The Death of Wilson: How the Academic Left Created Donald Trump
by rsbakker
People need to understand that things aren’t going to snap back into magical shape once Trump becomes archive footage. The Economist had a recent piece on all the far-right demagoguery in the past, and though they stress the impact that politicians like Goldwater have had subsequent to their electoral losses, they imply that Trump is part of a cyclical process, essentially more of the same. Perhaps this might have been the case were this anything but the internet age. For all we know, things could skid madly out of control.
Society has been fundamentally rewired. This is a simple fact. Remember Home Improvement, how Tim would screw something up, then wander into the backyard to lay his notions and problems on his neighbour Wilson, who would only ever appear as a cap over the fence line? Tim was hands on, but interpersonally incompetent, while Wilson was bookish and wise to the ways of the human heart—as well as completely obscured save for his eyes and various caps by the fence between them.
This is a fantastic metaphor for the communication of ideas before the internet and its celebrated ability to ‘bring us together.’ Before, when you had chauvinist impulses, you had to fly them by whoever was available. Pre-internet, extreme views were far more likely to be vetted by more mainstream attitudes. Simple geography combined with the limitations of analogue technology had the effect of tamping the prevalence of such views down. But now Tim wouldn’t think of hassling Wilson over the fence, not when he could do a simple Google and find whatever he needed to confirm his asinine behaviour. Our chauvinistic impulses no longer need to run any geographically constrained social gauntlet to find articulation and rationalization. No matter how mad your beliefs, evidence of their sanity is only ever a few keystrokes away.
This has to have some kind of aggregate, long-term effect–perhaps a dramatic one. The Trump phenomenon isn’t the manifestation of an old horrific contagion following the same old linear social vectors; it’s the outbreak of an old horrific contagion following new nonlinear social vectors. Trump hasn’t changed anything, save identifying and exploiting an ecological niche that was already there. No one knows what happens next. Least of all him.
What’s worse, with the collapse of geography comes the collapse of fences. Phrases like “cretinization of the masses” is simply one Google search away as well. Before, Wilson would have been snickering behind that fence, hanging with his friends and talking about his moron neighbour, who really is a nice guy, you know, but needs help to think clearly all the same. Now the fence is gone, and Tim can finally see Wilson for the condescending, self-righteous bigot he has always been.
Did I just say ‘bigot’? Surely… But this is what Trump supporters genuinely think. They think ‘liberal cultural elites’ are bigoted against them. As implausible as his arguments are, Murray is definitely tracking a real social phenomenon in Coming Apart. A good chunk of white America feels roundly put upon, attacked economically and culturally. No bonus this Christmas. No Christmas tree at school. Why should a minimum wage retail worker think they somehow immorally benefit by dint of blue eyes and pale skin? Why should they listen to some bohemian asshole who’s both morally and intellectually self-righteous? Why shouldn’t they feel aggrieved on all sides, economically and culturally disenfranchised?
Who celebrates them? Aside from Donald Trump.
You have been identified as an outgroup competitor.
Last week, Social Psychological and Personality Science published a large study conducted by William Chopik, a psychologist out of Michigan State University, showing the degree to which political views determine social affiliations: it turns out that conservatives generally don’t know Clinton supporters and liberals generally don’t know any Trump supporters. Americans seem to be spontaneously segregating along political lines.
Now I’m Canadian, which, although it certainly undermines the credibility of my observations on the Trump phenomenon in some respects, actually does have its advantages. The whole thing is curiously academic, for Canadians, watching our cousins to the south play hysterical tug-o-war with their children’s future. What’s more, even though I’m about as academically institutionalized as a human can be, I’m not an academic, and I have steadfastly resisted the tendency of the highly educated to surround themselves with people who are every bit as institutionalized—or at least smitten—by academic culture.
I belong to no tribe, at least not clearly. Because of this, I have Canadian friends who are, indeed, Trump supporters. And I’ve been whaling on them, asking questions, posing arguments, and they have been whaling back. Precisely because we are Canadian, the whole thing is theatre for us, allowing, I like to think, for a brand of honesty that rancour and defensiveness would muzzle otherwise.
When I get together with my academic friends, however, something very curious happens whenever I begin reporting these attitudes: I get interrupted. “But-but, that’s just idiotic/wrong/racist/sexist!” And that’s when I begin whaling on them, not because I don’t agree with their estimation, but because, unlike my academic confreres, I don’t hold Trump supporters responsible. I blame them, instead. Aren’t they the ‘critical thinkers’? What else did they think the ‘cretins’ would do? Magically seize upon their enlightened logic? Embrace the wisdom of those who openly call them fools?
Fact is, you’re the ones who jumped off the folk culture ship.
The Trump phenomenon falls into the wheelhouse of what has been an old concern of mine. For more than a decade now, I’ve been arguing that the social habitat of intellectual culture is collapsing, and that the persistence of the old institutional organisms is becoming more and more socially pernicious. Literature professors, visual artists, critical theorists, literary writers, cultural critics, intellectual historians and so on all continue acting and arguing as though this were the 20th century… as if they were actually solving something, instead of making matters worse.
See before, when a good slice of media flushed through bottlenecks that they mostly controlled, the academic left could afford to indulge in the same kind of ingroup delusions that afflict all humans. The reason I’m always interrupted in the course of reporting the attitudes of my Trump supporting friends is simply that, from an ingroup perspective, they do not matter.
More and more research is converging upon the notion that the origins of human cooperation lie in human enmity. Think Band of Brothers only in an evolutionary context. In the endless ‘wars before civilization’ one might expect those groups possessing members willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their fellows would prevail in territorial conflicts against groups possessing members inclined to break and run. Morality has been cut from the hip of murder.
This thesis is supported by the radical differences in our ability to ‘think critically’ when interacting with ingroup confederates as opposed to outgroup competitors. We are all but incapable of listening, and therefore responding rationally, to those we perceive as threats. This is largely why I think literature, minimally understood as fiction that challenges assumptions, is all but dead. Ask yourself: Why is it so easy to predict that so very few Trump supporters have read Underworld? Because literary fiction caters to the likeminded, and now, thanks to the precision of the relationship between buyer and seller, it is only read by the likeminded.
But of course, whenever you make these kinds of arguments to academic liberals you are promptly identified as an outgroup competitor, and you are assumed to have some ideological or psychological defect preventing genuine critical self-appraisal. For all their rhetoric regarding ‘critical thinking,’ academic liberals are every bit as thin-skinned as Trump supporters. They too feel put upon, besieged. I gave up making this case because I realized that academic liberals would only be able to hear it coming from the lips of one of their own, and even then, only after something significant enough happened to rattle their faith in their flattering institutional assumptions. They know that institutions are self-regarding, they admit they are inevitably tarred by the same brush, but they think knowing this somehow makes them ‘self-critical’ and so less prone to ingroup dysrationalia. Like every other human on the planet, they agree with themselves in ways that flatter themselves. And they direct their communication accordingly.
I knew it was only a matter of time before something happened. Wilson was dead. My efforts to eke out a new model, to surmount cultural balkanization, motivated me to engage in ‘blog wars’ with two very different extremists on the web (both of whom would be kind enough to oblige my predictions). This experience vividly demonstrated to me how dramatically the academic left was losing the ‘culture wars.’ Conservative politicians, meanwhile, were becoming more aggressively regressive in their rhetoric, more willing to publicly espouse chauvinisms that I had assumed safely buried.
The academic left was losing the war for the hearts and minds of white America. But so long as enrollment remained steady and book sales remained strong, they remained convinced that nothing fundamental was wrong with their model of cultural engagement, even as technology assured a greater match between them and those largely approving of them. Only now, with Trump, are they beginning to realize the degree to which the technological transformation of their habitat has rendered them culturally ineffective. As George Saunders writes in “Who Are All These Trump Supporters?” in The New Yorker:
Intellectually and emotionally weakened by years of steadily degraded public discourse, we are now two separate ideological countries, LeftLand and RightLand, speaking different languages, the lines between us down. Not only do our two subcountries reason differently; they draw upon non-intersecting data sets and access entirely different mythological systems. You and I approach a castle. One of us has watched only “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” the other only “Game of Thrones.” What is the meaning, to the collective “we,” of yon castle? We have no common basis from which to discuss it. You, the other knight, strike me as bafflingly ignorant, a little unmoored. In the old days, a liberal and a conservative (a “dove” and a “hawk,” say) got their data from one of three nightly news programs, a local paper, and a handful of national magazines, and were thus starting with the same basic facts (even if those facts were questionable, limited, or erroneous). Now each of us constructs a custom informational universe, wittingly (we choose to go to the sources that uphold our existing beliefs and thus flatter us) or unwittingly (our app algorithms do the driving for us). The data we get this way, pre-imprinted with spin and mythos, are intensely one-dimensional.
The first, most significant thing to realize about this passage is that it’s written by George Saunders for The New Yorker, a premier ingroup cultural authority on a premier ingroup cultural podium. On the view given here, Saunders pretty much epitomizes the dysfunction of literary culture, an academic at Syracuse University, the winner of countless literary awards (which is to say, better at impressing the likeminded than most), and, I think, clearly a genius of some description.
To provide some rudimentary context, Saunders attends a number of Trump rallies, making observations and engaging Trump supporters and protesters alike (but mostly the former) asking gentle questions, and receiving, for the most part, gentle answers. What he describes observation-wise are instances of ingroup psychology at work, individuals, complete strangers in many cases, making forceful demonstrations of ingroup solidarity and resolve. He chronicles something countless humans have witnessed over countless years, and he fears for the same reasons all those generations have feared. If he is puzzled, he is unnerved more.
He isolates two culprits in the above passage, the ‘intellectual and emotional weakening brought about by degraded public discourse,’ and more significantly, the way the contemporary media landscape has allowed Americans to ideologically insulate themselves against the possibility of doubt and negotiation. He blames, essentially, the death of Wilson.
As a paradigmatic ‘critical thinker,’ he’s careful to throw his own ‘subject position’ into mix, to frame the problem in a manner that distributes responsibility equally. It’s almost painful to read, at times, watching him walk the tightrope of hypocrisy, buffeted by gust after gust of ingroup outrage and piety, trying to exemplify the openness he mistakes for his creed, but sounding only lyrically paternalistic in the end–at least to ears not so likeminded. One can imagine the ideal New Yorker reader, pursing their lips in empathic concern, shaking their heads with wise sorrow, thinking…
But this is the question, isn’t it? What do all these aspirational gestures to openness and admissions of vague complicity mean when the thought is, inevitably, fools? Is this not the soul of bad faith? To offer up portraits of tender humanity in extremis as proof of insight and impartiality, then to end, as Saunders ends his account, suggesting that Trump has been “exploiting our recent dullness and aversion to calling stupidity stupidity, lest we seem too precious.”
Academics… averse to calling stupidity stupid? Trump taking advantage of this aversion? Lordy.
This article, as beautiful as it is, is nothing if not a small monument to being precious, to making faux self-critical gestures in the name of securing very real ingroup imperatives. We are the sensitive ones, Saunders is claiming. We are the light that lets others see. And these people are the night of American democracy.
He blames the death of Wilson and the excessive openness of his ingroup, the error of being too open, too critically minded…
Why not just say they’re jealous because he and his friends are better looking?
If Saunders were at all self-critical, anything but precious, he would be asking questions that hurt, that cut to the bone of his aggrandizing assumptions, questions that become obvious upon asking them. Why not, for instance, ask Trump supporters what they thought of CivilWarLand in Bad Decline? Well, because the chances of any of them reading any of his work aside from “CommComm” (and only then because it won the World Fantasy Award in 2010) were virtually nil.
So then why not ask why none of these people has read anything written by him or any of his friends or their friends? Well, he’s already given us a reason for that: the death of Wilson.
Okay, so Wilson is dead, effectively rendering your attempts to reach and challenge those who most need to be challenged with your fiction toothless. And so you… what? Shrug your shoulders? Continue merely entertaining those whom you find the least abrasive?
If I’m right, then what we’re witnessing is so much bigger than Trump. We are tender. We are beautiful. We are vicious. And we are capable of believing anything to secure what we perceive as our claim. What matters here is that we’ve just plugged billions of stone-age brains chiselled by hundreds of millions of years of geography into a world without any. We have tripped across our technology and now we find ourselves in crash space, a domain where the transformation of our problems has rendered our traditional solutions obsolete.
It doesn’t matter if you actually are on their side or not, whatever that might mean. What matters is that you have been identified as an outgroup competitor, and that none of the authority you think your expertise warrants will be conceded to you. All the bottlenecks that once secured your universal claims are melting away, and you need to find some other way to discharge your progressive, prosocial aspirations. Think of all the sensitive young talent sifting through your pedagogical fingers. What do you teach them? How to be wise? How to contribute to their community? Or how to play the game? How to secure the approval of those just like you—and so, how to systematically alienate them from their greater culture?
So. Much. Waste. So much beauty, wisdom, all of it aimed at nowhere… tossed, among other places, into the heap of crumpled Kleenexes called The New Yorker.
Who would have thunk it? The best way to pluck the wise from the heart of our culture was to simply afford them the means to associate almost exclusively with one another, then trust to human nature, our penchant for evolving dialects and values in isolation. The edumacated no longer have the luxury of speaking among themselves for the edification of those servile enough to listen of their own accord. The ancient imperative to actively engage, to have the courage to reach out to the unlikeminded, to write for someone else, has been thrust back upon the artist. In the days of Wilson, we could trust to argument, simply because extreme thoughts had to run a gamut of moderate souls. Not so anymore.
If not art, then argument. If not argument, then art. Invade folk culture. Glory in delighting those who make your life possible–and take pride in making them think.
Sometimes they’re the idiot and sometimes we’re the idiot–that seems to be the way this thing works. To witness so many people so tangled in instinctive chauvinisms and cartoon narratives is to witness a catastrophic failure of culture and education. This is what Trump is exploiting, not some insipid reluctance to call stupid stupid.
I was fairly bowled over a few weeks back when my neighbour told me he was getting his cousin in Florida to send him a Trump hat. I immediately asked him if he was crazy.
“Name one Donald Trump who has done right by history!” I demanded, attempting to play Wilson, albeit minus the decorum and the fence.
Shrug. Wild eyes and a genuine smile. “Then I hope he burns it down.”
“How could you mean that?”
“I dunno, brother. Can’t be any worse than this fucking shit.”
Nothing I could say could make him feel any different. He’s got the internet.*
*[Note to readers: This post is receiving a great deal of Facebook traffic, and relatively little critical comment, which tells me individuals are saving their comments for whatever ingroup they happen to belong to, thus illustrating the very dynamic critiqued in the piece. Sound off! Dare to dissent in ideologically mixed company, or demonstrate the degree to which you need others to agree before raising your voice.]
Well said! I found at least 2 amazing quotes in this blog post that I’ll be sharing with friends and family. 🙂
It is genuinely frightening to watch what is happening in recent years, not just with our neighbours to the south but here and home and around the world. The most frightening thing to me isn’t the opinions that one person or one group may hold, it is in their seeming inability to fully process any contrary viewpoints or information… and how being presented with contrary information sometimes seems to *strengthen* their current opinion. I see this from *both* sides of any of the big debates raging on the internet recently. From gamergate, to the Hugo sad puppies debacle, to climate change, to gun control, to politics, etc.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/the-most-depressing-discovery-about-the-brain-ever/
Nice article, Och! Indeed if a Trump supporter said 2+2=4, I’d find some temptation to not agree. I mean, I’d be agreeing with them! Who knows what evil I might agree to in the process of it! It’s a genuine concern – certainly conmen use a bunch of truths to make the few (but pivotal) lies they use more convincing.
I wonder if schools should train more in hypothetical agreement – ie ‘Well maybe in some crazy fantasy world you’re correct, Trump supporter!’ as the best middle ground. Otherwise we’re stuck having to use literal fantasy writing!
But if, before they were shown the graph, they were asked to write a few sentences about an experience that made them feel good about themselves, a significant number of them changed their minds about the economy. If you spend a few minutes affirming your self-worth, you’re more likely to say that the number of jobs increased.
So if they are ‘negged’ (ie, from what I’ve heard, what some males do to women in order to try and shame them into going out with them/having sex with them) they give in? That’s really been shown in tests? That’s terrible, yet pivotal (lol!)
Part of my own personal agenda is that people be able to provide more of their own food supply, for much the same reason – so they feel they are worth something (in survival terms) without having to throw in with this or that mob (and mob mentality) in order to survive. Yep, I see some hope there, in that…wait, I shouldn’t mention that on this blog, of all blogs, should I? lol!
Continued influence stuff is pretty amazing from a philosophical standpoint because it shows how ‘norms’ have nothing to do with the actual processes involved, that cognitive neuroscience will almost certainly shoulder them aside.
Good to see you, ochlo!
The counterargument effect. The more effort you need to rationalize a belief, the more you should doubt that belief, but instead, the more inclined you are to double down. I’ve had some good times trying to defuse that one!
The Ikea effect:
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication Files/11-091.pdf
Apparently building rationalizations for beliefs is like building rickety furniture. In another sense it’s like the way stupid gamblers throw good money after bad, doubling down, as you say. There are clearly social costs associated with admitting you were wrong. Are there neurological costs as well? In discussing Thinking Fast and Slow you point out that slow, deliberative thinking is ‘painful’ compared to quick, emotion-driven or equally quick heuristics. Perhaps rationalizing beliefs is just easier than considering new evidence.
In the research on this stuff, ‘fluency effects’ come up again and again. If you look at it post-intentionally, this is just what these systems do given the kinds of cues they regularly encounter in their communicative environments.
Michael,
In another sense it’s like the way stupid gamblers throw good money after bad, doubling down, as you say.
I think the sunk cost fallacy may be misapplied in terms of gamblers. It’s more a question of how little they have to go back to if they don’t gamble. Which could explain ‘Can’t be any worse than this fucking shit’ quote from the OP. Ironic that Trump is called Trump, if that’s the case. Just the right gambling term.
Callan,
If, as I must have read somewhere once, addiction to gambling is essentially addiction to one’s own neurochemistry, it stands to reason that doubling down doubles the high. It also stands to reason that the gambling high is highest when you’re betting things you can’t afford to lose.
I think there is also a link between gambling and the nihilism of
“Shrug. Wild eyes and a genuine smile. ‘Then I hope he burns it down… I dunno, brother. Can’t be any worse than this fucking shit.'”
A gambling addiction, like all addictions is nihilistic in that it is a form of self-destruction. Donald Trump is also a gamble, in that he is so far outside the norm for U. S. major party presidential candidates that it seems likely that he will either succeed spectacularly or fail spectacularly. You have to place a big bet to get a big win, or bet long odds, or both. if your big bet against log odds wins Hooray, you get your country back! If your big bet against long odds fails and burns it all down fuck it, Your life sucked anyway. You just sped up your slow suicide
Or again (SPOILER ALERT) it’s like the Magical Belief Lottery. You bet your physical life and your immortal soul. You’re St Peter. Jesus tells you he’s the Messiah, so you give up your whole previous existence to follow him. Then he tells you he’s not the Messiah and shows you he’s the mayor of Sodom. A lot of us are so disgusted with the way the country is going that we’re willing to bet it all on someone who is so unlike previous presidents that we can’t help but realize that if he doesn’t work out he’s going to REALLY not work out. (Sadly, most of what the Trump supporters and the Sanders supporters are mad about is outside the U. S. government’s power to remedy. The dice are loaded , the cards are marked and the fix is in, but that’s a story for another time.)
I meant Simon Peter. If Jesus is not the Messiah Peter is obviously not a saint.
” this is just what these systems do given the kinds of cues they regularly encounter in their communicative environments”
sounds like affordances…
That’s no coincidence, because heuristic cues are all that affordances amount to–so much so, we can dispense with the term ‘affordance’ altogether, I think.
well as i said a while back many of the studies done in the name/genre of affordances are still a useful bridge to working with engineers/designers/etc but certainly not attached to any particular term beyond their usefulness.
And I don’t see any stampede to the gates to use my humble alternatives either!
I’m starting to regret my disbelief in posterity 😉
ah things are more in yer direction than ever but what does one really expect in terms of effect, reminds me a bit of the folks who con-fuse history of ideas cannons with actual history (as in Descartes wrote something down and now all of humanity is suffering from it) which i know yer not saying but I think Kuhn/Rorty and all were right that there are little shifts in thinking and depending on the clout/reach of the new ingroup things shift or not, only to get watered down as institutionalized so in a sense victory has its own undoings in it or something along those lines, for me a few folks on the intertubes like you to have meaningful exchanges with along these lines is a remarkable shift in events after all these years of being the crank in the corner of meetings.
My issue with this argument stems from the fact that not all sides of an argument have intrinsic value.
‘War is bad for humanity’. I cannot, for the life of me, think of a genuinely positive situation that has emerged from chaotic and wanton mass-murder justified by the opiate of [X political agenda]. I ended up having a full existential crisis today over the concept of Chaos, the essence of unpredictability, being a conscious and lateral force in the world that influences events with intentional caprice, but still cannot bring myself to rationalise the idea that living in the permissive shadow of an authoritarian regime seeking to isolate its borders, segregate its people and mobilise its military is going to have any manner of positive outcome.
History is cyclical. We’ve been watching demagogues rise to power since Athens, and it ALWAYS ends the same way. I genuinely do not believe the advent of the internet and the global communication age is going to make a difference to that; people are too inherently unwilling to immerse themselves in the reality of higher, philosophical politics because the amount of burdensome stress weighing them down forces them to capitulate to the nearest voice that shouts the loudest whilst also maintaining a facade of decorum and sensibility.
History WAS cyclical–the whole thing stands on the marbles of technology, now. This is entirely uncharted water here, my friend. It would be better to see this as a social reorganization a la industrial revolution, only without end.
I disagree with the central premise. I think there are more competing news sources and people are more aware of differing views than ever before. People may steer towards like minded sources but because of the market of ideas people are aware they are choosing a biased source. It’s like picking spaghetti sauce. If you want to sell conservative sauce you put that right on the label.
I also think you are being condescending and bigoted towards Trump supporters. I’m middle class in the tech industry. All I see are the benefits of immigration and globalization. It makes perfect self interested sense that I would support free trade and open borders. If on the other hand I lived in a poor area and was seeing my wages driven down I would likely feel different.
I think the polarization has come from the massive rise of virtue signaling driven by social media. Progressive minded people essentially compete on Facebook to show themselves the most compassionate the least bigoted. For adults in their thirties the pinnacle of cool is sharing the latest John Oliver snark or Slate rant. The tide will turn back to conservatism only after radical leftism becomes uncool. So basically never.
The Trump bus seems bigger than it is now because he’s the Republican candidate. If Rand Paul had won the primary than people would think the US had a large number of Libertarian leaning people. I don’t think there are large numbers of either. I predict Trump loses in an epic landslide and the country on the whole continues to push left.
I’m not so sure. The Pew Center has confirmed the premise. Otherwise, by definition people cannot be aware of their unconscious biases. They are not things anyone gets to pick and choose between, at least not on any understanding I’ve seen.
I’m bigoted against their beliefs, that’s for sure! Otherwise I think they’re every bit is as stupid as academics. Humanity is the real idiot here.
You do realize Trump and Clinton are neck and neck in the polls?
Two things: first, this is a very interesting article, but it is rather cyclical. People and views sway and shift back and forth. To argue that both sides are exactly polarized with little to no overlap is just not true. It may seem like that, but it’s just not. You can have gun-loving liberal minded folks and non-religious conservative folks (just a few examples) and a scrambled mess of political views everywhere. To argue that we are all in bubbles would be giving up on hope for unity. Call me overly optimistic, but I just don’t see people as entirely as your essay concludes. Partially perhaps, and even 100% on a few certain issues, but not entirely. You make it sound like TRUMP KNOWS YOUR MEASURE! Haha.
Second, you may find the fivethirtyeight.com website interesting- these statisticians boil down every appropriate political poll in the country and filter out more accurate polling results. And they’ve been pretty accurate at predicting nearly all of our elections for the past 8 years or so (congress and presidential). And thankfully, so far it is not neck and neck. More like 65/35. Check it out if you get a chance.
I was going by the most recent CBS poll at the time of replying to Gareth. I will checkout fivethirtyeight!
The trends are there, and I wish I could share your optimism, Justin. I will continue hoping that you’re right and I’m wrong.
About a week before the last election in the US Nate Silver was on NPR saying that Obama was going to win in a landslide. He went on to say that because of demographic changes it was going to be very hard moving forward for Republicans to win a presidential election. Trump is not your typical Republican so maybe he bucks the trend but I tend to think that instead of picking up blue states he will drop red states.
I concede there are unconscious biases but as your link says. “The study also suggests that in America today, it is virtually impossible to live in an ideological bubble. Most Americans rely on an array of outlets – with varying audience profiles – for political news. And many consistent conservatives and liberals hear dissenting political views in their everyday lives.” So it’s not technology that is the issue. Wilson is not dead.
You seem to think that the “cretins” have not followed the elites properly in their political views because the elites have purposely excluded them. I’ll concede that is somewhat true but it’s also a bit circular. What I’m saying is that both sides are self interested and believe and vote what is best for them. It’s a simpler theory and neither side is a cretin.
On a side note the left has been preaching about the evils of dehumanization my whole life. Slavery, genocide, war etc.. All the product of dehumanizing people based on skin color, geography, beliefs what have you. What we see in the culture today is that the left has been screaming this at the wrong people. They’ve assumed it was the bigots on the right that are most prone to this sin. They should have been yelling in the mirror.
Both sides are ‘cretins,’ if by ‘cretin’ you mean incapable of rationally arguing politics. This is a scientific fact, I fear. Check out Processing Inaccurate Information: the data are pretty hard to contradict.
For me, the epistemological advantage of the academic left lies in a simple social heuristic: PRIORITIZE THE DISEMPOWERED. This is precisely the heuristic they are failing to apply in this instance. They need to start seeing racism as a symptom, not as something that needs to be shamed into the shadows, primarily because this now feeds the beast of parochialism.
Keep in mind re: fivethirtyeight.com, that the 65/35 number cited (currently more like 61/39 as of this writing) is statistical odds of each candidate winning, not a predicted polling breakdown. The predicted poll spread is sitting around 3 points currently.
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/18/12215214/donald-trump-mike-pence-60-minutes
Obviously he’s been reading the same articles we have!
“The intellectuals of Poland had made several attempts to revolt against the intelligentsia of which they themselves were a part, much as the intellectuals in America had rebelled against the middle class. When a member of the intelligentsia really began to think, he perceived that he was isolated from the broad masses of the population. Finding the social order at fault, he tended to become a radical in an effort to establish a tie with the masses.”
So Scott how many hats are you ordering off Amazon?
I don’t feel Polish…
I do think it might be one of the most beautiful languages in the world though.
What I was trying to say, before my vagueness ruined it, is that academics genuinely trying to “reach out” to the masses can bring about its own dangers. Being a part of academia and yet having a personal history far removed from its ivory towers can make much of that particular culture seem preposterous. Whether it’s living through widespread devastation and brutality first hand, or growing up dirt poor and having to slave away alongside other impoverished people, such defining experiences can become the Absolute against which all others are measured. So of course compared to that kind of context, much of modern western academic humanities practice can seem both absurd and criminally ineffectual.
But the danger lies in that feeling of revelation not diminishing in the slightest even when the referent grows too immediate to provide any more perspective. To contextualize is to see through, but to apply the same old methods in crash space is to still feel like you’re seeing through all there is to see, even when you no longer are. The very distance from academia that makes those formative events excellent indicators of past academic practices going off the rails would make them shitty warning indicators for whatever “new theory” seeking to address the realities of that history likewise developing all kinds of problems of its own. Hence how so many idealistic Polish intellectuals who lived through one kind of blood and terror could, in their search for an alternative philosophy that was at once utopian and relevant to their own histories, end up eager fellow travellers to a different kind of mass insanity.
So I think while the sort of analysis you’re doing can be valid and useful to a point, when a subject as complex as “people” get compressed into something as overdetermined as “the academic left” or “the masses”, I tend to worry. Perhaps the subject is so complex that the only reasonable way to talk about it at all is to massively elide at all times, hell I’ve done it by the boatload in this very message, but unavoidable pitfalls are no less dangerous for their unavailability. Your position as a very specific kind of semi-outsider to a very specific set of cultural practices can only carry you so far.
I think I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure how you see the argument working. By ‘dangers’ I take you mean the consequences of the difficulty of engaging folk culture, things like cooption by the myriad interests presently underwriting cultural production. I’m arguing that the dangerous accomplished consequence of that difficulty is that sophisticated producers largely avoid engagement altogether, allowing masses to live without being challenged by any of the media they consume, and so to truly believe that things are as simple as demagogues like Trump typically claim. You’re arguing that the dangerous potential consequence of that difficulty is some kind of loss of perspective. The fact is, our ingroup biases are such that no matter how successful I am, there will always be those who take the path of least resistance and avoid engaging folk culture, chalk it up to someone else’s problem, rationalize.
In which case, it becomes hard to see where the potential danger lies.
Otherwise, there’s simply no way to discuss any social issue whatsoever short using cartoons. Your discomfort should be everyone’s discomfort, while likewise understanding this is simply the cost of doing discursive business when discussing any and all social issues, given the radically heuristic nature of conceptualization. Which, of course, returns us to the very issue discussed above, interpretative literacy and who actually has the power to do anything about it.
“Which, of course, returns us to the very issue discussed above, interpretative literacy and who actually has the power to do anything about it.”
Well that is the heart of my concern. Historically, when groups of sophisticated producers actually managed get their act together enough to to apply their messianic attempts to salvage humanity into practice, to such a degree that their “intricate and abstruse books of philosophy” had the power to affect every aspect of common people’s lives, the results have often been unfathomably disastrous.
To me the question of who should have the power to address interpretative literacy sounds like an open question. Going by the myriad delusions and self aggrandizing practices you’re all too happy to skewer, and given its less than consistent history when it actually managed to affect widespread change, maybe we ought not to be so eager in believing that some better breed of humanities academic should be the ones tackling the issue interpretative literacy going forward. George Saunders might be a self deluded and ineffectual relic, but would US politics be any better if he somehow actually had the ear of the public at large? Given all his flaws you just pointed out, maybe not.
I’m reminded of the reactions to Scott Atran’s presentation on the role of religion in contemporary terrorism. That talk and the kinds of reactions he got on his panel discussions were quite eye opening. Here’s a new atheist love fest of a conference filled with what are supposed to be some of the most rational, learned, sensitive, and open minded souls in the world. But as soon as someone actually challenges their views in a sustained and rigorous way, they’re all by calling him a liar to his face. It’s a bleak world indeed when the best alternative to Donald Trump is Sam Harris, but a lot more educated people seem willing to listen to Sam “ticking timebomb justifies torture” Harris than Scott Atran. Shit’s fucked.
I have to admit that reading your blog posts can be downright intoxicating. After I get through one I’m usually all fired up thinking this is what will make the Humanities great again. But here’s where the perspective problem rears its ugly head. If the whole edifice really is as broken as you say, then as far as the least worst solution to the greatest crisis of our time goes, why should it be the only game in town?
Shit is fucked–no denying that. And the question of interpretative literacy is as open as can be, and you could be entirely right. The best I can do is say how I parse the dilemma: this is cultural triage–we have to work with what we have as quickly as we can. Me, I see George Saunders and I think someone with his talent could pretty much out genre any genre he chose to write in. The idea is to simply complicate people’s cultural environments as much as possible in the hope that simplicities begin to appear too good to be true more saliently to more people. The only way I can see doing that is excoriating ‘Inwardism’ and celebrating outreach, creating a new ethos of engagement, setting aside traditional valuations of content, seeing forms as channels connecting producers to consumers, and using those channels to wire as much folk culture with as much semantic explosive as possible. Either the artist of the future is self-conscious of group dynamics or they risk becoming a mere entertainer.
The irony is that the solution has to be ‘simple’ to have any hope of working. Will it work? Like the video shows… We have some work cut out for us.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/self-driving-car-ethics
Are the Nazi death camps somehow latent within Thus Spoke Zarathustra? Are Stalin’s Terror and the Cambodian killing fields somehow latent within Capital? I don’t think so, but the mechanisms by which political ideology, philosophy and religion are made manifest in human history are complex and not well understood. The mechanisms by which individual life experiences are made manifest in political philosophy, philosophy and religion are possibly more complex and probably less well understood. Is it reasonable to claim that some belief systems lend themselves more readily to monstrous crimes against humanity than some other belief systems? Is it possible to recognize those belief systems in advance, before they gain access to the machinery of government?
I believe that in general the thirst for blood arises then finds a belief system to justify the killing. As for where the thirst comes from, in one sense the particular historical circumstances that give rise to any one act of genocide are unique to each genocide. In another sense all human beings have the capacity to see other people as Other, and therefore worthy of extermination. In a third sense to murder six million people you just need sixty thousand people willing to murder a hundred people each.
In a country the size of the United States finding sixty thousand mass murderers is not a problem. Finding the bloodthirstiness necessary to give those murderers access to the machinery of government is not a problem. Finding a group to be declared Other is not a problem. Hopefully those three things will not coalesce around a belief system any time soon.
It’s not that it’s chicken and egg problem, it’s that it’s a nonlinear problem, one that I’m suggesting has been rendered far more complicated thanks to the web. Paradoxically, this is what is liable to make simple heuristics more applicable, more valuable. PRIORITIZE THE POWERLESS, for instance, would hopefully help counter the tendency for power to continually leverage power, and accumulate to the point where powerlessness induces wholesale defection. UNDERMINE SIMPLICITY, likewise, would hopefully have the effect of tamping down the kinds of certainty required to victimize the powerless.
“Are the Nazi death camps somehow latent within Thus Spoke Zarathustra? Are Stalin’s Terror and the Cambodian killing fields somehow latent within Capital? I don’t think so, but the mechanisms by which political ideology, philosophy and religion are made manifest in human history are complex and not well understood.”
Well, how do you know such ends aren’t latent in the works? We have boatloads of accounts of people attributing their extremism to Nietzsche or Marx, even if the writers themselves intended no such thing for their readers. Sure, plenty of people read them and remained well balanced afterwards, but it doesn’t make sense to insist that matches are blameless for fires because when you threw them at rocks they didn’t also catch fire. The origins of secular religions that lead to so much death and violence likewise shouldn’t remain blameless.
Frank,
“Well, how do you know such ends aren’t latent in the works? We have boatloads of accounts of people attributing their extremism to Nietzsche or Marx…”
I don’t know. That’s why I answered my questions with “I don’t think so, but…” rather than “no.” And I thought that what I wrote after the “but” made it clear that I realized I might be wrong with the “I don’t think so.” As for what came first, the bloodthirsty chicken or the theoretical egg
“In the endless ‘wars before civilization’ one might expect those groups possessing members willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their fellows would prevail in territorial conflicts against groups possessing members inclined to break and run.”
Yes, but ultimately those wars were won but the side that killed the people on the other side. The human capacity for wholesale murder, at least on the battlefield, appears to have preceded civilization. One of the differences between those “wars before civilization” and modern, civilized wars is that civilized wars need a rationale. The works of Marx, or Nietzsche, or the Koran, or the Bible, can be useful in providing those rationales.
I think it’s also important to remember that the workaday murderers, the men actually cramming Jews into gas chambers or hacking Tutsi children to pieces with machetes, probably don’t have a lot of theoretical knowledge about why these people deserve extermination. They probably just have hatred, or orders, or both. Mass murder, on the battlefield or in the death camp, ultimately depends on the workaday murderer. That workaday murderer is really no different than the guy doing life in prison for shooting a gas station attendant during a robbery. You just need a lot of them, and a little organization.
Marx advocated Communist revolution. The leap to Stalin’s terror and the Cambodian killing fields? Let’s look at the record of every single avowedly Marxist regime in history, shall we?
Zarathustra is not a political tome and Nietzsche was not a nationalist.
Oy vey, the goyim awaken.
On a serious note, I’d like to point out that the racistsexisthomophobicantimoslem sort of chauvinisms you talk about have been buried only thanks to an immense, overwhelming effort exerted by the very intellectual class you talk about in this article.
What I’m saying is that these chauvinisms are the natural state of being, that these chauvinisms are the natural state of being because they are evolutionarily adaptive, and that we cannot turn our back on nature for long, as we are subject to visceral instincts derived from eternal evolutionary pressures regarding things such as border control and in-group preference and masculine imperative, visceral instincts which persist to this day because we humans are tribal creatures, have always been tribal creatures, and will always be tribal creatures.
It is life alone that all things must serve.
And the ability to adapt to wide ranging social circumstances, contravene and knap those instincts, is as much part of that evolutionary heritage. It’s not like culture is a cap on some explosive nature. The cap is part of the nature, meaning the possibilities for adaptation and failure are unimaginably complex.
Foreign accents are sexy!
I agree with your analysis of in-group/out-group dynamics. However, I have a question and some comments
The question is regarding this quote, “I don’t hold Trump supporters responsible. I blame them [liberals], instead. Aren’t they the ‘critical thinkers’? What else did they think the ‘cretins’ would do? Magically seize upon their enlightened logic? Embrace the wisdom of those who openly call them fools?…Literature professors, visual artists, critical theorists, literary writers, cultural critics, intellectual historians and so on all continue acting and arguing as though this were the 20th century… as if they were actually solving something, instead of making matters worse.”
What do you think liberals, literature professors, visual artists, etc. should be doing differently exactly? It is not entirely clear to me from your post.
My comments are regarding the dynamics of groupish behavior and dialogue.
I am not very optimistic about our ability to overcome our groupish behavior but I think we can design institutions that prevent in-group/out-group dynamics from becoming too destructive. One institution for resolving group conflict is war. We tend to detest war but I think all institutions are solutions to problems and war is one possible solution for resolving group conflict. When two groups cannot reach an agreement they just kill each other until one side gives up.
Luckily, we have invented institutions that will hopefully resolve these kinds of conflicts in ways that are not as bloody or wasteful as war. Rather than killing each other, we can hold an election, and as long as both sides are willing to accept the results, we can resolve the conflict without as much destruction and waste. Whoever gets the most votes wins and you don’t have to convince the other side you are right.
I know the notion of dialogue is often promoted these days, and it seems to me you may be promoting it in this post, but dialogue has some limitations. I think dialogue can potentially reduce the hatred and acrimony between groups but there is a particular problem that all societies are faced with: they often have to make an actual decision. Dialogue suffers from the fact that it is interminable and while it may lead to a recognition of the other’s humanity it rarely, if ever, produces consensus.
So, we need institutions that allow us to make an actual decision in the absence of consensus, i.e. we need institutions that will terminate dialogue. The electoral process is such an institution. There are lots of things that go along with the electoral process that we don’t like: negative campaigning, caricatures of the other side, name calling, misinformation, disingenuous posturing, etc.. But, I would argue, these strategies are adopted because they happen to work and we have not come up with anything better.
If your goal is to promote a friendlier atmospher then dialogue is the way to go. If you need to make a decision then you need people to pick one side or the other, and not in a wishy-washy sort of way where they might change their mind at the last minute. If you come out and your message is “Well, we are pretty good…but the other side has some good points to…” you are either going to lose or you are going to produce indecision and apathy.
I think politics is inherently conflictual. You claim in the comment I quoted above that the cultural elites are making things worse and that they were deluded to think that the “cretins” would embrace them for calling them fools. I don’t think the cultural elites were ever under any illusion that the “cretins” would embrace them. The goal in politics is not to find some way of talking that will appeal to the other side and lead to a warm embrace. The goal is to win and calling the other side idiots can actually be an effective strategy. We might regret that fact, but I think the only way to actually change it would be to invent another institution or method capable of achieving the same results. These methods appear irrational because we do not like them but I actually think they are perfectly rational given the problem they are trying to solve. They would not have arisen otherwise.
The danger in our current situation is: divisions might become so deep that one side will no longer accept the electoral process as a means for making a decision. Sometimes this is unavoidable. Slavery as an institution had to go one way or the other. When electoral politics did not work it was Civil War. I hope things have not gotten to that point in the US yet.
There are certainly some alarming trends in the US. I am sure you know that the number of people who live in “landslide counties” where one party is guaranteed to win in a landslide has been steadily rising and I think it is now over 60 percent (I could have that figure wrong but it is high). Gerrymandering has also created a situation where candidates only have to appeal to the most extreme segment of their party in order to win elections. This can easily create a situation where accepting electoral defeat becomes impossible. This train of thought, and its possible endpoint, frighten me: “If we lose in the electoral process, we will take it to the courts (Obamacare)…if we lose in the courts…”
I will end with that unpleasant thought.
This is the million-dollar question, certainly. What really needs to happen, I think, is a transformation in the way we value cultural production. People need to understand the degree to which they are simply acting out ingroup conceits, and to put a premium on any intellectually driven creative activity that seeks to engage the cultural commons. The ‘public intellectual’ needs to be updated, and acknowledged as a kind of summum bonum. This would be a first step, part of a larger dance involving general awareness that we should expect our institutions to break down with greater regularity as the pace of technological development continues. We need to possess a social flexibility that I frankly doubt our species is capable of…
I agree with your observations, except I actually think you’re underselling the negatives! I have a follow-up piece planned involving worst-case scenarios.
I do love doomsday predictions so I will look forward to your follow-up piece. I have just a couple more quick comments.
I am a bit torn on this because I totally agree with your claim that in the past we had to run our ideas by whoever was available and our immediate social circle could produce a tempering influence and I agree that this is changing in the internet age. It is not just that people only go to sites where everyone agrees with them. I think it is also important that people do not have to see each other face to face.
I see people arguing on the internet all the time. People come into contact with ideas they disagree with all the time but I agree with Jonathan Haidt’s model of how we change our beliefs. We rarely change our beliefs based on reason but we do sometimes change our beliefs based on the judgment of others. I think for the judgment of others to be effective we need to see them. I think online discussions only engage the part of our brain that deals with arguments and counter-arguments.
If someone presents an argument against something I say it generally makes me happy because I get to go home and try to figure out a counter-argument. However, sometimes I can just see genuine disapproval on another person’s face. They do not even need to present any arguments I can just see they think my position is immoral and below even arguing with. When that happens I sometimes have to do some actual soul searching.
So, this is what concerns me a little bit about your solution. It seems to me you are saying that cultural elites, artists, etc. should be creating art that will actually be read or seen by the cultural commons and will engage and challenge them. Maybe that would help but I worry that it would still only engage the argument/counter-argument part of our brain (art might be different in this regard though).
And finally, I cannot decide if cultural elites circling the wagon and only talking to themselves is really a bad thing. As you say in your post, our groupish behavior was probably evolutionarily adaptive and allowed groups to triumph over other groups. I think group conflict is still a part of our society. We have just replaced the institution of war with electoral politics (at least some of the time).
So, in-group behavior serves an actual function. It energizes people. It also demonizes the enemy and it closes itself off to any interaction with the enemy perhaps as a way of maintaining its demonizations without having to test them against reality. We do not like the latter part of this but I think it serves a function. A group that did not do this in the past would lose its wars and I think the same might be true today – just replace “wars” with “elections”.
There is sort of a game theory problem involved I think. If both sides could give up this groupish behavior it would probably be better for everyone but if one group gives it up they will simply disappear from the equation. I do not see the Trump group giving it up anytime soon and so I am not sure if the cultural elites should either. But perhaps this is not what you are saying anyway.
There’s accumulating evidence that art is more effective primarily because it doesn’t engage rational thought: this is perhaps why it’s the coin of the realm in so many religions. But more importantly, art aimed down the interstices of otherwise antagonistic groups helps break down boundaries. I agree with most everything else you say, but I actually think the ways that Haidt, for instance, thinks group thinking fuels moral progress are overthrown by the death of Wilson. Haidt himself thinks reactance lies behind the PC backlash fueling Trump, something which isn’t all that compatible with his Righteous Mind view. In a sense, all I’m saying is that art and criticism needs to adapt to changing social conditions the same as any other institution. Circling the wagons to maintain short term privileges is a long term recipe for doom. You can expect corporations, for instance, to be on top of all the things I’m saying here, only in problematic ways.
You know more about this than I do, but how can artistic works aimed at breaking down barriers work through an arts business model built on reinforcing them?
second order operationalization of beliefs will just hamstring the ready to hand springboard for action that beliefs are.
Is it wrong to question if the Internet is more glory hole than echo chamber? The ability to anonymously ejaculate one’s political load out into a safe hole has led to the beast slouching towards Bethlehem, awaiting November.
Or are we the natives, unaware in our sanitized lives and most definitely not immune to the virus that the Puritans are bringing?
You just gave me a Devil’s chirp, Decimato!
Partisanship – A glory hole locked in an echo chamber framed by stone-age terror.
Otherwise I’m don’t think there’s anyway to answer your questions.
This articulates so many of the trends and tendencies I’ve been seeing in political social media circles very effectively. One trend in particular that I’ve noticed is how often my connections online will willfully cull their “friends” based exclusively on the presentation of conflicting political or moral viewpoints. Instead of responding to contention or questioning it, most choose to simply disconnect themselves from the source of the competing viewpoint.
Further, I love the “outgroup competitor” identifier. As a Canadian living in America, I am constantly amazed by the way Americans (at least the Americans I have found myself in contact with) tiptoe around each others politics. There is a palpable feeling that many people believe themselves constantly surrounded by enemies, and that the only way to ensure civil discourse is to completely eliminate the possibility that someone in their circle might present a competitor’s viewpoint.
Finally, the whole “I’m going on the internet to find someone who agrees with me” phenomenon becomes much scarier when considered for its potential long term consequences.
This was my experience living in America as well. I think I regularly transgressed those anxieties simply because discussing American politics, even living in America, remained ‘theoretical’ for me. I only see the process accelerating, but it’s important to remember how easily some new technical development could prove to be a game changer.
I think one of the reasons we Americans “tiptoe around each others politics” is because we Americans have more privately owned guns and more willingness to resort to deadly force than most other people. We’re also more litigious, so any workplace argument about politics might lead to a discrimination lawsuit or a massacre, or both.
It’s also worth remembering that most American politics has a racial dimension. A black person in a predominantly white workplace or vice versa is surrounded by enemies. The intensity of the emotions generated by racial issues in American politics gives all American politics a feel of potential violence that most other politics in most other places don’t have.
I think Scott is right that many of the mechanisms that kept our politics somewhat civil and somewhat centrist are breaking down in the new information environment. I also think that as the failure of those mechanisms exposes underlying disagreements the societies with the most severe disagreements with suffer the most instability. I think that the United States, because it has more severe racial and class differences than most ‘developed’ countries, may suffer more instability than most other developed countries as its politics becomes more polarized.
Perhaps I should have said “surrounded by potential enemies.”
I think the main reason is the american public is smarter than people give it credit for. People don’t talk politics because they are jaded with politics, and don’t really see a huge difference between the american left and the american right.
It is interesting that television and print media has been dominated by the left for seven decades while talk radio has been right wing dominant since the late 1980’s. Better put is the image of the white construction worker sitting in his pickup truck eating his sandwich listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show. The Trump phenomenon dominating the cable tv news cycles is perceived by the left as the 17 year cicada cycle emergence.
Having lived through one of those in Nashville, I know firsthand how miraculous, almost biblical, those emergences can be!
But this is the age where the future will increasingly resist resembling the past.
Trump does fit the example because unlike other insects which make sound by stridulation, the male cicada dominates the narrative:
“The male abdomen is largely hollow, and acts as a sound box. By rapidly vibrating these membranes, a cicada combines the clicks into apparently continuous notes, and enlarged chambers derived from the tracheae serve as resonance chambers with which it amplifies the sound.”..Wikipedia
I’ve emailed a link to this to various MSNBC shows I watch, I want them to book you to talk about this.
Were things better back in the 70s when they were committing mass murder of women and children in the Vietnamese Jungle? How about world war 2 in europe? How about the entire of human history? It’s always been hell all of the time. When it’s not hell and your hallucinating yourself building a peaceful country what you’re really doing is building up a resource/slave farm for your neighbours to invade or building up a strong base for your countrymen to invade and murder the neighbours. It’s you natalist heterosexuals and all your collaborators who have been breeding this pointless violent nightmare for millenia now. Bring on crash space, none of the social shaming and extremism dampening effects of the pre digital era ever wrenched societies out of the cycle of genocide and rape and violence. The more our brains are mangled by commodity techno-science into something different the better since they were broken to begin with.
One word, CRISPR.
There’s too many catastrophic toys in the sandbox, which is itself shrinking around the margins.
and they’re off to the races…
http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-to-pioneer-first-human-crispr-trial-1.20302
Broken compared to what?
The preferable state of non existence.
Seems to apply to every organism, then. Or possibly even matter itself.
What if we just remove that preference first, make it non existent? Then you wouldn’t be worried and it’d partly fulfill its own agenda!
Unrelated aside: http://www.bldgblog.com/2016/07/robot-war-and-the-future-of-perceptual-deception/
I think TPB readers will see an interesting and obvious alternative skew to this short piece regarding the deception of human perception, augmented or otherwise; which might actually have been one of Glenn’s few salient points in Crash Space ;).
They really are allowing AI experiments to blend with the real world? While nursing a human life, no less? How did that person die? With a feeling of smugness from not having to steer – from having given up control? Head bowed, looking into a glowing prayer card whilst doing so? (just looking it up – it’s reported he was watching Harry Potter). And what was the victims name?
It’s weird that we have movies where someone giving up their life for a cause is like this big deal thing that we expend much minutes of film time angsting over it. Did Joshua Brown feel like he was putting his life on the line for a cause, like a soldier does? Or quite the opposite? That he was heading into safety and care? I’m curious as to Elon’s conscience on the matter – or does the ‘Automated death was at 130m miles while regular driving there is a death every 94m miles’ line prove enough for him?
He quite obviously died in stunned terror and agony like most of us will only in a shorter and more intensely violent way. Many of us will die in slow agony and terror in nursing homes or on the streets or if we’re lucky in hospital drugged to unconsciousness because the neurological techniques to literally turn off consciousness/disable the perception of suffering that we are now discovering will be restricted and hidden behind paywalls or in tech that is too expensive for most of us to get. This will happen with little controversy because most of us are superstitious idiots worried about ‘death panels’ cos Sarah Palin told us about them. We will literally die in agony because of the sick religion of intentionalism which wants to feel like there’s a way to live that doesn’t involve dying.
When you legally allow euthanasia people flock to it like they do in parts of the EU. The rest of us will just suffer or try and fail to do it with shitty drugs, or if your American you can shoot yourself.
Josh might have thought the risk was worth it because if he died he would have at least died as part of an experiment in technology that will eventually prevent many violent deaths that are still occurring.
The real ethical challenge is to get all the neurological technology they are developing distributed onto the internet so people can die if they want to without being conscious of it. Others will chose to start performing diy brain surgery on themselves and probably open up their heads like plants and use their computers to monitor the body in real time and experiment with it. Consciousness will become a technical apparatus. I guess getting smashed into pieces of searing separating and mangled flesh by car parts and walls is a kind of prelude to that. It got Ballards dick hard anyway!
I can’t honestly track your theme, MaT. It feels kind of like a subject change?
Josh might have thought the risk was worth it because if he died he would have at least died as part of an experiment in technology that will eventually prevent many violent deaths that are still occurring.
Seems a rather optimistic guess, given you don’t seem optimistic elsewhere?
Hi! I’m new both to this blog and to the Second Apocalypse series, and I’m quickly becoming enamored of them both. You are one hell of a thinker, Mr. Bakker. The points you make in this essay remind me of another bombshell observation on cultural change, “Within the Context of No Context” by George W.S. Trow. If you have not encountered this book I think you would find in Trow a kindred thinker, someone who can think simultaneously about the vagaries of social networks warped by technology, and the darker corners of the human heart. If you have encountered this book, I would not be surprised. Either way, thank you for the thought provocation you have brought me in recent days.
“the social habitat of intellectual culture is collapsing, and that the persistence of the old institutional organisms is becoming more and more socially pernicious”
this seems a bit over the top in 2 ways first there was no (single) social habitat of intellectual culture to collapse and 2nd there are no (never have been could be) any such critters as ” institutional organisms” unless you just mean something like socialized/institutionalized people in which case there really isn’t an alternative. Now have our national governments (financial institutions, etc) gotten too varied/complicated/etc to function well (not to mention being amplified by various technologies beyond the grasps of their makers/users) than sure but this is just more of the same not some new kind/category of event.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2016/jul/22/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth-podcast
Of course. There is no ‘single habitat’ of anything, technically speaking! This line of criticism is too easy, I think, to worry about all that much. The question is whether enough of the offending dynamic shines through a given cartoon to offer some kind of recourse. The point isn’t to limn reality, it’s to find some theoretical purchase on some problematic. If anyone thinks the ‘death of Wilson’ fails to capture that dynamic, that it isn’t a ‘new category of event,’ then they need to explain how and why. It goes without saying that things are always more complicated than they seem.
so we are (I think) in agreement that we are talking models here and they are more or less useful (not correct or not) for specific purposes but sure I’ll bite the academic/intellectual left has never had any real power worth speaking of so as the link suggests one might look instead to greater worldly powers like media/finance and all which are increasingly unified (so to speak) by technologies, so the tyranny of the means is once again our undoing.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/07/20/algorithms-accountability-and-political-emotion/
see for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_system
Click to access FinancialModelersManifesto.pdf
I’ve been drinking your Kool-Aid for far too long to offer any critical input on this piece. 🙂
I’ve been passing it around hoping to draw some folks to the comments section here. One site I posted it to got a couple people to respond, but I couldn’t convince them to come here to post their criticisms.
Kool-Aid! I must be using too much sugar…
And so it goes.
One site I posted it to got a couple people to respond, but I couldn’t convince them to come here to post their criticisms.
Link? 🙂
Just a late side note with something that’s been nagging at me:
Magically seize upon their enlightened logic? Embrace the wisdom of those who openly call them fools?
Where as people will seize upon the enlightened equality of calling everyone fools? Or are the academic left so jaded they need an ice pick instead of a Wilson themselves?
It is very thought-provoking Scott, and I’ve been mulling it over for the past couple of days.
What stands out to me the most is our way of communicating with each other. In Danish we have two distinct words of communication which is “samtale” and “tiltale”, which is basically:
Tale = to talk
Sam = sammen = together/with
Til = to
Samtale = to talk together/with
Tiltale = to talk to
There is a fine line between the two where the first implies the act of talking, listening and responding, while the other seems to imply a more authoritarian way of commuinicating. A way which seems to imply a way of communication without the expectation of any other response than what our bias tells us.
It does seem to me that we have created a world in which the act of talking with people have been severely diminished, and that doesn’t really invite to much critical thinking. Through social media we can virtually surround ourselves with like-minded people in which we simulate a talking with because our anxiety of actually being challenged on our views. So I guess we’ve simply called out to Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Spiegel to feed our cravings for the giant circle-jerk going on inside our minds. We could call it “The Fallacy of the Like-minded”. I guess this is what you believe has started within academia?
I’m not quite there with the clashing of these circles in my though-process yet. The metaphorical fence has been removed. What we’re left with is the bigot – be that left or right wing.
One thing is quite certain, we do enjoy the smell of our farts very much!
Hmm. You may be a clown, Mr. Bakker, but I think I will be following your blog. The above was damn, uh… elucidating. You put a finger on something dangerous in the academic left that I hadn’t quite figured out. Likewise the motives of Trump et. al.
Something to keep in mind next time I wind up talking to conservatives. Or liberals.
*bookmarks*
BTW, I should probably mention I come from somewhere between “liberal IT nerd” and “social justice wannabe.” IOW, fairly far to the left by US standards.
Also, I had a really bad experience with one of your novels (Neuropath) a couple years back. (Found it in a dollar store, got about halfway through it. It put me off reading any fiction at all for almost a year.)
Point being: if you can get my attention through the resulting haze of anxiety and bias, and make me think you’re on to something, then you might have a good chance with people saner and less biased than I am. Or so I’d hope.
Let’s hope you’re right. I’m a big believer in Stigler’s Law, so I highly doubt I’ll be the one to push these ideas through into general awareness. I’m too much a wanker. But someone needs to.
If your interlocutor doesn’t strike you as a clown in some sense, you’re likely having a conversation with yourself. The makeup, the suit, the floppy shoes and wig, are actually more reliable indicators of your ingroup insularity than defects belonging to others. It’s no coincidence that it’s always the other guy who’s the clown!
This is the little catechism I tell myself, anyway, whenever I find myself dismissing something I encounter out of hand.
Oh hey, I didn’t expect a response. Thought my post hadn’t gone through for some reason.
IMO it does depend on where you draw the “some sense” line. “Open minded” vs. “brain falling out”, that kind of thing.
The catechism sounds useful, up to a point. OTOH, I think some things should be automatically dismissed. If someone, for instance, tells me that I’m a thoroughly bad, bigoted person unless I help them out with their harassment campaign… Or that so-and-so people are evil by birth, and should really be wiped out…
Being open minded is good. The problem is that I am far, far more gullible than I think! And some people – manipulative, fanatical, whatever – can get into my head, if given a moment’s chance, and persuade me to do something that I will very much regret later.
Better to miss a really good bandwagon the first time around, IMO, than to hop right onto a dangerous one.
I think Neuropath will make more sense after you’ve read some more Three Pound Brain. It might not be any less ugly, but I think it’s worth rereading after you’ve read more of its underlying theory.
For me it was more just the relentless, gut-churning violence of it. It made a lot of sense then, and it might make more sense at some point in the future, and maybe all of it was necessary; but reading even part of it was a traumatic ordeal – and, for a while, made me an objectively worse person.
For a long time, even seeing the name “Bakker” on a blog somewhere would make me feel clammy and anxious.
No offense intended to Mr. Bakker, or to you, BTW. The book is what it is. But I will not look at it again.
(And I pray, to all the stupid gods that I can’t bring myself to believe in, that the CIA and their ilk don’t look too heavily into neuroscience. Yeah, I know. Good luck.)
No offense taken! In fact, this might be the highest praise I’ve ever received…
I can’t tell if the italic sections of Neuropath were supposed to be a warning that they were optional reading. I’ve never read a book that says parts of it can be skipped. I think those were the worst bits – funnily because the rest could be used as a commentary on reality, and so reality could be used as an escapism for the rest!
Better to miss a really good bandwagon the first time around, IMO, than to hop right onto a dangerous one.
And with that, welcome to the blog, JonesBones! Hope you can stick around! *shifty eyes!*
(also there’s the fan forum : http://www.second-apocalypse.com/ )
Hmm. I *think* I will skip the fan forum. Haven’t read any of our host’s fantasy novels, probably won’t if they’re anything near as traumatic as Neuropath.
Thanks though!
I think neuropath was pretty jagged edge, where as the fantasy novels (while including the nastyness of real life dark ages history (more so than game of thrones)), are smoother. But yeah, in some ways I consider them more educational books than entertainment – dare I say ‘edutainment’? But edutainment done right!
Scott regularly makes appeals to academics to write for the broad demographic – but with your candor it seems like he should be appealing to peeps like you to write for the masses, rather than appealing to echo chamber entrenched academics to do so. If you can’t stick around, JonesBones, I hope in near future you can do some writing on subjects like gullibility, as you mentioned it before! 🙂
Sorry about Neuropath – I think in trying to get through thick skulls Scott might cause some collateral damage to skulls not as thick (which honestly don’t require as much pressure applied). For myself I don’t know whether to complain or concede to the practicality that what it takes to get through to some people is too much for other people. The ‘Disciple of the dog’ detective novel was far better tuned, I think. Am hoping to see more in that series – perhaps when the fantasy novels become explosive like game of thones has become.
Do hope you can stick around in some capacity, JB! 🙂
@Callan
I was kind of suspecting that about Neuropath. Honestly it’s probably no worse than a lot of mainstream TV/movie rubbish, which IMO often caters directly to audience sadism.
I might check out “Disciple of the Dog” when I’ve gotten through various other novels. I will probably avoid the fantasy stuff though, if it’s even more “gritty” than Game of Thrones (which I don’t and won’t read/watch). Women get enough horrible abuse in real life, I don’t feel like reading more about it in fiction. It hurts enough already. Likewise, forget it if there are any Karsa Orlong/Gregor Clegane/otherwise raging invincible rape machine characters.
(IMO most portrayals of violence against women are lost on audiences. Dudes either get vicarious thrills from it directly, or probably more often, vicarious thrills from imagining themselves as the White Knight. Not sure what women think, but I suspect many just get that it’s screwed up, not that it’s *systematically* screwed up. Realistic, sure; but is realism useful when its reality doesn’t register with the reader’s brain?)
As for gullibility and writing, thanks I guess? Frankly, I have zero credentials. I’m a jobless computer nerd with no degree and several psychiatric problems, and a hatred of the various collections of lies that make this world a worse place than it has to be. My quote about gullibility is from (very bitter) personal experience, not from knowing a damn thing about philosophy or neuroscience or the intersections thereof.
But, I do write (very very amateur) SF stories. Not sure how you guessed. Too bad most of my “readership” (i.e. friends) already know where I’m coming from.
C’est la vie. But thanks anyway. 🙂
I was kind of suspecting that about Neuropath. Honestly it’s probably no worse than a lot of mainstream TV/movie rubbish, which IMO often caters directly to audience sadism.
I think the book is trying to make a point about that titilation. But it’s a jagged book, imo.
Women get enough horrible abuse in real life, I don’t feel like reading more about it in fiction.
But if we don’t speculate on why it happens, how do we stop it happening? Sure, perhaps it seems a fantasy novel isn’t the place to speculate. But if no one is speculating and just trying to look away from it, then a fantasy novel it is.
As for gullibility and writing, thanks I guess?
I didn’t mean it that way, lol! A lot of people seem to have no grasp that they could have any degree of gullibility. Someone who can apply the notion they can seems to me to have the sort of mental flexibility that aught to speak out in writing to lots of folks.
Frankly, I have zero credentials. I’m a jobless computer nerd with no degree and several psychiatric problems, and a hatred of the various collections of lies that make this world a worse place than it has to be.
Sounds like the regular credentials of a writer, lol!
But, I do write (very very amateur) SF stories. Not sure how you guessed. Too bad most of my “readership” (i.e. friends) already know where I’m coming from.
Great, you’ve already got some audience! Scott had a friend who had a friend who was a publisher, which tipped things off! Keep going! (you probably were anyway, but encouragement is nice to have anyway, right?)
Koch bros and gerrymandering haven’t helped….
All of the hate of trumps simply unvarnished… Pound for pound Hillary Clinton has about three times more hate in her
The more dangerous, less progressive candidate… Transpacific partnership, for example.
And all she has is image… In a way that is much more insidious then the DT
[…] The Death of Wilson: How the Academic Left Created Donald Trump | 18 July 2016 | Why should a minimum wage retail worker think they somehow immorally benefit by dint of blue eyes and pale skin? Why should they listen to some bohemian asshole who’s both morally and intellectually self-righteous? Why shouldn’t they feel aggrieved on all sides, economically and culturally disenfranchised? […]
http://charleseisenstein.net/the-fertile-ground-of-bewilderment/
Ha, I just tried a subversive reply in reddits r/theredpill, which is a pretty misogynistic place – what happens? I get a message saying I’m autobanned from r/offmychest for ‘supporting’ them!! Not a sub reddit I usually go onto anyway, but how perfect an example is it of the outgrouping described in the OP? Automated, no less! I wonder in future how many technological trip wires will ensure no one crosses the streams?
THAT is creepy as all get out. Bots policing the ‘confirmation boundaries’ of different ingroups!
I read a little bit of r/offmychest then I read a few of the comments on r/theredpill addressed to the bot autobanning issue. My sense of r/offmychest is that it’s intended by its moderators as a place for like minded people to commiserate and complain together, not a place for discussion by people with opposed viewpoints. If r/theredpill is as misogynist as you say then perhaps “posts replies on r/theredpill” is at least a mostly reliable proxy for “not someone whom the r/offmychest family would welcome into its home.” I think what you have really identified is the lack of ability for bots to determine the content of a reddit comment and the intent of the comment maker. We should not underestimate the desire of any group, but particularly of historically marginalized groups, to have on and off line environments which they control and where their cultural and intellectual values prevail.
What do you mean ‘we’, Michael? I’m not at the steering wheel of this one, the bot has spoken! Why would my magnanimity matter when I’m not in control?
We should not underestimate the desire of any group, but particularly of historically marginalized groups, to have on and off line environments which they control and where their cultural and intellectual values prevail.
I think the theredpill posters feel the same way. They feel they are some kind of historically marginalised group.
My sense of X is that it’s intended by its moderators as a place for like minded people to commiserate and complain together, not a place for discussion by people with opposed viewpoints.
That’d apply to theredpill as well.
That’s the problem with haters like theredpill – how memetic that hate is, quickly activiate/reprogramming others it comes in contact with, Agent Smith style. Hell, I think I start to feel it from just dipping my toes in theredpill, one reason I’d prefer not to go near such an outgroup. I don’t have them thar Canadian X genes to protect me! lol!
Fair enough. “One should not…” But I still don’t think the autobanning is as creepy as Scott seems to think. It would be creepy in an academic environment but not at that sort of on line clubhouse. I don’t think r/offmychest claims to be a forum for intellectual inquiry and I don’t think it should be held to that standard.
I don’t think you’re getting the specific type of creepy involved – speaking for myself, it’s the creepy of the automation. Like, say, a mine. An automated device that might put set down in the face of true positives, but then continues on to the false positive of a child’s foot. Machines set up for false positives, but then shunting us off from each other. I went to r/offmychest and had the feels nearly instantly. I’d rather just go to places like that. And my subversive reply at /theredpill was to tell a guy who was calling himself a pussy for having a gf who was giving him the cold shoulder that he was quite the opposite – it was daring, like skydiving is daring, to make the attempt. He’d be a pussy to try something with no risk. So I tried to sneak in some r/offmychest to a r/theredpill who, say, 50% of members are there because they are negged into staying – called pussies if they don’t utterly dominate their girlfriend, until they call themselves pussies for that. Compassion & support are a pair of subversive knives (or maybe scalpels)…hehe.
But yeah, if its possible to steer some r/theredpill posters away from the hate, what is creepy is machines locking out the intermediaries that would. Automatically, with no second thought as much as a fascist would have no second thought. Will you think I’m calling r/offmychest the ‘f’ word in saying that, or it’s that they are deploying fascist machines? I’m not definitely sure if Scott’s sense of creepy overlaps mine or is entirely different, though.
* ‘Machines set up for true positives’ is what I meant, darn it! 🙂
I suppose you could think of the ‘bots as heuristics rendered into code. They make decisions based on much less than all the information available and using dramatically simplified decision procedures, so they have a lot of false positives. For that matter they do so for much the same reason human brains do; because the alternative of reading and evaluating each post on any other reddit would be computationally intractable given the resources available. Human beings make quick, unfair snap judgements about other human beings all the time. I don’t think using bits of code to make our quick, unfair snap judgements for us is inherently creepier than making them ourselves. You do run the risk of missing out on the chance to hang out with wonderful people like Callan, but clearly they’re willing to take that risk in order to avoid the ‘slap dat bitch’ types on r/theredpill.
I meant “wonderful people like us.”
Do you think mines make ‘snap judgements’, Michael?
What’s creepy is the absence of judgement yet still it’s effect. Creepy like a zombie; absent life yet still having effect.
Or perhaps I should say ‘Golem’, as in the old stories of golems being made to protect a community. Those always turned out well.
And nah, you said I’m wonderful!! Can’t take it back!!! I win at TPB! >:)
Hello, Callan
“Do you think mines make ‘snap judgements’, Michael?”
That’s what this whole blog has been about, really. The triggering mechanisms of land mines are simple, but increasingly complicated machines. To start, the recent history of land mine warfare divides mines into two types, antipersonnel and antivehicular. Both kinds can be set so as to detonate under particular conditions, for example antivehicular mines can be set to detonate if varying amounts of weight are placed on them, so that a mine will not detonate under the weight of a light wheeled vehicle but will under the weight of a tank. More sophisticated mines can detonate in response to radio signals, magnetic fields of particular strengths or any number of stimuli. Are these mines making snap judgments? Are they making any kind of judgement at all? In general can machines make judgments? Can machines have intentionality? Are human beings machines? Can human beings, as machines, have intentionality? If human beings are machines and can have intentionality and make judgments, snap or deliberate, then it is at least reasonable to ask if simpler machines can have intentionality and make judgments. If the answer to that question is yes, what is the complexity threshold above which machines can have intentionality? If human beings have intentionality but no machine can have intentionality then we have to ask what is the difference between humans and machines such that human beings have intentionality and therefore the ability to make judgments and machines do not.
And if you think having a piece of code kick you off of a subreddit is creepy, try having a piece of code kill you by crashing your car into a truck (thus the Mike Hillcoat comment above).
I think I already had a rant about death by trusting ones life in no one/the self driving car death (Whilst watching Harry Potter – it’d be a perfect example of us receding into fantasy while leaving our lives to be decided by machines, if someone hadn’t actually died).
But really how did we get to asking ‘can machines be intentional’, Michael? Is this all it takes to pass the buck – we aren’t talking about the person who laid down the mechanism and their responsibilities, but instead going into some philosophical examination of ‘can machines have intent’??
THIS is what is creepy – the way, instead of clear lines of responsibility, airy philosophy is encountered. Like a strobing light can cause some people to black out or have a fit, it seems these subjects cause a similar cognitive dissonance – avoiding establishing lines of responsibility and causing a fit of philosophy. No wonder he was watching Harry Potter in that car!
How quickly people will take an opportunity to pull their skin out of the game if they think they can. ‘It’s not my fault! Machine’s fault!’ – Elon Musk.
Callan
“Is this all it takes to pass the buck – we aren’t talking about the person who laid down the mechanism and their responsibilities, but instead going into some philosophical examination of ‘can machines have intent’?”
To return to the original topic, it seems that in this case “the person who laid down the mechanism” is the moderator of r/offmychest. I think that any time we talk about “responsibilities” we ought to be talking about responsibilities of particular people and particular things. The moderator of r/offmychest built a ‘bot that searched subreddits that the r/offmychest moderator deemed to be offensive and automatically banned persons who posted or commented on those subreddits from posting or commenting on r/offmychest. Given that you thought it worthwhile to complain about the conduct of the moderator of r/offmychest it seems you are suggesting the moderator has some responsibility to you and/or to the other persons whom the ‘bot autobanned and that the moderator has failed to discharge that responsibility. In your opinion what is the nature of that responsibility? That is to say what did the moderator do to you that the moderator should not have done or refrain from doing to you that the moderator did?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the moderator has any obligation to you or to the other posters/commenters at r/theredpill, or at any rate not the obligation to promote free and open dialog from opposing viewpoints that you seem to think the moderator has. In one of my previous comments on this topic I used the phrase “not someone whom the r/offmychest family would welcome into its home.” In the same way that the head of a household has an obligation to all who live there to create and maintain a safe, supportive, nurturing environment for those who live there, the moderator has an obligation to create and maintain a safe, supportive, nurturing environment for the r/offmychest family. That obligation supersedes any obligation the moderator might have to persons outside that family. You and I seem to be in agreement on the general unpleasantness of the r/theredpill family. I’m merely suggesting that the ‘bot is the best (meaning the best compromise between effectiveness in defending the subreddit against its enemies in places like r/theredpill and feasible investments of time and computing resources) way to discharge that obligation.
The desire of any person to speak does not, absent any other relationship, obligate any other person to listen. Your outrage at being autobanned by the moderator at r/offmychest without a chance to present your feminist credentials could easily be perceived as a display of exactly the sort of sense of entitlement that some feminists find offensive. Paradoxically, your insistence on a right to be heard might constitute justification for banning you.
@Callan
I find I have to agree with Michael Murden, above. Bots that auto-ban people from subfora may seem creepy and insular, but not nearly so much IMO as that it got to be a good idea in the first place. Maybe you had good intentions posting in an MRA/PUA hangout, but how are moderators elsewhere supposed to figure that out? It’s hard enough to judge good intent in person, let alone over TCP/IP. Meanwhile, places like r/offmychest are presumably being targeted by lots of trolls – who, for all we know, have perfectly good intent *within their own moral framework*, and just happen to have really shoddy moral frameworks.
IOW, I think you’re falling into the normal human pit of assuming that intent matters more than effect. All the moderators (and their bots) get to see is an account that’s also active in a known troll hangout, and they base their automatic ban bot decisions on that. Considering the volume of trolls they probably deal with, and the fallout from banning an okay person (one person is mildly annoyed) vs. allowing a troll in (many people get vitriolically abused)… I think you can see where this comes from.
***
Mind, at this point my own take is just “Stay the hell away from Reddit.” A company that hosts boards dedicated to unabashed hate speech, under cover of empty words about “freedom”, is not a good venue for civil discussions IMO. (Let alone civil discussions about feminism and human rights.)
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the moderator has any obligation to you or to the other posters/commenters at r/theredpill, or at any rate not the obligation to promote free and open dialog from opposing viewpoints that you seem to think the moderator has.
They’ve the right to be closed minded, you’d say?
See this is the thing – the internet is not their little family space. Your family space is where you live in real life – you are literally trying to insist that as much as I can’t just wander into their RL home that they get the same deal on an internet forum. And not wandering into their forum should be held as being just as respected as not wandering into their RL homes is?
Are you doing some deadpan comedy again and I’m just not picking it up?
Scott mentions geolocation originally forcing people to face potentially dissenting neighbours. But reality also meant people could only have a house (where people couldn’t just barge in/couldn’t just come in and say whatever) of only a certain size. You can’t just make your RL house bigger like you can a forum.
Now you’re literally advocating for ‘homes’ as big as they want.
No, I think it’s a bullshit attempt to bring over a stone age right (which has some merit) to a technological medium which is nothing at all like where the right is supposed to be applied. When you leave your house, you might run into someone saying something dissenting – but you are literally advocating for people to feel when they’ve gone onto the internet that they have never left their home??
No, it’s just regular closed mindedness finding a new, technologically enabled opportunity to be even more closed minded.
Paradoxically, your insistence on a right to be heard might constitute justification for banning you.
Sounds like the usual outgrouping logic. Just read the person as uncharitably as possible, find a whole bunch of ugly when you do and ban/outgroup based on that. Seems you’re practicing it yourself, Michael, and I’m not sure why. One minute you’re saying they are entitled to their space, then you talk about my sense of entitlement? Seems you just read them charitably and myself uncharitably – and I have to wonder if it’s because I went to the seething pit of hate that is r/theredpill. Try reading r/offmychest just as uncharitably. Or read one group charitably and other individuals uncharitably and…you know how much that’s simply ingroup/outgroup stuff.
JonesBones,
IOW, I think you’re falling into the normal human pit of assuming that intent matters more than effect.
From what I’ve observed people often seem to accuse others of what they are doing themselves – it’s like they sense their own behavior, but then attribute it to the other guy.
What is the effect I have had on r/offmychest? None. Which means they react to my intent only (and merely their guess as to my intent, based on scant information supplied by a spying robot). And you’re advocating for them – you’re making more of intent than effect.
Considering the volume of trolls they probably deal with, and the fallout from banning an okay person (one person is mildly annoyed) vs. allowing a troll in (many people get vitriolically abused)… I think you can see where this comes from.
Nope, because trolls don’t exclusively come from r/theredpill, they could come from any vector.
The OP is about how people on the internet can form little echo chambers for whatever mad ideas they have. And r/offmychest is essentially punishing anyone for trying to go in and undo that madness in r/theredpill – what do they expect, that the r/theredpill members will just go off and eventually die out? NO! They’ll grow in number (breed like sranc!), unless ‘culled’ by talking some of the fuckers down from their madness. Surely in regard to the OP you can see where this is coming from?
Unless you’re out there with a rifle, picking off r/theredpill members with it, in which case I guess that’s being effective in reducing their numbers and maybe why you feel it’s okay my way gets banning trouble, lol!
Otherwise you literally have a red menace that is growing.
JonesBones,
Oh, forgot to add…
Mind, at this point my own take is just “Stay the hell away from Reddit.” A company that hosts boards dedicated to unabashed hate speech, under cover of empty words about “freedom”, is not a good venue for civil discussions IMO. (Let alone civil discussions about feminism and human rights.)
Actually that might explain some things about other subreddits I post to (even r/rpg). You might have a point there – I’ll mull that one over.
How are most of these comments not perfect examples of what you’re talking about in the OP?
I’m not sure I understand. How am I not simply repeating the academic sin of writing only to the likeminded? As far as I’m known, I am roundly despised in most academic circles, I assure you! Even when I do communicate to them, I don’t do so as one of them.
I thought Myles was accusing us, the commenters, not you, the Original Poster, of groupthink. I don’t agree with that accusation, but if I’m a member of the group my opinion on the matter can’t be trusted. On the underlying Clinton versus Trump issue I’d guess that the people who read TPB are mostly anti-Trump, if not necessarily pro-Clinton. I do also think a lot of people are, if not sick of the political process, at least interested in trying to get the political process to deliver different products than it has in the past. Donald Trump is certainly a different sort of major party nominee than the Republican primary process usually delivers, but as has been the case with Barack Obama, I suspect if he is elected he will be changed by the Presidency more than he will change it. I think that much of what the Trump supporters (and for that matter the Bernie Sanders supporters) are unhappy about is beyond the power of any president to affect. I think Ron E. has a point, but I think people aren’t so much sick of the political process as sick of the fact that the political process no longer matters as it used to because so much authority has been transferred from governments to corporations (especially financial corporations and supranational entities like the World Trade Organization.
Who said otherwise?
I think rsbakker and Saunders are dancing around the point (both articles are long, so like kids performing a full length Nutcracker). Apparent to me is the Cold Revolution we’re witnessing. People are sick of the political process… that’s what’s dying in the vine here. We’re done with plastic personalities. BS is too easy to smell now, so someone has to just be candid.
BS is easier to smell now? Why would millions upon millions fall for Trump, then? Because he’s ‘candid’? About what, pray tell? All I see is someone who’s found a way to capitalize on certain widely shared anxieties with empty promises and crass slogans.
I agree with your analysis of the in group dynamics that prevent us from listening and understanding the outgroup. But when applied to Trump’s success it is at best an incomplete explanation. The media left and academic left has raised so many false flags , made mountains of so many mole hills with accusations of racism, sexism, xenophobia , transphobia and so on and so forth. That these arguments and these accusations have lost their power. People just shrug it off , because they see it for what it is wich is a knee jerk reaction devoid of substance . The left has been ideologically dominant for so long that they appear to have lost their ability to articulate and explain their positions. So instead of selling their ”product” they just insult anyone who might disagree and label them undesirable painting themselves in a corner and alienating the mass of people who sit in the ideological middle and like to make up their own minds.
When the right comes armed with facts and figures and all the left can do is launch insults, the right wins. Not because their interpretation of the facts and figures presented is correct, but because in truth no other interpretations are offered. That’s offensive is not an argument .
Call it ideological fatigue if you will… or intellectual lazyness either way its what is causing the downfall of the left.
The ever linked lay-page needs linking again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Social_biases
Damn, I wish I had my social psychology textbooks kicking around for reference.
On a completely unrelated note: is it just me, or is there something really weird about how comment threads work here? I can reply to replies, but I can’t reply to replies to replies…
Yes. You’ve put your finger on just one weighty of many changes.
Around 9/11 things unraveled. We’re in a dynamic equilibrium, with multiple systems failures and government is a tool that can fix things.
I do not hold Trump responsible, any more than I’d hold a shark responsible for being a shark and most on the left and right are oblivious.
Hopefully, if Clinton is victorious, some kind of sane reforms can get underway.
Trump can hopefully through his creative destruction marginalize the fringe and politics can catch up with the times on both sides.
There’s going to be spasms to come. Let’s hope there is change with minimum collateral damage
Interesting post over at Mr. Schwitzgebel’s blog: “Are the Social Elite Moral Experts? http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2016/08/are-social-elite-moral-experts.html
At the end of the post is a link to a piece by Helen De Cruz: “Who needs moral experts anyway?” https://medium.com/@helenldecruz/who-needs-moral-experts-anyway-6c0ae93f28fe#.bxicg4nkm
http://theindependent.ca/2016/08/10/the-revolution-has-come-and-the-left-is-terrified/
“No matter how mad your beliefs, evidence of their sanity is only ever a few keystrokes away.”
I consider myself a left-leaning intellectual. I work with books for a living. To me, Donald Trump is a fearsome omen of the dystopia seen in Octavia Butler’s “Parable of the Talents”.
But Donald Trump doesn’t like Amazon/Jeff Bezos, and I don’t like Amazon/Jeff Bezos… what madness is this? Although we both have different reasons, it is a disquieting thought that someone so wrong (in my opinion) about everything else could be right about anything, even if only in generalities.
My book-loving ingroup are also terrified by these implications, but to think that we’ve fostered this is horrifically staggering. Thanks for the thought-provoking post, RSB.
This piece wanders endlessly in self-love and virtue signaling. I’ve not met a Trump supporter yet. I’ve met people who desire to escape the intellectualoids who wish to direct the lives and very thoughts of all below them.
Sure, I can buy all that, especially the bit about your insularity. But what do you make of the argument? Do you have a counter-argument, or merely a compelling sentiment of moral superiority?
Scott,
1) speaking for myself (but probably for many others), we miss your voice. Come back soon.
2) I thought of this article after reading a recent piece Freddie deBoer (https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/the-age-of-kayfabe). I also realized, belated, that i’d parroted some of your thoughts there (clumsily, and before my mind made the connection with this article, my sincere apologies.) I wonder how you feel your position here has aged? One thing that strikes me as a potential miscalculation was its focus on white America. If anything, it seems Trump’s brand of populism landed better in 2020 with black and brown voters (particularly Hispanics) that it did in 2016–a fact that the political left seems keen to ignore. Do you make of the election results any implicit or explicit rejection of the right wing results of Wilson’s death (e.g. Q, etc.)?
Hope you are well.