Make The Marketplace of Ideas Great Again: Combating Disinformation Will Take All Hands
My wife Mae (not her real name) is cheerily determined, God bless her. A research librarian, she’s built a career on information literacy—specifically on teaching students how to find and evaluate digital sources of information. In this day and age, God bless her again.
She walks the walk, too. On Facebook, she politely challenges family members, high school friends, vague acquaintances, and third degree-of-separation-nobodies when they post conspiracies or disinformation. This baffled me for a long time. I have short patience with nonsense. When my Aunt Janet (also not her real name) began posting a long series of hot Grade-A garbage — PizzaGate was a particular favorite — on Facebook in 2016, I unfriended her. Being a journalist at the time, the flaunting of absurd conspiracies and disinformation was grossly, deeply offensive. (It still is.)
It occurs to me lately that Mae took the right tack, and I the wrong one. The reason really gets at the heart of a crucial struggle we’re having right now: How to hold onto truth in a reality-bending era. Disinformation is corrosive to democracy. The breaking down of truth and a shared reality means that democracy cannot function. We cannot agree on how to govern ourselves if we cannot agree that the sky is blue. I can register my dissatisfaction with Aunt Janet, but that does nothing to combat the encroachment of what the RAND Corp. has dubbed Truth Decay.
Part of the problem is the unending stream of disinformation and conspiracies flooding our phones and inboxes. But another part of the problem, one we have more control over, is the reality-based crowd remaining silent, out of uncertainty or some feeling of politeness or the sense that everyone has the right to say anything they want. Everybody does have that right. It’s enshrined in the First Amendment. Free speech is a fundamental principle in our founding. But let’s step back and remember what the First Amendment, and the idea behind it, is for.
The speech clause in the First Amendment, of course, is a restriction on the government’s ability to limit or regulate people’s foundational right to think and say whatever they choose. We hear about the broader concept of “freedom of speech” — loosely defined as freedom from any speech restrictions anywhere — when a company, for example, fires someone for expressing some point of view or another. Sometimes we even see people wielding it as a shield against criticism of false statements or fallacious logic.
We have this right for a very important, very practical reason, beyond a hazy notion of liberty. Freedom of speech exists to allow us as a people, to figure out what’s good and what’s not among ourselves. You’ve certainly heard of it before: the marketplace of ideas.
The brass-tacks explanation of this concept is that speech is to be unrestricted so we as a society can hear and evaluate all the information that’s out there, keep the best and discard the rest. That mechanism, importantly, depends on people actually discarding the rest. It places a responsibility on us. If Aunt Janet posts some crazed, ludicrous meme about child sex trafficking in the basement of a pizza parlor with no basement, the proper functioning of the marketplace of ideas would be for the people who know better to rebut Aunt Janet and call out the hokum for what it is, rather than leaving it unchallenged because “she has a right to her opinion.” The more it remains unchallenged, the more credible it can seem. But the more people who call it out, and the more often, the better a label will stick.
But Doug, you might be saying, your Aunt Janet sounds like my Uncle Herman! Uncle Herman won’t change his mind! You might be right. Aunt Janet won’t change hers, for sure. But Aunt Janet, and probably Uncle Herman too, has other friends and family who read their posts, or who will be within earshot during a conversation.
The problem of disinformation extends beyond the core group of people who really believe the falsehoods. The tinder that spreads the fire, like smoldering peat moss, is the cynicism—“You can’t believe anything”—of the people adjacent to the true believers. You can’t defeat truth even if a quarter of the public truly believes the sky is orange. But if you add on another 15 or 20 percent who throw up their hands, you’re closing in on a majority who have abandoned truth and knowable reality beyond their own direct, immediate experiences. Many of Aunt Janet’s friends on Facebook, or the people she repeated the conspiracy to, probably don’t believe in PizzaGate. But hearing or reading those lies, and others like them, over and over leads to 1) some things sticking as “true” because someone will recall hearing it somewhere before, and 2) “Everyone’s lying so I don’t know what to believe.”
While methodically attempting to debunk some tripe or other posted by a Facebook friend not long ago, my poor, Quixotic Mae got a little gift. One of the friend’s friends replied to one of her comments: “Thank you for posting this.”
You don’t know who else is looking and listening. Label that bullshit. Spread real information. Help make the marketplace of ideas function better by taking an active — and polite, to be sure! — role in identifying and marking buncombe, propaganda, conspiracy, and disinformation by replying — civilly! — with reputable news and academic sources, and fact-checks on the subject. Your Uncle Herman may just dismiss the Failing New York Times or Marxist universities, but others reading his posts could be swayed.
Getting Orange Sky people who are really locked into a warped reality to change their mind is difficult and can wreck relationships. People who aren’t willing to take that risk with a loved one can still push back gently with facts, presenting the argument for the benefit of the gallery, not the OP.
Insist on the truth. Chip away at cynicism. Do not shout; do not shame; do not cancel. Make the case to the best of your ability for whoever may be listening. It sounds hyperbolic, but the survival of our democracy depends on beating back the waves of bullshit crashing through our walls. Passively treating disinformation as just another opinion elevates it, lends it undue credibility, and allows it to take root and spread.
Why does it matter what people believe? When a sitting president actively intimidates and blackmails a foreign leader to fabricate dirt on his political opponent and broad swaths of the public simply doesn’t believe it happened despite widespread reporting, a transcript of the actual conversation, and sworn Congressional testimony, accountability is impossible. When a factional mob commits violence against our political leaders because their candidate lost an election and tens of millions of Americans believe falsehoods and conspiracies deflecting or downplaying the attack, it’s certain to happen again. Authoritarianism thrives in disinformation and cynicism, and when reality fails, our immune response to authoritarianism fails. The problem is greater than that 25 percent or so MAGA core, who most likely won’t change their minds. It extends to the next layer, those who say they don’t know what to believe, but wind up just going along with those around them. Many of those folks are gettable, and they’re the ones we need to reach. Remember: The voters are the reason politicians act as they do.
“Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one,” James Madison wrote in 1791. Indeed. If public opinion is divorced from reality, the public’s representatives are sure to be as well. Therefore, if a chunk of the public doesn’t believe one of our political parties is actively anti-democracy, they can’t factor that into their votes.
Disinformation is a problem that can only be combated socially, by the people. Government can’t help us with this. Business can’t help us with this. That’s why we need you to help. People need to convince people. Cleaning up the polluted information silos people are in is the only way we’re going to get out of this. It’s all hands on deck.
Mae scored a small victory. Her tilting has inspired me. I guess I’ll reach out to see what old Aunt Janet has been thinking lately.
Obama put children in cages. Can you at least publish the whys of that?
Why it took Biden’s team one week to put them back in cages?
Liberal begging other liberals to publish the results of a criminal investigation.
Please, you may save lives with sunlight.Report
Also: we’re really not going to talk about the child-sex ring on the private island (Little St. James) simply because there was a conspiracy theory saying it was inside a Pizza Parlor? Are you an investigative journalist or not? Who was bankrolling the enterprise?Report
I can identify psyops being successfully propagated through this website.
You can thank Jaybird for posting the pretty pictures of Iron Dome.
Propaganda is still propaganda, and ought to be called out as such.
Thank you for providing the perfect opportunity to mention it.Report
Well this brought a fast and very interesting reaction. Midwit aside….
I don’t think you can make much headway on this, for a few reasons. First, there’s the old saw about “Can’t reason a man out of a position he didn’t reason himself into”. Or what Colbert summed up as “truthiness”. It may not be true, but it feels true. You want it to be true.
It’s the same mental flaw in humanity that lets cons work.
I mean it’d certainly be easier, if you’re into politics, if all your political opponents were raping babies in one, easy to raid spot with undeniable supporting evidence there. Don’t you want it to be true? It’d just take one raid, one kicked in door, and all those people who disagree with you and your politics would have to eat crow — or be dismissed as pedophiles.
And as you noted, to a lot of people — well, “look at all that smoke. There must be a fire”. Smoke generators are fake news.Report
I don’t pay a lot of attention to a lot of news, but I get it via tv and the internet mainly, when I was driving to work pre Covid, the radio (NPR). Here’s why I pay attention to “conspiracy theories” and other so called fringe reporting/”facts”. It’s documented well enough that the so called mainstream media ignores or spins stores or news by either not reporting pertinent facts, ignoring certain events, or calling those events by names that a whole lot of people wouldn’t use to describe an event. A recent example of that is the “mostly peaceful” protests comment by a news guy standing in front of a burning car. So, it’s established that the media is untrustworthy or at least, their motives are suspicious. Lets add on that the US gov’t has done real shitty things in the past. The Tuskegee syphilis “experiment” being one. The interment of folks of Japanese decent during WW2 another,. Our involvement in numerous “revolutions” to install a more “western compliant” gov’t in countries in the middle east, etc., and that’s just the US gov’t. Why would I deny the possibility of a foreign gov’t running a “agent” who is collecting dirt on powerful people in the us by plying them with very young girls to have sex with?Report
Cathouses are a particular country’s calling card.
They find them useful for obtaining information.
(by this I am not saying much about said above island. Follow the money, folks).
And, on mentioned island above, they weren’t “very young girls.”
They were … sixteen year olds. Girls that one might conceivably have…
done the One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest thing.
Use of “had sex with a twelve year old” blackmail material requires
someone dumb enough to “have sex with a twelve year old.”
Ya know…they do exist.Report
” A recent example of that is the “mostly peaceful” protests comment by a news guy standing in front of a burning car.”
I’ve been at mostly peaceful Halloween celebrations that included a burning car.
This is not to support burning cars. Just to note that once you get a couple thousand people together in one place, 967 of them can be peaceful and 33 of them can throw bricks through windows and if you’re not there you can’t tell from some still photos and a reporter interview what actually was the ratio of “peaceful” to “idiot”.Report
Protip: Standing in front of a burning car in front of a camera stating that the protests are “mostly peaceful” tends to discredit your clam. Might want to consider the background a bit more…if you give a damn about your alleged “credibility”.Report
And if they stood elsewhere, they’d be accused of hiding the flaming car.
If you want to believe the protests were not mostly peaceful, nothing will stop you.Report
Huh? How about believing that protests without arson and destruction are mostly peaceful? Or let’s drop the editorializing completely. We can say peaceful protests, protests with violent clashes with counter-protestors, or violent protests. Leave the reporter’s assessment of the relative violence out of the equation.Report
From Wikipedia:
Death(s) 25 (As of October 31, 2020)
Arrested 14,000+
Property damage
$550 million in Minneapolis–Saint Paul (May 26–June 6, 2020)
$1–2 billion in insured damages in the United States (May 26–June 8, 2020)Report
Hey look… facts! Cool!
So, do you think the protests were mostly peaceful? Why or why not?
Does a reporter standing in front of a burning car change that?
Would †he reporter standing in front of a group of people singing “Kumbaya” have changed that?Report
I think it’d be like describing January 6th as a mostly peaceful political protest.
It obscures more than it illuminates.
Here’s a headline from May 24th:
Deadliest weekend of the year in Chicago: 12 killed, 42 wounded in shootings
Would you agree that the overwhelming majority of people in Chicago were just living their lives like no meaningful violence was going on in the city? The overwhelming majority were not shot and didn’t know anybody who was?
Colorado Springs didn’t have *ANY* shootings that weekend.
If I were to do a compare/contrast of the amount of damage done, adjusted for inflation, and compare it to other riots (adjusted for population), where do you think that last summer would end up?
Is there a number that would get you to say that “mostly peaceful” might not be a good descriptor for stuff on that list (or higher)?Report
Kazzy is asking you what you think.Report
Ahem: “I think it’d be like describing January 6th as a mostly peaceful political protest. It obscures more than it illuminates.”Report
That doesn’t answer the question.
“Do you like potatoes?”
“Asking me if I like potatoes would be like asking me if I like cold lima beans.”
“Ummm…”Report
Pardon me.
Imagine someone describing the January 6 incident in Washington DC as a “Mostly Peaceful Political Protest”.
Can you imagine that?
I imagine that you can imagine that.
Furthermore, I imagine that if you see someone describing January 6th as “Mostly Peaceful” and pointing to all of the people who were in parks or standing on sidewalks chanting slogans and talking about all of the people protesting peacefully, you’d find yourself asking “WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO BROKE INTO THE BUILDING AND THREATENED THE POLITICIANS?!?!?”
Let me know if my imagination is incorrect, there.
In that same way, I see the “Mostly Peaceful Protests” of the George Floyd aftermath as doing a *HUGE* amount of damage and committing a *HUGE* amount of violence resulting in dozens of deaths.
And calling them “mostly peaceful” might be technically true… in the same way that the January 6th Insurrection was “mostly peaceful”.
The problem with the George Floyd aftermath was *NOT* the 93% of protests that involved people standing on sidewalks and chanting things.
And a news program that downplayed the January 6th Insurrection by talking about the people who stood on the sidewalk and chanted things would be ignoring some pretty important details of the other things that happened that day.
And doubly so if they talked about all of the people standing outside on the sidewalk from within the Capitol building while people were walking through to the congressional offices. “This is only a small percentage of the people here today!”Report
You’re still not engaging my point.
The claim was that the optics of the burning car behind the reporter discredited the reporter.
I countered that if they utilized different optics, the claim would be they were hiding the truth.
My point was not about whether or not the protests were peaceful but whether or not Damon was actually interested in the truth. I submit that he was not.Report
If I may speak for Damon (sorry, Damon!), he was using the protests as an example of a broader point, one that ties back to the original article: the press (at best) doesn’t care if they’re lying to you.Report
The claim was that the optics of the burning car behind the reporter discredited the reporter.
Okay. I think I can defend this claim. I think that it kinda does discredit the reporter.
Here’s 12 seconds:
I countered that if they utilized different optics, the claim would be they were hiding the truth.
Perhaps this is true… but it doesn’t argue against the proposition that the reporter was discredited by standing in front of the burning car.
Whether or not Damon would have argued against the story being pushed by the reporter has *NOTHING* to do with whether or not the reporter was discredited by calling the protests mostly peaceful in front of arson going on.
On top of that, we’re stuck with this number:
$550 million in Minneapolis–Saint Paul (May 26–June 6, 2020)
Is focusing on how many people did not contribute to this number particularly relevant?
Because it seems like a weird way to change the subject.
Sure, 7% of the protestors broke windows… but 93% didn’t!
My point was not about whether or not the protests were peaceful but whether or not Damon was actually interested in the truth. I submit that he was not.
Okay.
But focusing on Damon’s intentions rather than on “the truth” won’t get us closer to the truth either.
Are you interested in the truth?
Or would you rather talk about Damon?Report
kazzy it’s really funny watching you say “if they utilized different optics, the claim would be they were hiding the truth” and then argue that the truth is that the protests were not violentReport
Another subthread discussing what Jaybird really means.
I told you, from now on you should post that Truity description of the INTP whenever anyone does this.Report
Another subthread discussing what Jaybird really means.
We have a lot of those. Most of them avoidable.Report
You’re missing (dodging?) my point.
If your assessment of the protests is based on the data you’ve provided, the burning car is of no concern to you.
If your assessment of the protests is based on the presence of a burning car, than it’s proximity to a reporter is of no concern to you.
If your assessment of the protests cannot get beyond the juxtaposition of one news outlet’s description and accompanying visual, well, then, you’re stuck there I guess.
It seems odd that so many conversations about whether or not the protests should be described as peaceful circle back to “But what about that reporter and the car?!”
It’s as if certain folks aren’t interested in facts or truths, but dunking on a rather dumb seeming moment perpetuated by someone they disagree with.
I mean, imagine if I responded to every criticism of the Biden admin with, “Yea, says you and Viking Hat Guy.”
Would you think I was giving fair shake to your perspective? Or dismissing you by loose association (at best)?Report
This strikes me as startlingly similar to defenses given of the police.
What about all of the police who did not kneel on George Floyd’s neck? What about them? There are stories about cops that go through their entire career without firing their sidearm! We never talk about that!
Focusing on Derek Chauvin instead of The Police As A Whole is dishonest!
And, besides, Derek Chauvin was found guilty!
For what it’s worth, the “Mostly Peaceful Protests” criticism has a *LOT* of targets.
It’s not merely a criticism of the protests themselves. It’s also a criticism of the media covering the protests.
By standing in front of a burning car and saying “well, some of the people are rambunctious but most of the people here are following the law”, you’re stuck noticing that there is a lot of “not following the law” that is not really defended by pointing out how many people are following it.
Like, say, with bad cops.
The amount of good cops doesn’t really make up for the amount of bad cops.Report
Its actually about ethics in protest journalism.Report
Let’s focus on the important questions here: Why did you replace that t with a dagger?Report
Make that 1 billion in property damage in Minneapolis, plus one post office. (at which point the financial analyst stopped counting).
Uncle Hugo’s, alone, had priceless signed first-edition books (of the sort where the author didn’t sign any others, so Very Rare). Wonder how much a signed first edition of Snow Crash is worth?
The only thing that didn’t burn were the hipster bars. Because they needed a place to drink and screw afterwards.Report
You get 30 seconds to report on the protest. You can spend 20 of them showing a peaceful protest, and maybe 5 or 10 showing the burning car, with a bit of commentary on how there was one incident that the FD responded to.
BUT!
The flaming car is what gets eyeballs to tune in, so…Report
Well, is a protest a story? Burning car or no? There are thousands of protests every day, only a few of which involve violence and/or destruction, but I don’t know that any of them necessarily constitute a newsworthy story. The protest (with or without the burning car) has been a literal backdrop to a series of news stories about police violence. The reason that “mostly peaceful” has become a meme is that the reporters don’t appear to be interested in the events that serve as backdrop.Report
What I’m trying to make sense of is whether we are looking to truly assess the facts or just comment on optics.
Mention was made of the news reporter and the burning car.
This was countered with (maybe theoretical?) data on how many protestors were actually violent.
This was countered with… mention of the news reporter and the burning car.
All in a conversation about who we can trust when trying to determine the truth.
If all you got is one data point that you want to hang your entire perspective on, I dare say you aren’t making a sincere attempting at determining the truth.Report
well there’s some excellent nut picking going on here. BLM has been protesting police brutality across America since at least 2018. the 2020 Protests flared for a lot of reasons, but the election wasn’t one of them. Fun Fact – there are still daily peaceful protests in Portland, Seattle, and even Minneapolis – when said protestors aren’t being killed by car wielding terrorists.
You are also misrepresenting the epidemiologists. To a person, at the time, they all said large gatherings were not a good idea. They also said that they understood why others might decide they were, when those gatherings were being conducted in service of important social causes. They advised masking up and maintaining social distancing which protestors largely did.Report
“What I’m trying to make sense of is whether we are looking to truly assess the facts or just comment on optics.”
In the thread, you’ve got both.
The mostly peaceful arson reporters have become iconic. They were revelatory in two ways: the extent of the rioting and the willingness of the media to at best editorialize, at worst misinform. Any discussion of those moments is bound to touch on both the distortion and the destruction, what you call the optics and the truth. Anyway, even if the topic at hand were a specific issue, you just can’t control an open conversation.Report
I’d be interested in learning some of Mae’s techniques.Report
Can I bring another example into this discussion?
How about the denial of bats being researched and used in the Wuhan lab? This is from Sky news in reference to Peter Daszak, one of the WHO investigators:
“Australian journalist Sheri Markson has come into possession of stunning video from China uncovered by an underground research group that calls itself “Drastic” that shows live bats at the WIV and much, much more. The newly uncovered video was produced by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in May 2017 commemorating the opening of WIV.”
…
“In one tweet (note: by Peter D.) dated December, 2020 he said: “No BATS were sent to Wuhan lab for genetic analysis of viruses collected in the field. That’s now how this science works. We collect bat samples, send them to the lab. We RELEASE bats where we catch them!” In another tweet, dated December 11, 2020, he said: “This is a widely circulated conspiracy theory. This piece describes work I’m the lead on and labs I’ve collaborated with for 15 years. They DO NOT have live or dead bats in them. There is no evidence anywhere that this happened. It’s an error I hope will be corrected.” This month, Daszak appeared to retract his earlier denials and admitted the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have housed bats but admitted he had not asked them.”
At least with regards to reporting on the WIV the primary source of disinformation has been the WHO, government statements, and large media companies.Report
I’d add this sentence from the article as another example of disinformation:
“When a sitting president actively intimidates and blackmails a foreign leader to fabricate dirt on his political opponent and broad swaths of the public simply doesn’t believe it happened despite widespread reporting, a transcript of the actual conversation, and sworn Congressional testimony, accountability is impossible.”Report
In discussions of media and disinformation, one of the most important things is not to use terms like “The Media” because media outlets come in all sots of degrees of trustworthiness.
All media outlets fail on occasion, but they fail at different rates and for different reasons. Some like Epoch News, OAN or Fox, are just straightup political propaganda outfits. They aren’t attempting to present the truth and failing, they just don’t have any desire in the first place.
One of the biggest goals of disinformation campaigns is to throw dust and confusion in the air to make it impossible to determine which media outlets are trustworthy, and why.
One of the “tells” is when people spend a lot of time claiming that “The Media can’t be trusted!” then turn around and make some claim based on…a certain media outlet.Report
paragraph 1 – Media are different.
paragraph 2 – Some media can’t be trusted.
paragraphs 3-4 – If someone says that media can’t be trusted, then they’re just repeating what they’ve been told by some media.Report
To tie everything back together to the original post:
We’re talking about Media Disinformation.
I think that neither of these statements is particularly in dispute:
An example of Disinformation given in the comments was the Media calling the protests “mostly peaceful”.
The protests did about $550 million in property damage in Minneapolis–Saint Paul between May 26–June 6, 2020.
The main question would be:
Is about $550 million in property damage an amount commensurate with a “mostly peaceful” protest for a city (or twin cities) about the size of Minneapolis-Saint Paul?
I submit: It is not. It is higher than I would expect for a mostly peaceful protest. By an order of magnitude, at least.Report
I think this sort-of highlights the disconnect and why both sides claim dis-information… as Kazzy notes above, we have competing narratives:
*Mention was made of the news reporter and the burning car.
*This was countered with (maybe theoretical?) data on how many protestors were actually violent.
–This was countered with… mention of the news reporter and the burning car.
–But it was actually countered with $500M in damages which questions Proposition 2.
But Prop –3 is reasserted.
And this is why… ‘stop disinformation’ is the loaded question it is… did only 7% of protesters cause $500M in damages (some estimates going to $1B)… is the $500M too high? is the 7% too low? I also saw reports that the 7% was aggregated across *all* the protests… which might be a sort of dis-information campaign about the specific event in MN-St.P which caused $500M in damages. Unless the $500M in damages isn’t accurate… etc. etc.
So, who’s not taking a moral position to adjudicate whether our protests are peaceful? Further, if both are accurate… what’s the non-disinformation conclusion?
And even further, one side stakes out an indefensible position that if $1 in damage is caused, the entire protest is invalidated; but then the other side stakes out the indefensible position that $infinity damage is morally justified under the circumstances being protested.
There’s a problem, but it really isn’t (simply) disinformation.Report
I don’t think it’s all that hard to untangle if we resolve to go at it from a cold, rational perspective.
To me the better description of what’s going on is a game of guilt by association/can I bait my enemies into knee-jerk accepting ownership of things their position doesn’t actually require. I mean, Joe Biden navigated it perfectly without even knowing what year it is. And yet so many people just can’t help themselves.
Edit: though now that I think of it maybe not knowing what year it is is a critical component.Report
Sure, *we’re* coldly rational, but what about *them* ?
What if we’re witnessing the collapse of a shared moral/rational framework to even discuss these things? This is sort of the MacIntyre observation about Moral Philosophy in general… now it’s finally reached the apex(nadir) of public discourse.
What I’d posit for consideration is this (using MacIntyre terms for a framework):
The Cold Rational Middle-types are the Enlightenment Establishment.
The Radical Left is a post-modern Nietzschean emotivist power movement
The Radical Right is a post-modern Nietzschean emotivist power movement
Nietzschean frameworks literally and figuratively eat Enlightenment ideas to power up. Enlightenment rationality doesn’t have within it the tools to overcome these movements… which is why every attempt at disrupting mis-/dis-information is subsumed into the narrative itself.
You and I can click on all the links we want, but we’re not subverting a narrative that fundamentally lives on subversion.Report
A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end for a pleasant death.
One still works, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.
One no longer becomes poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wants to rule? Who still wants to obey? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same; everyone is the same: he who feels differently goes voluntarily into the madhouse.
“Formerly all the world was insane,” — say the subtlest of them, and they blink.
They are clever and know all that has happened: so there is no end to their derision. People still quarrel, but are soon reconciled — otherwise it upsets their stomachs.
They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.
“We have discovered happiness,” — say the Last Men, and they blink.Report
Heh, Zarathustra was always too melodramatic for my tastes… give me BGE or Genealogy to chew on.Report
I think that’s a worst-case scenario and a level of pessimism I’m not sure is justified. I mean, don’t get me wrong, we could certainly reach a level of cultural decay where the power movements capture literally everything and can impose their will on pain of death. But I don’t think they’re invulnerable nor do I think the enlightenment is so lacking in tools. As long as there are people and institutions with the wherewithal to say ‘prove it’ on neutral terms we are in the fight.
I mean, look how the election fraud claims did when brought into a court of law. Look how incredibly unpopular a lot of the woke stuff is outside of hot house environments, including among the people they are supposed to help, all despite incredible efforts of a host of cultural institutions to impose it.
We’re no more homo politicus than we are homo economicus. And on top of that our enlightenment system makes it incredibly hard to ever win the kind of total victory a power movement needs. I get the distinct sense that people are already getting bored with a lot of this and the true believers are going to have a hard time holding onto influence without Trump as a catalyst. Which of course doesn’t mean that tomorrow it won’t be something else or that the system isn’t in need of tending.Report
Possibly. It’s not a pessimism of outcome; I have no idea who or what will prevail.
But, I’m content to rest here that the Enlightenment Project of moral reasoning is no longer persuasive to either wing. And appeals to this form of moral reasoning is insufficient to the task. I think the appeals are sincere and they are consistent from ‘within’ the framework. We’re just not working inside the same frameworks anymore.
Think about it this way: We’ve made appeals to the New, Academics, Fact Checkers and now the Courts. If I’m right some or all of those institutions are already reasoning backwards from Narrative, and those that aren’t will do so voluntarily or will be made to.
But fair enough, I’m ruminating on theory/philosophy applied to a specific moment… quite likely I’m wrong about the moment, but I don’t think I’m wrong about the trend.Report
Well I agree with you about the trend. I think I just doubt the power of these particular narratives versus enlightenment institutions over the long term. One delivers material benefits in a way the other never can, and we are at heart, a selfish people.
Not to mention it’s gotten us where we’re no longer killing each other over whether the prince of Bohemia is a Catholic or a Protestant and that’s really something.Report
You can only beat up so many people for so long about their lacking descriptions of the emperor’s outfit before someone notices that your description of what he’s wearing kind of makes you sound unfashionable.Report
“His Iron Maiden t-shirt tells the world how much he rocks!”Report
Not only that. Imagine being told to believe that your entire life is a cog in a great, undefeatable machine of systemic oppression and you don’t even get to go to heaven at the end.Report
“We’re talking about Media Disinformation.”
Um… no.
We’re talking about disinformation, with the media being but one potential source of disinformation.Report
Oh, of course. You’re right, you’re right.
I think that neither of these statements is particularly in dispute:
An example of Disinformation given in the comments was the Media calling the protests “mostly peaceful”.
The protests did about $550 million in property damage in Minneapolis–Saint Paul between May 26–June 6, 2020.Report
I’m sure these people think there were a great many calm, peaceful protests that you didn’t see on the news because they didn’t have scary black men setting things on fire.Report
Adam Silverman over at Balloon Juice has done a terrific series of posts on the various types of misinformation, disinformation and information warfare.
There are different sources of misinformation, such as just simple mistakes (showing a burning car which might be incidental to a peaceful protest, sitting in a canoe implying a deep flood, while people walk by in the background in ankle deep water).
But then there are actors deliberately seeding media outlets with false or misleading information. Russia and China are experts at this, but here in America we see it with the Fox News/Republican Party/conservative influencer nexus.
The current furor over CRT is a perfect example of this, where Heritage Foundation’s Chris Rufo openly announced he was going to make CRT a buzzword for every crazy thing he could so as to pollute it and create a firestorm of protest.
And sure enough, it worked, to the point where even we here are OT are talking about it, when almost no one here even heard of it even 6 months ago.
An outrage story was seeded to a propaganda media outlet, which then provided a political party to seize upon it as a newsworthy trend, and then start legislating against it. The national discourse was deliberately turned to focus on an item, in a way favored by one political party.Report
I think that “Critical Race Theory” is one of those terms similar to “politically correct”.
It may have begun as a term used by the left, for the left, but it passed the blood/brain barrier and leaked out into places where people who opposed it happened to be and a handful of them said “HOLY CRAP THAT NAME IS PERFECT FOR THIS PHENOMENON THAT WE DIDN’T HAVE A NAME FOR!”
So it became an umbrella term for a bunch of stuff. Some of it appropriately, some of it inappropriately. But it seems to cover everything from the 1619 Project to Ibram X. Kendi’s _Antiracist Baby_ to the whole “Black People Can’t Be Racist” assertion.
It’s no one thing… it’s an umbrella term.
But I’m giving away my essay here.Report
I mean, “Critical Race Theory” doesn’t show up before… looks like March… on this site.
“Critical Theory”? We’ve got stuff going back to 2015!
“And sure enough, it worked, to the point where even we here are OT are talking about it, when almost no one here even heard of it even 6 months ago.”
While it may be true that nobody was using the term “Critical Race Theory” until recently, “Critical Theory” was one of those things that people had been steeping in.
Hrm. I googled “critical gender theory” and, wouldn’t you know it, this popped up from 2012… it’s a comment from Nob Akimoto who quotes from the post and then says:
All that to say, I think that “Critical Theory” has been around for a while and, as such, if someone started talking about “Critical Gender Theory” or “Critical Race Theory”, it would be a useful term to get us to a particular corner of the larger “Critical Theory”.Report
While it may be true that nobody was using the term “Critical Race Theory” until recently,
Unless you mean by “nobody was using the term” that the general lay public hadn’t heard of it — a point with which I heartily agree; indeed, I insist on — this is dead wrong. I read some of the early CRT stuff, called by that name, in the mid-1980’s: Delgado, Matsuda, Bell, and others. I haven’t paid much attention to it since, mainly because what is true about it is obvious (except some of the gory details, which are often good to know)* and I wasn’t impressed with the legal implications (CRT started in legal academia) many of the early CRT scholars drew from it.
*A more recent example, summarized in Bloomberg Business Week about a month ago, is prodigious, detailed research on all the features of the tax code that disproportionately work against the ability of black people to amass wealth. At one level, it is utterly unsurprising. The features of the tax code in question work to the benefit of the affluent, as one would expect, and disproportionately disadvantage people who don’t have money, who are disproportionately black. No one, including the author, thinks those provisions were put into the tax code to screw the n*****s, rather than to help the rich get richer. But it’s useful to have collected in one place all the stuff that, at a 30,000-foot level, one would expect to exist on general principles, and tease out the racial implications.Report
I am delighted to be wrong.
We have it demonstrated that there were heady academic circles where the term “Critical Race Theory” has been used for decades.
If I had to guess, I’d say that it’s a little younger than “Critical Theory” and “Critical Theory” goes back to the Frankfurt School but now we’re talking about the Frankfurt School and that way madness lies.Report
“…it passed the blood/brain barrier and leaked out into places where people who opposed it happened to be…”
This sentence itself is disinformation, using the passive voice for people and assigning agency to a word that somehow just mysteriously arrives on everyone’s lips.
No, it didn’t just “pass” or “leak”.
It WAS ACTIVELY promoted by the Heritage Foundation as an attempt to manipulate the news cycle.
Producers at Fox News actively participated and ran multiple stories using the term in deliberately inflammatory ways.
Republican politicians actively chose to participate and began forming legislation around it.
There are probably good reasons for all of us here at OT to talk about CRT, but as long as we are talking about media disinformation, this is a perfect example of how we- you, me, the editors and commenters here- have all been on the receiving end of a massive manipulation campaign.Report
Would you say that using ellipses to truncate a quotation to remove the active verbs in the sentence and then accusing the person you’re ostensibly quoting of using the passive voice would be misinformation?
“It WAS ACTIVELY promoted by the Heritage Foundation as an attempt to manipulate the news cycle.”
Did the part of the sentence you elided discuss what was done by people when they encountered this term? Did this part of the sentence use the active voice?
A very important question: Have you ever heard the term “Critical Theory” before?Report
The entire comment, from first word to last was an example of disinformation and passive voice shifting of agency.
The agency lies with the Heritage Foundation, specifically Chris Rufo. Why did he seize upon this term, and why did he decide that it was a perfect tool to use?
Why did Fox News make the conscious decision to flood the airwaves with manufactured outrage stories about it? What does that tell us about their viewers’ preferences?
Why did Republican politicians make the conscious decision to start legislation about it?
We’ve already established that almost no one here at OT heard of it, or was familiar with it, until our media sources began filling up with it a few months ago.
We are watching Soviet style disinformation campaign play out in real time.Report
Why did he seize upon this term, and why did he decide that it was a perfect tool to use?
Here’s my guess: it made him say “HOLY CRAP THAT NAME IS PERFECT FOR THIS PHENOMENON THAT WE DIDN’T HAVE A NAME FOR!”
Why did Fox News make the conscious decision to flood the airwaves with manufactured outrage stories about it? What does that tell us about their viewers’ preferences?
Probably because of stuff like the 1619 Project and the ascendance of Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi and that sort of thing. What we might have used to call “Tumblr” except it spilled out into “RL”.
Why did Republican politicians make the conscious decision to start legislation about it?
I think it has something to do with DEI corporate training turning weird.
We’ve already established that almost no one here at OT heard of it, or was familiar with it, until our media sources began filling up with it a few months ago.
No, we haven’t.
If anything, I have given evidence that we’ve been talking about “Critical Theory” for years.
And “Critical Race Theory” is a subset of “Critical Theory”.Report
“Cultural Marxism” is the old term that used to be popular, I think.
“Critical Race Theory” is a term that probably polled better. (Indeed, it does a better job of communicating what it’s critiquing than “Cultural Marxism” does.)Report
Those claims are risible.
Fox News’ viewers had never heard of Robin D’Angelo or Ibrahim X. Kendi any more than CRT, until Fox News told them.
And you keep repeating, “the phenomenon we didn’t have a name for”. What is this, and where did you get it? Did you invent this, or did Rufo himself say “there is a phenomenon we don’t have a name for”?
And what is this phenomenon, could it be “white panic and grievance”?
And the idea that Republican governors somehow arriving at CRT legislation because of DEI training, entirely coincidentally at the precise time it became a Fox News talking point, is nonsense on stilts.
The bigger point here, is are you seriously trying to contest the assertion that the current furor over CRT is an example of media disinformation?
Or are you just quibbling with some details?Report
Robin D’Angelo or Ibrahim X. Kendi
Are you deliberately misspelling their names? I’ve provided multiple examples of the correct way to spell their names and this is the second time you’ve misspelled their names. If someone on Team Evil did that multiple times despite being corrected, I think we’d be safe in assuming that they were engaging in some light sexist white supremacy. Since you’re on Team Good, I’ll just assume that you’re lazily relying on autocorrect.
You shouldn’t.
Chip, I assure you, I have heard of Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi and I do not watch Fox News. Robin DiAngelo’s book came out in 2018. Ibram X. Kendi’s book on how to be an Antiracist came out in 2019. These are books that entered my circle within weeks of coming out.
The 1619 Project? That came out in 2019. We even had a post about it the same year it came out.
And you keep repeating, “the phenomenon we didn’t have a name for”. What is this, and where did you get it? Did you invent this, or did Rufo himself say “there is a phenomenon we don’t have a name for”?
Um, I’m describing a phenomenon. Like when you don’t have a name for something that you’re seeing more of and then, suddenly, you get a name for it? That’s very helpful. It’s something that people latch onto.
To directly answer your question, I did not get it from Chris Rufo. But neither do I think that it is unique to me. I think that I’m just describing the phenomenon of seeing a phenomenon but not having a name for it (yet).
If you want an example of another phenomenon that doesn’t have a name yet but, as soon as it does, that name will be *EVERYWHERE*?
The whole “YOU SHOULD EAT BUGS!” thing.
And what is this phenomenon, could it be “white panic and grievance”?
I imagine that that’s what your name for it would be.
If someone has another perspective on it, they’re likely to come up with a different name for it. A name that is likely to be adopted by people who are more sympathetic to the term of the another perspective than your term for it.
And the idea that Republican governors somehow arriving at CRT legislation because of DEI training, entirely coincidentally at the precise time it became a Fox News talking point, is nonsense on stilts.
I don’t watch Fox News.
I have noticed that the 1619 thing, the Robin DiAngelo thing, and the Ibram X. Kendi thing seems to be entering the public consciousness more and more.
And the more the thesis you got, the more antithesis you’re going to get.
The bigger point here, is are you seriously trying to contest the assertion that the current furor over CRT is an example of media disinformation?
Well, one of the things I’m going to discuss in my essay will be some of the stuff said by various luminaries in the CRT field.
And bringing stuff to light is a great way to inspire people to have opinions on it.
(Out of curiosity, have you read any Robin DiAngelo or Ibram X. Kendi?)Report
Even when it’s not the source, it’s the vector. Trump could not have convinced over a third of the country that the election was rigged without the right-wing noise machine’s avid participation.Report
Nice mid-level trolling there math puppy. Trump’s “allegations” were reported, but even the most recent email dump from his White House shows they were ill formed. His own acting and deputy attorney general at the time called pure insanity. SO there was no communications blackout.
Next.Report
Details. please.
Yes, we can be nice and call them allegations and not “Acts of War.”
But to call them ill-formed is to have to explain why there was significant data on an American election housed on German soil.Report