Are you unaware of who Nate Silver is, or did you forget to clue us in on the joke?
Is it really so hard to just read what somebody writes without reading something into it that just isn't there? When in doubt, simply ask, no need to insinuate.
That was the entirety of your comment/response/addition to the conversation. Someone has to read into it because there's nothing to it.
Should I make a post every time I look something up but think to myself that I'll likely forget it next week, as you did in the quoted example? Perhaps everyone in the comments section would like to know how my working memory is, too?
> You only comment to disagree without offering anything of value. Prove me wrong.
I'll repeat their request. Let's see what you have to say that is of value.
Catastrophism is native to American politics. How, exactly, you live in a globalist world without forming an opinion on the matter is a study of sociopaths for someone else. There is no post-WWII America without the myth of catastrophe and salvation via nuclear war. We built this nation, and set the global status-quo, on the back of a global catastrophe. Ignoring that fact doesn't make you a better historian, it makes you blind.
Maybe those Bluesky users are just repeating the past 150 years of anthropological research that pertains to postmodern human politics. This Nate Silver guy would probably cream his shorts if he read Hegel.