Yesterday, I gave a set of examples of media elites interviewing conservatives. They were confronted over and over with views, ideas and facts completely contrary to the ones they hear inside their bubbles and could not cope. Someone else made the point, referring to the famous Cathy Newman interview of Jordan Peterson wherein she's utterly adrift in the conversation, that she was a finite state machine forced to deal with data outside any of her accepted states.
Using that diagram of a finite state machine as an example, I'd suggest that for the dominant, progressive culture, the accepted topics are:
global warmingclimate change,- racism,
- LGBT issues and
- income inequality.
There are others, of course, but the diagram that came quickly to hand had four states and I'm lazy. Each state has an accepted viewpoint and a standard question for those who disagree followed by the appropriate emotional responses of mockery, horror or sneering.
Maybe we're all finite state machines like this. I wonder how my responses would chart out under such circumstances. Probably about the same. I think that the difference is that when you are part of such a dominant, monolithic culture as you have with entertainment, the media, the tech oligarchs and politicians, your machine becomes far more rigid as each state is constantly reinforced by those around you.
Rigid machines can be fragile.
"I wonder how my responses would chart out under such circumstances. Probably about the same."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see that you realize that. For some time now, I've been struck by the way that various people who rant about politics all have the same basic structure in their rants, they just have their switches stuck in different positions.
This is probably at least partly because it is hard to wind up in a good rant unless you are completely convinced that you are unassailably right and that your opponents are irredeemably wrong.
Even though the structure is the same, there is a big difference between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5.
ReplyDeleteAnd even though the support might, again, look very similar-- there is a big difference between saying:
"Look, here. This is a group of two-- one, two. This is a group of two-- one, two. Put them together, and it's one, two, three, four. It's obvious."
and saying:
Look, here. This is a group of two-- one, two. This is a group of two-- one, two. Put them together, and it's one, two, three, four, five. It's obvious."
Foxfier: That's true enough, but you establish which is right and which is wrong by actually looking at the facts.
ReplyDeleteNot by seeing which side yells the loudest, longest, and with the most accusations of the other side being Nazis/ Fascists/ Communists/ Plutocrats/ Thugs/ Wingnuts/ Moonbats/ Terrorists/ Fundamentalists/ Reactionary Running Dogs/ Whatever the hell is the insult of the day. Which, unfortunately, seems to be what passes for "political discourse" more often than not.
Personally, I think the big problem with politics is that each side attracts their own particular flavor of grandstanding attention-whore jerks. And even though these people make up only a tiny fraction of the population, we somehow end up with them being the ones that claim to speak for their side. And then, in each case, the other side points at these reprehensible excuses for human beings, and says "See? These are who I am opposed to! How can you not hate these idiots? This means that *our* side is right!" But since the other side has their own nasty specimens that claim to speak for them, it turns into a game of what I have taken to thinking of as "Dueling Assholes".
This settles nothing, but it unfortunately does seem to make a popular show for TV.
ot by seeing which side yells the loudest, longest, and with the most accusations of the other side being Nazis/ Fascists/ Communists/ Plutocrats/ Thugs/ Wingnuts/ Moonbats/ Terrorists/ Fundamentalists/ Reactionary Running Dogs/ Whatever the hell is the insult of the day.
ReplyDeleteAnd what, exactly, is one to do when a group is promoting a socialist reorganization of the culture that has destruction of traditional family structures and the elimination of those who are expensive to integrate into the new structure, but pointing this out is characterized as "accusing the other side of being Nazis as an insult"?
The facts and evidence do matter. Even if someone finds it insulting. It needs to be looked at, and dismissed on the facts, not on style points.
*********
But since the other side has their own nasty specimens that claim to speak for them, it turns into a game of what I have taken to thinking of as "Dueling Assholes".
Do they actually claim to speak for the whole side?
Because I've noticed that the media frequently tells me that, say, "neo-Nazis" are speaking for the Right.
When I actually investigate, it turns out that either they are not even vaguely neo-Nazi, no matter how much you squint, or they spent as much time denouncing "the Right" as they did saying whatever the news quoted.
In contrast, when I investigate someone the media claims is speaking for all women, they do indeed claim to be speaking for all women, even when it's on a subject that even their own polling shows that most women in the speaker's own age range don't agree with her, much less all women. (Bonus points when it's a guy who is helpfully speaking for me.)
It's interesting how frequently transcripts disappear these days; I've had to start looking on message boards to get URLs to use the way-back machine to find transcripts of interviews on CNN, even though older transcripts from the same show are still available. I usually start looking because there's an outrageous half-quote and I want to see what was actually said.
ReplyDelete"I'm glad to see that you realize that. For some time now, I've been struck by the way that various people who rant about politics all have the same basic structure in their rants, they just have their switches stuck in different positions. "
ReplyDeleteThanks, Tim! This blog is my search for the Truth. That's a Truth that needs to apply to me if it's going to be universal. My sins aren't the same, but they're present nonetheless. See this post for the way I'm seeing things these days.
To be honest, we're all finite state machines. We have to be because our brains are made up of a finite number of cells.
Foxie, I quite agree. Sometimes the other side really is fascist. It's all a matter of applying an objective definition. Just because we're supposed to hate fascists, it doesn't mean that some of us are fascist.
ReplyDelete