Usually because indentifying groups, motives, psychological mechanisms, methods, or intentions, usually gets labelled as anti-business, anti-red, anti-blue, antisemitic, racist, or other such "bad things" that we're getting conditioned not to do.

There are accelerationists, who think that society is so flawed that it has to collapse so that something better can be built, as an example.

They're called Trumpists. They claim to have some lofty constructive values. But whenever one tries to discuss the destructive actions of their hollow cult leader with an appeal to any of those values, they fall back to whataboutism. The smarter ones change to a different topic with cookie cutter talking points about that value. The dumber ones usually just complain about an arbitrary female democrat. The only conclusion that fits is that they want to see their country and their fellow citizens get hurt, while feeling morally justified about it.

The psychological mechanism seems to be [social] media psychosis. It's been slowly festering through decades of reactionary talk radio, but really went into overdrive when the attention-surveillance industry went to town promoting the dumbest least common denominator memetic reactions to outrage bait.

signed, a libertarian who actually believes in a strong natural right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, fiscal responsibility, individualism, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and many more unenumerated personal liberties.