America - The Official Thread

[Joey D]

Riiiight, because the practicing Irish Catholic for 78 years is definitely anti-Christian. And the man who ran for highest office of America is definitely anti-American. Quality right-wing logic.

I think Protestants don't see Catholics as Christians, or as Christian, for whatever reason. It puzzles me because it's all the same Jesus and the same God.

 

[Danoff]

There's an air of desperation creeping into your posts that's making me anxious.

I'm pretty concerned about Trump. The US has deteriorated a lot in the last 4 years. Breakneck pace started this year.

Not so long ago I was the one trying to explain to you how libertarian theory was not able to adequately address societal issues because it assumed that there was a rational basis underlying human interaction, whereas, in fact, the more important factors determining human interaction are barely rational at all. You poo pooed that argument as being irrelevant. The events of the last few years seem to have brought you to an uncomfortable epiphany on the subject.

You've misunderstood something here. I'm not entirely sure what it is. I'm not arguing that government must form the basis of human interaction. I don't think I ever denied that it is possible for society to lose itself in authoritarianism. It happened in Nazi Germany. I'm concerned that it's happening here in the US, of course, I mean I live here! But this is not new to humanity.

You're going to have to elaborate on what you think I "poo pooed" or what you suggested to me was wrong with libertarianism, or what your solution was to the problem of authoritarianism. Because I can't really address it from the summary above.

Is it a result of increasing economic disparity in American society?

It doesn't look like it. Read the Vox article that @Scaff posted. I think you're grafting your own bias to the issue, it doesn't appear to be a good fit to the actual data.

Along with that there has been the growth of right wing media - first radio, then television & finally the explosion of social media platforms. Discontented working class Americans - especially white Americans - seem to have increasingly gravitated to these right wing media outlets. Now, instead of standing up for capitalism & the American Way, a lot of Americans have become increasingly sceptical of it. Enter Trump who blames immigrants, the Chinese, the "coastal elites", the MSM, Hollywood, academics, sneaky Europeans and Democrats in general.

This does not appear to be based on inequality. If anything, the people you're talking about are on the wrong side of the inequality scale compared to the Chinese or Indians who took er jerbs. This is authoritarianism. It's not about what other people have, it's about being entitled to more than you're getting. It's economic misunderstanding combined with entitlement. I don't see inequality as a motivating factor and again I think you're grafting your own bias to this issue. The evidence doesn't lead me to your conclusion. The "problem" in your cited example is poor people, at least in the eyes of authoritarian nationalism.

I don't want to say "told you so", but income inequality IS a problem.

You're going to have to establish that.

 

[Hayden]

While most conspiracy theories are obviously dumb on the face of them, I think it's worth looking at the societal factors that lead people to feel so adrift that they'll willingly believe that paper masks are a tool of oppression. People who are happy and secure do not go looking for boogeymen like that.

I’d rather not go into detail but my brother has had a very rough couple of years. Things that are genuinely out of his control put him in a bad situation and he fell deeply into conspiracy theories. Of course the election was rigged, Covid is fake, Bill Gates this, pedophile that, new world order etc. He is a very overpowering person when it comes to discussion, and doesn’t push his point so much as force it. This doesn’t sit well with me, who, ideologically disagrees with what he has to say, sees flaws in his logic and is willing to question him on it. We’ve had some pretty big arguments over the years

I was talking to him yesterday and he had a new one. People who comment on Facebook posts are actually just AI. Not just sheep or brainwashed or whatever, but they aren’t actually real people.

I see connections here with an old Caesar tactic- dehumanise the opposition. If they aren’t real, then the things they say can’t possibly be true. Next he’ll be saying I’m a robot...

Does anybody know anyone who has gone deep down the conspiracy cave and made it out?

 

[Danoff]

Does anybody know anyone who has gone deep down the conspiracy cave and made it out?

Yea, people make it out all the time. Conspiracy theories are self-replicating memes just like religion. They have a lot in common with religion, including the circular reasoning. People make it out of religion all the time, and they post videos and blogs about how and why they made it out.

The thing is, there are resources to help people with each religion. The mechanisms to pick at in each religion are sometimes different (although usually a common theme is present). So what we need is a strong set of resources for each one of these conspiracies to help guide people out of them. It's going to be a different set of resources for flat earth than for covid masks, and a different set for "illegal" votes. I don't know how we can keep up with the conspiracies, but if you can reach someone about one, they might take that knowledge to a different one.

The tricky part, that I'm a little pessimistic about, is how to motivate that self-examination.

It's a cognitive pathway that's comforting and well trodden mentally. We have to show people how to step out of it, and breaking that loop can help people see how to break it again. A similar technique is used for depression. I think it's called cognitive behavioral therapy.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I’d rather not go into detail but my brother has had a very rough couple of years. Things that are genuinely out of his control put him in a bad situation and he fell deeply into conspiracy theories. Of course the election was rigged, Covid is fake, Bill Gates this, pedophile that, new world order etc. He is a very overpowering person when it comes to discussion, and doesn’t push his point so much as force it. This doesn’t sit well with me, who, ideologically disagrees with what he has to say, sees flaws in his logic and is willing to question him on it. We’ve had some pretty big arguments over the years

I was talking to him yesterday and he had a new one. People who comment on Facebook posts are actually just AI. Not just sheep or brainwashed or whatever, but they aren’t actually real people.

I see connections here with an old Caesar tactic- dehumanise the opposition. If they aren’t real, then the things they say can’t possibly be true. Next he’ll be saying I’m a robot...

Does anybody know anyone who has gone deep down the conspiracy cave and made it out?

Is there possibly a deeper issue, e.g. psychiatric illness?

 

[Biggles]

This does not appear to be based on inequality. If anything, the people you're talking about are on the wrong side of the inequality scale compared to the Chinese or Indians who took er jerbs. This is authoritarianism. It's not about what other people have, it's about being entitled to more than you're getting. It's economic misunderstanding combined with entitlement.

Of course there's no mathematical justification for this point of view. The average American is still much better off than the majority of people around the globe ... but that's the point, it's not about reality, it's about perception. I don't think it's an accident that the left - Bernie Sanders - & the right - Donald Trump - have similar gripes: rich elites who are prospering while the working class (always euphemistically called "middle class" in the US) struggles. The difference is the right likes to blame foreigners, immigrants, lazy blacks, socialists, the media, Jewish bankers, Jewish intellectuals, intellectuals in general, atheists etc. They're all strikingly familiar themes of "national socialism".

The point I'm trying to make is it's pointless to keep insisting on what makes rational sense when you're faced with people's irrational feelings. People vote & they're voting with their grievances front & centre.

BTW: is "er jerbs" some kind of urban slang I'm unfamiliar with ... or more evidence of the diabolical working of Bill Gates' evil plan to enslave the world?

 

[UKMikey]

BTW: is "er jerbs" some kind of urban slang I'm unfamiliar with ... or more evidence of the diabolical working of Bill Gates' evil plan to enslave the world?

 

[Keef]

BTW: is "er jerbs" some kind of urban slang I'm unfamiliar with ... or more evidence of the diabolical working of Bill Gates' evil plan to enslave the world?

If you don't like er slang ukin giiiitteeoouutt!!!

 

[longshot1314]

(I kept the sources to links to keep from embedding every video. Also fair warning but Jimmy Dore's clips due tend to have a lot of swearing if that's a concern)

I'm not refuting what horrible things Trump's done though in some cases full context is necessary which is often lacking in most media outlets. For example Trump's use of federal authorities in Portland only came after several weeks of riots that targeted Federal Buildings which Portland's mayor and city council did nothing about, the authority for what Trump did there was also based on legislation that Obama passed during his administration with him even admitting the danger it posed but signing it into law anyways;

Dark Horse Podcast clip on Portland
Jimmy Dore Show report on Portland

With regards to CTs, the media has pushed it's own conspiracy theory with Russiagate for four years, there's certainly an argument to be made that having an attack against the legitimacy of a president be as persistent as that and being on false grounds could drive someone to being far more divisive and paranoid than he already was. I often wonder if the Democrats hadn't played Trump's game if things would have been different. Think of how retaliation escalation works in regards to having a sibling as a kid and apply it to a larger scale. Kyle Kulinski sums up Russiagate here well with some of the latest allegations, especially given that the russia excuse gets used to slander things completely unrelated to the original claim;

Secular Talk Recent Russiagate Clip

As for Harris all you have to do is watch the clip of Tulsi Gabbard destroying Harris as covered by Jimmy Dore below:

Jimmy Dore Show Summary of Tulsi takedown

As for the legitimacy of elections, just because Trump is the first one to level that accusation about it doesn't mean there isn't a grain of truth to it. I don't doubt that there was shadiness going on for his part, but again I'd like to cite what happened to Bernie in 2016, and subsequently Tulsi and Bernie both in 2020. It does make a case that the Democrats have been pursuing methods to influence or altering their own elections to the same extent as the Republicans have (though this is also why I don't think any claim Trump makes this cycle holds any water). It is worth noting as well that Tulsi was barred from later debates and the Democratic Party even went as far as changing their rule regarding having eligible delegates when she managed to win one from America Samoa that would've qualified her for the next debate at that time;

Jimmy Dore Show clip on Tulsi's exclusion in 2020
Secular Talk on Warren vs Sanders
Jimmy Dore Show clip from 2016
Clip from Secular Talk from 2016
Secular Talk on Clinton in 2016

As far as Trump blocking aid being sent for COVID, that's more on Pelosi than anyone else, let's recall how much she blew up on CNN a month ago when being pressed about it, what's also funny here is mentioning no money to the states which Cuomo called her out on earlier in the year, and similarly she reacted poorly to that too;

Jimmy Dore clip on Pelosi CNN meltdown

Another footnote to this is discussing whether Trump is to blame for COVID deaths, while he handled it very poorly there is a better argument that bureaucracy in the medical system is to blame for how poorly it was handled (indeed bureaucracy is a huge problem that needs to be addressed in medical and education reform):

Coleman Hughes clip with Niall Ferguson

With media censorship, there is a strong argument that these platforms should be regulated by the first amendment, especially given that each of the main platforms can be regarded as having a relative monopoly on their particular forms of expression. Active censorship also removes their defense of not being publishers which could make them liable by law for what gets posted or taken down from their services. Given how much big tech is in bed with the DNC as evidenced by this years election, it does create a very real concern of authoritarian levels of censorship on the spread of information. Unity 2020's removal in addition to Youtube's method of levying strikes and Facebook's vague terms of use are part of this and has led to many bans against people who wouldn't even be considered right wing nor spreading false information:

The Hill Interview with Bret Weinstein
Dark Horse Podcast clip on censorship

I apologize in not being more concise or sourcing my earlier arguments given that I was relatively fired up regarding these issues at the time. The main point here is that Trump is more the symptom of a larger problem with our government rather than the source, and ample discussion needs to be had with what led to it and the dangers the precedents set have, in addition to being willing to criticize aspects of every side where warranted.

 

[TexRex]

Dude just posted links to more than a dozen videos.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

(I kept the sources to links to keep from embedding every video. Also fair warning but Jimmy Dore's clips due tend to have a lot of swearing if that's a concern)

I'm not refuting what horrible things Trump's done though in some cases full context is necessary which is often lacking in most media outlets. For example Trump's use of federal authorities in Portland only came after several weeks of riots that targeted Federal Buildings which Portland's mayor and city council did nothing about, the authority for what Trump did there was also based on legislation that Obama passed during his administration with him even admitting the danger it posed but signing it into law anyways;

Dark Horse Podcast clip on Portland
Jimmy Dore Show report on Portland

With regards to CTs, the media has pushed it's own conspiracy theory with Russiagate for four years, there's certainly an argument to be made that having an attack against the legitimacy of a president be as persistent as that and being on false grounds could drive someone to being far more divisive and paranoid than he already was. I often wonder if the Democrats hadn't played Trump's game if things would have been different. Think of how retaliation escalation works in regards to having a sibling as a kid and apply it to a larger scale. Kyle Kulinski sums up Russiagate here well with some of the latest allegations, especially given that the russia excuse gets used to slander things completely unrelated to the original claim;

Secular Talk Recent Russiagate Clip

As for Harris all you have to do is watch the clip of Tulsi Gabbard destroying Harris as covered by Jimmy Dore below:

Jimmy Dore Show Summary of Tulsi takedown

As for the legitimacy of elections, just because Trump is the first one to level that accusation about it doesn't mean there isn't a grain of truth to it. I don't doubt that there was shadiness going on for his part, but again I'd like to cite what happened to Bernie in 2016, and subsequently Tulsi and Bernie both in 2020. It does make a case that the Democrats have been pursuing methods to influence or altering their own elections to the same extent as the Republicans have (though this is also why I don't think any claim Trump makes this cycle holds any water). It is worth noting as well that Tulsi was barred from later debates and the Democratic Party even went as far as changing their rule regarding having eligible delegates when she managed to win one from America Samoa that would've qualified her for the next debate at that time;

Jimmy Dore Show clip on Tulsi's exclusion in 2020
Secular Talk on Warren vs Sanders
Jimmy Dore Show clip from 2016
Clip from Secular Talk from 2016
Secular Talk on Clinton in 2016

As far as Trump blocking aid being sent for COVID, that's more on Pelosi than anyone else, let's recall how much she blew up on CNN a month ago when being pressed about it, what's also funny here is mentioning no money to the states which Cuomo called her out on earlier in the year, and similarly she reacted poorly to that too;

Jimmy Dore clip on Pelosi CNN meltdown

Another footnote to this is discussing whether Trump is to blame for COVID deaths, while he handled it very poorly there is a better argument that bureaucracy in the medical system is to blame for how poorly it was handled (indeed bureaucracy is a huge problem that needs to be addressed in medical and education reform):

Coleman Hughes clip with Niall Ferguson

With media censorship, there is a strong argument that these platforms should be regulated by the first amendment, especially given that each of the main platforms can be regarded as having a relative monopoly on their particular forms of expression. Active censorship also removes their defense of not being publishers which could make them liable by law for what gets posted or taken down from their services. Given how much big tech is in bed with the DNC as evidenced by this years election, it does create a very real concern of authoritarian levels of censorship on the spread of information. Unity 2020's removal in addition to Youtube's method of levying strikes and Facebook's vague terms of use are part of this and has led to many bans against people who wouldn't even be considered right wing nor spreading false information:

The Hill Interview with Bret Weinstein
Dark Horse Podcast clip on censorship

I apologize in not being more concise or sourcing my earlier arguments given that I was relatively fired up regarding these issues at the time. The main point here is that Trump is more the symptom of a larger problem with our government rather than the source, and ample discussion needs to be had with what led to it and the dangers the precedents set have, in addition to being willing to criticize aspects of every side where warranted.

That's a lotta Jimmy Dore.

 

[TexRex]

It seems to me there's a word used to describe particularly unfavorable odds--such as those of anyone here clicking even half of those links--I just can't put my finger on it.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Jimmy Dore is truly one of the angriest, dumbest, and probably one of the most dishonest political channels on YouTube. I'd say he's the left wing version of Tim Pool. Even though he may be a leftist, he's an unfunny comedian who found anti-establishment rhetoric and conspiracism as his grift. And I say this as someone who is a staunch leftist. The dude is just as much of a 9/11 conspiracist as Alex Jones. He's also so far down the "anti-establishment" rabbit hole that he's convinced himself that the most progressive members of of Congress like AOC and Bernie are sellouts and corporate shills simply for supporting the Heroes Act. All he does is trap his viewers into a perpetual state of rage and has accomplished absolutely nothing to further the progressive movement in the US. Probably because he doesn't care all that much.

Secular Talk (Kyle Kulinki) is for the most part pretty good though. Although his constant simping for Tulsi was a bit questionable, in terms of economic and foreign policy issues, he's usually spot-on. Somewhat iffy on social issues though. Most notably, he was the founder of the Justice Democrats Coalition, which helps fundraise and advocate for leftist candidates who run for the house, senate, and state legislatures. I'd even go as far saying that without the Justice Democrats, progressive, people-funded candidates like AOC, Katie Porter, and Ro Khanna may not have even won their races. Unlike Dore, he seems genuinely fully invested in advancing the leftist cause in the US. So big props to Kyle for that. I watch his videos from time to time.

 

[Keef]

(I kept the sources to links to keep from embedding every video. Also fair warning but Jimmy Dore's clips due tend to have a lot of swearing if that's a concern)

I'm not refuting what horrible things Trump's done though in some cases full context is necessary which is often lacking in most media outlets. For example Trump's use of federal authorities in Portland only came after several weeks of riots that targeted Federal Buildings which Portland's mayor and city council did nothing about, the authority for what Trump did there was also based on legislation that Obama passed during his administration with him even admitting the danger it posed but signing it into law anyways;

Dark Horse Podcast clip on Portland
Jimmy Dore Show report on Portland

With regards to CTs, the media has pushed it's own conspiracy theory with Russiagate for four years, there's certainly an argument to be made that having an attack against the legitimacy of a president be as persistent as that and being on false grounds could drive someone to being far more divisive and paranoid than he already was. I often wonder if the Democrats hadn't played Trump's game if things would have been different. Think of how retaliation escalation works in regards to having a sibling as a kid and apply it to a larger scale. Kyle Kulinski sums up Russiagate here well with some of the latest allegations, especially given that the russia excuse gets used to slander things completely unrelated to the original claim;

Secular Talk Recent Russiagate Clip

As for Harris all you have to do is watch the clip of Tulsi Gabbard destroying Harris as covered by Jimmy Dore below:

Jimmy Dore Show Summary of Tulsi takedown

As for the legitimacy of elections, just because Trump is the first one to level that accusation about it doesn't mean there isn't a grain of truth to it. I don't doubt that there was shadiness going on for his part, but again I'd like to cite what happened to Bernie in 2016, and subsequently Tulsi and Bernie both in 2020. It does make a case that the Democrats have been pursuing methods to influence or altering their own elections to the same extent as the Republicans have (though this is also why I don't think any claim Trump makes this cycle holds any water). It is worth noting as well that Tulsi was barred from later debates and the Democratic Party even went as far as changing their rule regarding having eligible delegates when she managed to win one from America Samoa that would've qualified her for the next debate at that time;

Jimmy Dore Show clip on Tulsi's exclusion in 2020
Secular Talk on Warren vs Sanders
Jimmy Dore Show clip from 2016
Clip from Secular Talk from 2016
Secular Talk on Clinton in 2016

As far as Trump blocking aid being sent for COVID, that's more on Pelosi than anyone else, let's recall how much she blew up on CNN a month ago when being pressed about it, what's also funny here is mentioning no money to the states which Cuomo called her out on earlier in the year, and similarly she reacted poorly to that too;

Jimmy Dore clip on Pelosi CNN meltdown

Another footnote to this is discussing whether Trump is to blame for COVID deaths, while he handled it very poorly there is a better argument that bureaucracy in the medical system is to blame for how poorly it was handled (indeed bureaucracy is a huge problem that needs to be addressed in medical and education reform):

Coleman Hughes clip with Niall Ferguson

With media censorship, there is a strong argument that these platforms should be regulated by the first amendment, especially given that each of the main platforms can be regarded as having a relative monopoly on their particular forms of expression. Active censorship also removes their defense of not being publishers which could make them liable by law for what gets posted or taken down from their services. Given how much big tech is in bed with the DNC as evidenced by this years election, it does create a very real concern of authoritarian levels of censorship on the spread of information. Unity 2020's removal in addition to Youtube's method of levying strikes and Facebook's vague terms of use are part of this and has led to many bans against people who wouldn't even be considered right wing nor spreading false information:

The Hill Interview with Bret Weinstein
Dark Horse Podcast clip on censorship

I apologize in not being more concise or sourcing my earlier arguments given that I was relatively fired up regarding these issues at the time. The main point here is that Trump is more the symptom of a larger problem with our government rather than the source, and ample discussion needs to be had with what led to it and the dangers the precedents set have, in addition to being willing to criticize aspects of every side where warranted.

Why on earth would I trust a guy over an entire industry of journalistic and investigative professionals? Do you think this just happens to be the one dude out of thousands of people who isn't full of ****?

Why when challenged for legitimate sources to conservatives keep getting more fringe and less accountable? Instead of seeking information from reputable organizations made up of reputable people, they find these individuals who present and analyze events from their own individual points of view, and then elevate these figures as the epitome of truth. These people are the absolute opposite of accountable or peer-reviewed or representative of the population. When you can't find the results you want, shrinking your sample size down to a single person is the wrong strategy.

Sounds like worship to me.

 

[McLaren]

As far as Trump blocking aid being sent for COVID, that's more on Pelosi than anyone else, let's recall how much she blew up on CNN a month ago when being pressed about it, what's also funny here is mentioning no money to the states which Cuomo called her out on earlier in the year, and similarly she reacted poorly to that too;

Wrong. It's McConnell, always has been and always will be.

McConnell pushed back against Trump's $1.8t deal.

McConnell Won’t Support $1.8 Trillion White House Stimulus Bill—Even If Pelosi And Trump Make A Deal

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahh...pelosi-and-trump-make-a-deal/?sh=6cdc3d35a8a9

McConnell adjourned the Senate directly after Amy's swearing in.

The Senate has adjourned until after Election Day, making it increasingly unlikely that Congress will pass a coronavirus relief bill before then. After confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, a priority for Republicans and President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell adjourned the Senate until November 9.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-relief-bill-senate-adjourns-until-after-election/

McConnell said Covid talks would restart after the election, now they're not likely to start til' January.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday a new coronavirus stimulus bill should be considered at the beginning of 2021, not in a post-election lame duck session of Congress as some lawmakers had hoped would happen after pre-election talks failed.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/30/politics/stimulus-negotiations-mitch-mcconnell-2021/index.html

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

While we're on the subject, does anyone else feel like the proliferation...no...explosion of politically commentary/punditry blogs/podcasts etc is problematic? It seems irrational and unsustainable to have so many people commenting on politics as their full-time occupation. That's even aside from the clickbait sensationalism that it encourages.

 

[UKMikey]

While we're on the subject, does anyone else feel like the proliferation...no...explosion of politically commentary/punditry blogs/podcasts etc is problematic? It seems irrational and unsustainable to have so many people commenting on politics as their full-time occupation. That's even aside from the clickbait sensationalism that it encourages.

Once upon a time there were reputable sources that everyone agreed were impartial and factual. Then someone started calling them fake news so everyone got their information from whoever they felt like. For these shysters it must be like the California gold rush as they race to stake their claims on the public imagination.

 

[GranTurNismo]

While we're on the subject, does anyone else feel like the proliferation...no...explosion of politically commentary/punditry blogs/podcasts etc is problematic? It seems irrational and unsustainable to have so many people commenting on politics as their full-time occupation. That's even aside from the clickbait sensationalism that it encourages.

I don't think people making a career out of political commentary/punditry is itself problematic. What is problematic, though, is not their actual views/opinions, but dishonesty, and unfortunately, it seems that more commentators, on both sides, tend to be grifters, being quite dishonest about their actual views, than not. More obviously, you get MSM news pundits who are funded by dark money like defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, etc (I'm looking at you, Cuomo, Blitzer, Hannity, and others) who are paid to always support the status quo yet present their talking points in a way that the average joe would buy into. Then you also get commentators who have found their niche and will say anything their audience wants to hear regardless how factual or rational it is. For example, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are probably smart people in actuality, but it's clear that he's massively dumbed-down his views so that he can appeal to white suburban teenagers who want to feel smart. Or Tucker Carlson, Tim Pool and Jimmy Dore, wanting to appeal to anti-establishment types. Of course there are commentators who are completely honest and ethical, even making being truthful despite sometimes saying things their audiences may not want to hear as a main selling point of their channel. I think Secular Talk/Kyle Kulinki would be an example of a truly genuine commentator. Unfortunately, the problem will always be that the foremost job of the political commentator is to make money. So under this system, there will always be commentators who lie, grift, sensationalize, and pander, to maximize their audience and bottom line. And we can't just outlaw dishonesty either. Providing hard evidence that it even exists is hard enough on its own.

 

[Biggles]

Why on earth would I trust a guy over an entire industry of journalistic and investigative professionals? Do you think this just happens to be the one dude out of thousands of people who isn't full of ****?

Why when challenged for legitimate sources to conservatives keep getting more fringe and less accountable? Instead of seeking information from reputable organizations made up of reputable people, they find these individuals who present and analyze events from their own individual points of view, and then elevate these figures as the epitome of truth. These people are the absolute opposite of accountable or peer-reviewed or representative of the population. When you can't find the results you want, shrinking your sample size down to a single person is the wrong strategy.

Sounds like worship to me.

In a nutshell, that's the the kindling that has stoked the fire of conspiracy theories. My first cousin, who is Canadian, used to be a moderately conservative person. Sometime in March she did "research" online & latched onto a website that said Covid 19 was a hoax. That led her to QAnon & other related sources with the end result that she's now an anti-vaccine, Bill Gates hating, Donald Trump worshipping zealot who posts links to Youtube videos several times a day. It's a pretty bizarre. The cast of characters held up as role models & sources by these people is really unbelievable. What happened to critical thinking?

 

[Hayden]

Yea, people make it out all the time. Conspiracy theories are self-replicating memes just like religion. They have a lot in common with religion, including the circular reasoning. People make it out of religion all the time, and they post videos and blogs about how and why they made it out.

The thing is, there are resources to help people with each religion. The mechanisms to pick at in each religion are sometimes different (although usually a common theme is present). So what we need is a strong set of resources for each one of these conspiracies to help guide people out of them. It's going to be a different set of resources for flat earth than for covid masks, and a different set for "illegal" votes. I don't know how we can keep up with the conspiracies, but if you can reach someone about one, they might take that knowledge to a different one.

The tricky part, that I'm a little pessimistic about, is how to motivate that self-examination.

It's a cognitive pathway that's comforting and well trodden mentally. We have to show people how to step out of it, and breaking that loop can help people see how to break it again. A similar technique is used for depression. I think it's called cognitive behavioral therapy.

Comparing it to religion is an interesting perspective. You are right tough, because there is so many seperate, yet deeply held beliefs, it would take a lot of work to drag someone out.

The hardest part is that they’d have to want to get out. Which, with the elitist “I know how things REALLY ARE” attitude of not just my brother, but many conspiracy theorists, would require a massive backflip. Which people don’t like doing, partly due to pride and face, but also because they like thinking the way they do.

Is there possibly a deeper issue, e.g. psychiatric illness?

Nothing diagnosed, but it’s possible. There’s definitely been some mental health issues and our family has a history of it. He’s a real “bloke-y bloke” so I honestly can’t see him seeking help even if he really, really needed it. It’s a shame because it could do him a lot of good.

 

[Danoff]

Of course there's no mathematical justification for this point of view. The average American is still much better off than the majority of people around the globe ... but that's the point, it's not about reality, it's about perception. I don't think it's an accident that the left - Bernie Sanders - & the right - Donald Trump - have similar gripes: rich elites who are prospering while the working class (always euphemistically called "middle class" in the US) struggles. The difference is the right likes to blame foreigners, immigrants, lazy blacks, socialists, the media, Jewish bankers, Jewish intellectuals, intellectuals in general, atheists etc. They're all strikingly familiar themes of "national socialism".

...but not income inequality. The focus is on getting what they feel is deserved, not the difference between what some people have and what others have.

The point I'm trying to make is it's pointless to keep insisting on what makes rational sense when you're with faced people's irrational feelings. People vote & they're voting with their grievances front & centre.

I agree and understand that things which make rational sense cannot always be effectively communicated to or used to convince certain people.

 

[Biggles]

...but not income inequality. The focus is on getting what they feel is deserved, not the difference between what some people have and what others have.

That's what you choose to believe, it's what libertarian theory insists on ... but I think the reality is different. Resentment of the rich elites is a constant in human history.

Admittedly, conservative ideology has become very confused & contradictory in the last few years. Conservatives used to idolize successful businessmen - one of the reasons they picked Trump. Now people who are successful but don't toe the Trump line are vilified ... like George Soros, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, the Hollywood elites, the Clintons, the Obamas, you name it. They hate them all. Of course they also hate poor, "sponging" blacks & millennials who live in their parent's basement.

 

[Danoff]

That's what you choose to believe, it's what libertarian theory insists on ... but I think the reality is different. Resentment of the rich elites is a constant in human history.

Admittedly, conservative ideology has become very confused & contradictory in the last few years. Conservatives used to idolize successful businessmen - one of the reasons they picked Trump. Now people who are successful but don't toe the Trump line are vilified ... like George Soros, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, the Hollywood elites, the Clintons, the Obamas, you name it. They hate them all. Of course they also hate poor, "sponging" blacks & millennials who live in their parent's basement.

You seem to be conceding the point that the line between income inequality and conspiracy theory based authoritarian trumpism is not clearly established. I'll add that in my own anecdotal stories between my father in-law and my father, I don't see inequality as a driving factor at all. Some of it is racism, some of it is persecution, but mostly it's an underlying assumption that they are entitled to something from society, and the only reason why they're not getting it is... well.. as you said... insert what they consider to be the dregs of society. It's not the rich.

 

[Keef]

hat happened to critical thinking?

Some of these people are in the "you don't need to go to college, go to a trade school!" crew.

Yeah well every HVAC technician I know is a Trumpsuckler so maybe there is actually something to this whole critical thinking education thing.

Yea, people make it out all the time. Conspiracy theories are self-replicating memes just like religion. They have a lot in common with religion, including the circular reasoning. People make it out of religion all the time, and they post videos and blogs about how and why they made it out.

The thing is, there are resources to help people with each religion. The mechanisms to pick at in each religion are sometimes different (although usually a common theme is present). So what we need is a strong set of resources for each one of these conspiracies to help guide people out of them. It's going to be a different set of resources for flat earth than for covid masks, and a different set for "illegal" votes. I don't know how we can keep up with the conspiracies, but if you can reach someone about one, they might take that knowledge to a different one.

The tricky part, that I'm a little pessimistic about, is how to motivate that self-examination.

It's a cognitive pathway that's comforting and well trodden mentally. We have to show people how to step out of it, and breaking that loop can help people see how to break it again. A similar technique is used for depression. I think it's called cognitive behavioral therapy.

Is it bad that I don't want to help them? I just sort of want to watch Netflix while they walk their own leash into societal irrelevance. They're going to be left behind and I think they know it which is why they're causing such a ruckus. Pretty soon the doors of opportunity will close on these people as fast as doors are closing on coal powerplants these days.

 

[Dotini]

While we're on the subject, does anyone else feel like the proliferation...no...explosion of politically commentary/punditry blogs/podcasts etc is problematic? It seems irrational and unsustainable to have so many people commenting on politics as their full-time occupation. That's even aside from the clickbait sensationalism that it encourages.

Great question. Once there were only 3 sources of TV news ABC, CBS and NBC. They were pretty much all the same, led by the redoubtable Walter Concrete. (Actually Cronkite). There was almost total unity of the American public, with a few KKK on the right and a few commies on the left. My uncle Fred was a registered commie. There was censorship, both actual and voluntary. Those were the good old days, but they weren't really all that good for everybody. Every white male who graduated high school could work in a mill and in just a few years afford a stay-at-home wife, a muscle car, an 1100 square foot home with 2-car garage, and aspire to a fishing boat and a cabin in the mountains or on the river. Those days will never come again.

 

[Crash]

...but not income inequality. The focus is on getting what they feel is deserved, not the difference between what some people have and what others have.

I see what you're saying. However, how do people derive what they feel is deserved? There has to be some component of comparison in order for people to feel like they aren't getting what they are owed, whether that comparison is from rose-tinted "good ol' days", stories of past American prosperity, or economic inequality that is currently visible to them, or for more sinister reasons. If there's no comparison, then there would not be a perceived discrepancy between what is vs what could or should be economically.

Belief in vast conspiracies is a symptom. It seems to me reasonable to point to people feeling like they aren't getting what they are owed as one of the underlying causes, or being authoritarian as another. I want to be clear that I think there could be numerous other underlying causes as well, above is just specifically discussing the the economic piece driving the descent into conspiracies.

 

[Danoff]

I see what you're saying. However, how do people derive what they feel is deserved? There has to be some component of comparison in order for people to feel like they aren't getting what they are owed, whether that comparison is from rose-tinted "good ol' days", stories of past American prosperity, or economic inequality that is currently visible to them, or for more sinister reasons. If there's no comparison, then there would not be a perceived discrepancy between what is vs what could or should be economically.

Belief in vast conspiracies is a symptom. It seems to me reasonable to point to people feeling like they aren't getting what they are owed as one of the underlying causes, or being authoritarian as another. I want to be clear that I think there could be numerous other underlying causes as well, above is just specifically discussing the the economic piece driving the descent into conspiracies.

You're applying too much rational thought here.

No comparison is required. Just a sense of "I should be able to have". That's it. It doesn't need to go even one step farther. They dream it up, and then think they should have it. They see an ad and think "I should be able to have that truck". They see another ad and think "I should be able to have that TV". This line of reasoning doesn't apply to truly big ticket items, there seems to be some concept that certain housing might be out of reach or certain extremely wealthy neighborhoods. This is where you'd think inequality might step in, but it's the opposite. They don't assume that they should have that. If they lose their job to someone in India they'll say "I should be able to have my old job, I can do it better than an Indian... because... uh... reasons".

It's not inequality driving this. It's just pure entitlement.

(all of those examples are from personal experience)

 

[Dotini]

I see what you're saying. However, how do people derive what they feel is deserved? There has to be some component of comparison in order for people to feel like they aren't getting what they are owed, whether that comparison is from rose-tinted "good ol' days", stories of past American prosperity, or economic inequality that is currently visible to them, or for more sinister reasons. If there's no comparison, then there would not be a perceived discrepancy between what is vs what could or should be economically.

Belief in vast conspiracies is a symptom. It seems to me reasonable to point to people feeling like they aren't getting what they are owed as one of the underlying causes, or being authoritarian as another. I want to be clear that I think there could be numerous other underlying causes as well, above is just specifically discussing the the economic piece driving the descent into conspiracies.

The great questions just keep on coming!
I don't have the answers but I could say a few meager words.

In terms of the macroscopic economic system of the USA, I don't feel it is correct to call it a traditional conspiracy. Possibly inchoately organized process would be a better term. But I certainly can see why people might feel they are not getting what they deserve or are owed.

Part of the problem is that of rising expectations from succeeding generations. 200 years ago about all you could expect was the opportunity to move west into the wilderness and support a family by farming, mining or hunting. That's a hard life.

Due to the limited size of the pie, and a ballooning table of hungry eaters, today not everyone is going to get a decent job, or the opportunity to raise a family, buy a home, cars and boats. Cheap phones, drugs and entertainments are the palliative.

I see no way to escape the reality of the predicament, except to move to Mars with Elon Musk. We could try a Great Reset which has a number or permutations, mostly ugly.

 

[longshot1314]

I was thinking of Fight Club the other day thanks to Critical Drinker and realized just how relevant that movie is to the present circumstances, if not more so than when it came out twenty years ago. Part of the reason I think people have been resorting to extremes is because of the fact that in today's society life does feel kind of meaningless and it's difficult to break out of it. It's difficult to find a solution as well because it can oscillate between separate extremes as you see with more radicalized people who argue in favor of equality of outcome versus say moving towards more equality of opportunity, in addition to the factors at play being complicated and not down to one particular issue or the other. It does create an interesting discussion when considering things like a UBI whether it would lead to more general malaise or if it would free people to pursue more things they find meaningful. If anyone's read The Expanse books they actually describe future earth as being like that where essentially everyone is living off a basic income and dealing with life lacking meaning and opportunity while a handful are able to get the better opportunities.

Conspiracy Theories do play into the idea of people resorting to those extremes when they feel the system is unfair or rigged but I'd also argue it's arisen out of the fact that mainstream media has become more and more untrustworthy over the years and people have become more aware of that. Think of what happened with the Epstein case. It seemed perfectly valid to believe there was foul play involved but then it was swept under the rug. When you think about it that would actually make the media complicit for the formation of a group like Qanon, because rather pursuing doing a deeper dive into the issue they disregarded it, so without more information people were going to suspect much more than is likely true. Same can be said of the Hunter Biden issue. Frankly I do see the issues with the rise of independent media, but this is also why I'm against broader censorship on those platforms because I see the drawbacks of independent media as necessary evil to ensure that the truth is being reported and objectivity is being maintained so long as the mainstream media continues to lack objectivity. It says something when people like Glenn Greenwald are forced to leave their own company because of the loss of journalistic integrity, same with some of the journalists for NYT and other mainstream outlets.

 

[McLaren]

Same can be said of the Hunter Biden issue.

The media didn't dig deeper into this because there was no story. Fox News didn't even want to touch it, & 2 journalists at the Post didn't want their names attached. When media outlets asked to verify the information, they were given (iirc) screenshots than actual data. None of the timeline made any sense.

Frankly I do see the issues with the rise of independent media, but this is also why I'm against broader censorship on those platforms because I see the drawbacks of independent media as necessary evil to ensure that the truth is being reported and objectivity is being maintained so long as the mainstream media continues to lack objectivity.

Depends on what you consider truth & censorship. Many of these outlets are passing off conspiracy theories with zero evidence under the guise of "real news the media won't report on" rather than the media won't report on it b/c there's no beef between the buns.

It says something when people like Glenn Greenwald are forced to leave their own company because of the loss of journalistic integrity, same with some of the journalists for NYT and other mainstream outlets.

Gleen was kicked out because he failed to support his claims in an article he wanted the publication to share. The loss of "journalistic integrity" fell on Gleen, not The Intercept.