Rottcodd

Because people are miserable and desperate and they want to blame someone or something, and bigotry is simple and superficially satisfying.

And because some number of those who actually are to blame for their misery and desperation have self-servingly encouraged them.

There was a time when I would've sympathized with and supported the Israelis.

But that was 40,000 murders ago.

Exactly - that belief is not supported by the evidence

Yet they continue to call for increasingly punitive punishments anyway.

Why?

Certainly there are some who are just parrots (and they might even be the majority), but I don't think that's generally the case with those who are out there competing with each other to call for the most egregious possible punishments. I think the parrots tend more to be relatively passive consumers of that content rather than active participants. The ones who are actually in there competing to be the most vindictive are self-evidently more motivated than the passive consumers, and I think that that additional motivation comes from an overt pleasure taken in the suffering of others.

Yes, I've noticed that. It's hard to miss really.

I assume it is, exactly as you say, virtue signaling.

Virtue signaling isn't just an end in itself. It's often (generally?) a feedback loop - the person is not just trying to demonstrate that they're virtuous, but to reassure themselves that the standards upon which they're measuring their nominal virtue are legitimate.

So calling for ever more draconian punishment is not so much the point - more, the point is to call for draconian punishment, then have somebody else applaud and even amplify that call. That helps to solidify the sense of moral superiority since it's not just that I believe that I'm morally superior because [X], but other people do as well. We all agree that this is the morally superior position, so we must be right.

But underneath it all, what it really is is just foul, vindictive, hateful assholes who enjoy the thought of people suffering, and try to excuse it with the belief that, by whatever standard, this person deserves it.

Though they'd be the last to admit it, the nominal crime isn't the point. They just get off on the suffering of others, and the nominal crime is just an excuse.

And since their whole position is a lie - because their real motivation is just a sick pleasure in the suffering of others and their moral posturing is just cover for their loathsomeness - they need constant feedback to convince themselves that they're in the right. And conveniently enough, there are plenty of other people in the same situation, so they can, and do, reassure each other.

Do people just not know who and what Chris Roberts is?

This is what he's done throughout his career - the only thing that's notable about Star Citizen really is the scale of it and thus the opportunities he has to find ever more things to obsessively tinker with.

It's entirely possible that if Microsoft hadn't bought out Digital Anvil and given him the boot, this wouldn't even be Star Citizen - it would be Freelancer, coming into its 25th year of delays.

There's undoubtedly at least a bit of projection there, but I think more what it is is just that tankies are driven almost entirely by righteous indignation, and they'll take pretty much any chance they get to indulge in it. They don't really stop and think about things - they just see something that could serve as a basis for a nice, satisfying righteously indignant screed and off they go.

And that leaves them susceptible to, among other things, hypocrisy.

Sort of, but not quite. I get where you're going with that though, and it's the right idea.

The explicit goal of Project 2025 is simply to make it easier for greedy and power-hungry privileged right-wing assholes to bring harm to people and to the nation as a whole for their own imnediate benefit. So yes - it actually serves as a sort of backhanded guide to what is of value in government.

It's just that doing the opposite of what Project 2025 calls for would mean expanding agencies and regulations rather than reducing or eliminating them, and that's likely not the best option, since it could just lead to governments run rampant instead of corporations run rampant.

As with most things, the optimum lies between the two extremes.

But yeah - at the very least, it can be taken as a rule of thumb that there's a direct correspondence between the value a thing provides to the people and the nation as a whole and the degree to which Project 2025 opposes it and intends to destroy it.

Any ideology that bans books is self-evidently intellectually and philosophically bankrupt.

That word "overt" isn't there by accident.

There's a significant difference between an oligarchic kleptocracy that has to pretend to be a representative democracy and an oligarchic kleptocracy that doesn't have to bother pretending to be anything else.