Yesterday, I gave a set of examples of media elites interviewing conservatives. They were confronted over and over with views, ideas and facts completely contrary to the ones they hear inside their bubbles and could not cope. Someone else made the point, referring to the famous Cathy Newman interview of Jordan Peterson wherein she's utterly adrift in the conversation, that she was a finite state machine forced to deal with data outside any of her accepted states.
Using that diagram of a finite state machine as an example, I'd suggest that for the dominant, progressive culture, the accepted topics are:
global warmingclimate change,
- LGBT issues and
- income inequality.
There are others, of course, but the diagram that came quickly to hand had four states and I'm lazy. Each state has an accepted viewpoint and a standard question for those who disagree followed by the appropriate emotional responses of mockery, horror or sneering.
Maybe we're all finite state machines like this. I wonder how my responses would chart out under such circumstances. Probably about the same. I think that the difference is that when you are part of such a dominant, monolithic culture as you have with entertainment, the media, the tech oligarchs and politicians, your machine becomes far more rigid as each state is constantly reinforced by those around you.
Rigid machines can be fragile.