The "psychologism" isn't directly from listening to reactionary media, but rather trying to talk to reactionaries about, well, anything. One time I was talking to extended family who were complaining about GPS satellites tracking the location of their phone. This is something I myself also care deeply about, and that I know a thing or two about how it works as well. So I tried to make some points to them that there are some understandable mechanics whereby you can start taking concrete steps to at least reduce the tracking. They showed zero recognition or interest in the idea of being able to do something about it, and actually became more argumentative as if my knowing technical details meant I supported it!
My conclusion is that they only use the vague paranoia and blaming "the government" as a group identity bonding mechanism, and that by deviating from their victimhood narrative I was marking myself as an outsider. Even on a politically adjacent topic where it should have been easier to find common ground. But please do tell me another way that I can possibly interpret that interaction.
Family is usually not the best place to explore the political landscape because: 1. your family is almost certainly layman 2. it’s intertwined with other interpersonal conflict.
About your interaction. Just because someone mentions a thought does mean they are ready to take action to fix it. Their real concern may be “isn’t it disappointing that we live on a society where we can be tracked?” rather than “please give me some tips I can use to mitigate the ability to track me”.
Team dynamics are real but they are certainly not uniquely characteristic of what you’re referring to.
I don't buy your explanation. I said extended family, there isn't really interpersonal conflict. If anything a personal relationship should convey a bit of "this person works with technology and perhaps knows what they're talking about".
I also didn't present it as "you should do this" or worse "it's your fault", as we often see in many ham-fisted HN comments. Rather it was more like hey it is actually possible to defend against this thing we both feel is attacking us. As I said, the problem was they were not interested in the idea that it's possible to avoid surveillance.
I'm obviously still trying to find alternative explanations to alleviate my "confusion". But just because you've thrown out one possible theory does not mean it is inherently correct, right?
No, you seem to be trying to imply some kind of condemnation without actually levying it or having to substantiate the point. I can't respond to a point you aren't making, rather I can only respond to the points you are making.
