Qanon, conspiracy theories, and the Fairness Doctrine

[Z Buck McFate]

Someone has to explain to these people that Ukraine was the brain of USSR and therefore they have various labs. Every at least somewhat normal country has labs, that are btw vital for scientific and medical working of the country (which can be used for all kinds of things). Only a person without any kind of scientific knowledge would make a big deal out of the labs by default. Since it lack the capacity to understand how much labs are normal in 21th century. Therefore since the west wants that democratization of the country is a successes of course there will be some overlap in this area. This is the country with it's own nuclear reactors, of course that it has labs that are half secret.

The more educated people are in general, the more they are aware of how much they don't know. So yes, the lack of education shows. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes with these people; the more someone has studied, the more they are the little boy. (I think I've even seen some of them directly claim to be the little boy who can see the emperor is naked, but - since actually being that boy, 100%, is not possible in the context of the analogy - claims of being the boy end up being just more "clothing". Or something.)

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

My ex just posted this. I actually feel sorry for these people. The wording is so contrived to sound SMRT. It's really wretched.
It is societal level expression of paranoid schizophrenia.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Weird that it's claiming to be a "prophylactic" against civil war, when the vast majority of content foments a rabid craving for it.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Weird that it's claiming to be a "prophylactic" against civil war, when the vast majority of content foments a rabid craving for it.

I was trying to wrap my head against that one too. Perhaps they do not know what a "prophylactic" is.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The story is going around that Trump is rising more money than DNC and RNC combined. Can this be true ? (I mean the base is quite loyal)

 

[ceecee]

The story is going around that Trump is rising more money than DNC and RNC combined. Can this be true ? (I mean the base is quite loyal)

Oh I'm sure. But he's also using this for personal/legal fees so it's not the benefit it would be traditionally.

 

[ceecee]

I was trying to wrap my head against that one too. Perhaps they do not know what a "prophylactic" is.

I don't think that they do. They also don't know who Darwin was because the right contains the most ignorant paranoid people imaginable. Also anti-Semites.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508448924255854597

 

[Kephalos]

This is the thing truth ends a debate. The moment the truth is reached, when the question under discussion or debate is answered correctly, debate or discussion on that question is over.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

This is the thing truth ends a debate. The moment the truth is reached, when the question under discussion or debate is answered correctly, debate or discussion on that question is over.

This is only the case with reasonable people. There are people who get swept up in tribal battle, who dogmatically stick to the 'truth' of their own side but who can eventually be reached by reason (if presented to them calmly and respectfully enough), and then there are people who can't even see outside the power struggle.

If presented with a calm, infallible argument, the latter will simply modify their relentless need to overwrite the reality of others - in attempt to dictate 'the truth', for lack of understanding that ultimately it's not something that anyone can effectively dictate - to match the calm tone. But there's a desperate relentlessness to their approach that belies their underlying motivation. It's just too painful for them to not be that person pointing out 'the truth' to others. And they will always find enough enablers to stop them from hitting a rock bottom that'd otherwise make them realize how much they are a puppet to it; many of them have been cultivating the methods of persuasion for their entire lives, precisely to shield themselves from ever not being able to dictate shared reality. They're just hungry ghosts, and can't be reached.

My only point here is that it's not as easy as 'truth is self-evident with the right argument,' and there are some people who can never be reached.

 

[Kephalos]

"The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state: but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity." William Blackstone (1769).

At bottom, the Fairness Doctrine is fundamentally mistaken. Freedom of speech has serious problems and paradoxes, but the Fairness Doctrine is just plain wrong.

The reason can be succintly expressed with a trite and true maxim: "error has no rights." Now, that does not in any way imply persecutions or inquisitions, but it does mean that just as Right and Wrong are asymmetric, Truth and Falsehood are asymmetric too. Error has no right, for example, to be debated or discussed, nor to be taken into account: error can be debated, it an be discussed and it can be taken into account, but it does not have a right to that (which is what the Fairness Doctrine is all about, forcing people present "both sides" as equal).

 

[Z Buck McFate]

"The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state: but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity." William Blackstone (1769).

At bottom, the Fairness Doctrine is fundamentally mistaken. Freedom of speech has serious problems and paradoxes, but the Fairness Doctrine is just plain wrong.

The reason can be succintly expressed with a trite and true maxim: "error has no rights." Now, that does not in any way imply persecutions or inquisitions, but it does mean that just as Right and Wrong are asymmetric, Truth and Falsehood are asymmetric too. Error has no right, for example, to be debated or discussed, nor to be taken into account: error can be debated, it an be discussed and it can be taken into account, but it does not have a right to that (which is what the Fairness Doctrine is all about, forcing people present "both sides" as equal).

But who decides what is "error"? The point of the Fairness Doctrine was to make sure the audience is informed in a more rounded way, in order to discern for themselves. It's not about making sure both (or all) sides have credibility so much as giving all sides a chance to establish credibility for themselves. Ideally, if they are 'in error', they will not be able to effectively establish credibility.

A problem with this currently, though, is that someone doesn't have to effectively establish credibility (or even make intelligible statements) to work hordes of supporters up into a frenzy. The emotional attachments in place prevent people from being able to hear or consider cogent points from any other side.

PBS:

Disinformation abounds in the wellness community. How one anti-vax influencer broke free​

• Heather Simpson, Former Anti-Vaccine Influencer:
  It all started when I kind of looked into the wellness community when I was trying to get pregnant, and it was like ads started popping up for anti-vaccine issues. It was like one and the same. Like, look up wellness stuff, anti-vax stuff pops up.
• Stephanie Sy:
  Simpson soon found herself watching videos about the dangers of vaccines and approached her doctor.
• Heather Simpson:
  He was like: "You're not one of those crazy anti-vaxxers, are you?" and like conversation dead.
  All of the, I feel, gaslighting by the medical community and then them just brushing me away, like, was completely opposite from what I would find on the Internet with the holistic world. They welcomed me.
• Stephanie Sy:
  Conspiracy theories gain traction when people lose trust in institutions. Alternative theories take root, espoused by authentic and relatable influencers masquerading as truth-tellers, says researcher Stephanie Baker.
  Dr. Stephanie Alice Baker, University of London: Really, what's at play here, rather than social media being the cause of this kind of anti-vaccine sentiment, is that, actually, social media creates the conditions for these trust relationships and for intimacy to be fostered to a different degree.
  We have got to move away from seeing misinformation as an information problem to really seeing it as a relationship problem.

 

[Kephalos]

If there is any point of view being neglected, it isn't the left or right so much as the bottom being neglected for the top.

The point is that neither does the "bottom" or the "top" have an inherent right not to be neglected or a right to be heard.

If what the "bottom" wants is based on fundamentally false and misguided ideas, or if it is just plain wrong (even if the factual basis for the demand is accurate), then so much the worse for the "bottom".

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What exactly would be used to determine error here? Do you think say some government agency that would be staffed by Republicans in the event of a Republican presidency would be an appropriate judge of this? Isn't it feasible that this would end up being applied to "critical race theory" or the "gay agenda"? If not, what would prevent it?

 

[Virtual ghost]

What exactly would be used to determine error here? Do you think say some government agency that would be staffed by Republicans in the event of a Republican presidency would be an appropriate judge of this? Isn't it feasible that this would end up being applied to "critical race theory" or the "gay agenda"? If not, what would prevent it?

Empirical evidence and basic ethics should do it in 99% percent of the cases. But for some that is just too complicated.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Empirical evidence and basic ethics should do it in 99% percent of the cases. But for some that is just too complicated.

Perhaps I'm just cynical but I just think it would be wielded as a political weapon like everything else. People seem to really struggle with seeking truth; I don't think there are enough people genuinely interested in that to populate those institutions.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Perhaps I'm just cynical but I just think it would be wielded as a political weapon like everything else. People seem to really struggle with seeking truth; I don't think there are enough people genuinely interested in that to populate those institutions.

To that I can only say that this is in the domain of "cultural differences" around the world. The other day I was watching news and there was a part where one of top conservatives was planting trees with the leader of progressives. Since saving the environment is something that just has to happen and there is no real alternative. I mean as I said it over and over the key is in the education system. If people don't get it they don't get it.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine was to make sure the different sides had a chance to defend their positions. Imagine being in a jury where you have to form an opinion of whether the accusation you're hearing is credible, and you only either hear from the prosecution or the defense. Because that's essentially what's currently happening; people are informing themselves by only hearing one side. And it's gotten to the point where the GOP is spontaneously pulling brazen lies out of their asses because they know there's no one to call them on it in the bubble. While "MSM" does need more genuinely conservative voices (actual conservative, not current GOP), the far right media has become full blown propaganda.

I'm not even saying I think Fairness Doctrine would work now - if especially because it only applied to broadcast TV and radio, which has become largely obsolete. The onset of Facebook as a primary news source for so many people fucked us pretty hard - and the Fairness Doctrine (as it existed) wouldnt have made much of a dent in that. I'm just trying to point out that it isn't simply "everyone has an inherent right to be heard." That's a really weird oversimplification. If you're running for political office and there's a major smear campaign about you, you DO have a right to defend yourself. Currently that can be done in a lot of different ways (social media post, blog post, YouTube, etc), but before the internet? And before cable was ubiquitous?

Jonathan Raush has some interesting takes on the "breakdown of the business model in journalism" in his book The Constitution Of Knowledge. He discusses it in less detail in this talk with Jonathan Haidt.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I just schooled some prick on linkedin for sharing some Q type meme. He claimed there was nothing wrong with sharing political news and I had to explain to him how propaganda memes aren't quite the same thing and do not serve to create any meaningful discourse. Ever since Zuccbook and Twitter cracked down on this stuff, linkedin has become a cesspool.

 

[ceecee]

I just schooled some prick on linkedin for sharing some Q type meme. He claimed there was nothing wrong with sharing political news and I had to explain to him how propaganda memes aren't quite the same thing and do not serve to create any meaningful discourse. Ever since Zuccbook and Twitter cracked down on this stuff, linkedin has become a cesspool.

Yep. It's Facebook with job postings.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yep. It's Facebook with job postings.

It's frustrating. I literally just use it to network, look at job postings, follow companies i might be interested in working for. I don't mind linked articles to news about politics, but these people are just sharing the same stale partisan Q memes and acting like it's the same as someone posting a link to an economist article.

They're all supposedly "free thinkers" yet they all parrot the same little stupid slogans and insults. I can honestly say I don't think I've ever seen a more sheep-like, boring, intellectually stunted group of people, and this is coming from someone who grew up in the evangelical south