dagblog - Comments for "Whiny, Whiny, Centrists"

Happy New Year to you. I hope

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:43:01 +0000

Happy New Year to you. I hope that I'm wrong too, but what I've seen is a growing trend towards popular paranoia. It's not Red Scare level yet, but it gets bigger ever year.

Idaho has been a bit of an

kgb999 — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:53:22 +0000

In reply to Don't worry, I've heaped

Idaho has been a bit of an eye opener to me. Living somewhere like D.C. or NYC or Vegas, there is a constant bombardment of people trying to get over on you. Every cab, every bus stop ... every free space screams something different but always "look at me!" And then there are the people, "can you spare a dollar" ... "Hey, my cousin can fix that dent while you are in the store" ... It is non-stop all day, every day.

Imagine if you had never needed to grow defenses to any of that because it just wasn't really there. Now imagine if someone who professionally crafts techniques to influence the most jaded minds deployed those same tools and a couple million bucks. I don't think "people want to believe" exactly. IMO, they have life issues and just don't want to think about it that hard. So they take the easy answer ... which ends up being the answer someone just spent a million bucks to ensure is right on the tip of their tongue.

A person doesn't have to watch Fox. Even if they don't, every other outlet will obligingly dedicate 80% of their coverage to discussing the messages Fox is advancing. At this point, the entire national conversation is driven exclusively by what Fox decides will be important. All the other networks just cover Fox.

Wow, you've described a

kyle flynn — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 05:26:28 +0000

In reply to Don't worry, I've heaped

Wow, you've described a neurosis of massive proportions. No offense, but I hope you're wrong. Your last sentence reminds me of a scene in a movie. A boy/girl couple is arguing about him not pitching in to do the dishes more often. Finally the girlfriend tells him what she really wants is for him to want to do the dishes. He asks, "why would I want to do the dishes?" Anyway, Happy New Year!

Don't worry, I've heaped

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 05:04:06 +0000

In reply to I'm really under qualified to

Don't worry, I've heaped pages and pages of blame on the manipulators. But I'm convinced that they're only successful because people let themselves be manipulated. These people don't have to watch Fox News. They want to. Most of them are smart enough see through the corny, indefensible conspiracy theories. But they want to believe.

I'm really under qualified to

kyle flynn — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 00:06:16 +0000

In reply to Kyle, if you assume that

I'm really under qualified to go much further. I'm just a toy maker. But what the hell.

I maintain people are good. It seems obvious to me. 6 billion people doing their best against some long odds. That's my evidence. Pretty weak, for sure. There it is.

You suggest it's "fairly obvious that people all over the world and throughout history have been susceptible to demagoguery." I couldn't agree more. But you continue that it isn't simply a function of ignorance, but "involves a willful disregard for the truth." I can't make that leap with you. I don't see a case for it. People are wrong about any number of things, they'll believe all kinds of shit and do stuff that's bad for them over and over. But these aren't the result of people thumbing their nose at the truth. People think they're right and they believe the shit. The good news is we can be persuaded. Our minds can change.

What bothers me about this conversation is I get the impression you're more than willing to dump the lion's share of responsibility for our current condition on the backs of the masses. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you're blaming the victim a bit. I just want to run a little interference if that's true. Me, I think it's a relative handful of assholes ruining it for the rest of us. What the hell, I'll go all in. Those guys are victims too.

Kyle, if you assume that

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:28:00 +0000

In reply to We seem to have a difference

Kyle, if you assume that people are naturally good, you need to make sense of why they are often very bad. I made the point about the influence of right-wing media only to demonstrate that many people are willingly resorting to very bad sources of information. To that point, Glenn Beck's whole media footprint is relevant. Indeed, the footprint of the entire right-wing media machine is relevant. In fact, I think it to be fairly obvious that people all over the world and throughout history have been susceptible to demagoguery. This susceptibility is not simply due to ignorance, though ignorance can exacerbate it. It involves a willful disregard for the truth.

So how do you make sense of the willful disregard for the truth? Karl Marx and other philosophers have argued that people are naturally good. To explain their apparent selfishness, Marx argued that the capitalist system had corrupted them. Get rid of the system, and the inherent goodness will come out. (Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way in any existing socialist country.) So what is your explanation for the appeal of demagogues?

For the record, the point that many people don't have time to get the news is irrelevant because many other people clearly do have the time, and they're spending that time at Fox News and right-wing radio. The claim that Glenn Beck only fills a niche is also irrelevant because the point is that people are listening to his message, whether or not that they would be just as happy listening to some other demagogue deliver it.

We seem to have a difference

kyle flynn — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:42:22 +0000

In reply to Your case in point misses the

We seem to have a difference of opinion. You wrote up thread that good information wasn't difficult to find. I think it's often very hard to find. You've enhanced what you meant: "It's not about tracking down a particular piece of information, it's about using sound judgement to distinguish good information from bad." I think you're making a distinction without a difference. Tracking down bits of info, comparing competing results, chucking source A and hanging onto source B, fact checking, trusting this gal and not believing a word that guy says, these are tough chores. When I write good information is hard to find, this is pretty much what I mean. I don't think my "funny" illustration misses the point by too much, certainly not entirely. Could be we just haven't agreed on terms. Not sure.

I don't think that 2-4 million people watching Glenn Beck is that many people. His media footprint is substantially larger. I could have assumed you meant that, but it isn't what you wrote. I don't like the influence he enjoys. I think you're more concerned about it than I am. Maybe not. Either way, I think it's a tiny part of where we disagree.

Fundamentally, from what I can cobble together from these brief exchanges, we disagree on some deep, philosophical question of the nature of man or something. Are we inherently good or bad? As of this moment It seems I think the former and you think the latter. But at this point I'm prepared to be wrong.

Bots luv tights.

Donal — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:54:39 +0000

In reply to Take heart. You're famous in

Bots luv tights.

Take heart. You're famous in

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:44:46 +0000

In reply to So... I'm not

Take heart. You're famous in the web bot world.

So... I'm not

Michael Maiello — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:03:57 +0000

In reply to Some posts seem to attract

So... I'm not famous?

*sniff*