Jewish space lasers, Italian satellites, Venezuelan malware, it just doesn't stop. No amount of hard-evidence refutation of such "facts" can stem the ardor of true believers. Show such people an unaltered videotape disproving an allegation, they will claim it's been faked; show the same people an actual faked video, they readily believe it if it conforms to their conspiratorial biases. And the Nancy Mace quote - all this "evidence" in all the forms she names...well, SHOW US. No, it's sufficient enough to just make the claim, and let public imagination and media unquestioning "reporting" complete the illusion. Can anyone doubt why a four-times-indicted-on-91 criminal-charges candidate is running neck-and-neck with the incumbent president in THIS climate?
It's impossible to feel optimistic that sanity will prevail ca. 14 months from now, but we can't depend upon the courts or constitutional "disqualification" to save the day, it's entirely up to us voters to end this dangerous nonsense with a strong repudiation of the Republican Party, and all its candidates, from the top all the way down-ballot. Failing that, we fail democracy, end of story.
I understand the frustration. I believe that ultimately a legal, electoral and social rejection of Trump and MAGA will be required. These are deeply entrenched problems, and we need a multi-pronged response.
Here is what I don't understand. In Europe, they do have freedom of speech and the appropriate protections. But there is a limit. If you go out parading with a swastika, you are getting arrested and fined. Period. If you are a member of the government and you get caught lying to your people, you get canned. Freedom of speech doesn't cover that. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's nothing like it's here.
I purposely asked my friends living in the UK, Australia, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Poland - they cannot understand, how it's legal, for example, for people to display the Confederate flag, considering what it represents. Or how we are only now taking down statues of Confederate generals. Or how we have a flourishing Nazi movement. So, why can't we have laws like that in the US? You would think we would know better!
I'm with you on this one. This is one of my pet peeves: how we allow "free speech" to extend to instances where it creates danger and causes harm, yet it's still legal. When I have debates about this, the other person almost always argues by saying "who gets to decide who is dangerous?" and also will say something to the the effect of it's a slippery slope and targets of hate speech can never actually prove they've been harmed. The people offering these arguments are almost always people who have never been - and probably never will be - targets of hate speech. They just assume it's completely reasonable for them to have an opinion about whether the potential for harm to people who are not them is an acceptable risk.
“When I have debates about this, the other person almost always argues by saying "who gets to decide who is dangerous?" and also will say something to the the effect of it's a slippery slope”
It’s a legitimate question and it is a slippery slope. Neither can dismissed as if bringing them up somehow indicates the person doesn’t have a valid point.
As noted in other branches of this thread, the Confederate and the Gay Rights Activist would have very different views. Do decisions get to be made by the side we happen to share a political view with?
Obviously open mindedness, like anything else, can go to far. But at least we shouldn’t just handwave away another’s view.
My point was that people often use the "who gets to decide" question even when it is objectively obvious (as in, there is plenty of evidence to back up the claim) that a speaker is using free speech to cause or encourage harm.
And again, Queer Pride vs. Confederate flags is a false equivalence. It is not a question of differing opinions. It is a question of according the same rights to an expression that objectively, factually, encourages or causes actual harm, as are accorded to an oppressed group asking not to be harmed, and to be treated equally.
Consider the widely accepted exemption to free sppech of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. When it is well documented that a particular expression of free speech is used to condone or incite violence against an oppressed class of people by vilifying and making false claims about their "agenda" or their predatory nature, use of that particular expression is the equivalent of yelling Fire.
Free speech, like all freedoms, carries with it responsibilities. One of them is the responsibility to recognize that one's freedom ends at the point where exercising it decimates another's freedoms.
And again, to reiterate a point in my last comment, the question of "Who gets to decide?" is most definitely not answered when a person who is not a target of hate speech presumes the authority to decide, without including and respecting input from those who are targeted.
It is a VERY difficult line to draw. If you are truly committed to the principle of “free speech”, of not telling people what beliefs they can or cannot have, then you have to allow people to say things you find incredibly objectionable.
There are certainly limits that should be set, lines that should be drawn. No right is absolute. But where to draw the line?
And who gets to draw it? You and many,many others may feel you’re absolutely right that the Confederate flag should be outright banned. But I’m sure I can find a couple thousand who feel the same way and as certain of their view about the LGBTQ rainbow banner.
A direct and clear threat like “We should go bomb that black church.” seems pretty clearly on one side of the line while an opinion, even one deeply abhorrent like “The Confederacy was right. Niggers should be property.”, is not. Not if one actually supports free speech.
But... “should” is not “let’s go do it” and drawing the line at “should” very easily slides to banning the free expression of opinions. It’s a very tricky line to draw without undesired consequences.
Yes, it is tricky. Your comparison though, of the Confederate and Queer pride flags is a false equivalence. One is a symbol used to energize and unite groups that have historically been violently oppressive, and the other is a symbol of a movement to liberate an oppressed class. Regardless of how objectionable anyone might consider Queer pride to be, it is an objective fact that neither the goals nor the motivation of that movement have ever involved harming or limiting the rights of other groups.
This is a concept that dominant group members do not seem to grasp: there is a difference between offense and harm. The Confederate flag is not merely offensive; it is a signal that catalyzes danger/harm in way that the Queer pride flag isn't, has never been, and is unlikely to ever be.
“One is a symbol used to energize and unite groups that have historically been violently oppressive, and the other is a symbol of a movement to liberate an oppressed class.”
I get the distinction between the meaning of the two flags. That one is a symbol of oppression and the other of liberation.
But that’s not really relevant to determining where to draw a line on free-speech. To the Confederate, the rainbow flag represents just as much of a danger as the confederate flag may to you and me. Perhaps not in as obvious a way given the history of overt violence one can attach to a confederate flag, but (and I emphasize these next three words) to the Confederate a rainbow flag may represent an equally dangerous existential threat.
And that should be recognized. Not supported, not excused, but recognized. Because when we start saying, “You can’t fly your flag because of the threat it represents to me, but I can fly mine, despite the threat it represents to you.” we start telling people what they are allowed to believe and how they’re allowed to peacefully express it.
What are you talking about? Yes, Ukraine has it's own nationalist movement - as does the US. But no, Nazi symbols have never been approved of in Ukraine. Or displayed with the same audacity as the American conservatives display the Confederate flag or the American Fascists march with the swastika. I grew up in Ukraine, and I can personally attest to that. Anyone showing up in the street with a swastika would get kicked in the teeth. Maybe someone should tell you that reading Russian propaganda is a no-no.
I didn't say a single rude word to you. But no.... you had to start insulting me. So.... First of all, as I said, I grew up in Ukraine and my family still lives there. So, I know a lot more about what goes on there than someone who doesn't even know where it is on the map. Second, I have been covering the war in Ukraine daily since the annexation of Crimea in March 2014, using sources like Reuters, Euronews, BBC, etc. I purposely avoid US sources as much as I can, except for high-level summaries. I have never used NYT in any of my reports. Third, I am tracking you down on social media and reporting you to FBI as a possible Russia collaborator.
So maybe we don’t need to go exactly the way of Europe, but instead re-establish some of checks and balances which existed prior a big lies, i.e., Trickle Down Economics, which took hold around the time the Fairness in Media Act was dissolved at the behest of Ronald Reagan.
Along with a new Fairness in Media act the dissolution of corporate personification, aka Citizens United, as the major conduit for dark money into politics would go a very long way toward swinging the pendulum of truth and disinformation closer back towards the center.
Longer-standing lies, e.g., the US Civil War wasn’t about slavery but instead States Rights, have gained greater traction via being welcomed to the modern political mainstream by the modern GOP. Hence GOP politicians now further ingratiate that base of voters by banning the teaching of historical facts which demonstrate otherwise in public schools.
Many of that same base of voters are also believers tied to insular parochialism, which is often Faith-based and thereby infallible in their minds. E.g., it is highly unusual for a Southern Baptist pastor in the deep Southern states to admonish parishioners, who may regularly come to church and tithe, about the divisive and hateful symbolism associated with the Stars and Bars painted on the tailgate of their pickup truck or flying outside or inside their home or place of business.
Reversing longstanding locally ingrained beliefs which help to foster hate and injustice which is perceived as a righteous reaction to a misappropriated injustice of disenfranchisement, e.g,, eliminate Jew’s because they caused the economic collapse of Germany, is a process best effected via public education unencumbered by political repression of information based on evidence, as opposed to local legends and mythical hearsay conveniently overlooked, and sometimes even encouraged, by local religious and/or government authorities.
I didn't say they didn't exist. There are crazy extremists all over the world. I said there were laws in place to at least try and keep them in check. We don't have that. All the hate speech, all the extremism, all the parading around with symbols of torture and hate are covered under the VERY broad first amendment. And they shouldn't be.
That’s true, Dave. And even more so when politicians ban and burn books which don’t support the half truths and lies that have helped to perpetuate the misinformation engendering hateful attitudes and behaviors.
I’m sure if anyone understands that you must; but had to say so because I think it’s important to recognize to role which some US politicians currently play in fostering hate and divisiveness.
Yes, you just need to establish a voter registration verification system and vote verification system and verified and witnessed vote counting system that doesn't leave room for doubt, yet two elections have passed while the dodgy status quo remains.
Why do you think that is???
Surely if you want the whole country to believe and trust in the electoral system, and create national unity rather than sow division, you would take such steps to ensure that there can be no doubt as to the end result???
Yes, all that, along with eliminating the fluoridation of municipal water supplies, which clearly damages people's brains, rendering them - well, us - more susceptible to delusional thinking.
small correction: I believe those "suitcases" were not votes from the night before but from earlier that evening, when the counters had been asked to leave for some problem, I think it had to do with amd actual or projected power failure. The bigger issue here is how the observers could have known what was in the "suitcases." Presumably a whole lot of observers had X-ray vision?
Has anyone who has actually investigated Hunter Biden's "cushy consulting deals" determined that they were actually illegal? That's the part that slays me. Certainly Weiss, who has had access to all the smoke Mace talks about, doesn't seem to be pursuing it.
There is a theory in Neuroscience, around since the early 2000s, that our brain processes incoming stimuli on a "predictive" basis, filling in gaps in the signals with what it expects to see in those signals. It's why some optical illusions work. I got interested in it because of its connection to chronic pain--there are a LOT of studies showing that the same pain signals are interpreted differently depending on how one expects the pain to feel.
There are broader applications: for example, if one has the expectation that Blacks are more violent based on past "experience" like stories of the Watts riots or ghetto crimes in the past (and aren't we all in this respect "society's child??) then the brain--let me stress unconsciously--raises blood hormones such as "fight or flight" making even innocuous movements seem threatening. Again--in this theory the "prediction" is unconscious and has to do with the way the BODY reacts, no matter how rational the conscious mind is. Again, lots of studies showing this. So our predictive brains could be behind a lot of "systemic racism" which involves racist structures, not racist beliefs. (This last is my speculation, not an overt part of the neuroscience theory) This theory is positing effects way deeper than "beliefs."
One important part of this is "priming." What the brain expects is highly influenced by what it has just experienced. Thus in multiple studies, people who are shown a "neutral" face can see it as threatening or kindly (or neutral) depending on what the experimenter has shown them before. This seems to be part of what is behind the reason a repeated lie is so effective. If you are told over and over that the election is rigged by thousands of fake votes, you actually SEE suitcases full of them and sincerely think you have seen them.
It seems to me that a lot of the characteristics of conspiracy theories, the "mind errors" that lead to them and reinforce them, can be explained by the workings of this theory. Two good books on the theory for laypersons: Being You by Anil Seth and The Experience Machine by Andy Clark. There are others I have but haven't read yet.
The theory is way more complicated than I can explain (or even understand). Clark has some suggestions on how to "retrain" the brain, but that part of the theory is really in its infancy. One way might be not to tell conspiracy nuts they are "wrong" but to simply keep pointing out alternative explanations (as you do masterfully here) in hopes that some version of Occam's Razor will sink in.
Your last paragraph about retraining the brain illustrates the basics of CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy, which has been around under various names (like rational emotive therapy, RET) since at least the 1970's. It is usually used to help alter one's negative beliefs about oneself, so using it as a framework to alter someone's belief in a conspiracy theory seems feasible - to the extent that the person is receptive. And therein lies the rub.
yes, it is definitely connected to CBT. How well CBT works depends in part with how deeply engrained the prediction is. There is a complicated part of this theory I didn't discuss involved the paths the neuronal activity goes through and the strength of the prediction (its resistance to correction). The disputes in the field so far seem to be more about how those paths are traced and how that resistance is measured, rather than to the basic idea of "prediction" in general.
Heh. At less than two years younger than Biden, I may stumble over the occasional word, but I remember a lot of details damn well. And remembering that kind of thing is what I want in a president, not some worry about the right word temporarily escaping. Trump can't even remember the details of his previous lies.
The Obvious Point that Hunter Biden had Zero qualifications or experience to fulfil the task of a director at Burisma, an industry about which he knew absolutely nothing, would raise questions in the mind of a two year old.
Why did such a questionable situation come into existence under such questionable circumstances in the first place???
Maybe if you actually had the Facts and not your personal fanciful version of events you would have realised that CCTV cameras revealed the untimely entry of question suitcases, and what were obviously votes being sorted.
While we're about it, why would the site convenor send witnesses home stating that counting was over for the night, only for sone people, sans witnesses, to return a few hours later in the early hours of the morning???
If you were a rational thinking person, wouldn't that raise questions in your mind???
Since as a rational thinking person I have actually looked closely at the whole story surrounding the "suitcases," including the larger tape, not the chunks shown on PSM (Paranoidstream press) I would suggest you do the same. The "send home" bit was because of a power issue at the center. It was resolved and the counters, who hadn't actually yet gone home as they were still storing the uncounted votes, took them out again and again started counting.
Hunter Biden had experience--lots of it--in the particular duties his position called for. He was not involved in day to day operations. Most board members of companies have little knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the corporation's operations.
Far as I can tell, there is only one two-year old on this thread. Only a two year old can think that they know what is inside a suitcase from a video of it.
Absolute Bullshit, the observers and witnesses were sent home for the night,there was No Power Failure.
You're a Liar!!!
How did certain people know to come back and start cpunting but the observers/ witnesses did not, unless it was pre-arranged with the purpose of commiting Election Fraud???
Why did the convenor allow sorting and ciunting to take place without the observers/witnesses, unless thos was done woth the intention to commit election Fraud???
"Not all conspiracies turn out to be false. There was a massive conspiracy within the White House in the prior administration to overturn the results of an election, for example. And that makes proving certain other conspiracies to [be] false all the more difficult."
Now I see my confusion: Elsewhere in your excellent piece you are talking about conspiracy THEORIES, but in this part you switch (as you accurately state) to an actual conspiracy ENTERPRISE. All clear.
(I might not be the only reader who got tripped up here; hopefully my comment is worth the digital space it takes up.)
The frustrating part of this is that none of the extraordinary steps President Biden and AG Garland took to maintain distance from and the independence of the Federal investigations matter to the nimrods who lack critical thinking skills. My hunch is that tfg and his minions promote and believe the nonsense about "weaponized government" largely because it's what they would have done and did do (i.e. the attempted shakedown of Pres. Zelenskii, the "I just need 11,780 votes" call to GA).
It's not just Fox News and it's ilk that are perpetuating a false narrative regarding Joe Biden and his son, as well as the "Big Lie."
The "mainstream media" has latched onto this farce ostensibly because it sells, and fills, airtime, citing "polls" to justify ill conceived and shoddy reporting, journalistic integrity be damned.
Facts, and the evidence to back them up, are sacrificed for ratings, and the conspiracies are perpetuated.
Yeah. This is what breaks my heart most: The virtually universal failure of national news media resources to step into the breach and practice critical thinking, analytical rigor, and - ultimately - unvarnished truth-telling (Yes, that's permitted!).
“Shared psychosis” is a psychosocial phenomenon that has been researched and described since the mid-nineteenth century....“contagious madness.” It results from a person with severe mental symptoms holding an influential position in a dyad ..., family, group, or nation....
"Shared psychosis can take the form of transmission to previously healthy individuals; mutual reinforcement of previously ill persons; activation of predisposed individuals; or latent “conversion” of previously resistant individuals. When the psychosocial phenomenon is widespread—affecting not just a household but a nation or the world—then all four types are observed simultaneously."
I still go back to the basic idea/fact that if tfg was "cheated" out of his election, then why weren't all the other Rs who got elected? And, of course, are now propagating the big lie. Dimwits.
I'd add the whole QAnon "phenomenon", not to mention a fifth, "pizzagate", and a sixth, Seth Rich, and a seventh, Vince Foster, and an eighth, the Hillary Clinton e-mails insanity, and a ninth, "President Biden is a doddering old fool" (while at the same time managing to run a crime family--quite the achievement, actually!), etc., etc., etc.
These conspiracy theories have replaced policy in the Republican Party, and sadly, they often work.
Y'know, the worst part of it is how national news media organizations amplify the effectiveness of the disinformation campaigns by repeating the insanity uncritically.
They seem to believe they're reporting... well, something, when in truth they're merely taking dictation.
Conspiracy theories are as old as I am (this means they are quite old). But in the old days, they were spread by the National Enquirer and other like-minded outlets, and sometimes by talk radio. These days, the echo chamber has expanded significantly so that the types of people who used to read the Enquirer or listen to talk radio all day are now the first to soak in the stories made up by the various internet outlets. Then the conspiracies spread for all the reasons you mentioned.
I remember the Trilateral Commission, which was an ancestor of the Orange Puff's Deep State.
Part of the problem, too, is that one of the underlying frictions between Trump supporters and the rest of the body politic is that there is a grain of truth to the concept of a deep state. Dwight D. Eisenhower identified it quite cogently in his famous speech about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. It doesn't help that we never did anything about his warnings.
But the modern day Republican has only a cynical, toxic approach to it all. So here we are.
There are conspiracies, but as a former prosecutor I can tell you that they are few, far between and typically small, involving just a few people. There is, however, a lot negligence and incompetence, which, when brought to light, often leads to cover ups. You know the adage: "The coverup is often worse than the crime." Incompetence followed by a cover-up looks a lot like a conspiracy, even though it isn't one.
Thank you for this excellent discussion about how believers come to believe. The question I have is why. I think the Trump cult believes because Trump promises a return to the America of the 1950’s and earlier - racially segregated, male dominated, ethnically European, and Christian. These are demonstrably Republican values since the Nixon administration. Trump himself does not have to believe what his cult believes; Trump needs only to have the adoration of his cult as he says what they want to hear.
What an outstanding piece. I love it! Cause and Effect Master class! Thank you Jay for always narrowing down the basics so we can understand the whole by its parts!
"Conspiracies, including massive political conspiracies, have been around for as long as politics."
Granted. But the highly-funded right-wing media have grown exponentially over just the last few decades. What's THEIR take-away? Why are wealthy donors so interested in funding radical conspiracies lately??
America has a literacy rate of 79%, but 54% of the literate read at a 6th grade or lower level. IOW, 75% of Americans find reading somewhat or very challenging. Moreover, in our busy, rat-race existence, researching an issue or even fact-checking one is not a preferred or a habitual method of arriving at the truth for most people. Only a small percentage are committed to and interested in life-long learning, which requires time, effort, various degrees of struggle. Even though the Internet can facilitate learning, it still requires effort, time, skill, and reading ability.
That leaves one's family, friends, place of worship, or workplace as communities to sort out facts from fiction, but these are also sources of repetitive misinformation, disinformation, and/or bias. There's also the TV, where 90% of America consume information about their world through the MSM, which is composed of six corporations which range from center-right to far-right, and are loaded with distraction, equivocation, entertainment, "news", and repetitive commercials.
There is also our educational system which is capable of teaching how to filter fact from fiction, strategies of assessing truth, and motivating people to search for truth, but this is generally available to a minority of citizens and at the highest level of education. In general, the system is oriented to job skills, vocational, or professional placement. It is also being undermined by right-wing extremists who prefer that even the educated students be properly indoctrinated, so as not to upset the political landscape.
Conspiracy theories flourish in societies because societies are structured in ways where their promotion is relatively easy. They can facilitate and stabilize hierarchy, and funtion as political tools to corral and harness populations. They can also spawn new political movements that can burn down existing ones.
Jewish space lasers, Italian satellites, Venezuelan malware, it just doesn't stop. No amount of hard-evidence refutation of such "facts" can stem the ardor of true believers. Show such people an unaltered videotape disproving an allegation, they will claim it's been faked; show the same people an actual faked video, they readily believe it if it conforms to their conspiratorial biases. And the Nancy Mace quote - all this "evidence" in all the forms she names...well, SHOW US. No, it's sufficient enough to just make the claim, and let public imagination and media unquestioning "reporting" complete the illusion. Can anyone doubt why a four-times-indicted-on-91 criminal-charges candidate is running neck-and-neck with the incumbent president in THIS climate?
It's impossible to feel optimistic that sanity will prevail ca. 14 months from now, but we can't depend upon the courts or constitutional "disqualification" to save the day, it's entirely up to us voters to end this dangerous nonsense with a strong repudiation of the Republican Party, and all its candidates, from the top all the way down-ballot. Failing that, we fail democracy, end of story.
I understand the frustration. I believe that ultimately a legal, electoral and social rejection of Trump and MAGA will be required. These are deeply entrenched problems, and we need a multi-pronged response.
Here is what I don't understand. In Europe, they do have freedom of speech and the appropriate protections. But there is a limit. If you go out parading with a swastika, you are getting arrested and fined. Period. If you are a member of the government and you get caught lying to your people, you get canned. Freedom of speech doesn't cover that. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's nothing like it's here.
I purposely asked my friends living in the UK, Australia, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Poland - they cannot understand, how it's legal, for example, for people to display the Confederate flag, considering what it represents. Or how we are only now taking down statues of Confederate generals. Or how we have a flourishing Nazi movement. So, why can't we have laws like that in the US? You would think we would know better!
I'm with you on this one. This is one of my pet peeves: how we allow "free speech" to extend to instances where it creates danger and causes harm, yet it's still legal. When I have debates about this, the other person almost always argues by saying "who gets to decide who is dangerous?" and also will say something to the the effect of it's a slippery slope and targets of hate speech can never actually prove they've been harmed. The people offering these arguments are almost always people who have never been - and probably never will be - targets of hate speech. They just assume it's completely reasonable for them to have an opinion about whether the potential for harm to people who are not them is an acceptable risk.
“When I have debates about this, the other person almost always argues by saying "who gets to decide who is dangerous?" and also will say something to the the effect of it's a slippery slope”
It’s a legitimate question and it is a slippery slope. Neither can dismissed as if bringing them up somehow indicates the person doesn’t have a valid point.
As noted in other branches of this thread, the Confederate and the Gay Rights Activist would have very different views. Do decisions get to be made by the side we happen to share a political view with?
Obviously open mindedness, like anything else, can go to far. But at least we shouldn’t just handwave away another’s view.
My point was that people often use the "who gets to decide" question even when it is objectively obvious (as in, there is plenty of evidence to back up the claim) that a speaker is using free speech to cause or encourage harm.
And again, Queer Pride vs. Confederate flags is a false equivalence. It is not a question of differing opinions. It is a question of according the same rights to an expression that objectively, factually, encourages or causes actual harm, as are accorded to an oppressed group asking not to be harmed, and to be treated equally.
Consider the widely accepted exemption to free sppech of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. When it is well documented that a particular expression of free speech is used to condone or incite violence against an oppressed class of people by vilifying and making false claims about their "agenda" or their predatory nature, use of that particular expression is the equivalent of yelling Fire.
Free speech, like all freedoms, carries with it responsibilities. One of them is the responsibility to recognize that one's freedom ends at the point where exercising it decimates another's freedoms.
And again, to reiterate a point in my last comment, the question of "Who gets to decide?" is most definitely not answered when a person who is not a target of hate speech presumes the authority to decide, without including and respecting input from those who are targeted.
It is a VERY difficult line to draw. If you are truly committed to the principle of “free speech”, of not telling people what beliefs they can or cannot have, then you have to allow people to say things you find incredibly objectionable.
There are certainly limits that should be set, lines that should be drawn. No right is absolute. But where to draw the line?
And who gets to draw it? You and many,many others may feel you’re absolutely right that the Confederate flag should be outright banned. But I’m sure I can find a couple thousand who feel the same way and as certain of their view about the LGBTQ rainbow banner.
A direct and clear threat like “We should go bomb that black church.” seems pretty clearly on one side of the line while an opinion, even one deeply abhorrent like “The Confederacy was right. Niggers should be property.”, is not. Not if one actually supports free speech.
But... “should” is not “let’s go do it” and drawing the line at “should” very easily slides to banning the free expression of opinions. It’s a very tricky line to draw without undesired consequences.
Yes, it is tricky. Your comparison though, of the Confederate and Queer pride flags is a false equivalence. One is a symbol used to energize and unite groups that have historically been violently oppressive, and the other is a symbol of a movement to liberate an oppressed class. Regardless of how objectionable anyone might consider Queer pride to be, it is an objective fact that neither the goals nor the motivation of that movement have ever involved harming or limiting the rights of other groups.
This is a concept that dominant group members do not seem to grasp: there is a difference between offense and harm. The Confederate flag is not merely offensive; it is a signal that catalyzes danger/harm in way that the Queer pride flag isn't, has never been, and is unlikely to ever be.
“One is a symbol used to energize and unite groups that have historically been violently oppressive, and the other is a symbol of a movement to liberate an oppressed class.”
I get the distinction between the meaning of the two flags. That one is a symbol of oppression and the other of liberation.
But that’s not really relevant to determining where to draw a line on free-speech. To the Confederate, the rainbow flag represents just as much of a danger as the confederate flag may to you and me. Perhaps not in as obvious a way given the history of overt violence one can attach to a confederate flag, but (and I emphasize these next three words) to the Confederate a rainbow flag may represent an equally dangerous existential threat.
And that should be recognized. Not supported, not excused, but recognized. Because when we start saying, “You can’t fly your flag because of the threat it represents to me, but I can fly mine, despite the threat it represents to you.” we start telling people what they are allowed to believe and how they’re allowed to peacefully express it.
Maybe they should tell the Ukrainians that Nazi symbols are a No No.
What are you talking about? Yes, Ukraine has it's own nationalist movement - as does the US. But no, Nazi symbols have never been approved of in Ukraine. Or displayed with the same audacity as the American conservatives display the Confederate flag or the American Fascists march with the swastika. I grew up in Ukraine, and I can personally attest to that. Anyone showing up in the street with a swastika would get kicked in the teeth. Maybe someone should tell you that reading Russian propaganda is a no-no.
Truth revealed despite desperate attempts by you, the NYT and others to sidestep the facts.
https://fair.org/home/nyt-on-ukraines-nazi-imagery-its-complicated/
This is not a reputable source.
I really have to laugh at Idiots like you, who are Clueless, yet refer to the truth as Russian propaganda.
Get to grips with the truth or Shut Up!!!
I didn't say a single rude word to you. But no.... you had to start insulting me. So.... First of all, as I said, I grew up in Ukraine and my family still lives there. So, I know a lot more about what goes on there than someone who doesn't even know where it is on the map. Second, I have been covering the war in Ukraine daily since the annexation of Crimea in March 2014, using sources like Reuters, Euronews, BBC, etc. I purposely avoid US sources as much as I can, except for high-level summaries. I have never used NYT in any of my reports. Third, I am tracking you down on social media and reporting you to FBI as a possible Russia collaborator.
Why are several of the Ukrainian military units wearing unit flashes which are identical to that of Nazi SS ???
So maybe we don’t need to go exactly the way of Europe, but instead re-establish some of checks and balances which existed prior a big lies, i.e., Trickle Down Economics, which took hold around the time the Fairness in Media Act was dissolved at the behest of Ronald Reagan.
Along with a new Fairness in Media act the dissolution of corporate personification, aka Citizens United, as the major conduit for dark money into politics would go a very long way toward swinging the pendulum of truth and disinformation closer back towards the center.
Longer-standing lies, e.g., the US Civil War wasn’t about slavery but instead States Rights, have gained greater traction via being welcomed to the modern political mainstream by the modern GOP. Hence GOP politicians now further ingratiate that base of voters by banning the teaching of historical facts which demonstrate otherwise in public schools.
Many of that same base of voters are also believers tied to insular parochialism, which is often Faith-based and thereby infallible in their minds. E.g., it is highly unusual for a Southern Baptist pastor in the deep Southern states to admonish parishioners, who may regularly come to church and tithe, about the divisive and hateful symbolism associated with the Stars and Bars painted on the tailgate of their pickup truck or flying outside or inside their home or place of business.
Reversing longstanding locally ingrained beliefs which help to foster hate and injustice which is perceived as a righteous reaction to a misappropriated injustice of disenfranchisement, e.g,, eliminate Jew’s because they caused the economic collapse of Germany, is a process best effected via public education unencumbered by political repression of information based on evidence, as opposed to local legends and mythical hearsay conveniently overlooked, and sometimes even encouraged, by local religious and/or government authorities.
Sorry to say, Maria, that there are still plenty of Neo-Nazi groups in Germany.
I didn't say they didn't exist. There are crazy extremists all over the world. I said there were laws in place to at least try and keep them in check. We don't have that. All the hate speech, all the extremism, all the parading around with symbols of torture and hate are covered under the VERY broad first amendment. And they shouldn't be.
And I was just saying it’s hard to legislate away hate.
That’s true, Dave. And even more so when politicians ban and burn books which don’t support the half truths and lies that have helped to perpetuate the misinformation engendering hateful attitudes and behaviors.
I’m sure if anyone understands that you must; but had to say so because I think it’s important to recognize to role which some US politicians currently play in fostering hate and divisiveness.
Yes, you just need to establish a voter registration verification system and vote verification system and verified and witnessed vote counting system that doesn't leave room for doubt, yet two elections have passed while the dodgy status quo remains.
Why do you think that is???
Surely if you want the whole country to believe and trust in the electoral system, and create national unity rather than sow division, you would take such steps to ensure that there can be no doubt as to the end result???
Social engineering.
Yes, all that, along with eliminating the fluoridation of municipal water supplies, which clearly damages people's brains, rendering them - well, us - more susceptible to delusional thinking.
🙃
It’s like when the former guy said “press conference Monday, I have evidence showing election fraud and I’ll be vindicated!”
And then he canceled it of course
The announcement of evidence - to make whatever point they’re lying about - is all that matters to fuel their conspiracies
The actual “evidence” is as empty as a stack of blank paper
small correction: I believe those "suitcases" were not votes from the night before but from earlier that evening, when the counters had been asked to leave for some problem, I think it had to do with amd actual or projected power failure. The bigger issue here is how the observers could have known what was in the "suitcases." Presumably a whole lot of observers had X-ray vision?
Has anyone who has actually investigated Hunter Biden's "cushy consulting deals" determined that they were actually illegal? That's the part that slays me. Certainly Weiss, who has had access to all the smoke Mace talks about, doesn't seem to be pursuing it.
There is a theory in Neuroscience, around since the early 2000s, that our brain processes incoming stimuli on a "predictive" basis, filling in gaps in the signals with what it expects to see in those signals. It's why some optical illusions work. I got interested in it because of its connection to chronic pain--there are a LOT of studies showing that the same pain signals are interpreted differently depending on how one expects the pain to feel.
There are broader applications: for example, if one has the expectation that Blacks are more violent based on past "experience" like stories of the Watts riots or ghetto crimes in the past (and aren't we all in this respect "society's child??) then the brain--let me stress unconsciously--raises blood hormones such as "fight or flight" making even innocuous movements seem threatening. Again--in this theory the "prediction" is unconscious and has to do with the way the BODY reacts, no matter how rational the conscious mind is. Again, lots of studies showing this. So our predictive brains could be behind a lot of "systemic racism" which involves racist structures, not racist beliefs. (This last is my speculation, not an overt part of the neuroscience theory) This theory is positing effects way deeper than "beliefs."
One important part of this is "priming." What the brain expects is highly influenced by what it has just experienced. Thus in multiple studies, people who are shown a "neutral" face can see it as threatening or kindly (or neutral) depending on what the experimenter has shown them before. This seems to be part of what is behind the reason a repeated lie is so effective. If you are told over and over that the election is rigged by thousands of fake votes, you actually SEE suitcases full of them and sincerely think you have seen them.
It seems to me that a lot of the characteristics of conspiracy theories, the "mind errors" that lead to them and reinforce them, can be explained by the workings of this theory. Two good books on the theory for laypersons: Being You by Anil Seth and The Experience Machine by Andy Clark. There are others I have but haven't read yet.
The theory is way more complicated than I can explain (or even understand). Clark has some suggestions on how to "retrain" the brain, but that part of the theory is really in its infancy. One way might be not to tell conspiracy nuts they are "wrong" but to simply keep pointing out alternative explanations (as you do masterfully here) in hopes that some version of Occam's Razor will sink in.
Your last paragraph about retraining the brain illustrates the basics of CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy, which has been around under various names (like rational emotive therapy, RET) since at least the 1970's. It is usually used to help alter one's negative beliefs about oneself, so using it as a framework to alter someone's belief in a conspiracy theory seems feasible - to the extent that the person is receptive. And therein lies the rub.
yes, it is definitely connected to CBT. How well CBT works depends in part with how deeply engrained the prediction is. There is a complicated part of this theory I didn't discuss involved the paths the neuronal activity goes through and the strength of the prediction (its resistance to correction). The disputes in the field so far seem to be more about how those paths are traced and how that resistance is measured, rather than to the basic idea of "prediction" in general.
Thanks for that correction.
Heh. At less than two years younger than Biden, I may stumble over the occasional word, but I remember a lot of details damn well. And remembering that kind of thing is what I want in a president, not some worry about the right word temporarily escaping. Trump can't even remember the details of his previous lies.
The Obvious Point that Hunter Biden had Zero qualifications or experience to fulfil the task of a director at Burisma, an industry about which he knew absolutely nothing, would raise questions in the mind of a two year old.
Why did such a questionable situation come into existence under such questionable circumstances in the first place???
Maybe if you actually had the Facts and not your personal fanciful version of events you would have realised that CCTV cameras revealed the untimely entry of question suitcases, and what were obviously votes being sorted.
While we're about it, why would the site convenor send witnesses home stating that counting was over for the night, only for sone people, sans witnesses, to return a few hours later in the early hours of the morning???
If you were a rational thinking person, wouldn't that raise questions in your mind???
Since as a rational thinking person I have actually looked closely at the whole story surrounding the "suitcases," including the larger tape, not the chunks shown on PSM (Paranoidstream press) I would suggest you do the same. The "send home" bit was because of a power issue at the center. It was resolved and the counters, who hadn't actually yet gone home as they were still storing the uncounted votes, took them out again and again started counting.
Hunter Biden had experience--lots of it--in the particular duties his position called for. He was not involved in day to day operations. Most board members of companies have little knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the corporation's operations.
Far as I can tell, there is only one two-year old on this thread. Only a two year old can think that they know what is inside a suitcase from a video of it.
Absolute Bullshit, the observers and witnesses were sent home for the night,there was No Power Failure.
You're a Liar!!!
How did certain people know to come back and start cpunting but the observers/ witnesses did not, unless it was pre-arranged with the purpose of commiting Election Fraud???
Why did the convenor allow sorting and ciunting to take place without the observers/witnesses, unless thos was done woth the intention to commit election Fraud???
You are an irrational Lying Moron!!!
Helpful, Jay. Thank you.
But I've been puzzling over this paragraph:
"Not all conspiracies turn out to be false. There was a massive conspiracy within the White House in the prior administration to overturn the results of an election, for example. And that makes proving certain other conspiracies to [be] false all the more difficult."
Now I see my confusion: Elsewhere in your excellent piece you are talking about conspiracy THEORIES, but in this part you switch (as you accurately state) to an actual conspiracy ENTERPRISE. All clear.
(I might not be the only reader who got tripped up here; hopefully my comment is worth the digital space it takes up.)
The frustrating part of this is that none of the extraordinary steps President Biden and AG Garland took to maintain distance from and the independence of the Federal investigations matter to the nimrods who lack critical thinking skills. My hunch is that tfg and his minions promote and believe the nonsense about "weaponized government" largely because it's what they would have done and did do (i.e. the attempted shakedown of Pres. Zelenskii, the "I just need 11,780 votes" call to GA).
It is frustrating. But there is no choice here. At least one side has to play by the rules or we are lost.
Whose Rules, goven all of the evident questionable activities that were never answered or resolved???
It's not just Fox News and it's ilk that are perpetuating a false narrative regarding Joe Biden and his son, as well as the "Big Lie."
The "mainstream media" has latched onto this farce ostensibly because it sells, and fills, airtime, citing "polls" to justify ill conceived and shoddy reporting, journalistic integrity be damned.
Facts, and the evidence to back them up, are sacrificed for ratings, and the conspiracies are perpetuated.
Yeah. This is what breaks my heart most: The virtually universal failure of national news media resources to step into the breach and practice critical thinking, analytical rigor, and - ultimately - unvarnished truth-telling (Yes, that's permitted!).
Thank you for this - thorough, concise, and understandable. Kinda goes along with this article
https://bandyxlee.substack.com/p/psychic-contagion?r=4dxvl&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post&fbclid=IwAR3VrPYekTtJLYNTnDuhFNeRbFDY0NsT9LbLufIbOV8ukal9Ut9-8UkT-ko_aem_AQQ82EmRldcgIhtDf6-0L5CkCp6_Wbuiudc-AaovXt2HyJXDt-ApnCkj-j8HfSKjl1Q
“Shared psychosis” is a psychosocial phenomenon that has been researched and described since the mid-nineteenth century....“contagious madness.” It results from a person with severe mental symptoms holding an influential position in a dyad ..., family, group, or nation....
"Shared psychosis can take the form of transmission to previously healthy individuals; mutual reinforcement of previously ill persons; activation of predisposed individuals; or latent “conversion” of previously resistant individuals. When the psychosocial phenomenon is widespread—affecting not just a household but a nation or the world—then all four types are observed simultaneously."
I still go back to the basic idea/fact that if tfg was "cheated" out of his election, then why weren't all the other Rs who got elected? And, of course, are now propagating the big lie. Dimwits.
I'd add the whole QAnon "phenomenon", not to mention a fifth, "pizzagate", and a sixth, Seth Rich, and a seventh, Vince Foster, and an eighth, the Hillary Clinton e-mails insanity, and a ninth, "President Biden is a doddering old fool" (while at the same time managing to run a crime family--quite the achievement, actually!), etc., etc., etc.
These conspiracy theories have replaced policy in the Republican Party, and sadly, they often work.
Y'know, the worst part of it is how national news media organizations amplify the effectiveness of the disinformation campaigns by repeating the insanity uncritically.
They seem to believe they're reporting... well, something, when in truth they're merely taking dictation.
Conspiracy theories are as old as I am (this means they are quite old). But in the old days, they were spread by the National Enquirer and other like-minded outlets, and sometimes by talk radio. These days, the echo chamber has expanded significantly so that the types of people who used to read the Enquirer or listen to talk radio all day are now the first to soak in the stories made up by the various internet outlets. Then the conspiracies spread for all the reasons you mentioned.
I remember the Trilateral Commission, which was an ancestor of the Orange Puff's Deep State.
Part of the problem, too, is that one of the underlying frictions between Trump supporters and the rest of the body politic is that there is a grain of truth to the concept of a deep state. Dwight D. Eisenhower identified it quite cogently in his famous speech about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. It doesn't help that we never did anything about his warnings.
But the modern day Republican has only a cynical, toxic approach to it all. So here we are.
I didn't live through that, but lots of similarities. But in this case, almost everyone is a communist (anyone who isn't far, far right).
It was a sarcastic comment about what Republicans say about anyone who disagrees with them.
These theories often take on a life of their own, too. I'm not big on shameless self-promotion, but I wrote a bit about this concept recently, and it fits right in with what I want to say: https://goatfury.substack.com/p/tinfoil-tuesday-birds-arent-real
Jay, well done.
There are conspiracies, but as a former prosecutor I can tell you that they are few, far between and typically small, involving just a few people. There is, however, a lot negligence and incompetence, which, when brought to light, often leads to cover ups. You know the adage: "The coverup is often worse than the crime." Incompetence followed by a cover-up looks a lot like a conspiracy, even though it isn't one.
Thank you for this excellent discussion about how believers come to believe. The question I have is why. I think the Trump cult believes because Trump promises a return to the America of the 1950’s and earlier - racially segregated, male dominated, ethnically European, and Christian. These are demonstrably Republican values since the Nixon administration. Trump himself does not have to believe what his cult believes; Trump needs only to have the adoration of his cult as he says what they want to hear.
Why do people continue to believe medieval church teachings? Peer pressure has a lot to do with it. . . And money benefiting the perpetrators. . .
What an outstanding piece. I love it! Cause and Effect Master class! Thank you Jay for always narrowing down the basics so we can understand the whole by its parts!
"Conspiracies, including massive political conspiracies, have been around for as long as politics."
Granted. But the highly-funded right-wing media have grown exponentially over just the last few decades. What's THEIR take-away? Why are wealthy donors so interested in funding radical conspiracies lately??
I believe “wealthy” could be a clue!
America has a literacy rate of 79%, but 54% of the literate read at a 6th grade or lower level. IOW, 75% of Americans find reading somewhat or very challenging. Moreover, in our busy, rat-race existence, researching an issue or even fact-checking one is not a preferred or a habitual method of arriving at the truth for most people. Only a small percentage are committed to and interested in life-long learning, which requires time, effort, various degrees of struggle. Even though the Internet can facilitate learning, it still requires effort, time, skill, and reading ability.
That leaves one's family, friends, place of worship, or workplace as communities to sort out facts from fiction, but these are also sources of repetitive misinformation, disinformation, and/or bias. There's also the TV, where 90% of America consume information about their world through the MSM, which is composed of six corporations which range from center-right to far-right, and are loaded with distraction, equivocation, entertainment, "news", and repetitive commercials.
There is also our educational system which is capable of teaching how to filter fact from fiction, strategies of assessing truth, and motivating people to search for truth, but this is generally available to a minority of citizens and at the highest level of education. In general, the system is oriented to job skills, vocational, or professional placement. It is also being undermined by right-wing extremists who prefer that even the educated students be properly indoctrinated, so as not to upset the political landscape.
Conspiracy theories flourish in societies because societies are structured in ways where their promotion is relatively easy. They can facilitate and stabilize hierarchy, and funtion as political tools to corral and harness populations. They can also spawn new political movements that can burn down existing ones.
Something I read years ago often comes to mind (unfortunately, I don't remember the source):
"We see what we look for, we look for what we know."