[ineedasername]

I think the verbiage is misleading and inflammatory. "Need For Chaos" can more reasonably be understood as "desire for change" when the individuals see no actual path for that change to occur.

Calling it a "need for chaos" further alienates those whose very alienation is the cause of the phenomenon on display. Better to use more neutral language that doesn't inflame the population being observed or bias those doing the observation into further perpetuating an "us vs them" mentality.

[notus]

I think this is pretty on point. You have a lot of disaffected people who want something to change but don't see a reasonable path for the type of change they want. Instead they just make decisions towards the most amount of change, even if it isn't good change.

[krapp]

>they just make decisions towards the most amount of change, even if it isn't good change.

How is seeking the maximum amount of possible change, regardless of its nature and to no specific end not a "need for chaos?"

Someone who doesn't know what they want, other than to spite the system, basically describes the Joker.

[notus]

Think of them as being lost in a forest trying to find a path out and constantly looking for higher ground to climb to see if they can see a path out of the forest. They never know if the hill they are climbing is going to provide the view they need, but they still climb hoping it does.

[pnutjam]

There is no hope in what they are doing, it's a classic "if I can't nobody can".

[notus]

That's a pretty terrible reduction of the problem that prevents any further engagement. You cannot solve problems by ostracizing people.

[candiodari]

What I feel you're failing to consider is that less further engagement may in fact be the preferable option, at least from their perspective. They feel like they are able to survive and change their own situation for the better, but just that others are in the way and make this impossible. So no, they're not looking for engagement.

That doesn't make their assessment of the situation wrong. It just makes it very inconvenient for government workers (whose jobs depend on said engagement) and people who want to virtue signal from afar. They feel like the policies, that by necessity are cheapest-possible-forced-help-from-10000-feet policies are more of an obstacle than help. Frankly, I can come up with more than a few cases where this was entirely right.

Of course, it also doesn't make their assessment of the situation right. Those same policies help people on a large scale as well.

However I would like to point out that there is a lot of research that less intrusive, and more unconditional help certainly seems to be more effective in quite a few places. A few random examples:

1) https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/sep/14/less...

2) Even in what seems like black and white cases. To take one really extreme example. NOT helping kids who get abused by parents ... turns out to be more effective than helping them https://sci-hub.tw/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583

(and there's a famous study from the 90s that claims that giving troubled kids free membership to a sports club near them is far more effective than anything psychiatry/social work/... can do for them, and certainly more effective than prison. Not even checking if they actually attend)

[smsm42]

I think "us vs them" mentality is the point here. To demonstrate "them" are so irrational, so deplorable, so beyond any redemption and lacking of any sense and virtue that their alienation and complete disregard for their needs, voices and concerns is justified and is the right thing to do. If somebody just wants the world to burn, you don't discuss a compromise with them that would be acceptable to both sides, you put them in jail or mental hospital. The author doesn't want to find common neutral ground with the deplorable Trump voters. He wants to convince us they are so crazy that "normal" people should just shun them, avoid them, treat them not as rational people disagreeing on politics, but as people afflicted with NFC condition that just are that way, and that's it.