many Fascist regimes: the belief that one group in a country are “pure” and must defend their purity from domestic enemies, practical interests be damned.
Another possible explanation for Republicans many seemingly arbitrary action is what conservative strategist Steve Bannon dubbed “flooding the zone,” a kind of media blitzkrieg approach that disorients/ drowns out political opponents and scatters the public’s attention by bombarding them with a constant stream of various outrageous actions, statements, and demands. As with many past Trump actions, the question “why is he doing this” is commonly answered “to distract from the Epstein files.”
So why attack worker heat protections? Pro-business corruption, a salvo in the culture war or just more “flooding the zone.” Ang of these could always apply to any Republican action that seems arbitrary with no immediate tactical purpose.
stickyprimer@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
It just says nothing. They are doing this cruel thing to be cruel. They are cruel so they are being cruel.
Just because you hear everyone saying it doesn’t give it meaning.
HubertManne@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
I mean it does. its the same as saying their assholes.
hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
Exactly what I was about to post. Conservatism has drifted from “avoid making adjustments to elements of society that formed organically” to “do whatever lets you be cold in the face of suffering and injustice”. Not that the earlier justification was particularly insightful, but at least the rationale had some basis in trying to preserve functional aspects of culture.
It’s all just based on the worst possible emotional justification. And how could they turn back now? That would mean admitting that they’d done immense harm by ignoring the result of their actions.