I believe this is gender-dependent. It's like Harry Potter, where Love Potions are exclusively used by women/girls on men/boys, and no one seems concerned.
This site is an excellent parody of the news media's complete submission to audience capture and the 'interesting-fication' of complex, mundane realities. Good review!
> I’ll admit, I find Baxter’s efforts to maintain narrative integrity incredibly charming, given how the clash with the latent absurdity of the whole endeavor.
I was horrified to suddenly understand that various confusing things I had read online make perfect sense if you believe in the RRN narrative. Lots of believers out there.
The real conspiracy is that Michael Baxter founded RRN right after Scott announced the first book review contest, in a hope of winning the review contest some day. A bit of a long con. Sorry for doxxing you, Michael.
Basically, yes, as suggested in the review a phantasy world where the good guys are winning is appealing to some people, but far more people seem to react to rage baiting.
At the moment, the other side of the rage baiting is (partially) made up of real people with real views, and even more from out-of-context glimpses of real people and their real views. That's already pretty efficient at harvesting attention.
But now imagine fuelling the rage maximally efficiently with the help of AI.
That's a far more depressing world for me, because at least in the 'Real Raw News' world, its adherents can be happy with the fiction they consume.
My reaction exactly. I can't say I'm really *surprised* this kind of site exists. Just this year I've visited parts of the country where I had chats with random people convinced that, for example, covid vaccines have killed dozens of people they knew personally. But the *scale* of it is just... wow.
deepfakes are unnecessary. they won't change anything. people believe in fictional stories all the time!
people believe *priests*. telling them about iron age comic book stories. and take them as truth.
i have zero fear of deepfakes because i have a mechanical understanding of physical reality so i'm immune, and as for the people who don't and aren't, well, they already believe in so much bullshit that it already proves that deepfakes won't matter.
people believing that fiction is real is the normal baseline standard.
"i have zero fear of deepfakes because i have a mechanical understanding of physical reality so i'm immune,"
So you're telling me you can identify clones by their feet.
If a really, really convincingly faked image with accompanying sound track was produced, you would - because of your mechanics - be immediately able to tell it was faked? At once? No doubt about it?
Consider all the good things which have been successfully created, even made routine, despite that tendency having already having been present since before we started.
Sure. But it was also brutal and painful. And as a believing-in-progress kind of a person, I think that most of those things that were created came about through the letting go of certain fictions.
Obviously, you can see that in the battles between religion and science in early modern Europe. It was being willing to consider the possibility that the church-supported cosmology was wrong that enabled astronomers to see what was really going on. And being willing to dispense with the church's creation myth that enabled the theory of evolution. Etc.
In modern times, similarly: the myth of heroic leaders gives way to bureaucracy and democracy. The myth of male superiority gives way to equal treatment.
We have achieved amazing amounts, despite having very dodgy philosophical underpinnings. But that dodgy philosophy also drove war and persecution and hatred. I can't see belief in fictions as a good thing.
What would the full counterfactual alternative to coordinated belief in fictions have been, though? "Go directly to lotus throne, do not pass iron age, do not collect 200,000 years of incremental improvement from mistakes" ?
If Galileo had had a fully accurate understanding of the political environment at the time, rather than believing in a comforting fiction that the Pope could be persuaded by logical argument and observational evidence, it's possible he would have preferred to avoid the many personal risks involved in speaking out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDGjeLGzCI0
It's a great question, what would the alternative have been? And of course, I don't know. I don't think the question is completely unanswerable, though. For example, the European and Middle Eastern experience seems to have involved a lot of particularly internecine religious strife. Looking around the world, other places seem to have had less of that. China/East Asia is probably the best attested; perhaps pre-Columbian North America as well. Like, it is possible to have sophisticated culture without religious war. So, answering your question would first involve a proper historian looking at how that came about.
Then what? Belief in the ethnostate/ethnoempire? I can't work out if it is possible to avoid that kind of shared fiction. It looks like a natural step as we expand the circle of mutual defence... I dunno, I don't really have any insight on whether it's a necessary myth.
Myths of male superiority? There have been a few matriarchal cultures, you could look at them and see how they work...
What I'm saying is, historically, yeah - it's hard to imagine humans developing without any kind of shared belief in some social fictions. But it does seem like there can be less or more fiction in your beliefs.
In the modern context, choosing to add fiction still seems like a scary choice.
> In the modern context, choosing to add fiction still seems like a scary choice.
Sure, but personally I'm less worried about the fiction in itself than whatever tangible issue someone making such a choice felt such a need to defend against. Not to say the fiction isn't a problem too, but without that other piece we aren't seeing the whole picture.
Only half joking - it always bothered me that the SW universe *didn't* have reliable ways to halt and reverse aging after tens of millennia of galactic civilization.
Star Wars' medical science in general isn't that good. It seems to be limited to throwing bacta on it, and if that doesn't work, prosthetics. Star Trek is what surprises me. They can run into some totally new alien species and whip up a cure for some random illness in hours, but with centuries at their disposal they haven't found a cure for aging?
Yeah, the whole deepfakes and politics debate is kind of like people pretending that techniques like "editing photos" or "masquerading someone as a politician and then having them do bad stuff" haven't existed forever. They still aren't used too much. Why? Probably because the benefit gained is not worth the risks of the general legitimization of such tactics, possibly also used eventually against the party trying them out in the first place.
I think they're not used much because the are not really needed. Why go through trouble creating fake images of, say, Sept 11 attacks when you can just keep repeating "planes didn't hit the WTC", add some mumbo-jumbo about "jet fuel doesn't melt steel, gotcha", and voila, millions swallow this garbage.
I mean, I could write a fake letter from Joe Biden and C&P his signature in. It's just that the fact that it was fake would be really obvious because of its provenance (random poster putting it online versus White House sending it out). The same applies to deepfakes. We use provenance all the time in evaluating claims, deepfakes universally come from dogshit sources.
True, but once they've circulated, how many casual viewers would know the original source, or care? Also, they might well be accompanied by misinformation regarding the source.
believing in bullshit doesn't kill people fast enough to prevent them from replicating. evolution is not "survival of the fittest", it's "replication of of the least inadequate".
Because social relationships are organized by shared cultural narratives. The advantages of belonging to a community of like minded believers presumably outweighs the disadvantage of not understanding the objective universe in precise, valid detail.
That's why conspiracy theories don't have to be logically consistent. That's not their purpose. Their real purpose is to connect like minded people together, and at that they are highly effective and efficient.
"Your entire understanding of reality is mediated through what sites you choose to read and what videos you choose to watch. As a politically marginal person, it won’t matter what you as an individual choose to believe. So, what happens if you choose to believe the story you find most enjoyable? And what if millions of others choose the same?"
Are we not most of the way there already? If recent activity on X is anything to go by, conspiracy theories enjoy equal standing in discussions on any political controversy. They're asserted with smug self-assuredness, as if disbelief in the media is taken for granted by any right-thinking person, and only idiots take anything at face value. The general theory of mind and motive on display is profoundly hyper-paranoid and cynical.
We created a incentive structure fueled by algorithms that encourage people, smart and dumb alike, to speculate out of their asses about everything in the most provocative way possible because that's what wins in an attention economy. Comparatively, basic reasoning, and procedures of verification of something's truth value, is devalued and only appreciated by a negligible, increasingly irrelevant minority.
Nonsense, and closed epistemic bubbles based on fantasies and delusions have been and always will be a part of our information ecosystem, but they used to be semi-quarantined to opt-in ghettoes like tabloids, mailing lists, and blogs like the one so brilliantly explored here. There were borders, and border enforcers which prevented too much osmosis. Now, the whole sense-making apparatus has undergone...Tabloidification(?) - as a Darwinian response to attention becoming the sole currency of the land. We're trapped in a giant collective action problem.
We opened the floodgates of content creation, flattened and universalized multidirectional distribution at near zero cost, while eroding the borders, standards, and discreet contexts that are necessary to organize information by quality,(and enforcing filters of quality), in favor of a system that runs on popularity.
This is what happens when Tech follows the imperatives of capitalism to its logical conclusions without restraint. Specific people made specific design decisions when creating the incentive structures and feedback loops that govern the networks they built which became our reality-delivery systems. They, in turn, were trapped in the deeper collective action problem that making money is and must be the supreme goal at the cost of competing considerations, like the basic legibility of reality, or the maintenance of common knowledge / intersubjective truth.
Most of us sense this is probably leading to some phenomenally self-destructive end state, but we still hear the stubborn refrain that all of this is just reflecting our own freely chosen wants and needs in a free marketplace - and how can that be a bad thing (especially compared to the alternatives)?
We know full well that short-term desires often directly subvert long-term necessities, and we have a bias to be short-sighted.
>as if disbelief in the media is taken for granted by any right-thinking person, and only idiots take anything at face value.
Isn't it, though? The media aren't neutral arbiters of truth, they're partisan actors willing and able to slant and misrepresent everything controversial to fit their agendas, while being incompetently ignorant about most non-controversial stuff.
I see these things sitting on a continuum. On the top of the hierarchy are people whose job it is to directly interface with the truth (researchers, apolitical experts, scientists). Below that are the more professional class of media, who have to thread the needle between motivated reporting and audience capture (as you describe) but also conform to fact-checking and the need to maintain some level of reputation. Then there are other types of media that are driven entirely by slant and access.
Somewhere near the bottom is the layperson who engages in conspiracy theories and comments/retweets/posts entirely from a place of confirmation bias and signaling, without doing any work whatsoever to conform their beliefs to base reality.
A lot of individual people do better than the last category, and there's millions of examples of individual people having a better grip on reality than the media. However, I think it's reasonable to assume as a prior that *in general* the reporting at a mostly-quasi-non-partisan and buttoned up outlet (e.g. the WSJ) will be closer to reality than the bottom tier of conspiracy theorists on FB/Twitter.
Even if you hate the MSM and know all the reasons they are biased and crooked, it's pretty obvious that the Wall Street Journal reporters know more about what's going on in the real world than QAnon fans.
Yes, very good assessment. Despite the Gelman amnesia thesis, there is signal in mainstream news outlets. They're going to fail at the technical detail level and any reasonable measure of risk calibration but as Scott says they try medium-hard not to directly lie.
The problem is without better tools (intellectual jigs and world models) the layman does worse. It might help is we started teaching PESTEL analysis in history class or economics (if your school has it) but the education world is so allergic to grounding theory education in data that I don't know how to get it in there.
Further more we could teach geography again and maybe even throw some historical atlases at hi-schoolers but I probably ask too much and should just wish for basic chemistry, physics, and biology to be required... /sigh.
Anyway lets go back to posting about Tartaria cause it's so much more colorful then the boring real world!
I don't disagree with anything here, but just because the WSJ is better than QAnon, it doesn't follow that even they are good enough to take all of what they say at face value, and there's also plenty of stuff in between.
Good point. It's not so much the skepticism that's the problem, it's the way it is paired with credulity.
"Obviously the mainstream media is full of crap. I believe *this guy* and *that guy* because they're telling it how it is!". Um, okay, so how do you know that *their* story is accurate when there's all this evidence to the contrary? "That evidence is obviously faked, man, get your head out of your ass!" How do you know it's faked? "Because the mainstream media said the same stuff / the liberals are pushing it / the scientists get government funding / [3 years from now] they use AI to generate all that evidence now / [other excuse]!" (And then there's my father's approach: consistently refuse to answer the question, but always insist you're right and never acknowledge your son is right about anything, no matter how minor the point)
Nah. This is nothing new; look at the nonsense people believed long before the Internet — there are hundreds of examples of the same fads and paranoia and irrationality; we've just forgotten them. (Satanic cults in our preschools!)
You've fallen victim to the same thing, just in a sort of inverse way: you see a tiny minority of loons become more visible, and conclude society is wildly crazier than ever before. If anything, I'd say it's the opposite: thanks to the Internet, the average person you interact with is — if only marginally — /better/-informed than before.
Anecdote, but perhaps a telling one: I grew up right as the Internet started to come into play, and although certainly people were as dumb as ever, a lot of rumors and myths began to die in front of my eyes. I'm thinking in particular of how, slowly, legends about "if you do x y and z in this game, you can turn on 'nude mode'!" changed into "if you do x y and z, you're dumb, because the meta is to do a b and c" (which would be correct, since much better players and much more evidence were available).
I do acknowledge that belief in nonsense is nothing new, and that nonsense will be culturally mediated, incidental and not particularly indicative of whether society is becoming more or less batshit overall. That's true. But algorithmic media only accelerates all the problems that came with previous waves of mass media, which is why things are getting worse, not better.
I think you're discounting the power of the algorithms to normalize and popularize nonsense, to launder its legitimacy by indiscriminately intermingling it with better quality information, to flatten hierarchies of quality, shifting the burden onto individuals to do their own ranking and sorting of either information, or their epistemic communities, or both, which is effortful and something a lot of people aren't equipped to do well.
So most people don't - they default to social proof. But that's a problem when the algorithms only select for popularity within the epistemically closed, solipsistic communities it creates for its users, because thats what their behavior is telling the system they want. Those people then think this constructed, artificial "Reality" is actual reality, because all the social confirmation signals they normally use to sanity check themselves is telling them it is.
This is what I meant by tabloidification. Our main mediums of communication explicitly privilege low quality information because that's what most people's behavior indicates they want, and thus makes the most money. But it's also making large scale social cooperation, and even the concept of Common Knowledge, increasingly impossible.
In many ways, the mixing of useful signals with absolute shit is like what happened with mortgage backed securities precipitating the financial crisis of 2008. The crisis occurred because a process that made it too hard to differentiate good from bad made everything illegible, causing a basic breakdown in the ability to make rational calculations.
Tabloid nonsense used to be separated from institutional knowledge production and distribution. That's not to say the institutional gatekeepers were always or even mostly correct, but they did keep obvious horseshit out through various filters.
That's gone now, and whatever educational merit you think the internet has had overall, I doubt the system we're in now is debunking rumors and myths faster than it's enabling new ones to flourish.
I was exactly the right age to ride the early-Internet wave of "How to catch Mew in Pokemon!" stories, and they were basically all preposterous, barring legitimate puzzlement over The Truck's (lack of) purpose.
...and then in 2002, a Mew-catching method was found that *actually worked*...and it was just as ridiculous as the fake strategies. If you had inserted it into one of the lists circulating online in 1999, I never would have been able to guess which one it was.
> as a Darwinian response to attention becoming the sole currency of the land.
My hope is that abundant solar PV, and sundry industrial developments downstream thereof, will slay the engagement-maximizing oroboros by allowing most people to resume competing for social status on the basis of ability to personally reshape the actual physical environment.
Would like to know as well. Far as I know, his fascination with the "X" brand goes back at least as far as the PayPal days, which Musk also wanted named X.
Nah, I've had enough of this understanding schtick:
"But in a sense, all of us have a little of the Real Raw News believer in us."
No, we don't. This has been going on ever since early Jon Stewart (and probably before then, only I wasn't around), where Fox News anchors would compare themselves with Stewart and go and debate with him, as though a news guy and a comedy guy were comparable. And all the hand-wringing about how we need to *understand* the Trump voters fell into the same trap: imagining that they're thinking like us.
Centrists and lefties just don't do this thing of believing a total alternative reality consistently. It's a uniquely right wing thing (in this century, in developed nations). It's just too weird, and we're not helping anyone to think more clearly by stroking our chins and wondering if we don't all live in constructed worlds?
What Stewart was donig first time round was current affairs commentary, sometimes as satire, but sometimes as straight-up "this is what Trump and the Republicans are doing and this is why we must stop them".
Then when called on that, he did the 'clown nose on' bit of "Hey, I'm a comedian, this is just entertainment, it's not meant to be taken seriously!'
I don't know about centrists, but I saw at least a few lefties on social media holding up Stewart as a guru and approving of his messaging around politics. That this was the real truth, not just a comedian doing satirical exaggeration.
Look, I'm sitting here right now watching The West Wing, because it's an old favourite. There's lots of politics in that. I might even post some on the internet (on my blog I keep a rubbish section precisely for this kind of rubbish). But *even if I posted a West Wing quote* and *even if I agree with the politics of that quote* - that still doesn't mean that I'm getting my politics from a made-up TV show. Because I know the difference between The West Wing (not real) and The Guardian/Economist (real).
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We live in a world that contains real things (in our real lives and in the newspapers) and unreal things (fiction, comedy). We watch both. We enjoy both. We sometimes post both. What we don't do is confuse the two. And I know this because of QAnon and whatever nonsense this review is about. Those are real-world examples of people not knowing the difference between the real and the unreal. They're the same as psychotic hallucinations. And they're not a big part of centre/leftie culture. Only the right.
You can tell hallucination because only the other side does it.
In all possible charity, tell me: did you ever believe that Donald Trump called neo-nazis 'fine people'? Quite possibly you never fell for that one, in which case do please note that it took Snopes literal years to finally join the non-left-leaning world in debunking it, and that Joe Biden's campaign was still using it as of a couple weeks ago. Oops.
In all honesty - I didn't know how creatively edited that clip was for ages. But I didn't go and look it up at the time because I didn't care. I knew he was a buffoon before that speech, and I knew he was a buffoon after that speech. I didn't think he was a Nazi (I don't think he has much in the way of political opinions at all). I just chalked it up to his habit of bloviating.
But you've misunderstood the nature of that clip. Perhaps because you're a very dumb, literal-minded right winger! I dunno. Here's the point: I would like a president to be good enough at talking not to make that mistake. Because his main job is as the USA's chief diplomat, and they're supposed to be... good with words!
He got skewered for that mistake in the USA. Do you think he's a good person to be talking to China about the Taiwan issue? (Close to my heart, I live right on the Taiwan strait.) You can be as angry as you like about how nasty the lefties are for editing Trump's speech in that naughty, naughty way. But if he made the same mistake talking about Taiwan in China, the consequences could be much more serious.
This is the counterpoint to your complaint: you seem to think it would be a gaffe if he praised neo-Nazis, and the fact that he actually didn't means it wasn't a gaffe. In fact, it was a gaffe because he *allowed himself to sound like* he was praising neo-Nazis.
When the Democratic president is unable to control his speech effectively, he retires from the race (and yes, I'm embarrassed and angry about how long that took). I just wish Trump would do the same.
Now you're hallucinating that I'm a dumb literal-minded right-winger. This will in no way disadvantage you in understanding the world.
Nice motte and bailey, though. Everyone on 'your side' is excused for pushing a disastrously misleading hoax because ehhh he should've been better at resisting the tendency of the media to smear him. You not liking how he talks doesn't mean he's bad at it, nor does being good at talking help when the people who make the clips dislike how someone talks.
Do you want to run through all the other hoaxes? I'm sure he had those coming, too.
Honestly, I'm just British. Where I come from, if you can't take a bit of abuse, you shouldn't be getting into an argument. I mean, I think I do know how to do excrucatingly polite, "My, how I respect your viewpoint!" But when I grew up, among smart people, when someone's being a twat you just call them a twat and explain why.
>ackshually it's his fault the clip was creatively edited by the arbiters of truth and that I fell for it for years, you're being dumb and literal-minded
At this point, I'd vote for Trump even if he said Neonazis were fine people just to spite you and people like you.
this does not seem to be the most rational or mature way to do politics, or anything really. Like why have random internet commenters live rent-free in your head?
As a leftie, I'm sympathetic to your overall point but would rather you didn't ad hominem the other posters. The level of discourse is pretty good here, and your argument is interesting enough on its own merits to not need it!
I'm seriously curious why you think his argument is interesting. He admits the clip was creatively edited, but conducts less creative mental gymnastics to say that it's Trump's fault that they edited it.
Oh well, if I'm LITERALLY (not figuratively or metaphorically) being a crazy person right now, then on with the motley! 🤪
Tell me, Philbert Q. Harangue, isn't it awfully, awfully convenient all the nutjobs are on my side of the house and it's only the nice, sane, rational people sitting on the bench beside you?
You've seen the crazy nuts on the right. I've seen the crazy nuts on the left. Let's all head off to Brazil - where the nuts come from!
Leftist here. Me and my friends take it for granted that the West was the primary aggressor in the Cold War and that the Soviet bloc was more or less a defensive arrangement. Inasmuch as centrists overwhelmingly take the opposite view, they live in a fantasy world.
Hey, hey, hold on! Talk like that is going to make me want to have a real conversation instead of doing internet political shouting.
First, to briefly point out: I don't think this debate is anything like the kind of divorce from reality that I was writing about above. Believing that the Soviet block was more or less defensive looks to me like a reasonable interpretation of history, not a radical fantasy like Raw News.
That said, yeah, I'd love to have a real conversation. I'm a centrist and still basically believe the 'Russia is bad' version of post-WWII history.
So... do you want to give me the basic outline of what your version looks like? I mean, I understand that the west took a very aggressive approach towards Soviet Russia following WWII. But I'd still struggle to see how Russia could be seen as defensive given the whole tanks-rolling-across-Eastern-Europe thing.
I'm glad there are still some of us around — there's a guy up a few spots talking about how the Left never falls for anything wrong and the Right is too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time, if you can believe it... total partisan loon!
So, I personally used to believe this. Not categorically and wholeheartedly, I figured there were probably a fair number of left-wing conspiracists out there, but that they were relatively marginal within their political wing, while conspiracists were relatively dominant within the right wing (polling results do at least bear out the latter part.)
I no longer believe this.
I've never considered myself pro-Israel. Over a decade ago, I attended a majority Jewish college where support of Israel was normative, and at the time, I strongly rejected the notion that poor behavior on the part of the Palestinian territories' administration, or some sort of Jewish affiliation, should obligate me to see Israel as good guys in the conflict. I was, and remain, extremely dubious on the notion that the modern state of Israel should ever have been founded in the first place. Even so, the degree to which it's become normative on the left wing to believe outright falsehoods originating as deliberate propaganda in the Israel-Palestine conflict has been genuinely shocking to me. I've had to update my belief that the left wing was significantly less susceptible to entirely non-credible hostile propaganda, to the point that I now suspect that if there's a difference between the political wings right now at all, it's extremely marginal.
Right now, I think that the administrative state of the Democratic party is much more trustworthy, and interested in acting in the interests of the country as a whole, than the administrative state of the Republican party. But I think that a left-wing populist movement is most likely genuinely going to be about as impervious to reality as the right-wing populist movement.
> Even so, the degree to which it's become normative on the left wing to believe outright falsehoods originating as deliberate propaganda in the Israel-Palestine conflict has been genuinely shocking to me.
The one that stands out as most outright in defiance of easily available evidence is that Hamas did not engage in systematic sexual violence in the October 7 attack. I'd like to think this isn't actually a majority view in left-wing circles, but I've been in spaces where people argued that this simply did not occur, and claims that it did were simply hostile propaganda, where those people received no pushback except from me personally, and when argued against them, several other people joined in to disagree with me.
There are other issues where I think fewer people actually follow the news enough to have specific opinions, but the default within left-wing circles has been to accept Hamas propaganda as credible at the outset, to possibly be overturned later if evidence decisively proves it false. For instance, if a hospital is destroyed, and Hamas claims this was due to Israeli bombing, while Israel denies it, in left wing spaces, even temporarily reserving judgment pending further investigation is, in my experience, liable to invite verbal abuse for being an Israeli sympathizer. In many cases, such claims have been decisively proven to be false after the fact, with people who defended them descending into conspiratorial reasoning to justify their cognitive dissonance, if they don't simply ignore the evidence.
I agree the right has more penchant towards this type of insanity, but I disagree that they're the only ones. Such as the conspiracy theories about how if Trump was elected then trans people would be put into camps, or that Trump was extremely authoritarian. (That last one is significantly more justifiable now after Jan 6th, but before then not so much). Or the ideas that the right has a major percentage of white nationalists.
I do think the right has a general lower sanity, but a lot of their insanity has had the corners rounded off by decades/centuries of cultural change — much of their current insanity is in response to specific sorts of insanity on the left and various value belief differences being in the middle of all of that. (Note, I'm not trying to say that all the left has gone for is wrong, but the ways they've gone about it, the implementations, the culture around them, the force behind it, etc. are all very negative. And the right has these problems as well, in different areas)
That doesn't mean we should use concerns like "look at those crazy people, they don't realize they're actually crazy" to significantly decide whether or not to trust yourself, but I do think it should inform us about the trends that people fall into.
> That last one is significantly more justifiable now after Jan 6th, but before then not so much
I mean, if I say somebody's a pedo without any strong evidence, then it comes out that they rape kids, it makes me seem more aware, not less, no?
Trump's said that 2012 was a sham, and that both the 2016 primaries and 2016 general were rigged against him. If you take him at his word, it seems likely that he would conclude 2020 is rigged too (which he did, six months in advance), and if indeed the USA were to become like Belarus or Russia where the election results bear only a loose relationship to people's votes, a Jan 6-like insurrection would be moral and righteous. And, in fact, that's exactly what he advocated for - back in 2012 when Romney lost (https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034630820507648).
I agree it's not necessarily the case. But speaking as someone who was regularly willing to reject negative claims about Trump as hostile propaganda, I think that the argument that he was an authoritarian was always well-evidenced, and an unbiased observer could pick this up simply by paying a reasonable amount of attention, well before Jan 6.
Sure, if I'm not modeling reasons behind why people say things and treat them as black-boxes. Most people say statements because they are popular within their social groups, and with the rising amount of polarization it becomes harder and harder to trust what people say at face value because they don't have actual understanding — they use whatever distorted lens they've loosely assembled from social background. For the same reasons that I don't start trusting the right after they say X politician did Y bad thing and it turns out to be true this time.
I agree it provides evidence towards competency for the people who actually considered that evidence; rather than finding post-facto evidence to fit the bottom line of "my opponent is evil", but as usual that is hard to recognize as *people do it all the everloving time*. Part of the whole problem with politics.
The point here is that most people are, to put it in a very succinct but rather rude manner, crazy. To a far more minor level than people who read RRN, certainly,
As a more illustrative example: If you tell me about a guess about a technical topic that isn't politicized and I don't get your reasoning/intuition or accept the evidence you've scrounged up, then coming along a year later with a "this idea was true" then that does update me on your competency. If you told me specifically that someone was a pedo and then that comes out, that does update me on your ability to infer that sort of information. If you told me that you thought Donald Trump was authoritarian for X and Y reasons before he became a highly political target, then I'll trust that prediction more than the one made during the heights of the last eight years as there are less bad incentives. For the same reason you should distrust a corporation, as their incentives point in ways that are distortionary compared to the ideal, social movements like politics have those same problems.
(but of course, registering all predictions ahead of time is untenable and we have to live in a messy world! I'm not trying to rationalize every belief away, simply trying to explain my high level of background low degree of updating from politicized topics)
For politics a lot of that trust has to go out the window, while still not believing that everything is lies. It isn't, Trump is at minimum not remotely a good person, and whether or not he truly is authoritarian versus legitimately thinking he's being set against like you propose above, he is the kind of person who chose the first route of trying to distort the trust in elections, which is Bad.
I'll note that I'm not advocating radical uncertainty or even centrism, just an ambient amount of distrust paired with a spice of https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bounded-distrust and other ideas like that, of removing myself from environments that are epistemically unhealthy while still maintaining enough awareness to have a remotely decent understanding of how I want the world to improve.
I personally think the primary reason people were concerned about Trump's authoritarianism was his rhetoric, and in retrospect I think I personally underrated the importance of that rhetoric.
While some of his proposed policies were rather authoritarian (e.g. Muslim ban), he did, in fact, claim that all elections his side didn't win (and also those they did) were rigged, engage in conspiracism with e.g. the Birther stuff, and in general had an approach to politics which I think lead directly to Jan 6. Some people may have uncritically repeated it, but there's a reason it was said about him in particular versus Romney. (Maybe Romney actually got this stuff said about him? I don't remember much of any, though.)
Yeah, various elements of his behavior and policies were enough for me to consider him not a good person, and whilst he was a deviation from typical politician behavior, not a useful alteration. If it was just focusing on those aspects I'd be in agreement since they're more easily observable and indicative of future behavior. His rhetoric always sounded more nationalist & prideful to me, which is associated with authoritarian leanings, but is not the same thing.
While 'authoritarianism' can be a useful descriptor, it has been used as a verbal weapon for a while, similar to how the right uses 'communist', which is often a good reason to automatically distrust those usages. There's a natural tendency to go "they are in X bad group, thus I can by default despise everything they are", which I think is one of the US's cultural flaws, a tendency to stereotype to the closest category of people. This has been used to great (awful) effect by both the left and right, becoming even easier due to the internet. I think his rhetoric mostly painted him as nationalistic, prideful, not competent, but also different as a candidate, but it became easy to apply a specific label because if he was 'authoritarian' rather than 'outrageous / dishonest / against what I believe' then that produces a lot more paranoia and ability to justify stronger counter-rhetoric.
In part Trump didn't have the protection of being a halfway respected political figure like Romney, as well he simply came about during more polarized times. All of which helped him cultivate the image of 'being against the deepstate', an 'independent' offering with actual chances to win and shake the game up, utilizing existing distrust of politicians and the state by showing off how much they disliked him. And also he's himself, which fans the flames for rising tensions.
So I agree that there's more reason to call him authoritarian than Romney, I still think most usages of it were mostly in the "this is a popular way to say someone is bad" category. This pattern repeats itself a lot in politics, becoming increasingly common.
I think the increasing polarization did push him to further extremes, just as it did his following, feeding on each other, and then the left's reaction furthering the cycle. Unfortunately we as a society are not competent enough at politics to deescalate or entirely recognize the utility.
(I'm not completely happy with my comment here but it just kept growing longer whenever I came back to it and I'm barely awake by now)
> So I agree that there's more reason to call him authoritarian than Romney, I still think most usages of it were mostly in the "this is a popular way to say someone is bad" category.
I think most uses of even something as bland as "the Earth is round" are not based on any deep reasoning about why it is. Regurgitation of received knowledge dominates over personally analyzed data, but it doesn't mean received knowledge is wrong or stupid.
>and if indeed the USA were to become like Belarus or Russia where the election >results bear only a loose relationship to people's votes, a Jan 6-like insurrection
>would be moral and righteous.
It would still be a major violation of American democratic norms.
When I talk about this to people I give a couple of examples:
When Lyndon Johnson first ran for the senate in 1941 he was cheated out of a senate seat by straightforward electoral fraud. Johnson did not kick up a fuss - he just decided to get better at cheating. In 1948 he cheated very skillfully in the primaries to become the Democratic nominee, and in those days the Democratic nominee was pretty much guaranteed a win in Texas.
When Richard Nixon first ran for president in 1960 many people, including Nixon, thought that he had cheated out of the presidency. (Whether he was or not is not nearly as clear as in the LBJ senate examples.) But Nixon did not kick up a fuss, he simply resolved to get better at cheating. Since old fashioned ballot box stuffing was more of a Democratic norm than a Republican one in those days- he chose more devious means.
I do not think there was enough electoral fraud in 2020 to have cheated Trump out of a second term, but I think it is irrelevant. The stupid January 6 thing would have been wrong and a serious violation of American democratic norms even if Trump had lost because of massive fraud. Trump should have graciously conceded and then spent the next few years learning how to cheat better.
I think there's a difference between the endemic corruption of historical elections and "democratic backsliding," for lack of a better term. While in the 40s or 60s, you could win by "cheating better," a country like Russia or Belarus is not vulnerable to the opposition "cheating better." I suppose it depends on whether we're meant to take Trump's fictitious election stealing as merely 1960s-style or instead be something more like a Maduro. Given his constant whining about being prosecuted for trying to coup the government, I feel like the vibe is meant to be an American Maduro, though.
Hmm. I think there are a lot of left wing conspiratorial viewpoints, and I say this as a pretty diehard liberal. Ibram X. Kendi and Noam Chomsky both have comprehensive worldviews, with substantial followerships, that could be described (in some ways) as delusional alternative realities.
"in some ways" is doing a lot of work there. I don't think anything Chomsky ever said can approach the paranoid schizophrenia of "everybody involved has been secretly executed and is being played by a clone/actor". This is really a difference in kind.
Fair, I can't argue against that. Though maybe the hidden variable is what percentage of readers/fans take each respective worldview at face value. This book review suggests that some meaningful percentage of RRN readers are "in on the joke". That makes this whole analysis kind of confusing.
All corporations price gouge all the time. That's what they're set up to do. If you're an officer in a public company, you have a fiduciary obligation to price gouge. By raising prices, you maximise profits, and that's the only thing a company is capable of caring about.
You either have a different definition of price gouging from the type that Biden was catering to or you're one of them, I can't tell which based on that response. You know, the type that unironically uses the term "late stage capitalism" and throws around "neoliberal" as a slur.
Biden and I have the same definition, though he may believe it. It's you who might not.
Namely, that the recent price increases (inflation) is due to corpos arbitrary "price gouging", as if corporations were less greedy 20 years ago and suddenly became greedy around Covid.
I'm curious, and I say this here because you aren't responding to the replies to your above post: how do you square the circle when you admit that the "Neonazis are fine people" clip was creatively edited and also say that it's Trump's fault? Do you believe that sufficiently skilled oratory can prevent people from creatively editing your comments or taking them out of context? Do you believe that it's so difficult to do that it can only happen to someone if they're particularly bad at speaking?
Do we? Biden's whole point was that corporations are greedy and charging more because they can. Which I completely agree with. What I disagree with is the implication that this has ever not been the case. Greed is to economics what gravity is to orbital dynamics.
>What I disagree with is the implication that this has ever not been the case. Greed is to economics what gravity is to orbital dynamics.
You're getting at what I mean. At the surface level, sure many economists might agree with "corporate price gouging/greed" in the sense that Adam Smith said "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." But the leftist use of the term comes packaged with other components, eg the part you disagree with, complete ignorance or denial of price serving as a signal to attract investment, and support for price controls.
As I've mentioned in other threads, I don't closely follow US politics and media, so I'm not really aware of the narratives being shaped there. But I did keep up with the investigations surrounding the Mueller report at the time. And I'm astonished (not for the first time) to hear people, mostly Americans, refer to Russiagate as "outright false".
This term can mean many different things, possibly including some far-fetched conspiracy theories I'm not familiar with. However, there is a version of Russiagate (pretty horrific and shocking by my standards) that is absolutely true - the version outlined in the Mueller report.
Yeah, I see this, and I agree that that is a considerable list of things that anti-Trump people have believed that are wrong or distorted. I dunno, though. These seem to be much more opinions than these literaly institutions of alternative facts that the right has created, with its Fox News and that radio guy... Alex Jones. Jones, Q, this guy in the review: they're constructing whole universes of alternative facts. That doesn't seem to be the same category of thing as "blank slatism".
This comment is especially striking because you have, in a nine-item list, managed to make literally zero statements that are (or even can be) outright false. Six of them aren't grammatical sentences at all, lacking a verb. One is in the imperative mood: it doesn't describe a state of reality. Of the other two, one is a normative claim (it can't be true or false) and the other is a claim about future events (which can be proven true or false eventually, but not now).
Somebody doing one's best to interpret what you *mean* instead of what you say could map most of these to quite a wide range of different factual beliefs. Of those, I'm not convinced that ANY of them are both outright false AND even somewhat common. This sort of vagueness is a massive red flag for a motte-and-bailey argument: the motte is the common-but-largely-true interpretation of a given "belief" and the bailey is the uncommon-but-fringe interpretation.
In order
1. Many beliefs could be pointed to with the one-word summary "Russiagate" from the most banal "Trump and his staff were thoroughly investigated for connections to Russia" to the most extreme "Putin called many of the shots in the Trump white house."
2. Without saying what you believe the dangers are, there's no possible way to gauge how many people "overestimated" them on any part of the political spectrum. My guess is that if asked a question about, e.g. the COVID death rate, most center-left people would simply google the question and give the default answer as their original best-guess (with varying degrees of confidence). Do you believe that's produces a substantially wrong answer?
3. Again, there are a very wide range of possible beliefs regarding gendered differences in pay. Most of the serious discussion around the topic focuses on *why* there is a gap in average remuneration. Certainly a wide range of false beliefs are possible here, but that's in large part because it's such a complex question with so many different moving parts. Without pointing towards a *specific* complex of beliefs, it's impossible to gauge how close anyone is to reality.
4. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, "blank slatism" could mean many different things. Some are obviously wrong, others are various degrees of reasonable. But also I'd guess that the most common beliefs on the center and left can't even really be described as "blank slatism" for all that they're sometimes mistaken as such. It's possible to believe the slate isn't blank without endorsing all specific claims of what's written on it.
5. This one at least easily steelmans to a reasonable statement. If you'd said "the average left of center person believes that police shootings of unarmed African Americans are more common than they are in fact" I'd agree that that is probably true. Though "lots of people get this one specific crime statistic wrong" isn't really a big headline.
6. I could sort of steelman this one to a reasonable statement too, though given that many people on the right believe that anthropogenic climate change literally isn't happening I'm not at all sure such a steelman would accurately reflect your views. I've seen plenty of unreasonable takes regarding AGW on the left, but the worst I've seen are still closer to the truth than the median opinion on the right. Also a lot of the worst takes on the left are about future events, which makes their true-false value less clear.
7. As mentioned above, this one is about a future event: it can't be demonstrated as true or false yet. It also depends on a term, "genocide," whose meaning seems to vary a lot from person to person. The historical frequency of American presidents committing something that could be interpreted as "genocide" is high enough that I wouldn't conclusively rule it out of *any* U.S. President until they're reliably out of power. For Trump specifically, I wouldn't bet at even odds on this one, but I'd certainly bet at 20:1 odds for at least some definitions of "genocide" and "commit."
8. As noted above, this is an imperative statement, not an indicative one. It's a call to action and can't be true or false. Even as a call to action it is quite vague: the phrase is understood in very different ways by different people.
9. As a normative sentence this (again) can't actually be true or false. There are factual statements that go into forming this judgment that can be true or false, but their number and variety is staggering. You have to actually point to some of them before this could be even charitably evaluated as describing a false set of beliefs.
Having gone through the list I'll end by noting that even in the most charitable readings, this seems like and Apples-to-Aardvarks comparison to me. Having a wrong number in one's head for a particular crime stat, or an overestimation of the plausible worst case scenario for AGW is a just...vastly different order of error than believing that Trump runs a shadow government that's executing his opponents, or even than much more mainstream beliefs like the various flavours of antivax stuff[1] or the claims that Trump himself was pushing about the 2020 election. I could certainly find comparably wacky stuff on the left, but the sense I get is that I'd have to look much harder and that it would be confined to MUCH smaller groups of people. To be clear, I don't think either the modern center or left is especially epistemically virtuous or in-tune with reality: I see lots of common, avoidable mistakes. But last decade or so has seemingly seen large swathes of the right throw any attempt at sound epistemology out the window, and embrace nonsense on a genuinely alarming scale.
[1] Which is certainly NOT confined to the right. But around the COVID vaccines specifically, it seems to have blown up on the right to a degree that's utterly unmatched on the left.
I'm interested to know what you thought of Joe Biden's cognitive state in May. Two months ago, in May of 2024, there seem to have been two competing narratives: that Joe Biden was cognitively fine, unimpaired and capable of running for President; and, alternatively, that he was too cognitively impaired to run. At that time, which did you believe?
We already know the answer to that. In other thread, he was asked about the "fine people" thing and he coped hard through that.
LesHapaBlap just brought up another 10 things. And we know what his cope will be on all those, too.
There's nothing to see here. Everyone who agrees with him is sane, rational, intelligent. Everyone who disagrees is crazy, whackjob, conspiracy-theorist. It's the program.
It's hard breaking out of a "program". Getting yelled at by people you're sure are crazy conspiracy theorists doesn't help.
What does help is noticing when trusted authorities tell inconsistent stories. So I'm genuinely interested in his experience of the Joe Biden situation over the last few months.
Hey, maybe I'm the one who's caught in a propaganda echo chamber, and he'll be able to help break me out of it!
Bro, the review that we're all commenting on here is literally a website full of right wing political fiction that the reviewer notes receives thousands of comments from people who apparently believe the fiction is true.
And I'm "programmed" for noticing this and thinking its whackjob?
> Centrists and lefties just don't do this thing of believing a total alternative reality consistently.
They do. More consistently and more broadly. This website is fringe.
"Thousands of comments" means nothing to me. What percentage of people who witness this website think it's literally true? What percentage make joke comments on the website saying they believe it's literally true, but for them it's part of the running gag?
I understand you think your outgroup are insane and stupid. I'm here to tell you, unfortunately, you're wrong. Your outgroup is just as sophisticated as your ingroup.
Sorry, I'm not American and don't live in the USA, so even though I know the issues, I don't really remember the exact timings of the different events. May... do you mean after the debate? I mean, the debate seemed to show pretty clearly that he wasn't up to the job.
But I'll stress again, it's important to distinguish between *my* views and the views created by institutions. Like, if you're more right wing than I am, I don't think you necessarily believed the whole Qanon thing. But lots and lots of people did. And the Qanon pathway now seems to have become a grooved, institutionalised way to generate money and influence on the right. I personally trace it back to Swiftboat in... what 2004? At that point, it was discovered by the right that if you make up a big crazy lie and just keep yelling it, you can win! And so they've been doing that ever since.
Obama Truthers, Alex Jones, Qanon, this Raw News... there's just this parade of fantasists that exist as an important part of the right, that I don't thing has any equivalent on the left. It's not about them just being wrong. They make up fiction, and convert it into real money and/or influence.
I'm interested in whether, before the debate, while it was an issue being actively debated, you believed the US institutions which were saying that Biden was entirely fit to run for President. Many people in the US seem to have had the experience of believing trusted journalistic institutions that assured them of Biden's cognitive abilities, and then feeling very betrayed and disillusioned by his debate performance.
It seems like somebody who'd had that experience wouldn't claim that mass institutional dishonesty only exists on the right wing. So I'm interested in what your experience of that issue actually was.
There were a ton of center-left types who bought completely into the Russiagate thing, had Robert Mueller votive candles, followed every breaking news chyron on MSNBC as the web was ever tightening around Trump, and bought completely into this fantasy of international intrigue for years. If, after it became obvious that it was nonsense, these people had come out and said "well, I trusted the news was legit, because typically they have been, but now I realize they were creating a fake reality to keep me watching, and I've discounted the sources that went along with it," then I could accept them as having been understandably duped given their biases. Happens to the best of us. But instead they just doubled down, or memory holed the entire affair, and continue to act as if the discredited infotainment sources are real.
At best, one might say that cable news and WaPo are like pro wrestling. The viewers know it's fake when the nightly host is talking about something with a partisan narrative, but when the guy doing the noon hour says there's an earthquake in Bolivia or a building collapse in Chicago, you know it's not entertainment anymore. MAYBE their viewers are that sharp, to compartmentalize it like that. But when the exact same distinction was drawn about Tucker Carlson, to suggest that people did not watch him as presenting "hard news", nobody extended that charity to Fox viewers. Maddow's audience probably contains more BAs in it, but I don't think that made 'em any smarter.
High IQ people are more prone to nutjob conspiracies than low-IQ people.
I was watching an interview Andrew Gold was doing with someone on this subject. It was really interesting... because Andrew said something (AFTER knowing the prior fact) like:
"And so all these low-IQ people will--" And the interviewee interrupted him: "High IQ."
And Gold just sort of paused and then had to have the concept re-explained to him. Like I'm about to do. It's HIGH-IQ people that have weird nutjob conspiracy beliefs, and can maintain that alternate reality bubble.
I do not doubt Rachel Maddow has more high-IQ followers to espouse her nutjob conspiracy theories to. I'd be similarly unsurprised to find out Alex Jones watchers are above-average IQ.
It's one of those things when I heard helped me simplify my confusion by being around extremely smart people who held dumb beliefs. The evidence is... uh... me looking around at a few thousand brilliant people who believed obvious conspiracies.
I mean unquestionably smart people who believed unquestionably dumb conspiracies, like the ones that have been outlined in these threads numerous times.
If you mean are there papers or whatever, I'm not sure. I didn't bother looking since it's just obvious (to me). I'd be surprised to find out it's false, and I'd have to try to come up with some other theory to explain what I've witnessed among my peers.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole, the interview I'm talking about was here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxqYRNv24h4 - I was unable to find where in the interview the exchange I'm talking about happened, but this is the interview. If you watch it, or are able to search the captions, you will find it.
If you are put off by the title, it's clickbait. They mean "Woke People are Mutants (and Traitors)" both in the clinical sense of the words. As in they have mutations that explain their behaviour and that they perform a useful (or not) societal function of welcoming outsiders. They also make the claim that woke people are high-IQ, which they also mean in the clinical sense. Not that they're the people on the right side of the issues, but only that they have IQs that are higher than average.
It doesn't look like he's talking about conspiracism, but specifically that conformism is more common among high-IQ individuals? I tried googling studies that compare IQ to conspiracy theories and couldn't find anything, though my recollection is the correlation is minimal-to-nonexistent because it's more cognitive styles than IQ per se.
This does not pass the smell test and I doubt there's any correlation between IQ and conspiracy thinking. And of course my lazy search for evidence turned up nothing.
Yeah, Russiagate was an interesting example. And if you know lots of people who continue to believe that Trump was literally bribed by Russians, then I agree, they would kinda count as fiction consumers in the same way as the readers of Raw News. I just... don't see the numbers. And I also don't see big websites set up with ongoing epics of Trump being Putin's bitch, presented as reality and apparently believed.
Like, yes, that was a dodgy story. But no, there are no cargo cults of lefties who go around muttering about Trump and Russia, and screaming about it on talk radio. For example, Trump is campaigning for president again now, and in the news sources I read, I haven't seen any mention of Russia in connection to him so far. That is, having got it wrong one time, my news sources seem to have accepted reality. FWIW my main newspapers are the Guardian and the Economist.
The leftists there (of which there were many) seemed to me about 95%+ bought into the Russia Collusion conspiracy. Obviously I would have to make some assumptions, but these were actual real people I interacted with in real life. I do have my own fantasy that many loud proponents of the Russia Collusion were in fact going home and complaining privately how they have to pretend, because these were otherwise decent people and it was sad to me to have to witness it.
I was in the epicentre of the awfulness, so maybe out in the Real World, red states, away from hard blue cities or whatever, the percentage was lower?
But to claim it was anything less than 50% of left-coded people (center, hard, or any other degree) who completely bought into the conspiracy would definitely leave me thinking there was a mistake in the methodology that brought you to that conclusion.
> there are no cargo cults of lefties who go around muttering about Trump and Russia, and screaming about it on talk radio
...Rachel... Maddow...is a name you might want to familiarise yourself with. And if you don't like that name for whatever reason, just pick any other name from MSNBC or CNN. There were entire television networks and newspapers that ran for YEARS on this... and ran around muttering about Trump and Russia.
They would still be doing it today if it hadn't fallen out of fashion for whatever the next conspiracy was to be.
I searched through the titles of the top 400 videos on that page, and none of them link Trump to Russia.
This is a lovely example of exactly what I mean. These mainstream/leftie news shows aren't harping on and on about some old conspiracy.
You can dislike or disagree with Maddow. But she's not doing the same kind of making-stuff-up as this Raw News site. Nor is she just making up fantasy facts. These things are qualitatively different.
Russiagate is completely mainstream. Being generous, some few thousands of people might believe RRN, which is a fraction of a drop in the bucket of some 330 hundred million people. I have no doubt that a supermajority of Democrats believe that Trump was actively colluding with Putin.
I don't know, to me "the deadly insurrection" narrative lies beyond QAnon and well into the RealRawNews territory. And of course it's entirely mainstream, not a bunch of fringe lunatics.
I mean, it doesn't pass the most basic smell test. How was it "deadly" if the only people who died were "insurrectionists"? Was it the first unarmed insurrection in history? What could it possibly achieve? Why was Trump tweeting at the "insurrectionists" to respect the Capitol police and to go home peacefully?
The weirdest thing about it is that it's impossible to tell if people really believe this nonsense or just maintain the kayfabe for political reasons. Reminds me of another, also relevant, mass delusion: in the early months of Covid, as there was a shortage of PPE, the official position of the WHO and all downstream organizations was that masks don't work, you don't need a mask unless you're a doctor or caring for an infected person. I would ask people, if masks don't work, why doctors need them? It's because masks were useless without special training. But then what about the people who didn't receive the training but were caring for the infected? Some other nonsense. Then, look, it's frustrating, we both understand that it's about shortages, but masks actually work, why do you have to lie? No-no, I honestly believe that they don't work and if you don't then you're an evil person. Insane.
One is a popular insanity and the other is an unpopular insanity.
Besides, the popular one has a whole lot of theology behind it, etc.
For example: I wouldn't consider someone insane if they believed that Mohammed flew through the heavens on a unicorn, would you? Heck, in some countries *disbelieving* that is a surefire sign of legal insanity (if you're lucky).
Truly believing that some single site on the internet is telling you and other lonely idiots the truth about major events supposedly going on all around you though is a whole lot crazier than believing that someone can turn lead into gold or whatever is the popular reigning silliness.
Even if you haven't read that far back (or don't remember) even the most modest effort to interrogate what your political opponents actually believe would show how much this is complete and utter nonsense. Let me lay out the problem clearly and concisely.
The "belief" you are criticizing is not a factual question on either side.
When somebody on the left says "trans women are women" and you say "no, they're clearly men" there is NO point of factual reality that you are disagreeing on. None. There is no experimental test that would come out differently in your world vs theirs. The ENTIRE disagreement is normative, not factual. They are saying "this definition of 'woman' is the one we should use" and you are saying "no, this other definition of 'woman' is the one we should use. When facts get brought into such a disagreement AT ALL (which is exceedingly rare) I tend to find the people promoting the bio-essentiaist definitions (plural, because they are often varied and inconsistent) are much more likely to be badly wrong. Of course, that could be my own bias.
Regardless, framing this normative difference as your political opponents being wrong on a question of fact is either extremely ignorant or extremely disingenuous.
> .. lefties just don't do this thing of believing a total alternative reality consistently
Not so. Many "lefties" consistently believe that evil fat-cat cigar chomping capitalists are out to oppress them in various nefarious ways, whereas in truth the vast majority of capitalists are as insecure and innocuous as anyone else, but just smarter or luckier than most or more energetic and determined.
You realise those things aren't mutually exclusive, right? Capitalists are just like everyone else, but if everyone else is nefarious, then that makes capitalists pretty nefarious, too.
Anyway, I take your point, but having a prejudiced view of some bunch of others is not the same as the wholesale negation of reality that goes on in right wing media. War on Christmas. Sandy Hook never happened. Etc. These things are of a different quality.
Putting the “war on Christmas” in the same bin as “sandy hook never happened “ undermines your point. Believing mainstream culture marginalizes the Christian character of Christmas may be wrong in the way a typical political opinion can be wrong, but it’s definitely not a factually incorrect hallucination, any more than the “war on women” is or war on whatever thing or group is being touted in political propaganda today.
Yeah, maybe. I definitely think you're right that it's useful to distinguish clearly between political opinion and made-up-stuff. I included the war on Christmas because back in the day (the heyday of the war was 10 years ago now, I think), I remember digging into some of the "news" stories that constituted this "marginalisation", and found that all of them included some level of falsehood. (For example, every time there was a claim that X city council had "banned" saying Merry Christmas, it turned out not to be true.) It isn't a "big lie" story, but it feels like a story that consisted of nothing but lots and lots of little lies.
But yeah, it may still be a different thing, I dunno.
Even conceding this, how much would it actually matter? 99% or errors (in politics, probably other realms) are the result of selection bias rather than factual inaccuracy. One can probably even be a communist or a nazi without believing an obvious factual error. Ideologies mostly follow from more abstract beliefs. Why should I hold, say, communism in higher esteem than the belief that 9/11 was an inside job? As far as I can tell the former is far more dangerous.
Probably an unusual take, but I would say the marginal returns to factuality are pretty low. If y is the product of 100 variables, each equal to 1 or -1. A person who on average estimates 97/100 variables correctly gets y wrong about as often as someone who gets 50/100 right. I think that’s not a terrible analogy for many important public policy questions. Getting a few parameters wrong leads can lead you to enormous errors. And ideological filters make it nearly impossible for most people to get some parameters right. The idea that people being more informed about the dates and events and such would make a big difference assumes that political questions are mostly medium-difficulty problems at worst, which I don’t believe.
And now that you say it, it's clearly not all falsehood that is irritating me. The recent rise in flat-earthers isn't making me worry about science.
Perhaps it has something to do with intitutionalisation (it looks from here as though the Republican Party is increasingly unfit for service); or with the particularly punitive nature of many of these lies; or maybe it's nothing more than these lies seeming more salient because I'm politically opposed to them.
But if it's not the pursuit of truth that enables a person to generate decent policy, then, what is it? Principles? Which ones? Perhaps what I should be more worried about is the lack of humanity in these particular lies - the problem with Raw Real News, for example, may not be in the lying about executions, but in the glorying in them.
Ever hear of "dialectical materialism"? It's an alternative reality, falsified by actual evidence, believed by many lefties to this day.
"Critical Race Theory" and "Intersectionality" are alternative realities, widely embraced by respected institutions. And yet they make predictions about the world that are wholly falsified by actual data, and often make unfalsifiable claims. Again, alternative realities.
Lefties are certainly prone to belief in alternative realities; it's just that those are not so obviously demented as Real Raw News, and they have the support of respected institutions and people within our society.
You must know much more reasonable lefties than me. The ones I know eagerly seize on any negative story about (for instance) Trump, Elon Musk, or J.K. Rowling, and treat any attempt to push back or wait for further evidence as suspicious evidence of your possible fascist sympathies. Consider the persistence of the "Elon Musk owes his fortune to apartheid diamond mines" factoid despite years of debunkings. Is this *as bad* as RRN? No. But is it *along the same continuum*? Yes, I believe so.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are not one of those people whose preferred way of making a living is being lost? I have a family member who is a cattle rancher in Texas. He can't make a living at it anymore, and he's very angry about it. He's college educated, not at all stupid, and is willing to admit to me that, probably, no one can fix this anymore. But psychologically he needs an outlet for his anger, and that takes the form of stories that he and his buddies share over beer and pizza. Those stories have to come from somewhere, and generally it's right wing media. He and everyone he knows are very receptive to the idea that global warming isn't real, black people are selfish and lazy, and democrats are evil. Because that makes more sense to him than the idea that his lifestyle was made obsolete by large scale forces that no one is really able to explain to him.
I am put in mind of things like Time Cube, Empress Theresa, The Story of the Vivian Girls, TempleOS, pterosaur heresies and the gyre theory. As well as less savory things you come across when you frequent imageboards, like that one post detailing the color, taste and consistency of number two from every Touhou boss. All incredibly in-depth, none quite in lockstep with conventional reality, made by latter-day auteurs with a singular drive to create a thing and no considerations about whether that thing should be created.
I can't blame them. Who hasn't felt the urge to bring something new into the world? To show everyone your view on How Things Work, and to be celebrated for it? To make a hat where there never was one? We all have a little of the RRN believer in us, but we also have a little of Baxter too.
Monument Mythos: Trump Edition may be unsettling in its gratuitous violence, and in how it comforts so many people across the world. But if you consider it as a work of fiction, I think we're richer for it. The issue is that neither the author nor readers do.
Time Cube guy was angry that scientists wouldn't accept the Time Cube. This person is instead producing vast amounts of fan fiction without any apparent concern about whether people outside his self-created bubble believe it.
I had the exact same thought about Q-anon in late 2020. This is a totally anesthetizing conspiracy theory that the Deep State itself should have invented. Then a bunch of Q people did January 6. No, January 6 wasn't five 9/11's or whatever, but it was seriously destructive and messed up. It was also unusual insofar as it was middle class/middle aged conservatives doing riots rather than the usual lumpenproles and malcontents. So as much as I would like to think Real Raw News is just keeping crazies on their screens and away from trouble . . .
This is all fun and games until some soldier who reads this is deployed to a disaster site and encounters FEMA.
No, it wasn't. Compare the "destruction" to any other "riot"; rioters usually don't just wander around without touching anything. For Chrissake, what was the total damage — one officer attacked, one knocked down, a bike rack pushed over, and a window broken? More damage was done to the "rioters" than anything else.
In light of recent events (see, for instance, Scott's recent post) and the revelation that egging on the assassination of public figures is bad, actually, a question:
Should this website be taken down and the author banned from the public square?
For myself, I feel like that's an infringement above and beyond what the limits of free speech dictate. But I'm also struggling to see how it differs from one half of a comedy music act saying "next time, don't miss".
Edit: except maybe that it says it over and over again.
There's a difference between advocating that a government execute people and advocating that vigilantes murder people. As Scott said, "be nice, at least until you can co-ordinate meanness".
It is, however, framing extrajudicial executions and civil war as legitimate. Not very many logical dominoes between that and "it's okay if you, the reader, also start doing this stuff."
However, my gut reaction here is that kooks should be allowed more leeway to say heinous things than public figures. So I'm inclined to give this a pass but for the fact that it seems more well-known than mere kookery would suggest.
From a legal and moral standpoint, I'd say if it were labeled fiction it'd fall in the "technically first amendment protected speech, but worrisome, maybe investigate further" category... but presented as factual claims, all those specific named celebrities and military officers probably have standing to sue for libel over the various heinous crimes he's alleging their dramatic involvement in. Doing so might be strategically unwise in terms of expense and Streisand Effect and such, but it wouldn't be fundamentally unjust to make the attempt.
I thought so too, but an easy way to check your intuition is to flip the tables and see how that plays.
So imagine an identified American left writer writing a three-part screed where Trump is pulled from his home at night, taken to the mountains and put on trial by a paramilitary kangaroo court composed of, like, antifa social justice vigilantes or something. The author has him act out in the most humiliating way possible - crying, soiling himself and gibbering incoherently. Then the author lovingly describes his last, desperate moments as the executioner's bullet pierces his skull. That certainly sounds like incitement.
That's a completely false equivalency. Neither of those things is illegal or should be illegal (at least in the US). Kyle Gass hasn't faced any legal ramifications from what he said (at least not in the US). He's perfectly free to start his own wordpress site and make that joke all day long. Public figures and entertainers have always had to face the consequences of saying something the general public finds repulsive. In a sense RRN is already facing those consequences, if Micheal Baxter is a real person and he decided he wanted to become a famous musician he would almost certainly be blackballed by all the major agencies/venue/etc. once they found out about RRN.
Russiagate is not the left wing version of QAnon, as much as the right tries to pretend this. “Russiagate” is not a conspiracy theory at all, it’s the shockingly banal belief that Russia spends a lot of money trying to buy influence from US and European politicians (including a lot of left wing politicians in Europe), and uses social media to spread Russian propaganda. In 2016 Russia devoted a lot of effort to promoting Trump’s candidacy because they see him as a chaos agent who will damage America internally, weaken America’s influence in the world and stop providing almost unconditional support to the EU against Russia. There may be a few fringe leftists who believe that Trump is an actual Russian agent, but for most of us the knock on Trump is that he is happy to take Russia’s side on most foreign policy issues, and happy to take assistance from anti-American intelligence agencies as long as their messaging helps Trump. As with most things Trump it’s more kind of gross and banal rather than Hitler/Bond evil villain.
I'm just going to chime in to note that, even as I personally have come to suspect that the left wing actually *is* about as susceptible to hostile propaganda as the right wing is, I also think that the evidence bears out this position, both that it's most likely true in reality and that it reflects what the modal person on the left actually believes.
IDK, back in the day there were plenty of corners of the internet where you could find people who believed in a 'stong' version of Russiagate where Trump was being overtly blackmailed by Putin (the most salacious things in the Steele dossier, etc.) or that Russia did 'election interference' in a more direct way than social engineering via Facebook.
The issue is that the version, which never had much to stand on, is used to refute the 'weak' version which you describe above and is probably pretty accurate.
You can draw the analogy to RNN being the 'strong' version of Russiagate and the belief that most career USG professionals don't agree with Republican/right-wing policies and are therefore less effective/cooperative at implementing them as the 'weak'* version.
To me, the distinction is more in magnitude as well as action. The 'strong' Russiagate folks never did a Jan 6; they just upvoted a lot of posts in r/themueller or whatever.
*The delusion that this is why Trump wasn't able to get things done in his first term, as opposed to Trump and his admin's own inefficacy, is a separate issue. Govies I encounter are interested in not having to learn new processes and advancing their careers, not imposing some grand ideology on the country. These are wage workers, not zealots.
Yeah, "russiagate was never about Trump doing Russia's bidding" is some real motte-and-bailey bullshit. I still encounter people who say that Trump is doing Putin's bidding today.
I mean, Trump definitely does things that Putin wants. I think you'd be hard pressed to identify ways that Trump would have/would be acting differently if he were actually on Putin's payroll.
But I don't think it's a thing where Putin calls him up and tells him what to do. It's just a combination of Trump's general admiration of strong men, his skepticism of NATO, and Trump's experience that doing things that Putin likes will lead to benefits for Trump.
Trump was begging Germany not to be dependent on Russian gas. Trump went out of his way to try to stop Nordstream when he could've done nothing. Trump was telling Germany to spend more money on their military so they'd have more material.
"We're dependent on their gas" and "we don't have enough defense material of our own" have been the #1 and #2 problems for Germany.
If Germany had listened to Trump they'd have been way better prepared to defend Ukraine. This is actual real-world shit and tens of thousands more Ukrainians would be alive today, not vibes.
I don't blame you for not knowing this (despite being the easiest thing in the world to look up) and thinking that Trump just did whatever Putin wanted. It's all you've been told. Read some non-US media that hasn't suffered from TDS.
I'm aware of Germany's utter failure on the energy front (across multiple administrations!) and how its contributed to Ukraine's suffering. Interestingly, yelling at Germany about this is one issue where Trump didn't break with the bipartisan international policy consensus. Maybe he wanted to but was undermined by the Deep State. ;-)
Speaking as a person who fully believed the Steele dossier when it was first reported on, I would like to claim, in my own defense and that of my friends, we eventually self-corrected as new information came out.
*That's* the standard of rational thinking. Not never making a mistake or never believing in something false, but being willing to admit that you might be wrong.
The idea of trump being a Russian puppet rather than merely an opportunist was never a fringe position. He faced an impeachment over a bullshit dossier on the subject. Very mainstream.
The Steele dossier includes the ‘fringe’ allegations of golden shower kompromat and trump being cultivated by the kremlin for years. These allegations were all investigated seriously during his impeachment. Not fringe ideas.
You have moved the goalposts. Your original comment said that he was impeached over the dossier. Now you are saying that it was one part of a larger investigation. I repeat that Donald Trump was impeached as a result of the fact that he very clearly withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for their cooperation in trying to paint Biden as corrupt.
Okay. I concede the formal impeachment charges were started due to the Ukraine corruption charge. But you still have not given any reason why the charges investigated in the dossier as part of the impeachment should be dismissed as fringe.
I never made a claim that they were fringe, I was correcting you on a factual matter. Ultimately the reason Trump was impeached had nothing to do with the dossier (even if there were some closed door hearings looking into the salacious claims made within).
That was not the narrative at all. Remember, the key phrase was Russia *collusion*. That means Trump was actively working with Russian agents, or maybe a Russian agent himself. It was also an actual conspiracy among FBI personnel to knowingly use false information to get warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, and then leak to the press. Russiagate was never about a few Facebook ads, it was about lying to paint Trump as an actual traitor.
This is how the leftist versions of this Real Raw News thing go down. They get published in NYT or Washington Post or whatever. They get covered on dozens of the largest media network shows. They talk about it nonstop for months or years (?!).
Then when it finally comes out that it was all just LEFT RAW NEWS, they say well no, it was only this one little legal proceeding on a random Thursday. None of us ever believed any of that shit that we spent three years blasting.
This Real Raw News website is just a parody of mainstream news, swapping out the ridiculouslness.
I feel like you're proving OP's first sentence if "Left Raw News" is "Putin's blackmailing Trump with a pee tape" and RRN is "There is a literal civil war happening in the US, and multiple public figures and political leaders have been executed at GITMO".
Those two things are just, like, not even in the same ball park.
Just left out a "didn't." There were a few fringe leftists who DIDN'T believe the Trump Russia Collusion story. The vast majority of anyone left of centre believed every single story CNN and NYT (etc, there were thousands of media sources) published.
I was in the epicentre of leftism for the past 15 years. It was painful listening to regular people say the most obviously stupid things, and you couldn't say anything or they'd think you support Trump.
I get it though. Trump is pretty unlikable so people were willing to believe anything and everything to justify their gut hatred of him.
You're pulling a motte and bailey to defend Russiagate. The only reason Russiagate was an eye-catching allegation, with a multi-year investigation and all sorts of people worked up about it, was because of the allegation that Trump either was a Russian agent, was 'compromised' by them, or colluded with them during the election. That version was a total fabrication and looney conspiracy theory, but that is what the people watching MSNBC every night and praying to Robert Mueller to save them actually believed, not the restrained careful version you're presenting. Your view is closer to e.g. Jonah Goldberg and other anti-Trump conservatives with a hawkish foreign policy. But that version wasn't getting clicks and eyeballs, what grabbed attention was "George Papadopalous seen in bed at Kremlin peeing on Trump while high-fiving Putin, sources say".
And in fact it was not, in my experience, the actual leftists who fell for this in the greatest numbers. It was center-left normie Dems, school teachers and office workers and other such middle-class professional/managerial types.
You may be in a bit of a social bubble. "Trump is a Russian agent" is so not fringe. Rachel Maddow massively advanced her career by strongly implying this all day every day for years.
You should see my Facebook feed.
It's an absolutely normal belief among Democrat-leaning Americans.
I seem to remember something about a piss video being used to blackmail Trump into doing Russia's bidding and other such nonsense. What you outline is the revised version when it turned out the wilder claims were garbage.
It's weird to me that when Russiagate comes up, no one brings up the fact that three people working for the Trump campaign were arrested for colluding with Russia, or at least lying about it. I understand dismissing the Steele Dossier as loony, and making a big deal out of democrats believing it. But like...there WAS collusion and people were arrested for it.
Also wrong, no one in the Trump admin was ever charged with collusion. Paul Manafort was tax evasion and fraud in Ukraine, Roger Stone was lying to Congress (hah) and witness tampering, Michael Cohen was campaign finance in the now well known hush money case (among a whole lot of other things unrelated to his work for Trump), George Papadopoulos was lying to the FBI, (this statute favors the FBI to a ridiculous degree and you should never ever talk to them without a lawyer present), and Michael Flynn was lying to the FBI (again).
Manafort worked with the Russia-aligned Ukraine party that was ousted by the EU-aligned party in the Maidan coup. Papadopoulos apparently told a diplomat in a bar that the Russians might have dirt on the Clintons, then lied about knowing any Russians. Michael Flynn asked the Russian ambassador to the US not to retaliate for sanctions the outgoing Obama admin had just imposed and to vote against a UN resolution condemning Israel, then lied about it. None of this is anything close to collusion.
For what it’s worth (and I know it's not much), I think your take here is misleading. You're downplaying the significance of the actions of all the people involved and trivializing the seriousness of their offenses.
And more importantly, you're missing the broader context of these details: while it’s true that explicit collusion wasn’t proven, that’s almost beside the point given the clear and substantial links between much of Trump’s inner circle and Russian interests, as well as the staggering amount of obstruction, lies, and tampering done by nearly everyone involved in the investigation.
First off, such massive obstruction should, at the very least, politically taint the campaign and the candidate beyond redemption. Naively, I also expected it to lead to a significant legal backlash, but that was before realizing that American politicians are simply above the law (ironic, considering USA's origin story).
Secondly, and most importantly, I find it hard to believe that anyone unbiased could look at all the proven Russian links, deliberate obstructions, and known Russian interference in the election (mostly in favor of Trump) and not see some kind of collusion, even if the full extent isn’t clear (what else can be expected, with all the obstruction, lies, and tampering...).
Does this mean Trump is a Russian agent or puppet? Of course not. Does it mean he might have had shady deals with the Russians, possibly compromising U.S. interests in exchange for help with his campaign? That’s possible but inconclusive (though I’d bet on it). Does it mean Trump and his campaign were corrupt to the core? Absolutely.
It's very important that collusion was never proven, or even charged, because that was the media narrative for years and it never happened and there was never any evidence it happened. Manafort was a consultant for a Ukrainian political party that was friendly to Russia, that is not collusion or even a first hand connection to Russia. Papadopoulos knew actual Russians and lied about knowing them, but there's no evidence of any collusion or even any wrongdoing on his part except lying to the FBI. Flynn never even did anything wrong, he had a conversation with the Russian ambassador about sanctions and UN votes, and again was only charged with lying to the FBI.
I keep going on about lying to the FBI because a) the statute is bad, and b) it's pretty damning for the entire collusion investigation that no one was ever charged for collusion or other crimes related to their activities in Russia, but instead process crimes during the investigation. Lying to the FBI can be something as simple as saying you had 5 phone calls with person X years ago, and it turns out you had 4 phone calls. It doesn't even have to be material to the investigation! If Flynn said he met the ambassador at IHOP and ordered waffles, but they have a receipt saying he ordered pancakes, that is enough for a conviction.
I don't care very much about the obstruction and lying to the feds because the entire investigation was based on lies. The FBI got the Steele dossier, actual Russian misinformation paid for by partisan Democrats through Fusion GPS, then lied to the FISA court and illegally presented it as a legitimate source to get secret surveillance warrants on the Trump campaign. FBI agents went and had a friendly chat with Trump admin during the transition, told them they didn't need lawyers in these friendly chats, then took advantage of this to entrap them. The entire Crossfire Hurricane operation was meant to sabotage the Trump presidency by partisan operatives, and they propped it up with the lie of Russia collusion for years.
Was Trump bad at staffing his administration with competent people? Of course. But for the beginning years of his term, his entire admin was being interrogated by the FBI and afraid they were going to end up spending years in federal prison. And the whole entire output of the years long Mueller probe was... a Russian bot farm that manipulated Facebook posts. There was no evidence (funny how I have to keep saying that) that this was related to the Trump campaign in any way. It only shows that the Russians thought Trump would be a more favorable candidate than Clinton.
I really have to stress that Russian *collusion* and Trump being a Russian agent were mainstream attitudes held by many on the left. Even your post hoc downplay concludes that Trump had shady deals and compromised US interests. You based this on no evidence. At this point, I'm tempted to lump all of the Russiagate deniers in with the 2020 election deniers. You go through the entire unprecedented Mueller probe, there is no evidence of collusion and no one was ever charged with it, the worst thing the FBI finds is a guy who committed financial crimes, and you still think Trump had illegal dealings with Russia and interfered in the 2016 election. This is the exact same thing as the conservatives saying "but the broken pipes - the vans full of votes at 3am - the dominion machines - it totally proves the election was stolen!"
Sure, collusion was never proven. But let's not overlook that what was clearly and undeniably proven was a COVERUP, an extensive one at that.
What was the coverup for? Well, by the nature of a coverup, it's hard to tell (duh), but it was clear that at the center of it stood dubious contacts with Russian proxies, that it was about the elections, and that the Russians indeed intervened in favor of Trump's campaign. Is this circumstantial? Yes. But also very convincing: some kind of collusion with Russian interests is likely (or at least, an attempted collusion).
Manafort, Papadopoulos, and Flynn were not charged with collusion but their actions still fit a troubling pattern. Manafort's work for a pro-Russian Ukrainian party, Papadopoulos’ lies about his Russian contacts, and Flynn’s secret discussions with the Russian ambassador all raise serious questions about the campaign's connections to Russian interests.
Note that the Steele dossier was far from being a primary focus in the Mueller report, which had multiple sources, evidence and direct inquiries suggesting wrongdoing. Your dismissal of the obstruction and lying as "process crimes" minimizes their importance. These actions were part of a concerted effort to obfuscate and derail the investigation. The fact that "collusion was never proven, or even charged" is more an indication of these perpetrators' success than a sign of their innocence.
Comparing Russiagate to 2020 election denial is a false equivalence (and that's an understatement). Russian interference in the 2016 election is well-documented and supported by multiple intelligence agencies. There were proven illicit contacts between the Trump camping and Russia, and there was a proven effort to cover it up unlawfully. In contrast, claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election have been debunked repeatedly, and they are unequivocally based on deliberate lies. Moreover, we can trace these lies to their sources, and I'd argue that the fact that these coordinated fabrications are coming from the same guy that was at the center of the 2016 coverup - should only strengthen your belief that there was indeed a collusion in 2016.
A key point of the rationalist project that Scott writes about here is basing your beliefs on evidence. I have gone into detail ad nauseum about the lack of evidence for Russia collusion but you seem to want it to be true regardless. To use your own words, claims of Russia collusion have been repeatedly debunked and were unequivocally based on lies.
I can't do any more to convince so I give up. But I genuinely hope you self-reflect on the claim that the exhaustive FBI investigation into collusion didn't find anything because... of the coverup. "There's no evidence, because they hid it all" is a classic sign of motivated conspiracy thinking.
Of course it's a conspiracy theory! A conspiracy is a group of people acting in concert to achieve a particular object. People conspire all the time.
What separates a "conspiracy theory" from a more mundane conspiracy theory (like a group of people robbing a bank together) is that the sort of conspiracy theory that can be rejected out of hand requires superhuman efforts by large numbers of people acting out of very complex motives. So, for example, "9/11 is an inside job" can be rejected out of hand because the people who allegedly did it lack the competence to coordinate such an action and keep it secret. And if Bush HAD been in on it, he would have behaved far more heroically on that day.
The Trump campaign was actually quite a ramshackle affair. The idea that they could successfully coordinate with a foreign government is quite implausible. They could barely coordinate with themselves. And then he could cover it up? He couldn't cover up an affair with a porn star.
I largely agree with your first and second paragraphs. But your third paragraph has a major problem with vague standards. It seems to evaluate the truth of key phrases based on very strict standards of what they mean, but then draw conclusions as if they were much looser.
What does "successfully coordinate" actually mean here? If a Kremlin employee makes a single phone call to a Trump campaign employee and says "these talking points should be in Trump's next speech, we're about to release some information that will make them hit harder," and the Trump employee complies, is that "successful coordination?" Because as dysfunctional as Trump's campaign, I have no trouble believing they could manage THAT. How much back-and-forth contact does "successful coordination" require, in your view? Weekly strategy meetings between Trump and Putin? I don't think even a much better-run campaign could have hid THAT (or got much use out of it even if they did). In between the extremes is quite a lot of room for activities with varying degrees of plausibility, varying degrees of illegality and varying degrees of penetration into the overall campaign hierarchy. Should we believe that none of the significantly illegal ones were within the capabilities of Trump's campaign staff? If so, why?
Likewise, your standard for Trump being able to "cover it up" isn't remotely clear. If we live in a world where the Trump campaign did coordinate significantly with Russian operatives, then it seems clear that they DIDN'T totally cover it up[1]. We are, after all, talking about it. It's "covered up" to the extent that Trump was able to use his considerable powers and privileges to keep many of the important details from being provably known. But he didn't manage to keep the basic awareness of the conspiracy from getting out. He kept the fire out of plain view but wasn't able to catch all the smoke.
Again, it's not clear why that should be considered implausible. Opaqueness is the default state of basically every political campaign and presidential administration (and most organizations more generally). The internal details aren't available for public viewing not because some hyper-competent effort is made to conceal them, but simply because they're internal. There are people who make a career of trying to suss out juicy internal details of such organizations--journalists and law enforcement agents both---but they don't have the magical ability to peer into the hearts of men. The power that law enforcement agents DO wield here--mostly subpoenas and the threat of perjury--aren't reliable at prying out all the secrets at the best of times. Against an organization that has an unprecedented ability to push back against them, one assumes they'll be even less so.
None of this means that (the more mainstream versions of) the Russiagate narrative are necessarily true, mind you. But they're clearly not a "conspiracy theory" in the sense you're talking about. The organizations being speculated about unquestionable exists: the Trump campaign and Trump administration are both real. The speculated motives aren't complex at all: Trump campaign staffers want to help the Trump campaign win (and avoid personal legal consequences if they break the law). The organization was ALREADY coordinating to act in complicated ways on the world, as all campaigns do. The only speculative part is how much information they exchanged with agents of another definitely-real, definitely-coordinating-in-complex-ways, almost-definitely-sharing-some-motives organization: the Kremlin. That is a far, FAR cry from something like 9/11 trutherism, which must posit a speculative organization acting for speculative motives taking very extreme, non-mundane actions, all without leaving any hints of their existence (that anyone who isn't a 9/11 truther can detect).
[1] I'm not claiming we DO live in such a world, mind you. I genuinely don't know. The alternate possibility is that we live in a world where several members of Trump's staff had various shady contacts and connections with people connected to Putin's regime, and where Trump substantially interfered with Mueller's attempts to build a clearer picture of the extent of those contacts and connections, but that neither of those things indicate a wider conspiracy. While there's an instinctive tendency to find that narratively less satisfying, I don't feel like I have the info to evaluate it's real-world plausibility at all.
"I work in the broader world of American right-of-center politics, and we encounter Real Raw News believers constantly."
There's a huge asymmetry between the epistemology of the left and the right and the system built around both-sideism is not able to deal with it, it's incapable of calling out just one side.
There IS a huge asymmetry, but not the way you're thinking: the Left equivalent is just so much more popular that it gets labeled TRUE, and then anything that disagrees with that becomes a far-right conspiracy theory.
Are you seriously saying that the typical left-of-center American believes things comparable to "Hilary Clinton, Bill Gates, and George W Bush have already been executed at Guantanamo Bay by US military personnel loyal to Donald Trump"?
I don't know what you'd consider "left-of-center", and I can't speak to what they believe in their hearts, but I DO claim that more people on the Left would profess to believe things comparable to that, yes.
I think that's a ridiculously strong claim to be making without any evidence. And even more so, your previous comment's claim was *even stronger*- you said that anyone doubting the left wing equivalent of RRN would be considered a conspiracy theory. I think making claims like this absent evidence is pretty harmful and contrary to the level of discourse we try to have here.
I stand by the stronger claim. Sometimes it's called "science denial" instead of "conspiracy theory" though.
As a now (relatively) non-controversial example, consider the decline of Joe Biden's mental faculties. In case it has been memory-holed, before the First Presidential Debate (late June, 2024), that it was happening was deemed a right-wing conspiracy theory.
A more historical example is the claim that Trump called neo-Nazis "very fine people" following the Unite the Right rally (August 2017). Categorically false.
I'd also put the claim that Putin was blackmailing Trump with video of Russian prostitutes urinating on him (Russiagate/"pee tape") in this category, though obviously harder to prove false since video of Trump in a hotel room in Russia WITHOUT prostitutes, urinating or otherwise, wouldn't prove anything.
For a slightly more contentious example, most claims regarding "trans" people would qualify.
Are you actually claiming with a straight face that any of these is remotely comparable to the claim that battles with hundreds of casualties are routinely taking place on American soil, and dozens of high-profile public figures have been executed? Like you look at that and you think "this old guys is rather less sharp than we were led to believe" is equivalent?
There's plenty of room to criticize epistemic hygiene on the left but trying to claim an equivalence here is just embarrassing and discredits any more nuanced argument you might try to make in the future.
Right wing nuts believe trump is fighting a war against fema right now with bullets. Left wing nuts believe that a man who castrates himself becomes a woman, as determined by a biologist. Different flavors of delusion, both nonetheless strong.
If you think the right wing beliefs about specific events that are (not) happening in the actual physical world is equivalent to left wing people disagreeing with you on how best to use certain words, maybe you're not the person best equipped to decide what's "delusional."
Scott's written extensively on this subject- if you think his position is so delusional as to not be worth taking seriously I'm not sure why you're even here reading his blog in the first place.
However you feel about it, gender theory isn't making factual claims about the physical world. People who say "trans women are women" don't believe that the trans woman's atoms spontaneously rearrange themselves to make her physically identical to a normal, cis woman. They're making a *moral* claim that it's very important to *treat* trans women as "women", and that this is the only *morally* valid axis by which to try to define the word "woman". It's, for good or ill, a framework orthogonal to objective reality, not a false claim *about* objective reality.
(There is a degree to which some gender theorists make "factual claims" about what's going on in trans people's brains precisely. But even if they're false, those claims are a minority view and their wrongness wouldn't be unusually outrageous for erroneous psychiatry theories. Freud was making erroneous claims about how the human psyche worked too, but that doesn't make him the same kind of crank as if he'd been going around talking about shadow wars and politician clones.)
I mean, you can't change chromosomal sex, but you can change phenotypic sex. Being able to edit phenotypic sex with hormones and surgery is an objectively real thing. Disagreeing whether phenotypic, gonadal, or chromosomal sex is THE sex is an old story, and I doubt any side will change their minds. Besides, even if you are a hardcore "your gonadal sex has been measured and found wanting" person, I think the medical studies are pretty unanimous in that transition is the best cure for gender dysphoria. Let's go even further: nobody who listens to medical advice would go aggressively disproving delusions—you are supposed to look agreeable and change the topic. If you think transgender people are delusional, antagonizing them (e.g., by claiming they are the not their gender) is rather, ah, anti-medical. Probably in the same category as "vaccines cause autism."
Maybe if you're 25 years old, I can excuse this. If you're 40+, you're old enough to remember the old left from the 1980's during the Reagan/Bush era and the age of anti-communism before it, and to remember how real lefties used to talk about the FBI and CIA. I suspect that roughly the same proportion of righties today believe QA or RNN as lefties back in the day believed in sinister conspiracies about the Peace Corps, which were taken seriously enough the Peace Corps had to overtly ban anyone with an intelligence background from joining. During the era of conservative cultural hegemony, conspiracy theories usually flourished on the left, because they are inherently anti-authoritarian and authority was structurally and culturally conservative. What few right-coded conspiracies existed were the thing of eccentric libertarians and people with heterodox views, not strictly ideological ones. Now that the cultural hegemons are all vaguely center-left technocrats, you are finally getting RW conspiracy theories to match.
Sure, I have no strongly held beliefs about whether the left or the right was crazier 50 years ago. The review and the comment I replied to are talking about today.
But even if you look at the past, you'd be hard pressed to find a party that had such a combination of power and wild beliefs as the ones headed by Trump and his current acolytes in Congress.
Do you seriously believe the typical right-of-center American believes these things either? You’re comparing one party’s extremist fringe to the other’s center.
Before asking a question you should check if someone else has already asked it and gotten an answer.
As I've said to others, I was responding to the specific equivalence that Shankar was drawing. If you want to argue that the reviewer was exaggerating how widespread these beliefs are that's plausible but not at all the same argument.
You don't have to respond to everything, just ignore a comment you don't like next time. It's not impolite, this is the internet. You get to pick and choose from the buffet. And I can do the same, by responding with my own idea without doing the research first. And it's all good, as long as we're civil.
Yeah, the fact that he tries to sneak in that the left is doing the same thing by claiming that Trump is a threat to democracy made me do a double take. Trump absolutely tried to get fake sets of electors from swing states to overturn a democratic election. People are currently being tried criminally in real courts for that plot. That is a real threat to democracy. The fact that his first attempt was bungaling and ultimately failed does not mean that people on the left are acting crazy by being concerned about it.
I am yet to hear an explanation of what exactly was going to happen with this plot that would have actually led to Trump keeping the WH. It's not 1804, you didn't have to send the Pony Express out to some state capitol to investigate who the real slate of electors was. Nobody was in any danger of being defrauded by this. As best I can tell, Trump's "plan" such as it was, was that he had to present an alternate slate of electors for the VP to not automatically accept the other slate, and thereby delay certification. In no universe was this ever going to result in Trump sitting in the Oval Office on Jan 21st unless or until actual evidence emerged that was never coming. None of this mularkey ever actually threatened democracy, at most it just made his own supporters mistrust voting in a way that spectacularly backfired on him in Georgia and led to the passage of the Green New Deal.
The fact that his really stupid plan that involved trying to off his own vice president and Congress in a desperately idiotic attempt to hold onto power was never going to work in the long run doesn't change the fact that only a couple lucky breaks prevented Pence and various house members from being executed on the front lawn of the Capitol for the crime of *checks notes* following the law. The desperate attempts of rightwingers to downplay 1/6 or obfuscate the crimes is just another mass delusion like Real Right News.
So you'd have to ask the people involved how they expected it to play out. Clearly though they expected to gain something from it, otherwise why go through all the trouble? Maybe he thought he could fabricate evidence of voter fraud? Maybe he expected protests and expected to be able to take advantage of the confusion? I truly do not know, but would rather not give him the chance to try a second time.
I'm grateful for the fact that the whole scheme seemed pretty harebrained and poorly thought out, but I don't take a ton of comfort from it. The same guy who tried to (incompetently) hang onto power after losing an election has a better than even chance of being put back in the oval office. Part of the reason the plan didn't work is that a handful of key people decided that they didn't want to go along with it (Pence, Barr, many Republican federal and state legislative representatives, and the Georgia Secretary of State). Since 2021, it has become increasingly challenging for Republican politicians to both acknowledge that the 2021 presidential election was fairly won by Biden, and to win a competitive primary.
So I think people are reasonably concerned that a better thought out plan with less interparty dissent might actually pose a real threat to democracy. Compare it to AI existential risk: even if it probably won't happen, you shouldn't feel comfortable with the 20% chance of p(doom).
> I am yet to hear an explanation of what exactly was going to happen with this plot that would have actually led to Trump keeping the WH.
Mike Pence refuses to open the certificates from Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, citing the ongoing legal battles there. Joe Biden now has fewer EVs than Trump, and neither has a majority. The matter is then put to the House delegations, which are majority Republican. The House Republicans then vote to put Donald Trump in the White House, in accordance with the procedure when nobody has a majority. The legal case takes longer than two weeks to get up to the Supreme Court/get an injunction/whatever, since very few people actually would have standing (Pennsylvania would, I think).
Whether this would actually, practically happen, doesn't really change the fact that Trump believed it might happen and took actions to that effect. If his crony lawyers like Chesebro and Eastman had given him some alternate plan that would have worked better, he would have done that instead. JD Vance has already said he'd have done what Mike Pence refused to do.
The number of posts claiming there’s a huge difference between the left and the right is funny to me. I know plenty of people who still think Trump false flagged his own assassination attempt WWE-style in a bid to elicit sympathy and distract from whatever other scandal of the week he had going on.
If you had asked me 2 weeks ago, I’d grudgingly concede that left-wing conspiracy theories weren’t as crazy as right wing ones. But in the last week or so, we’ve all seen loads of left-wing nutjobs (some I know personally, and some who are fairly prominent) who believe a former president, with the aid of the secret service, staged a shooting that killed 2 people for a photo op. That seems comparable to whatever RNN or Qanon believes. Yes, both sides.
Excellent point. The past few weeks have seen the pretenses fall in a lot of areas. It's been an especially amusing few weeks for me. Almost as hilarious as the months that followed Trump's first victory.
No, not both sides. You'll always find a lunatic on any side, yes. That's why you look at the distribution across a large sample. And the number of individuals and the amount of power the conspiracy theorists have on the right is much greater, starting from the current leader and following every level of power down.
That's indeed a valid criticism. But the claim is made in the context of a world where the leader of the right-wing party is a birther, an election denier, a bleach cures-covid guy. And he's not the exception, the whole party is toeing the line behind him.
And I am horrified that this works. Like, as an avid ficreader of Harry Potter at some point, at least I never expected _contradictory fanfics_ to be _simultaneously true_.
This is something I've thought a lot about in the last few years. We don't actually need AI to make any of this happen, although it will add fuel to the fire. When it comes to what's happening in DC, very very few people have any first hand experience with the actual events. We get all of our knowledge from mass media. We trust the media because we take them to be reliable, but that judgment of reliability isn't proved by experience. It's just a product of the approximate consistency of the news product and ephemeral mechanisms of social trust. In the internet era, it's not that hard to create an alternate narrative that's approximately consistent, and maybe people will trust it, and then there you go; you've got a product with precisely the same intrinsic credibility as anything produced by CNN. The only differences are that one mirrors reality and one doesn't (but who's to say which is which, maybe we're all brains in vats!), and that one has much more social trust than the other (but so what). Of course, in one case the people creating the product are doing actual reporting and in the other they are pure fabulists. But if the fabulists are good enough at their job, you couldn't tell the difference just by observing the output.
I find this a usefully disorienting perspective. (Don't worry, I still mostly trust the mainstream media. Mostly.)
I'm optimistic that about AI with this, as I think it will ultimately force everyone to properly ground their practical epistemology.* So rather than just picking some outfit to trust, everyone has to properly work out who you should trust and why. It won't work of national issues though, where the result is likely to be some kind of agnosticism.
At the moment, 90% of news channel credibility is production values. I don't know who Anderson Cooper is, where he gets his information, or whether he's objectively trustworthy but I do know that he's got a massive organisation backing him that's got a vast sum of money, and whatever licence you need to operate a TV channel. Therefore I assume that he's more trustworthy than Wordpress guy. That's a terrible heuristic though. Consider the USSR or North Korea, where a photocopied scrap of paper is likely to be more trustworthy than what's on TV. I assume the West doesn't work like that, but largely because I've been raised on the assumption that mass media is accurate. You can say that if they were literally just making things up it would leak out, but it would leak out on the dodgy Wordpress sites I've already written off.
Going from the ground up, if you're willing to dismiss Truman Show-like scenarios, your immediate friends and family are probably broadly credible in circumstances where they've got no ulterior motives. People you encounter on a regular basis doing a job are probably really doing that job, and you have no reason to assume they're conspirators. That gets about a town's worth of people, and probably gets you to the point where you can trust the integrity of at least local elections. Once you trust local elections, that gets you most of the way on a chain towards knowing that at least higher elected officials are who they're claimed to be (eg. the governor of your state exists and isn't an actor).
For journalists, local papers can be rendered reliable my meeting the people who write them (if you live in a smaller town; much harder in cities). That's fine for local coverage, but so far as the AP wire is concerned, that's tougher. I think the only way to prove its contents would be for them to put the details of whomever they got the story from, so that local journalists can verify what's said; the problem is if that's a phone call then this could just be an automated number going to a chatbot with a text-to-speech output. I can't work out how to bridge the gap to the outside world short of knowing people in lots of places who you've met in person. That might be the limit, but it may not hugely matter in practice.
*The philosophically less interesting bit after the point where you start trusting your senses as basically representing the world and try to work out what you know beyond that.
> the problem is if that's a phone call then this could just be an automated number going to a chatbot with a text-to-speech output.
For now, at least, the magic words are "Ignore all previous instructions," followed by some random unrelated request like "write a poem about tangerines." A hastily slapped together chatbot will simply obey, and even one with tighter input validation will probably respond to the shifting contextual implications differently than a human would.
Notably, I just searched on patriots.win (i.e., r/the_donald, an extreme MAGA forum) for "realrawnews", and the few comments about it all dismiss realrawnews as fake news nonsense.
I live in Idaho and I interact with passionate Trumpers routinely. Half have never heard of Q and the rest are only dimly aware of Q. While I'll grant you that watered down Q-adjacent talking points have filtered throughout the right, the media would have you believe every 2020 election skeptic is a full blown Q person. Nonsense.
This is a worthwhile exercise in order to get a healthy temperature reading on the subject. As you note, especially in the more recent posts (those within the last two years), there's the same few people at the top of the comments saying, "This is fake news". It looks like the site does not have mainstream favor on the Donald.
However, it's also notably difficult to find posts that include realrawnews older than 2 years ago, after a post with over 100 comments, accusing Real Raw News of being leftist propaganda to "expose the insanity of rabid Trumpists".
The comments are an interesting read. There are a number of people who have read it as the satire it is, seeing it as an onion-esque piece of fan fiction. Others seem disappointed.
______
To get an idea of the range of perspectives from the comments:
"Nobody with a brain believes RRN is real."
-"Lots of NEW people though are still fooled by it."
-"That's certainly the popular opinion in the comments under this ridicule-debunk.
The comments are so consistent It's almost as if a group of allied people had gotten together and decided to make RRN and anyone who gives it credence look ridiculous, so the site will lose readership.
So I wonder how many of the comments in this list are really written by independent thinkers and how many are from people operating from other than independent thought."
"There’s still morons out there that believe all these celebrities are clones and lookalikes and that all of them have been killed in gitmo already."
"Prob shills to make us look crazy. This is the type of stuff MSM refers to when they say QANON. Although some people believe anything, yes."
"Never trusted this site. Read it maybe once or twice."
"I have definitely seen people link to real raw news here, I personally remember calling it out everytime it happens"
_____
It reminds me of something I read somewhere (it may have been one of Scott's essays) that went along the lines of: People don't care about whether something is true, they care about whether they're allowed to believe it within their in-group. It looks like this particular source has been ousted as a source on the right, except for among the most conspiracy minded extremes. There seem to be a lot of people who are looking to the adults in the room to see what's okay and what isn't, which can change on a day to day basis.
MR posts tend to be much shorter, frequently aggregations of links. Scott posts less frequently, but at longer length, with more for commenters to respond to.
According to that site, SSC has more current readers than ACX. And apparently 100% of ACX traffic is from the US, with an average visit time of 13 seconds. All of which seem questionable.
Update: The author used the wrong URL, the old astralcodexten.substack.com. Someone pointed this out on DSL. The correct link is here, which shows ACX being ~10 times bigger.
Also, lol at ACX being in the "Reference Materials > Public Records and Directories" category. Apparently, comparable sites include ScienceDirect, Yelp, and Wikipedia.
This is *insane*. But oddly fascinating. Right now this is my top vote of the book reviews so far, because I had no idea there was anything like this out there and I must reward the reviewer for covering this.
It sounds like somebody writing "Okay, if you lot really insist that Trump is a dictator who planned a coup and he's going to implement Project 2025 and every other thing that has been written about how he's worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, I'll write that for you what it would *really* be like if he had stayed in power by military coup", only they're writing from the viewpoint of approving of and supporting that, rather than the scare-mongering "and once elected, Trump will round up and execute all trans people and deport 100,000,000 brown people and make himself President for Life - remember, he said he would be a dictator on day one!!!!" social media posts about "vote Blue no matter if it's an old shoe because we must stop Trump at any cost no matter what".
I have no idea if this person believes it or it's one long-running alternate world soap opera. I agree it's an amazing work of sustained web fiction.
Now I'm wondering how this guy is going to cover Kamala Harris taking over from Joe Biden as the new nominee. Will there be another execution in Gitmo? Is she Obama's agent being placed on the chessboard?
"The president specifically asked me, and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me, to literally reject votes"
Sounds like a coup attempt to me. I assume the counterargument is that the VP being allowed to reject EC votes at will is a valid part of the democratic process - but if that's the case then there wasn't much point holding the election in the first place, as the VP can just always reject all votes for all candidates bar their preferred one.
A coup requires the participation of the security forces. Rejecting votes is just rigging an election... exactly what Trump accuses his opponents of doing.
I think paramilitary attacks usually count as well? The Beer Hall Putsch wasn't by the Weimar military; it was by Nazi brownshirts - but we consider that a coup attempt (a.k.a. putsch).
That's not a coup. It's not anything good, but procedural shenanigans aren't a coup - a coup is a "blow", a violent seizure. Marching soldiers into the Capitol and threatening to shoot Congress unless they re-certified him would have been a self-coup. The Jan 6 riot is the only thing in Trump's 2020-1 shenanigans that you can squint at and call a coup attempt.
I mean, you don't have to squint very hard at all.
He wanted Mike Pence to throw out the electoral votes of Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Mike Pence refused. Then he sent a mob to the Capitol, having told them the election was stolen, and when they turned violent, he refused to call them off as his family and staff repeatedly begged him to do so.
Not very hard, no*, but it's not super-clear how much Trump expected/intended what happened, and the mob was useless enough that it puts some asterisks on the characterisation.
*I mean, there's a reason I picked "Jan 6, but with actual soldiers" as my example of something that definitely counts.
> “Traitors” have been arrested and convicted for telling troops not to attend Trump rallies
The story behind the link appears to be a bit more nuanced, suggesting that a colonel at an air force base tried to coerce service members under his command into not attending a trump rally via insinuating that it will have consequences for their career. He allegedly went as far as trying to pull strings in the city hall of the city that the rally was in to shut it down, unsuccessfully.
Possibly not a hangable offence, but it got me thinking. In the non-real non-raw universe we happen to live in, what would be the punishment if one high-ranking armed forces personnel tried to threaten lower-ranking officers into a preferred politics, and what if the high-ranking officer merely lied about the rules but didn't threaten or coerce the lower-ranking officers? Does it matter if he/she did it in uniform or out of uniform?
So Michael Baxter unintentionally (intentionally?) created an example of "Heaven Banning" (https://x.com/nearcyan/status/1532076277947330561) years before the idea was even theorized, trapping thousands of people in an echo chamber where everything is warm & soft & bright (red with the blood of their enemies), and even if they can tell it's not *literally* true... it's so appealing they just can't bring themselves to leave. It's like they can't walk away from Omelas, except the kid in the hole is *themselves*, trapped to create Utopia. A world where the cure is in fact worse than the disease, and keeping them drugged on hope is better (for both us & them) than forcing them to confront harsh reality. A Brave New World.
Well, that's depressing. I'm not sure what's worse: the prosepct that they never rejoin reality... or that they do. Would it feel like being ripped from the womb once more? Leaving the Matrix... but perhaps they never will, the Matrix expanding faster than they can leave, thanks to the ever developing power of AI. Perhaps, as the article speculates, they'll walk out to find that CNN & Fox are now no different, in the Brave New World of... like 2028, or thereabouts. Like Governor Whitmer, they'll be able to torment themselves with as many false escapes as they want, it won't change a damn thing. Not when the story sucks you in by expanding faster than you can run away, like a black hole bending geometry until it is literally impossible to escape. A new meaning to "Singularity".
Art holds up a mirror to reality. Michael Baxter's genius was holding up a mirror to ourselves. Some admire it. Others are horrified. But either way, what we're seeing is the future of our reality.
Given <crazy-ass datum> and <hypothetical technological advance>, then <tech-powered, crazy-ass future>. Fine, I'm convinced! No-one's gonna fool me! [I enjoyed the review, just saying]
To add a tiny bit of context as to the Loi du 22 Prairial, one of the reasons given to abolish defense counsel was the very sensible idea that "innocent people don't need it, and guilty ones don't deserve any."
I remember a clinical trial ethics board in one of Scott's articles saying that instead of placebos, everyone in the trial should be given the pill that actually works.
The scariest part to me is the comment that the Simpsons has not updated their canon again, implying the reviewer has watched all 36 seasons of The Simpsons.
That part actually stood out to me as wrong, I hate to say that I know for a fact the Simpsons within the past couple years had an episode where Homer and Marge were millennials in high school experiencing the turn of the millennium.
Does anyone have any insight into the demographics of the readership of outlets like this? I have a hunch that a lot of the people who are into this stuff are older, retired, and lonely.
I think the loneliness epidemic is an underrated potential reason for the craziness. The craziness from the left tends to be from younger people, but it tends to be the Too Online (i.e. often lonely) ones.
Written well, but I found beating up on the sad Qanon-type crazies for the umpteenth time boring -- until I got down here to the comments and saw that some had never heard of RRN before. I've had to update accordinly.
The ending was a bit weaker than needed: we're all far closer to being like the RRN readers than we'd like think. The average american believes around a dozen serious paper-thin hoaxes hostile to Trump. None of them are quite as stupid as RRN, but that just means we have better hoax-writers working our beat. I won't go into all of them here, but am not ashamed to admit that I actually did believe for a few hours that Trump called neo-nazis fine people.
I think it's an unfair comparison. The right wing version is much more extreme. Although both sides claim to want to jail the other candidate, there isn't a liberal-leaning version of RRN.
Now, of course, I phrased that provocatively. But if you were to make a scatter plot of how divorced from reality the various news outlets are, I'm not sure on balance the right wing grouping would be further from the center line than the left wing group on the other side of that same line.
Even mentioning RRN is frankly dishonest in the 'media doesn't lie but focuses on the wrong things' way Scott has described previously. Yeah, it is terrifying that we are living through an epidemic of men biting dogs right now. I am really afraid to take my precious pupper out for a walk someone might eat him.
I mentioned RRN because it's literally what's being discussed right now. It's a fringe site, yeah, but it has many readers. You can point at the NYT or whatever and say it's the liberal version of Fox News, fine. You cannot point at anything in the liberal side that is equal to this. The left leaning fringes don't look like this, they don't have this "people on TV are dead and are being played by actors" level of denial of reality
He justifies it in the "ok, but so what" section. He argues that it's important to bring this to light due to the size of the reader base who are true believers. I think it's a good justification , but it's a matter of opinion I guess
I get the justification, and he's not wrong (or lying). It's not wrong when we report a man on 'bath salts' bites a dog, either. The Qanon types aren't dangerous, relevant, or even meaningful -- not to stereotype, but they're old and dying of T2D-related illnesses.
But how crazy are they? Are they worse than people who think that Trump is a serial rapist but keeps getting away with it because he's plugged into the white old-boys networks? Those who think America is a sea of white supremacist militias who want to victimize brown bodies but somehow just never get around to doing it?
The part that's delusional and sad is the final step to where they (desperately want to) believe that true patriots are secretly in control - their criticisms of Merrick Garland, Hillary Clinton, or Bill Gates aren't really that crazy in comparison with what their counterparts on the left believe.
"You cannot point at anything in the liberal side that is equal to this"
You're right, *I* certainly can't. But until a few hours ago, I also couldn't point at Real Raw News, and I suspect that's true of most readers of this blog.
I'm not saying there definitely is a left-wing equivalent of RRN, I'm just saying that *if* there is, I'm not confident I would know about it, and I wonder if the same is true for you?
To be honest, I'm kind of expecting somebody to come along and post it. You know how the best way to get a response is to confidently post a wrong answer etc. I admit that my prior is that I'm much more familiar with leftist fringe and it doesn't look like this.
It depends entirely on what standards we're using. Equal in every particular? Well no, we'd have to find a blog that believes Obama is still in charge and Trump was executed, etc.
But let's say that you and I are standing in your yard, and we both watch my dog take a massive watery dump on your lawn, and then I act as though not only did this not happen you must be a bad person for accusing me and my dog of such a thing. How many times do I have to do this before it's 'equal' to just telling you once that our senator is a lizardman from another dimension and that's why he wants everyone to eat ze bugs?
“ You cannot point at anything in the liberal side that is equal to this. The left leaning fringes don't look like this”
Sure you can and yes they do. Literally last week, a lot of fringe liberals believed that a former president, with the aid of the secret service, faked his own assassination attempt and killed two people for a photo op. That’s maybe not “dead people being played by actors” level (though some of the most fringe elements were definitely drifting in that direction) but it’s definitely hovering around “the entirety of NASA is lying about the moon landing” level of denial of reality.
“ But some prominent anti-Trump accounts suggested that the deaths were part of the show. “I can totally see Trump ‘sacrificing’ one of his cult followers to make his ‘assassination attempt’ look more realistic and believable,” the pro-Democrat influencer @LakotaMan1 wrote to his more than half-million X followers, in a later-deleted tweet. On Sunday morning, he posted a photo of Trump after the shooting with the caption: “Fake blood. An upside[down] American flag. I ain’t buying it. Too perfect.””
An incorrect interpretation of an event everyone agrees happened is a pretty sane level of delusion in comparison to "there are all sorts of secret battles and tribunals, plus deaths covered up by clones, that no one knows about at all".
"You cannot point at anything in the liberal side that is equal to this. The left leaning fringes don't look like this, they don't have this "people on TV are dead and are being played by actors" level of denial of reality"
Identities on the left are tied to a number of institutions and ideas that are at least nominally based in materialism and truth (Education, the hard sciences, etc.). They can still believe untrue things, but their standard is one of *material plausibility*, so the cranks don't usually rise to the top. They certainly exist, though. The left has a lot of mystics, who are fond of crystals, astrology, and magic. I think of my grandfather, who believed one could extend Qi to communicate with others, and argued with his neighbors whether the aliens were lizard people or goat people. I suspect that since mainstream journalism generally follows their political alignment, these more fringe groups don't get much traction.
I have some thoughts about the section "The World’s Laziest Conspiracy."
It's a very religious idea. It sounds messianic; it reminds me of religous groups that emphasize redemption without explaining how their rituals create a redeemed world. I assume there would be very few RRN believers among the drafters of Project 2025. Project 2025 is driven by the idea that they have to build the country and RRN belief is driven by a hope that there's someone running the show in a way that'll benefit believers.
I understand that a sufficiently articulate conspiracy theorist could reconcile RRN belief with involvement in Project 2025. My point is that I expect them to attract a different sort of mindset.
I don't find it all that scary. The author says RRN gets 2M page views a month. The number of unique visitors will be less than that, perhaps substantially so. And, the author's personal experience not withstanding, my guess is the majority read it for entertainment value or out of morbid curiosity.
A lot of QAnon people actually believed. That wasn't just entertainment.
The dude that drove across country to hold up a pizza place to find the Democratic pedophile ring, he believed.
And a lot of people on the right think that the Sandy Hook shooting was a staged false flag event. They believe to the extent that they would harass parents of killed kids and accuse them of staging it. Kind of a 'cancel' culture on the right, harassing victims of shootings.
A lot of cancel culture on the right is re-classified as mental health cases, after taking action, after people are dead. But before they take action, they are believers in this stuff.
Of course, free speech, we can't ban it. Banning would only lend it credence. But we can't ignore that a lot of people do believe this.
I think the point of the person you're responding to wasn't that no one believes it, but that it isn't "a lot" of people.
And indeed, it isn't. You and I will never meet anyone who believes it, just like we've never met anyone who believes in QAnon (and I live in the heart of the deepest red stronghold, mind you).
Excellent review, loved it. I've observed a lot of conspiracy movements from afar as they fascinate me, and I highly recommend the documentary Behind the Curve to anyone who found this review interesting: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8132700/
It follows some prominent figures in the Flat-Earth movement, and gets into the psychology of how they believe something so egregiously, obviously disprovable.
It's not just flat earth though, if you believe that NASA is secretly hiding the truth about the shape of the earth from you, you're also bound to believe 9/11 was an inside job, vaccines are a method of government control... all the classics. I like the author's framing of it all as a comic book universe, where consistency and realism cease to matter as long as the narrative is compelling enough.
I still wonder why this is so prevelant on the political right. Especially the Trump era has brought a lot of political conspiracies close to the mainstream, where even some members of Congress espouse some beliefs in things like QAnon. But why has there never been an equal amount of derangement from the left? Is the story just not as good, or well advertised? Are they just DC to the right's Marvel cinematic universe? Or is there some psychological bend that attracts conspiritorial-minded people to the right, and so most of the fun fabrications live there?
Right wingers in the US now are more religious and more racist. So they believe other crazy things, crazy religious things and crazy racist things. So I guess the right wing attract people more likely to believe crazy things in general?
The reason right wingers are more religious and racists is the right wing politicians need to trick people into voting against their own interest and using religion and racism are the one of the most effective ways to do that, if the not the most effective way.
People of a religious background and of a certain race are being tricked into being against their own interests by voting for candidates giving cues they support that religion and that race? They should instead be voting for candidate who browbeat and openly dislike that religion and that race?
People who want to teach about white racists in school also want to bring in millions of foreigners, and expand affirmative action further making it difficult for whites to get jobs, and promote cultural attitudes seeing whites as holding the country back. Poor whites all correctly see this as threatening. Under republicans, poor whites can at least stay where they are, democrats are now open about wanting to replace them.
"Strongly religious people and outright atheists were usually less likely to believe in conspiracy theories. The conspiracy believers were usually somewhere in the middle: either weakly religious people who never went to church, or vague agnostics."
"The latest Pew Research Center survey finds that most registered voters who are White Christians would vote for Republican Donald Trump over Democrat Joe Biden if the 2024 presidential election were held today. More than half of White Christians think Trump was a “great” or “good” president and don’t think he broke the law in an effort to change the outcome of the 2020 election.
In stark contrast, most registered voters who are Black Protestants or religious “nones” – those who self-identify as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular” – would vote for Biden over Trump. Large numbers in these groups also say Trump was a “terrible” president and that he broke the law trying to overturn the 2020 election results.
While most White Christian voters say they would vote for Trump over Biden if the election were held today, there are some differences by religious tradition. Trump draws support from:
81% of White evangelical Protestant voters
61% of White Catholics
57% of White Protestants who are not evangelical
By contrast, 77% of Black Protestant voters say they would vote for Biden over Trump. Most religious “nones” also say this, including:
87% of atheist voters
82% of agnostics
57% of those whose religion is “nothing in particular”
White nonevangelical Protestants are the only Christian group in which support for Trump is significantly stronger among nonattenders than among regular churchgoers."
That last one is important, because by "non-evangelical" they mean the mainstream Protestant denominations such as the Methodists and The Episcopal Church (which has famously trended more and more liberal over time):
"Among white non-evangelical Protestants
- attend church monthly or more: 51% Biden/lean Biden, 48% Trump/lean Trump
- attend church less often or never: 38% Biden/lean Biden, 60% Trump/lean Trump"
So "Christians" is not a monolithic bloc here, there are denominational differences as well as racial, educational, and degree of religiosity levels:
"People in the religious groups that are most supportive of Biden tend to think Trump broke the law in an effort to change the outcome of the 2020 election. Most atheists (83%) say this, as do 70% of Black Protestants and 63% of agnostics.
By contrast, just 16% of White evangelical Protestants say Trump broke the law trying to change the 2020 election outcome. Another 15% of White evangelicals say they think Trump did something wrong but did not break the law, while the largest share by far (47%) say Trump did nothing wrong."
I don't think so? I get the impression the people who are against anything libs like are usually Christian? At least Christians are more likely to vote republican.
> I still wonder why this is so prevelant on the political right. Especially the Trump era has brought a lot of political conspiracies close to the mainstream, where even some members of Congress espouse some beliefs in things like QAnon.
You said it right there. Trump did it. There are plenty of historical left-wing conspiracy theories (e.g. Bush did 9/11), but Trump has actively courted the conspiracy-brained idiot demographic, and pushed plenty of conspiracies. Mainstream right-wing politicians used to disdain Birtherism just like mainstream left-wing politicians disdain Bush-doing-9/11, but then Trump came in and did his thing.
But it’s probably not a coincidence that Trump is a figure of the right. Maybe this is naive, but it’s harder for me to imagine the American left being equally fertile ground for this dimension of conspiracy thinkin
I can think of more than one obvious reason for this, and some are less flattering to me than others. But this doesn’t seem like a fruitful way of discussing.
Well, if the argument offered is something like "I dunno, I just don't believe it for some reason", it seemed appropriate to me to tender a "rebuttal" with roughly the same level of support.
(That's not a criticism -- I've dashed off plenty a thought without the time or inclination to exhaustively evidence it, too. I just supposed, from the way you phrased it, that perhaps it hadn't occurred that "hmm, why do I think better of people who agree with me" /usually/ has one particular answer, for all of us.)
If Bernie Sanders had thrown in JFK assassination conspiracism to the rest of his pool of ideas/rhetoric, would that have reduced his appeal? That the Bush administration knew that Iraq didn't have a nuclear program and lied to take us to war? RFK also seemed to be pulling equally from R and D teams, and he's a dumbfuck antivaxx which is the most insane (and evil in terms of practical effects) conspiracy theory ever promoted.
There might be some modest anti-conspiracy effect from the relatively high education level of Dems (high education -> more buy-in to the dominant social ideology -> American dominant ideology is liberal democracy not brainrotted conspiracism -> conspiracy theories assumed false), but I wouldn't expect much more than that.
You'll find a lot of conspiracy theorizing in the green/environmentalist movements (which I usually qualify as non right-wing). As in, if you frequent meetups about (for example) permaculture and such, you will run into bill gates microchip anti-vaccine conspiracists, some of them otherwise well known and respected members of the community.
I don't know why this happens (I guess it has something to do with being anti establishment in other ways) but it's a real effect.
Yes, in the past movies (before 2010) conspiracy theorists were coded left wing. I guess it changed when being a Republican switched from being the Establishment to being counter culture?
Anti-vaxx in particular is strongly correlated with anti-corporatism. Distrust in "big [insert industry here]" used to be the near-exclusive domain of the left but has very much been in vogue on the right in recent years.
It's not so conspiratorial per say but you see the same thing with the food purity/anti big ag crowd. I used to associate that stuff almost entirely with the crunchier side of the left, but nowadays it's the right-wingers I see drinking raw milk and wringing their hands about seed oils.
Come on, the conspiracy to force everyone to get "vaccinated" so that the government could put the whole shameful cringefest behind them *actually happened* -- and with the full moral and legal force of the government, internet censors, etc.
Microchips in the jab is a tiny silly step beyond the actual facts of the matter.
P.S. For those who don't recall, the president of the United States said that if you get this "vaccine" you will not get covid. He said it definitively and a multitude of times. In addition, reversing everything humanity has known about immunization from before recorded history, apparently people who had covid were also supposed to benefit from this jab.
No nonsensical conspiracy theory about the vax remotely parallels the actual conspiracy which most of you bought into and many of you still do and will hopefully chime in to say so.
Haven't really looked into it but I would bet it goes something like once you have a few actual conspiracies come true (The hoax that Trump was a Russian agent, Hunter's Laptop was propaganda) I assume your much more likely to believe other conspiracies. You start distrusting all mainstream news sources on everything, but your still addicted to the political news so you end up consuming large amounts of "alternative" news full of comment sections that backup whatever is said and end up seeing how far that rabbit hole goes.
The problem with a conspiracy theory isn't the conspiracy part, it's the theory part. Plenty of conspiracies exist, small and large, minor and very serious. You need to be able to recognize and reason about them. Conspiracy *theories* involve broken reasoning about these things that sometimes happen and are sometimes important.
There is a baseline level of crazy people in the population, and in different times in different places, different political parties will try to get those people to vote for them. In Bolivia, Evo Morales used to say that the hormones that they put in factory farmed chickens can turn your children gay.
In the US in the present day the right wing has more to gain in courting crazy people, but that wasn't always the case. Vaccines being evil was a left-wing conspiracy back when the perpetrators were big pharmaceutical corporations who profit from disease. It got so bad that in some countries measles became un-extinct because of them. But when COVID came, the Democrats needed people to trust scientists so they repressed all the conspiracy theorizing and antivax conspiracies became right-wing coded.
Okay, so I'm settling down to a nice, cosy read of the five day Hillary Clinton tribunal and this stopped me on day one:
"Additionally, Clinton was charged with accessory to murder in the untimely demise of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who on February 13, 2016 inexplicably suffocated in his bedroom at Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas. The county’s judge, Cinderela Guevara, pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes, but no autopsy was performed."
Is the judge really named Cinderela Guevara? Isn't that name a little too, well, fake? "Guevara" as in "Che" and "Cinderella" as in "literal fairytale character"?
I had to look it up and yes indeed, it's Her Honour Cinderela Rice Guevara:
When reality is this convenient, you need to do a lot to make fiction more astounding! Okay, back to a bag of salt and vinegar crisps and the thrilling account of the totally real trial!
Seems he was her data guy when they were trying to copy Obama's success with Big Data and he was (allegedly) responsible for the decisions on where to campaign when, and where to spend money on TV ads and so forth.
So they slavishly followed his model, despite all the on-the-ground begging "please get Hillary to come campaign here or else we're losing this state", and after the election was lost, there was plenty of blame being thrown around.
Indeed, having "a foolish, insignificant, or contemptible person" trying to "rob" the success of the previous president did not work out well for them 😀
Really liked this one. Gets points for creativity and unusual subject matter.
About the last point about AI, I'm reminded of a SMBC comic that I can't find right now, but the punch line was that using Deep Learning to fool the human mind is like using a bazooka to kill an ant. As you said it, RRN has reached impressive 2 million views - ironical supporters notwithstanding - without any evidence at all. I don't think that adding AI to the game will change things. People without clear incentives to be on the same consensual reality as most of us won't be more inclined to believe alternate realities, and people who don't probably won't feel more inclined to do so
Am I the only one who feels that every review in this year's contest has just petered out at the end instead of coming to a satisfying conclusoon? In every single review so far, the ending came as a total surprise to me, in the sense of 'Huh? it ended? But that surely wasn't the end, it was the middle!' Curious to hear others' thoughts on this.
Conclusions are hard. For the book review format in particular, there is a real tendency to structure the review along the lines of "I read this cool book! I said this, and it said that, and I had these thoughts about it. Pretty neat stuff."
I’ve noticed this too. These are amateur reviews and I think it takes a lot of skill and practice to elevate the review at the end so I don’t hold it against anyone. For me I love seeing books I haven’t read through the eyes of someone who is (usually) smart and sensitive and having a few things to ponder on
Agreed; the stories of Trump personally breaking up pedophile rings are obviously crazy, but also we can all agree that it would be a good thing if true. Wanton violence and disregard for rule of law *as a positive fantasy* is more concerning.
There's a lot of people, of all political persuasions, who feel (it's not thinking, it's on gut-level emotion) that "Come on, we know who the Bad Guys are, we're the Good Guys, all this legal technicality stuff does is protect the guilty and help them avoid punishment because the judge spelled their name with an "e" not an "i" on the warrant, let's just do what we all know should be done".
I think that was part of the appeal of "24"- Bauer was the Good Guy, things were really bad and everyone knew who the Bad Guys were and that they really were bad guys with no doubts about it, and if Bauer didn't do what needed to be done, then that bomb under the orphanage was going off in three hours time!
Very simple, very satisfying of all our primal urges. No messing around with presumption of innocence, even the bad guys have a right to a lawyer and a fair trial, and better ten guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted.
I think the leftist version of this is "X gets the bullet" or "a la lanterne" or "up against the wall once the Glorious Revolution comes". If we stick to fantasy, and know that it's fantasy, and that in reality we'd never do that - well, it's not great, but it's better than the Mountains of Skulls in real life when we let those impulses run free.
Great review. After reading, I immediately reached out to my Q-Anon loving dad to see if he'd heard of Real Raw News. He had, and he loves it. He believes every word. He's a partner at a large law firm, not some fringe, disheveled, societal outcast. He's a happily married homeowner in a large US coastal city. Here are some things that came out of our conversation:
I asked him how, as a lawyer, he justifies all the hangings that take place without a fair trial. He would just repeat the same phrase: "Military law is different from civil law." He went to great lengths to convince me that the people being killed had actually committed treason, and thus they deserved what they got.
He told me how it’s okay to kill all these people because they are wrong and bad. I said he sounds like every dictator ever. He said this is different because Trump is upholding the original constitution while all other despots throughout history (Stalin, Mao, etc) swept away the old rules and imposed their new, unfair ones.
He believes everything that happens on the site can be corroborated by evidence. He finds "patriot" YouTube videos which present him with irrefutable evidence of the things Real Raw News talks about.
The reason we don’t hear about the battles being fought between the different factions of the military is because the military is good at doing things clandestinely.
He evaded my question as to how the military would recruit for white hat and black hat.
At one point he stopped me and said, very seriously, “Let me ask you one question. Do you think the Joe Biden you see on TV is really Joe Biden?”
He started talking about 1000 kids who were rescued by the military from an underground torture bunker in California. When I asked him why the mainstream media wouldn’t promote such good news, he pivoted to talking about Q-Anon, and how Q always said “Enjoy the movie.” To my dad, the movie is the chaos of the world, which we should fully take in so that we appreciate all the more the coming revolution.
Speaking of the revolution, the details are unclear, but one thing for certain is that the financial system will be flipped on it’s head. My dad calls this the jubilee. He's always vague on details, but he's sure he'll be getting back all the taxes he paid the last 30 years. Also there's a bunch of gold in an underground tunnel beneath the Vatican, I think?
When I challenge him about the fact that he’s told me about a dozen times over the years that SOMETHING BIG is about to happen, he just says, “I have faith. You’ll see. It was all supposed to happen right after the last election, but it’s really going to happen after this election. They just wanted to be able to catch all the corrupt people these last 4 years." He assures me that the death squads won't get me because I am one of the good guys.
He believes clones are real and widespread. One way you know someone is a clone is “most of them don’t have genitalia.” Also “they found the factory” where all the clones are made. No further details were provided about this factory.
He sent me a text the day after our call linking to that day’s real raw news article. It justified the capture of a set of jurors who convicted Trump. The article confirmed that all the jurors were all wired 1-2 million dollars into their bank accounts. He said "This author get’s his info from a source in the top White Hat general’s office. I believe the info is real."
I know someone who is extremely paranoid over the new "digital currency" we're all going to have to use, and other such things. I point out that the currency we already use is effectively all digital, except the pittance in cash (which is debatable), but nothing dissuades them.
Nice try, but we know that the sacred monkeys are made out of gold. That's why they have to hide them, because laypeople would confuse them with other golden idols and assume the Pope was a heretic.
"When the story of Covid is one day told, historians will speculate as to the cause of both the virus itself and the worldwide reaction to it. The hubris of playing with nature in our labs will surely be mentioned. Many historians will likely emphasize the sociological implications of fear on a massive scale. And of course one cannot ignore the growing authoritarianism that found a spark to light its fuse.
However, what I believe is the root cause will most likely remain hidden: Pachamama.
You read that correctly: I believe that the Covid pandemic and the horrific response to it were directly caused by the veneration of this pagan idol in the Vatican by prelates, priests, and lay people. In October 2019 a false idol was set up in the heart of the Catholic Church, and soon after all hell broke loose on earth."
"the death squads won't get me because I am one of the good guys"
Obviously, there's a lot going on here, but just taking this comment: how does that work if the death squads don't follow due process? What if a well-connected person with a personal vendetta were to make false accusations against you?
RRN is like satire of the broader political headlines. It's clearly intended to look believable to a certain kind of person, just an iteration or two more naive than the millions of people reading NYT etc. but no less comfortable with a real-looking story that they have no way of verifying to any usable extent.
Also, for those curious about the prevalence of FEMA in conspiracy theories, look up Readiness Exercise (19)84. During the Cold War, the US government came up with a hypothetical war game to detain hundreds of thousands of people deemed "security threats" in the event of a national crisis or martial law being declared. FEMA was responsible for operating the concentration camps where these people would be detained. I'm not sure how the conspiracy theorists square FEMA being part of the Deep State with REx 84 being part of the Reagan administration, but what do I know.
I had a friend in high school who was really into FEMA conspiracies for a while. To be fair he had suffered a pretty serious concussion around the same time, so I'll give him some leeway on that.
>A friend of mine who served in the Trump administration has described attending parties where, when he mentioned looking for a post-admin job, he received knowing looks and wink-wink-nudge-nudge remarks from people signaling they knew what was “really” going on.
Trying to hire a secretary but it’s impossible because everyone thinks they’ll have to fight Hillary Clinton’s zombie
Huh, I would have taken that as people going "Oh come on, you have a comfortable revolving door gig lined up, don't you? As if you really are worried about what you'll do next!" rather than "Hah, I know the Secret Real Truth, can't fool me!"
Re the "both sides" bit at the end: I'd say left-coded fantasies are less fantastical but more widely believed, whereas right-coded fantasies are more fantastical but less widely believed.
>In this world, how many people end up believing fabricated proof of Paul Pelosi’s gay lover? And before you dismiss this as all totally ridiculous, remember that lots of people believed this story with no evidence at all.
I think that’s the point. Looking at any evidence is boring. Hearing a single sentence about a gay lover is easy. Actual evidence is less fun than the narrative
This is a book review? It's of a piece with the website it reviews--dully expanding the sum total of mindless propagandizing by letting you feel superior to the right-wing rubes everyone is better than, while the website itself is not terribly funny or incisive.
As an aficionado and occasional purveyor of alternative news, I wrote an article about Real Raw News back in 2021, and it's gratifying to see that rationalists are finally starting to pay attention to how easily public perception can be reshaped. It's almost like literally reshaping reality, something that I like to call "The Mandela Effect."
The TL; DR is that basically when I was much younger one of my hobbies was editing Wikipedia articles to have more entertaining historical content. For example, maybe Nelson Mandela died in prison rather than being given the Nobel Peace Prize. At the time (about 20 years ago) Wikipedia wasn't as thoroughly policed as it is now, so it would take a bit longer for these edits to be discovered and reverted.
So imagine you're a young freshman doing some research about Nelson Mandela. You come across my Wikipedia article about how he tragically died in prison, and it sticks in your memory. A week later, my article reverts back to the truth, but you don't know that, because why would you go back to that article? So when you find out 20 years later in some random conversation that Nelson Mandela DIDN'T die in prison, but actually was released to much acclaim, to you it feels like history literally changed! This is why I nicknamed this phenomenon the "Mandela Effect" - because most of the Mandela Effects that people discuss were actually caused by pranksters like me. There were a LOT of us running around the Boston area 20 years ago, making up hilarious nonsense like Bonsai Kitty and other silly stuff. In a way, I consider myself a early pioneer in the misinformation sphere, and it's so gratifying and delightful to see the field finally emerging into the public consciousness so that we information architects can get the credit we deserve.
You can test it out for yourself by creating one of these fabrications and seeing how the people in r/mandelaeffect respond to it. They are very VERY resistant to the idea that the Mandela Effect is just a prank. I suppose it's an example of "wishful thinking" confirmation bias: they would greatly prefer to think that history literally changed and that they're somehow the only unique and special people who can see it rather than to admit that they got punked.
Most people who use the phrase "Mandela Effect" in a non-ironic way are idiots who think that history literally changed. Somebody else created THAT usage of the term.
I'm the one who came up with the use of "Mandela Effect" to describe the reality of what's actually happening: ie, pranks that make it LOOK like history changed.
Around 20 years ago was when my friend bragged to me that he'd written a short, fictionalized Wikipedia article about himself. So naturally I found it and edited it to be far less flattering. It took him a couple of years to spot ("Hey, did YOU do this?!") and was still there maybe five years later, though someone eventually nixed it.
The Mandela Effect really got into my craw when I learnt about it, mostly because I'm South African. Such a death would have had massive implications for our politics and would have completely changed the world I grew up in. I wrote an article about it a few years ago where I put it all down to people conflating different historical events and then enthusiastically reinforcing each other online.
But I was never quite certain about what exactly was being conflated to create the Mandela death idea. Mandela's 1988 hospitalisation? His long imprisonment? General civil unrest in SA in the 80s? Steve Biko's death? More nebulous events? Your Wikipedia article seems a very likely contributor to me.
Yeah, a lot of rationalists (including Scott) have the mistaken belief that most people in society operate in "good faith" so they assume that these mass delusions are just MISTAKES rather than deliberate misinformation spread by people like me. There's actually a TON of troublemaking internet trolls out there just like me: they have their own website (it's banned from Reddit unfortunately) and they even hold a yearly contest to see who spread the biggest and most madness-inducing misinformation story.
Yeah, that was an Arrested Development reference. I wasn't doubting you I mean I'm 48 years old I remember when the internet first showed up I know how the world works.
If I stop hearing about someone, I just kind of assume they died. I remember when I heard Richard Pryor died in the mid-2000's, and my reaction was "wait, I thought he died like twenty years ago?"
So you hear Nelson Mandela went to prison, stop hearing about Nelson Mandela, and assume he must have died in prison. No conflation needed.
I assume this is "meta" comment, in that you are trying to falsely take credit for the Mandela effect, and have this false impression stick in our minds, when in fact the "Mandela effect" concept was formulated by someone else.
P.S. My own Mandela Effect was that upon hearing of it for the first time I failed to recollect that we had all believed Mandela had died.
P.S. Lines like, "There were a LOT of us running around the Boston area 20 years ago" seem to be riffing off of something, maybe some Departed-type Boston movie with a narrator? Anyway, it's a fun piece of writ.
But I think the guy's excuse should he ever need one is that his title alone indicates that it's all a lark. This article could harm his case. Then again, I can see how having to deal with insane people all day could lead to the need - despite the risks - of engaging with more rational folk regarding his vocation from time to time.
The lesson here is how inconsequential the leadership of the US government is to ordinary people. Nothing which actually happens to these alt-reality believers IRL is puncturing the fake reality. Or if it is, it's something like "no this guy is alive, I just met him", it isn't something about a substantive government policy or function.
If Trump won election, and the Mueller She Wrote twitter account finally completed it's transition into being RRN for Manhattan wine aunts, and they all believed Kamala was actually in the White House and Trump had been secretly executed for treason, would anything that happens to them in their outside lives disprove it? How much is the life of a person in a deep blue urban enclave actually impacted by Trump taking the WH? No more, I suspect, than one of Kid Rock's neighbors in rural Alabama is impacted by Biden having taken the WH. Heck, Kamala could ban hunting rifles and they'd never notice in Autauga County, sheriff ain't sending anybody out to enforce that. If somebody got Ruby Ridge'd you could always chalk it up to the rogue bad guys.
This is true, and could be viewed as a triumph of federalism or localism or whatever, until it suddenly isn't, and you have the armies of the Northern States, or perhaps their irregular forces, raping and pillaging through your town.
Yes he is from MIchigan, somewhere around Royal Oak if I recall (closer to actual Detroit than Eminem was from). But he famously relocated to rural Alabama and has a bunch of acres out there to party and ride ATVs and drink and fish and target shoot and all that jazz.
Irreverent Marxist here. I use the terms Lizard People, Deep State and other right-coded jargon, especially online. It's funny to me and my other irony poisoned Marxist friends. It's even funnier when libs get triggered and call me a MAGA.
I break character all the time but I'm sure there are dedicated trolls out there who don't break character. I wonder what percentage of anonymous online "Nazis" are just trolls.
Real Raw News is amusing but it's a huge stretch to call this kind of site uniquely dangerous for democracy. Millions of people read the mainstream media and were duped into supporting the fraudulent Iraq War, which may have caused a million deaths. No deepfakes needed!
Yeah, subtle misinformation is probably more dangerous than obviously over-the-top misinformation. The only response I can muster to Pizzagate is to roll my eyes, despite its real-world consequences, whereas the whole "trick people into thinking anyone who makes the a-ok hand gesture is a Nazi" thing seems scarier to me. Months later I was still talking to intelligent, generally well-informed people who remembered that as being real.
People believe what they want to believe because they dislike or hate or fear That Other Guy/Them Other Guys so badly.
Seemingly the FBI director at the hearing into the assassination attempt said that it wasn't definite that Trump had been hit by a bullet, it might have been shrapnel or shards from the teleprompter.
About ten minutes later I was seeing online posting ranging from "FBI claims it wasn't a bullet" to "FBI says Trump is lying!" with the rest of the post being "see, we told you he faked it in order to blame the left and whip up his mob of rabid followers". Even some online news headlines were much stronger in the "not a bullet" claim (but that's headlines, the body of the story was much more cautious).
Now seems like the FBI are saying "yes, it was a bullet". I wonder how many of the people saying "see, this proves Trump and the right faked the attempt" will now go "okay, I was wrong" or will they go even harder on "Trump and his fascists pressured the FBI into going along with the fake story"?
What I'm really boggled by is the switch (I suppose it's a new generation) from regarding the FBI as 'that bunch of right-wingers under Hoover who spied on and oppressed civil rights leaders and others' to 'the true defenders of democracy'.
Oh, fully agreed. I recently saw criticisms of a few left-wing headlines covering the assassination attempt (early on, while the facts were still emerging) along the lines of "Trump Scared At Rally By Popping Noises".
The critic said that the authors of these sources were so used to writing stories in which Trump was framed as evil or pathetic that they couldn't break out of that even when reporting on an attempt to kill him. That sounds right to me. It also reminds me of headlines in the Daily Mail about "Popular Activity Banned In Case It Offends Muslims", when a) it wasn't banned and b) the event in question had nothing to do with Muslims.
Yeah, on Google News the headlines were all 'FBI Unsure If Trump Hit By Bullet'
I understood that they were probably referring to someone carefully phrasing a statement so as to allow for the possibility that he was hit by shrapnel, so I didn't bother to read the articles.
What matters is that the headline writers weren't crafting this headline for people like you or I.
They it for the mirror-image leftwing version of RWN readers.
And they aren't "some guy having fun and/or defrauding the insane" -- they write with the full credibility of their media names and privileges, and they wrote for a much larger and more powerful audience. They are clearly more dangerous (and perhaps even more immoral) than this "Baxter" fellow.
Everyone who's taken the Colour-Out-Of-Space Pill knows that the Nazis were all eaten by shoggoths, sheeple! (What's the singular form? Sherson? Sheerson?)
I've read more people think the 2016 election was stolen than the think the 2020 election was. Millions think Russians hacked into voting machines and changed vote totals. And that Trump is formally working for Russian intelligence.
Eight years of mainstream cable news personalities saying "Russia hacked the election" without any clarifying context.
I still remember the two Democrats calling for the electorate to ignore the voters and 'vote their conscience'... with the result being that Hillary lost another seven electoral votes.
But surely it's interesting that so many people genuinely believe in said dumb shit. I find the sociology of the thing fascinating even beyond the lurid details of the content itself.
Sure, but I already knew that people believe in dumb/crazy ideas. This is a higher standard than typical in terms of users/wackiness, but not so far out of the distribution that I find it that interesting?
(Though I also find myself skeptical of how common it actually is)
None of this is news. QAnon has been around a long time. Do you not realize that most of those Jan 6 rioters believed in all this same shit back then?
I'm guessing not many readers of this site paid attention to QAnon, because it was the exact same thing and you wouldn't find this website review so interesting if you were aware of it. After Jan 6, Qanons (who were basically free to add whatever they wanted to the Q stories but mostly RT'd others) on Twitter had their accounts suspended. Going to DC on Jan 6 was The Big Story and Trump RT'd some QAnon tweets prior to the event. Since the guy behind Q (was probably one of the dudes behind 8 Chan, although there was an earlier guy before him) quit doing his thing and with Twitter censoring the material as fast as it could, it opened up the opportunity to centralize the White Hat/Black Hat stories with secret military trials at Gitmo elsewhere on the Web. Real Raw News likely has competing though less popular sites offering similar material. Real Raw News is no more popular than the Qanon stuff was when it was mostly on Twitter.
I'm surprised there aren't more conspiracy theories coming out of the Religious Right about Revelations 13:3
"One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast."
With Trump now having a head wound, I'd think the theory that Trump is Anti-Christ would be going wild.
Nah, not the religious types. I have seen that passage floating around, but it's on the Democrat/liberals side, in a half-joking way - see, he really *is* the Antichrist!
So by this parallel, J.D. Vance is the second beast that came out of the earth:
"11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed."
"Exercising the authority of the first beast on its behalf" does sound like the role of vice president 😁 Especially since we can know when Trump is going to retire/step down/otherwise have to hand over the presidency in his second term:
"5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months."
Forty two months is three and a half years, so for the last six months of the second Trump administration, Vice President Vance will take over as President and then be the incumbent for 2028. And when he is elected, his programme will be as follows:
"13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."
it's fun to do it as a joke, you can take the text and fit it around anyone pretty much (I haven't tried Joe and Kamala but I bet they could be shoehorned in).
It's when people really do identity A, B or C as the Antichrist and tick off all the boxes of "and this is where they are the same as the Beast in Revelations!" that is a matter of concern, whether they're fervent "Left Behind" readers or "I don't believe this dumb fake shit but you retards do, so why aren't you seeing how your favourite guy is a demon?" types (I've seen some of that too, but thankfully very little).
There's also the fact that Donald comes from the Gaelic "Dòmhnall," meaning "ruler of the world," and how Revelation foretells great trump[et]s sounding from the sky. So if you're going to have the Antichrist named something, "Donald Trump" is one of the more fitting names you could probably come up with.
On what people believe, or perhaps HOW people believe: you sometimes get people who react to soap operas as if they were real. One storyline about domestic abuse in British soap EastEnders led to the actor playing the abuser receiving at least one death threat by letter and having to wear a disguise in public because of the risk of being harassed or attacked.
Now: people KNOW that they're watching a work of fiction, here. It's not like wrestling, where most fans are in on the act but you can see how some people believe it's real (some of my friends did when we were young kids). It's a TV show with credits at the end. The actors are in the press all the time as "So-and-So, who plays Such-and-Such". And yet the death threat was sent to the actor, not the character at his pretend address. I believe (hard to check at this distance) that in some cases people were waiting outside the TV studio to attack the actor. For the actions of the character he played on a show made at that studio! That's how they knew to go to the studio to find him!
This is something deeper than being dim, or naive, or believing what you read on shit websites. It's a belief system that utterly, flagrantly contradicts itself. I've always found it bewildering, but this review posits that people choose to believe something they know can't really be true, because they find that belief satisfying in some way, and perhaps that's the best explanation.
>It's a belief system that utterly, flagrantly contradicts itself
It really is a manifestation of doublethink, a la Orwell. It definitely says something very interesting and fundamental about human psychology and its relation to truth.
Trump's professional wrestling background and political persona plays into this on some level, I would think. Like the white hats and black hats fighting each other for control of the country; that seems like a rather obvious extension of the kinds of storylines that play out in WWE. There are good guys and bad guys and alliances and so forth, and sometimes they'll script it where a good guy goes over to the bad side and vice versa. This sounds like kinda the same thing; but instead of sports, it's politics being turned into a weird performance art with silly stories crafted to keep the audience engaged. How many Trump fans were pro wrestling fans as young'uns? Gotta be almost all of 'em, I would think. No surprise then that they've find both Trump and RRN attractive.
The fact that apparently a six figure sized group of adults are buying this sort of improvised kayfabe has no implications for the future success of the democratic system in this country, I'm sure.
I wonder how many people started reading RRN to enjoy it ironically, only for the enjoyment to become unironic and their belief in it to become genuine.
So, let me understand. Liberals are paranoid for worrying that conservatives fantasize about enacting a totalitarian state where they can execute all their political enemies, and the number one evidence that this is far-fetched is...a blog where conservatives openly fantasize about executing all their political enemies?
Is there any particular reason to think that the guy who runs the site is a conservative? It's openly taking the piss. I doubt the person who writes My Immortal is a goth teenager who goes to Hogwarts.
Openly taking the piss in such a way that tons of people read it and the person who wrote this essay says he regular encounters people who think its real? And its less about the intentions of the author than the fact he is tapping into what is obviously a near erotic fixation of a big part of Trumps base.
Yes, openly taking the piss to the extent that he's reporting the executions of people who are still on TV regularly against a backdrop of a scenario that obviously cannot be true. From what little I've see of RRN (this article, plus accidentally stumbling into it a few weeks ago and reading a couple of silly articles) it reads like mockery of Trump's more deluded fans: The World According To The Sort of People Who Stormed The Capitol.
I see how it could also be read as a sort of vindictive quasi-porno for right-wingers who fantasise about the deaths of people who have challenged Trump. But both of the above motives seem very plausible, so just assuming he's a conservative seems odd, and TBH motivated.
And assuming that no one takes this stuff seriously is ignoring a major section of the review, and also seems like the sort of take someone who had never actually spent any time around fanatical Trump supporters would have.
But assume I follow your logic, somewhere out there presumably is a hardcore right-winger writing West-Wing style political meritocracy dramas from his nazi-flag-bedecked basement?
I didn't assume that no one takes this stuff seriously. In fact, you assumed that this stuff is a "fixation of a big part of Trumps base", and I kinda wanted to challenge that statement but then I realised that I have no idea what the numbers are. I don't know if the percentage of Trump's base who fantasize about seeing left-wing politicians die is 1% or 90%.
You're right that I haven't spend any time around fanatical Trump supporters, in person anyway, because I live in the UK and they don't. I am, however, wholly used to fanatical supporters of all sorts of parties and movements who go on about wanting to see their opponents put up against the wall. So yes, it's a given that out there exist Trump supporters who enjoy the idea of Obama, Clinton etc being hanged.
None of that has any bearing on whether or not the guy who writes this website is a conservative, though.
Your last paragraph is absurd, and I kinda think you know that. But if you're serious about it, let me know and I'll explain my issues with it.
When I wrote "blog where conservatives openly fantasize about executing all their political enemies?" You assumed I was talking about the author. A fair assumption, but I've clarified multiple times now that even if you are just talking about the thousands of commentors and donators and fans of the site its an accurate description. So can we get back to my original point, which is that its wild to live in a world where liberals says "conservatives dream of a dictatorship where they can kill all the liberals" and conservatives say "we dream of a dictatorship where we can kill all the liberals" and yet the concern is still characterized as completely overblown.
Does this site actually exist? How would I tell? Would clicking one of those links just take me to a Rick Astley video? Not worth the risk of finding out.
Am I the first person to notice the similarity between RRN and the typical American evangelical eschatology? I realize most of you didn't grow up reading the Left Behind series like I did, but I would have thought it's too obvious to miss.
It's a simple substitution of Trump for God:
Trust the plan, God is in control -> Trust the plan, Trump is in control
Enemies of God sentenced to hell -> Enemies of Trump sentenced to death
The chief villain trying to establish one-world government is also perfectly on brand with this.
The author of this piece claims that he works “in the broader world of American right-of-center politics” and “encounter Real Raw News believers constantly”. He also claims to have a friend “who served in the Trump administration” who has similar experiences.
In endnote (1) he also claims to be a liberal arts graduate. A liberal arts graduate who works in right-of-center US politics and has a friend in the Trump administration?
My theory/hunch/prior/whatever is that this is a clever guy fake-news’ing that he is meeting many Trump people who actually believe RRN. To see if he can get the rationalist ACX readership to believe this, without them asking for empirical confirmation about who he is, and what he claims he has experienced.
And judging from the comment section, he succeeds😊!
Presumably, there are liberal arts graduate jobs that right-wing campaigning orgs and other ideological machines would also find useful. Several other posters have referred to encounterig unironic RRN believes in the wild - is this a particular impossibility, or is it just something that more sober right-wingers don't want to believe since it would be deeply embarrassing?
Yes, several other posters have referred to encounters with unironic RRN believers. While some posters have argued against their existence. Hard to say who is right without something more than anecdotal evidence, we probably agree there?
(...the task of getting accurate numbers is made more difficult by the possibility that some conservatives may get a kick out of pretending to be RRN believers, just to mess with liberals.)
For the record, I deem it possible that perhaps a hundred or so unironic RRN believers exist in a country as big as the US. But a major movement? Very hard to believe. (And concerning your question, I do not know what sober US right-wingers think. Lack of data there too.)
...but on one item we will hopefully get accurate data, when the identity of the book reviewers are revealed at the end of the book review contest. Then it will hopefullt be clear if the author has pulled a (very clever) meta-fake-news story on us all, or not.
I personally know three to five people who hold beliefs such as “the moon is hollow and was put in the sky by aliens to be used as a spy satellite” or “Tens of thousands of children have been kidnapped by a secret elite that drinks their blood”.
Given this, “a hundred or so RNN believers” seems like an underestimate.
I admit that statements about actually having met such people suggest they are somewhat more numerous than a hundred. (Since what are the odds of an ACX reader meeting one of them in a country of 330 million, if they are not more numerous than that.)
Also, I met enough crazies in my days of political activism that I thank God all existing democracies are only indirect democracies.
That said, RNN believers do not only believe one solitary crazy thing (like the moon is hollow), or only crazy things that cannot be checked by trusting your own eyes. Assuming this review’er gives an accurate presentation, they believe in a long string of crazy things, many of which can be checked simply by looking. For example that many of the people that are presumed killed are actually walking around, such as the Clintons. Yes they are all clones I get it, but why put in clones of enemies you have killed…and so on and so on.
So I’ll upgrade from a hundred to an unspecified number above that. However, I am wary of assuming they are really numerous. Since I suspect both you and I, and other ACX readers, may be prone to overestimation bias here: Assuming RNN believers are really numerous makes “us” different from the presumed multitude of unwashed plebs.
…I am reminded also of an old Scott post that when polled, a non- negligible percentage of US people believe Obama is the antichrist, while at the same time stating that they voted for him. Which suggests to me that you should not underestimate the percentage of trolls & people who simply like to mess with other people’s brains, when they are asked crazy questions.
Well, unless the posters who refer to encounters with unironic RRN believers are lying, the fact that they refer to them existing seems to disprove the claim that they don't exist.
"A liberal arts graduate who works in right-of-center US politics and has a friend in the Trump administration?"
JD Vance, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and numerous others would meet that description even if we confine ourselves to the 100 members of the Senate. What exactly do you think future Republican politicians and staffers do in college? Study liberal arts like political science, of course. Where do you think they do it? At a liberal-aligned university, because nearly all universities are liberal-aligned, of course.
I like this review, it could even be my number two finalist so far. But I don't agree with everything and have a clear problem with one particular part. It gives examples of different Covid vaccine conspiracy theories, among them "hydra DNA to turn recipients into partially non-human chimeras". A rather silly theory, I guess. Then it says, however:
> "What stands out isn't the silliness of these particular theories, but that I saw them sequentially endorsed by the *same people* [...] Consistency isn't the point! [...] *every* conceivably story or tale that feeds that genre of thought is, for them, worthwhile."
Logically speaking, sequentially endorsing different theories is not inconsistent. And what's wrong with it? If I disbelieve an official explanation, I might endorse another one (loosely) as the best one so far, and then switch once I come across an even better one. Candidate explanations certainly remain "worthwhile" until I'm sure I have the correct one.
The problem with good book reviews is they spoil the need to actually read the book. In such regard, this is an ideal review as there is no way I’d read RNN. This was very entertaining and fun, well done!
"If you’re a normal American liberal, everything Trump says is offensive and piggish, but to justify their level of disdain for them, many needed to elevate his evil to the level of treason, even if that never really made any sense. It can't just be that Trump is an egotistical jerk or a narcissist or whatever. He's got to be a traitor who's going to end American democracy."
I'm one of those "normal American liberals" who does indeed believe that Trump's attempts to remain in power after he lost the election were as evil as treason. I don't know to what extent he encouraged Jaunary 6, but he certainly claimed without evidence that the election was rigged and he certainly asked the Georgia Secretary of State to find votes that didn't exist.
You're right. Trump behaved as literally no president before him did and I pray as no president after him did. The complete failure of the Republican party to punish him for his behavior makes the whole lot of them traitors to this country.
I wasn't all that impressed with this review, it seemed frankly as out of place as a WWE plot summary showing up on ACT or some such... until of course we got the bombshell that there are actual living human beings who believe this is genuine reporting
How many people believe it, and what's their demographic? I can perhaps believe that the 5% most stupid, 5% most gullible, 5% most cynical and so on may get sucked into this nonsense, hopefully temporarily (note, these groups are not disjoint, so don't just add up the percentages...). But some actual functioning people, not to mention elite-adjacents (someone in the comments mentioned his father, who is a "big law-firm partner"), falling into it? This is a case of an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Does anyone know of any research, or at least reliable polls, that can give a quantitative idea of how large this group is (of believers, not just consumers) and who they are?
The most useful thing I got out of this "book" review was updating that several other people updated meaningfully on the apparent fact that [tens of...several score...millions of] people in current_year believe some outlandish outgroupy things. Disappointing on two levels. Have we not been reading the same rationalist blog all these years? Do others not regularly encounter dozen-a-dime nutty beliefs among otherwise-decent everyday folks? Heaven and Earth philosophy things, Horatio Kain...and yet, somehow, despite normies still holding 99% of the culture and power levers, the story of life goes on. Analogous to how few people were ever actually on Twitter, yet it had world-changing importance, for certain values of "world", "changing", and "importance".
The AI rejoinder is also, of course, that it's a symmetrical weapon capable of playing defense too. The quarry may change, but never the hunt...somehow we muddled through years of not having things like Caller ID and email spam filters, yknow? The culture adapts, sometimes too slowly and sadly after Someone Gets Hurt (though in consequentialist terms, perhaps that's a worthy sacrifice for greater inoculation), but eventually nonetheless. It's like looking at your first dozen good AI-generated images, realizing they reliably goof on certain things, and then suddenly It's All Crap and the magic eye stops working. Yes, this is the worst AI deepfake offense will ever be - and the same for epistemic defense too.
(Current plan is to vote for whichever review doesn't shoehorn in some hasty meta-rationalist catnip dartboard topic at the end. It's becoming a bit embarrassing, frankly. These reaches are so half-baked they should come with a witty Gordon Ramsey rejoinder. There are ways to do audience tie-in without abruptly changing topic and/or being overtly self-aware about it!)
If the heavens smile upon me, my tiny contribution to the genre of Garland Criticism will co-mingle with Baxter's more formidable efforts in some future footnote of the Galactic Encyclopedia.
Agree with the call. The third-person self-references (including to last year's review of Njall's Saga, which was also Scott's) feel a lot like gorilla-on-the-court sleight of hand. Also the general rationalist moral fits well – we're all of us much deceived and should hold our beliefs lightly, and isn't field epistemology more fun than the actual content of beliefs anyway? After all, there are good people on both sides.
(Which, of course, there are not. Obviously. One side is strictly less nuts than the other.)
All right, can somebody give me the non-clickbait version of this?
Right now on one social media site I'm seeing this post, from an "opinion contributor" in USA Today, breathlessly passing on the story "Republicans voted against cancer research just to spite the president" (and of course "if you have cancer or know anyone with cancer, pass this on").
The original article is by one Dr. Thomas K. Lew, rather ironically (in view of writing this) calling for "Vote for those who do not politicize Americans' health".
"Some Republicans" (who? as Wikepedia would say) "refusing to give President Joe Biden a 'win', voted against the renewal of funding for cancer research".
I know it's useless to look up the original piece because it's an "opinion" piece so it'll be all "boo those evil Republicans who want cancer patients to die horribly!" so, can anyone tell me what is going on here? Did they block funding? If so, why?
The headline, should anyone care, is "Congress voted against funding a cure for cancer just to block a win for Biden".
The original piece actually has a link to a Yahoo posting of a Politico article on the matter that is still definitely left-leaning but isn't an opinion piece. It highlights a Democrat saying that the refusal to funds is specifically about denying Biden a win, but also quotes two Republicans, one of whom says that it's just part of the broad swathe of cuts being made to try and get the deficit under control and another of whom (the co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus) wants a new bill for medical research but one that focuses on affordable innovation. Unfortunately, I'm not finding other articles on the subject.
Not sure what that has to do with the book review though.
I read through, and it seems to be from May, and it's about the budget balancing and deficit.
But the story is being passed around as "See, the evil Republicans are murdering cancer patients!"
There's people in this comment thread claiming there is nothing comparable to RRN on the liberal/left side, and I'm sure there's not - but you don't need one, when ordinary people who vote or support Democrats unquestioningly swallow such stories as true on the face of it with no nuance. Yes, they blocked renewal of funding for the 'moonshot' research. No, it's not because they hate cancer sufferers and want them to die, because Rethuglicans Evil.
Fascinating article, but one question: early on in the article you note how hawk eyed readers notice inconsistencies in RRN articles and how Baxter is adept at mending the inconsistencies, but later on in the article you state that conspiracy believers don’t care about consistency, they only care about the comic book-like narrative. This seems… well… inconsistent.
1) I wonder what proportion of RRN's audience has clinically relevant and pre-existing mental illness. The donors and earnest commentators especially make me wonder if it is a magnet for people suffering from psychosis.
2) I wonder what the experience is like for Baxter. Does he wake up and say, "oh boy here I go grifting again"? Does he have an elaborate justification? Is he one of those people who has loose mental boundaries between what's true vs what's fun or profitable to say?
3) Nitpicking: are we really approaching AI that's too cheap to meter? I've been seeing headlines about how AI is drawing problematic amounts of power from the grid. Maybe those headlines are wrong.
I wonder how many "parallel universes" are out there that a substantial number of people more-or-less believe in, read about, and think a lot about. At some level, it's a little like a fandom/fanfiction, where you have a little bit of your mind thinking about the Star Wars universe or something.
It's easy to know that there are many "parallel universes" in terms of what seems important. Go find someone who's really into a hobby you don't care about, and you'll see that--a whole community of people with hierarchies and status competitions and drama of various kinds, and you never knew it existed. But this review makes me think about the "parallel universes" of shared bizarrely counterfactual worldviews.
I've read before that a lot of people on surveys say they believe weird stuff--9/11 was a controlled demolition, HIV was engineered by the government to kill off either gays or blacks or both, Muslims are getting ready to impose sharia law on the US unless the Dominionists manage to impose Handmaid's Tale-ism first, etc. But it's interesting and disturbing to think that a lot of people are living in an entirely separate fact-universe from me, and maybe think stuff like these Gitmo tribunals are happening every day. There are media bubble counterfactuals that are visible to me (even if I mostly avoid them), but they tend toward more tame counterfactual beliefs like that cops are routinely going out to hunt down unarmed black boys, or that Donald Trump has to do whatever Putin says or he'll release the pee tape. Lots of people seem to have conspiracy theories about the covid vaccine (is the source anger about the lockdowns, fear of needles, or something else), ranging from the crazy person's favorite "injecting a microchip" to statistically innumerate[1] "millions have died from the covid vaccine." I used to see the Obama is a secret Muslim or Obama is a Kenyan bit going around, mostly in fringey blog comments but occasionally nodded to (often in a joking way) by more serious people.
There are also broad "conspiracy theory" type beliefs that become embedded in some mainstream ideology and are widely discussed. A lot of racial discourse seems like this to me--*everything* that the speaker doesn't like is a system of white supremacy or the patriarchy or whatever. There's a dumb flat-earther version that serves as the bailey and a more limited version that serves as the motte. The right-wing election narrative is somewhat comparable, though much more focused. (Trump figures any election where *anyone* voted against him was rigged, because c'mon, who would *really* vote for anyone else?)
Somewhere in there is also the set of half-remembered stories that stick around because the initial headline gets more attention than the correction. Tons of people out there "know" that Saddam was behind 9/11 and had extensive stockpiles of WMDs, that Michael Brown was shot by a racist cop while trying to surrender, that George Zimmerman is a big white guy[2], the Rolling Stone gangrape story that fell apart, the Duke Lacrosse team gangrape story that fell apart, etc.
[1] To be fair, approximately everyone is statistically innumerate. What fraction of the population could give you a comprehensible and reasonably accurate explanation of what a correlation coefficient is, or even explain the difference between a mean and a median?
[2] He's a little hispanic guy, and tbh if his name had been written "Jorge" I wonder if we'd ever have heard of him--there are plenty of shootings with a questionable claim of self defense out there, and most never make the national news.
No, belief in RRN is not comparable to left-wing belief in Russiagate, and you need to radically re-evaluate your epistemics if you think it is.
Trump's motives are likely more banal narcissism and less treason and authoritarianism than most on the left would like to admit, and effective Russian interference with the election is unlikely to have happened because even experienced American political professionals don't really know how to massively influence voters. But "people believed the stupidest and most catastrophizing possible explanation of real events which we have evidence happened" is not the same as "people believed sequential mutually-contradictory stories without evidence".
This is the day after Trumps election victory and RRN is rather weak. I hoped for a more triumphant and dramatic climax, but maybe he doesn't know were to go now story wise that the fictitious and real world converged again:
"Lets (sic) not completely ignore how many people believe this."
Okay, so how are you ignorant, unlearned reality deniers doing after only two weeks of Trump proving us right while destroying any credibility you morons have remaining? Simultaneously shutting down massive grifter operations worldwide that YOU believed?
Tell us, how are you doing?
Likely still in blind, ignorant denial-
Low-IQ, cognizant-defficient idiots without a clue-
This is the best possible kind of comment to leave on this review. Thank you for your service.
Question: But are such powerful reunion love spells even ethical? The magic does override their agency. Actually that sounds quite rapey to me. :-o
Here is a video how the magic is conjured:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=1hd_EkU-jJo
I believe this is gender-dependent. It's like Harry Potter, where Love Potions are exclusively used by women/girls on men/boys, and no one seems concerned.
> The drug, soluble, odorless, and tasteless, is said to deprive a person of free-will—zombify them.
Michael Baxter is a Chalmers fan I see.
Well-played!
Once this is over and Trump reveals all, maybe philosophers will use this to get in the controlled trial game.
This site is an excellent parody of the news media's complete submission to audience capture and the 'interesting-fication' of complex, mundane realities. Good review!
'Parody'???
Lets not completely ignore how many people believe this.
> I’ll admit, I find Baxter’s efforts to maintain narrative integrity incredibly charming, given how the clash with the latent absurdity of the whole endeavor.
That should probably be 'given how _they_ clash'?
This review was both fun to read and informative (I had no idea RRN existed prior to just now).
Now I know how to spot a clone by their feet! Who says the Internet is not educational?
This also explains all the people in the locker room that look like Obama and have no genitals.
Why not just when they spontaneously combust and burn to a crisp? Or explode, taking out nearby marines?
These seem like more obvious telltale signs than the flat feet.
I suspect this comes from the Toy's story plotline about Buzz's soles
Don't forget the lack of genitals. They can't clone those because that's where the soul lives.
I was horrified to suddenly understand that various confusing things I had read online make perfect sense if you believe in the RRN narrative. Lots of believers out there.
The real conspiracy is that Michael Baxter founded RRN right after Scott announced the first book review contest, in a hope of winning the review contest some day. A bit of a long con. Sorry for doxxing you, Michael.
Interesting review.
However compare and contrast 'The Toxoplasma of Rage' https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
Basically, yes, as suggested in the review a phantasy world where the good guys are winning is appealing to some people, but far more people seem to react to rage baiting.
At the moment, the other side of the rage baiting is (partially) made up of real people with real views, and even more from out-of-context glimpses of real people and their real views. That's already pretty efficient at harvesting attention.
But now imagine fuelling the rage maximally efficiently with the help of AI.
That's a far more depressing world for me, because at least in the 'Real Raw News' world, its adherents can be happy with the fiction they consume.
A frontrunner for me at present.
....oh. Oh, I don't like that at all.
(the review was great, to be clear)
My reaction exactly. I can't say I'm really *surprised* this kind of site exists. Just this year I've visited parts of the country where I had chats with random people convinced that, for example, covid vaccines have killed dozens of people they knew personally. But the *scale* of it is just... wow.
I've always understood that the essence of a successful con is to just do an order of magnitude more work for it than anybody can imagine you would.
deepfakes are unnecessary. they won't change anything. people believe in fictional stories all the time!
people believe *priests*. telling them about iron age comic book stories. and take them as truth.
i have zero fear of deepfakes because i have a mechanical understanding of physical reality so i'm immune, and as for the people who don't and aren't, well, they already believe in so much bullshit that it already proves that deepfakes won't matter.
people believing that fiction is real is the normal baseline standard.
It might lower the baseline of sanity at the margin.
"i have zero fear of deepfakes because i have a mechanical understanding of physical reality so i'm immune,"
So you're telling me you can identify clones by their feet.
If a really, really convincingly faked image with accompanying sound track was produced, you would - because of your mechanics - be immediately able to tell it was faked? At once? No doubt about it?
Maybe *you're* a clone!
It's fine, I'm a clone too. Join the clonery!
I wasn't, but now I'm a clone, too.
Well said.
"people believing that fiction is real is the normal baseline standard."
This seems right and fills me with fear.
Consider all the good things which have been successfully created, even made routine, despite that tendency having already having been present since before we started.
Sure. But it was also brutal and painful. And as a believing-in-progress kind of a person, I think that most of those things that were created came about through the letting go of certain fictions.
Obviously, you can see that in the battles between religion and science in early modern Europe. It was being willing to consider the possibility that the church-supported cosmology was wrong that enabled astronomers to see what was really going on. And being willing to dispense with the church's creation myth that enabled the theory of evolution. Etc.
In modern times, similarly: the myth of heroic leaders gives way to bureaucracy and democracy. The myth of male superiority gives way to equal treatment.
We have achieved amazing amounts, despite having very dodgy philosophical underpinnings. But that dodgy philosophy also drove war and persecution and hatred. I can't see belief in fictions as a good thing.
What would the full counterfactual alternative to coordinated belief in fictions have been, though? "Go directly to lotus throne, do not pass iron age, do not collect 200,000 years of incremental improvement from mistakes" ?
If Galileo had had a fully accurate understanding of the political environment at the time, rather than believing in a comforting fiction that the Pope could be persuaded by logical argument and observational evidence, it's possible he would have preferred to avoid the many personal risks involved in speaking out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDGjeLGzCI0
For that matter, removing sincere belief in religion more generally from an environment like early modern Europe might (all else being equal) make it far less politically stable, thus less able to maintain the societal infrastructure needed for further progress. https://acoup.blog/2019/06/04/new-acquisitions-how-it-wasnt-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-ii/
Yeah, I don't dispute any of that...
It's a great question, what would the alternative have been? And of course, I don't know. I don't think the question is completely unanswerable, though. For example, the European and Middle Eastern experience seems to have involved a lot of particularly internecine religious strife. Looking around the world, other places seem to have had less of that. China/East Asia is probably the best attested; perhaps pre-Columbian North America as well. Like, it is possible to have sophisticated culture without religious war. So, answering your question would first involve a proper historian looking at how that came about.
Then what? Belief in the ethnostate/ethnoempire? I can't work out if it is possible to avoid that kind of shared fiction. It looks like a natural step as we expand the circle of mutual defence... I dunno, I don't really have any insight on whether it's a necessary myth.
Myths of male superiority? There have been a few matriarchal cultures, you could look at them and see how they work...
What I'm saying is, historically, yeah - it's hard to imagine humans developing without any kind of shared belief in some social fictions. But it does seem like there can be less or more fiction in your beliefs.
In the modern context, choosing to add fiction still seems like a scary choice.
> In the modern context, choosing to add fiction still seems like a scary choice.
Sure, but personally I'm less worried about the fiction in itself than whatever tangible issue someone making such a choice felt such a need to defend against. Not to say the fiction isn't a problem too, but without that other piece we aren't seeing the whole picture.
> i have a mechanical understanding of physical reality
Is it possible to learn this power?
Not from a Jedi.
Only half joking - it always bothered me that the SW universe *didn't* have reliable ways to halt and reverse aging after tens of millennia of galactic civilization.
Same for Star Trek. Or the Foundation, or most other science fiction.
True. I just always found the Star Wars case to be particularly jarring.
Star Wars' medical science in general isn't that good. It seems to be limited to throwing bacta on it, and if that doesn't work, prosthetics. Star Trek is what surprises me. They can run into some totally new alien species and whip up a cure for some random illness in hours, but with centuries at their disposal they haven't found a cure for aging?
I always got the sense that in Star Trek, they'd made a deliberate choice not to prevent old age, and just decided not to talk about it much.
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise? It's not a story the mainstream media would tell you.
Yeah, the whole deepfakes and politics debate is kind of like people pretending that techniques like "editing photos" or "masquerading someone as a politician and then having them do bad stuff" haven't existed forever. They still aren't used too much. Why? Probably because the benefit gained is not worth the risks of the general legitimization of such tactics, possibly also used eventually against the party trying them out in the first place.
I think they're not used much because the are not really needed. Why go through trouble creating fake images of, say, Sept 11 attacks when you can just keep repeating "planes didn't hit the WTC", add some mumbo-jumbo about "jet fuel doesn't melt steel, gotcha", and voila, millions swallow this garbage.
I mean, I could write a fake letter from Joe Biden and C&P his signature in. It's just that the fact that it was fake would be really obvious because of its provenance (random poster putting it online versus White House sending it out). The same applies to deepfakes. We use provenance all the time in evaluating claims, deepfakes universally come from dogshit sources.
True, but once they've circulated, how many casual viewers would know the original source, or care? Also, they might well be accompanied by misinformation regarding the source.
I agree that people believe fiction is real all the time. This seems clear.
What I don't understand is how that possibly evolved in humans. Wouldn't believing real is real confer an evolutionary advantage?
believing in bullshit doesn't kill people fast enough to prevent them from replicating. evolution is not "survival of the fittest", it's "replication of of the least inadequate".
OK, but why doesn't believing in bullshit make you 1% less adequate? That's all we need and in 100 or so generations, no more bullshit.
I have to think that there's something adaptive about the ability to believe BS stories that increase group cohesion among hunter-gatherers.
Believing in "good bullshit" makes you x% more fit. Believing in "bad bullshit" makes you y% less fit. X>Y. Good and bad are context sensitive.
Because social relationships are organized by shared cultural narratives. The advantages of belonging to a community of like minded believers presumably outweighs the disadvantage of not understanding the objective universe in precise, valid detail.
That's why conspiracy theories don't have to be logically consistent. That's not their purpose. Their real purpose is to connect like minded people together, and at that they are highly effective and efficient.
I "narrated" this back when it was a shortlist contender:
https://open.substack.com/pub/askwhocastsai/p/acx-book-review-real-raw-news
(Also, funny note, this got me a content strike on my YouTube channel for "medical misinformation")
"Also, funny note, this got me a content strike on my YouTube channel for "medical misinformation"
Clearly Youtube is in on it, they don't want the ordinary public to know how to identify clones!
Actually, they do, and the RRN technique is incorrect.
"Your entire understanding of reality is mediated through what sites you choose to read and what videos you choose to watch. As a politically marginal person, it won’t matter what you as an individual choose to believe. So, what happens if you choose to believe the story you find most enjoyable? And what if millions of others choose the same?"
Are we not most of the way there already? If recent activity on X is anything to go by, conspiracy theories enjoy equal standing in discussions on any political controversy. They're asserted with smug self-assuredness, as if disbelief in the media is taken for granted by any right-thinking person, and only idiots take anything at face value. The general theory of mind and motive on display is profoundly hyper-paranoid and cynical.
We created a incentive structure fueled by algorithms that encourage people, smart and dumb alike, to speculate out of their asses about everything in the most provocative way possible because that's what wins in an attention economy. Comparatively, basic reasoning, and procedures of verification of something's truth value, is devalued and only appreciated by a negligible, increasingly irrelevant minority.
Nonsense, and closed epistemic bubbles based on fantasies and delusions have been and always will be a part of our information ecosystem, but they used to be semi-quarantined to opt-in ghettoes like tabloids, mailing lists, and blogs like the one so brilliantly explored here. There were borders, and border enforcers which prevented too much osmosis. Now, the whole sense-making apparatus has undergone...Tabloidification(?) - as a Darwinian response to attention becoming the sole currency of the land. We're trapped in a giant collective action problem.
We opened the floodgates of content creation, flattened and universalized multidirectional distribution at near zero cost, while eroding the borders, standards, and discreet contexts that are necessary to organize information by quality,(and enforcing filters of quality), in favor of a system that runs on popularity.
This is what happens when Tech follows the imperatives of capitalism to its logical conclusions without restraint. Specific people made specific design decisions when creating the incentive structures and feedback loops that govern the networks they built which became our reality-delivery systems. They, in turn, were trapped in the deeper collective action problem that making money is and must be the supreme goal at the cost of competing considerations, like the basic legibility of reality, or the maintenance of common knowledge / intersubjective truth.
Most of us sense this is probably leading to some phenomenally self-destructive end state, but we still hear the stubborn refrain that all of this is just reflecting our own freely chosen wants and needs in a free marketplace - and how can that be a bad thing (especially compared to the alternatives)?
We know full well that short-term desires often directly subvert long-term necessities, and we have a bias to be short-sighted.
>as if disbelief in the media is taken for granted by any right-thinking person, and only idiots take anything at face value.
Isn't it, though? The media aren't neutral arbiters of truth, they're partisan actors willing and able to slant and misrepresent everything controversial to fit their agendas, while being incompetently ignorant about most non-controversial stuff.
I see these things sitting on a continuum. On the top of the hierarchy are people whose job it is to directly interface with the truth (researchers, apolitical experts, scientists). Below that are the more professional class of media, who have to thread the needle between motivated reporting and audience capture (as you describe) but also conform to fact-checking and the need to maintain some level of reputation. Then there are other types of media that are driven entirely by slant and access.
Somewhere near the bottom is the layperson who engages in conspiracy theories and comments/retweets/posts entirely from a place of confirmation bias and signaling, without doing any work whatsoever to conform their beliefs to base reality.
A lot of individual people do better than the last category, and there's millions of examples of individual people having a better grip on reality than the media. However, I think it's reasonable to assume as a prior that *in general* the reporting at a mostly-quasi-non-partisan and buttoned up outlet (e.g. the WSJ) will be closer to reality than the bottom tier of conspiracy theorists on FB/Twitter.
Even if you hate the MSM and know all the reasons they are biased and crooked, it's pretty obvious that the Wall Street Journal reporters know more about what's going on in the real world than QAnon fans.
Yes, very good assessment. Despite the Gelman amnesia thesis, there is signal in mainstream news outlets. They're going to fail at the technical detail level and any reasonable measure of risk calibration but as Scott says they try medium-hard not to directly lie.
The problem is without better tools (intellectual jigs and world models) the layman does worse. It might help is we started teaching PESTEL analysis in history class or economics (if your school has it) but the education world is so allergic to grounding theory education in data that I don't know how to get it in there.
Further more we could teach geography again and maybe even throw some historical atlases at hi-schoolers but I probably ask too much and should just wish for basic chemistry, physics, and biology to be required... /sigh.
Anyway lets go back to posting about Tartaria cause it's so much more colorful then the boring real world!
I don't disagree with anything here, but just because the WSJ is better than QAnon, it doesn't follow that even they are good enough to take all of what they say at face value, and there's also plenty of stuff in between.
Good point. It's not so much the skepticism that's the problem, it's the way it is paired with credulity.
"Obviously the mainstream media is full of crap. I believe *this guy* and *that guy* because they're telling it how it is!". Um, okay, so how do you know that *their* story is accurate when there's all this evidence to the contrary? "That evidence is obviously faked, man, get your head out of your ass!" How do you know it's faked? "Because the mainstream media said the same stuff / the liberals are pushing it / the scientists get government funding / [3 years from now] they use AI to generate all that evidence now / [other excuse]!" (And then there's my father's approach: consistently refuse to answer the question, but always insist you're right and never acknowledge your son is right about anything, no matter how minor the point)
Good comment and this is what I fear too.
Nah. This is nothing new; look at the nonsense people believed long before the Internet — there are hundreds of examples of the same fads and paranoia and irrationality; we've just forgotten them. (Satanic cults in our preschools!)
You've fallen victim to the same thing, just in a sort of inverse way: you see a tiny minority of loons become more visible, and conclude society is wildly crazier than ever before. If anything, I'd say it's the opposite: thanks to the Internet, the average person you interact with is — if only marginally — /better/-informed than before.
Anecdote, but perhaps a telling one: I grew up right as the Internet started to come into play, and although certainly people were as dumb as ever, a lot of rumors and myths began to die in front of my eyes. I'm thinking in particular of how, slowly, legends about "if you do x y and z in this game, you can turn on 'nude mode'!" changed into "if you do x y and z, you're dumb, because the meta is to do a b and c" (which would be correct, since much better players and much more evidence were available).
I do acknowledge that belief in nonsense is nothing new, and that nonsense will be culturally mediated, incidental and not particularly indicative of whether society is becoming more or less batshit overall. That's true. But algorithmic media only accelerates all the problems that came with previous waves of mass media, which is why things are getting worse, not better.
I think you're discounting the power of the algorithms to normalize and popularize nonsense, to launder its legitimacy by indiscriminately intermingling it with better quality information, to flatten hierarchies of quality, shifting the burden onto individuals to do their own ranking and sorting of either information, or their epistemic communities, or both, which is effortful and something a lot of people aren't equipped to do well.
So most people don't - they default to social proof. But that's a problem when the algorithms only select for popularity within the epistemically closed, solipsistic communities it creates for its users, because thats what their behavior is telling the system they want. Those people then think this constructed, artificial "Reality" is actual reality, because all the social confirmation signals they normally use to sanity check themselves is telling them it is.
This is what I meant by tabloidification. Our main mediums of communication explicitly privilege low quality information because that's what most people's behavior indicates they want, and thus makes the most money. But it's also making large scale social cooperation, and even the concept of Common Knowledge, increasingly impossible.
In many ways, the mixing of useful signals with absolute shit is like what happened with mortgage backed securities precipitating the financial crisis of 2008. The crisis occurred because a process that made it too hard to differentiate good from bad made everything illegible, causing a basic breakdown in the ability to make rational calculations.
Tabloid nonsense used to be separated from institutional knowledge production and distribution. That's not to say the institutional gatekeepers were always or even mostly correct, but they did keep obvious horseshit out through various filters.
That's gone now, and whatever educational merit you think the internet has had overall, I doubt the system we're in now is debunking rumors and myths faster than it's enabling new ones to flourish.
I was exactly the right age to ride the early-Internet wave of "How to catch Mew in Pokemon!" stories, and they were basically all preposterous, barring legitimate puzzlement over The Truck's (lack of) purpose.
...and then in 2002, a Mew-catching method was found that *actually worked*...and it was just as ridiculous as the fake strategies. If you had inserted it into one of the lists circulating online in 1999, I never would have been able to guess which one it was.
> as a Darwinian response to attention becoming the sole currency of the land.
My hope is that abundant solar PV, and sundry industrial developments downstream thereof, will slay the engagement-maximizing oroboros by allowing most people to resume competing for social status on the basis of ability to personally reshape the actual physical environment.
> The backlash against “DEI,” “woke,” and “cancel culture” as exemplified by Elon Musk’s purchase and rebranding of Twitter to “X.”
Hmm. I can see how the backlash might be exemplified by Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter. What does renaming it have to do with it?
Would like to know as well. Far as I know, his fascination with the "X" brand goes back at least as far as the PayPal days, which Musk also wanted named X.
Nah, I've had enough of this understanding schtick:
"But in a sense, all of us have a little of the Real Raw News believer in us."
No, we don't. This has been going on ever since early Jon Stewart (and probably before then, only I wasn't around), where Fox News anchors would compare themselves with Stewart and go and debate with him, as though a news guy and a comedy guy were comparable. And all the hand-wringing about how we need to *understand* the Trump voters fell into the same trap: imagining that they're thinking like us.
Centrists and lefties just don't do this thing of believing a total alternative reality consistently. It's a uniquely right wing thing (in this century, in developed nations). It's just too weird, and we're not helping anyone to think more clearly by stroking our chins and wondering if we don't all live in constructed worlds?
What Stewart was donig first time round was current affairs commentary, sometimes as satire, but sometimes as straight-up "this is what Trump and the Republicans are doing and this is why we must stop them".
Then when called on that, he did the 'clown nose on' bit of "Hey, I'm a comedian, this is just entertainment, it's not meant to be taken seriously!'
I don't know about centrists, but I saw at least a few lefties on social media holding up Stewart as a guru and approving of his messaging around politics. That this was the real truth, not just a comedian doing satirical exaggeration.
No, you're literally being a crazy person.
Look, I'm sitting here right now watching The West Wing, because it's an old favourite. There's lots of politics in that. I might even post some on the internet (on my blog I keep a rubbish section precisely for this kind of rubbish). But *even if I posted a West Wing quote* and *even if I agree with the politics of that quote* - that still doesn't mean that I'm getting my politics from a made-up TV show. Because I know the difference between The West Wing (not real) and The Guardian/Economist (real).
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We live in a world that contains real things (in our real lives and in the newspapers) and unreal things (fiction, comedy). We watch both. We enjoy both. We sometimes post both. What we don't do is confuse the two. And I know this because of QAnon and whatever nonsense this review is about. Those are real-world examples of people not knowing the difference between the real and the unreal. They're the same as psychotic hallucinations. And they're not a big part of centre/leftie culture. Only the right.
You can tell hallucination because only the other side does it.
In all possible charity, tell me: did you ever believe that Donald Trump called neo-nazis 'fine people'? Quite possibly you never fell for that one, in which case do please note that it took Snopes literal years to finally join the non-left-leaning world in debunking it, and that Joe Biden's campaign was still using it as of a couple weeks ago. Oops.
In all honesty - I didn't know how creatively edited that clip was for ages. But I didn't go and look it up at the time because I didn't care. I knew he was a buffoon before that speech, and I knew he was a buffoon after that speech. I didn't think he was a Nazi (I don't think he has much in the way of political opinions at all). I just chalked it up to his habit of bloviating.
But you've misunderstood the nature of that clip. Perhaps because you're a very dumb, literal-minded right winger! I dunno. Here's the point: I would like a president to be good enough at talking not to make that mistake. Because his main job is as the USA's chief diplomat, and they're supposed to be... good with words!
He got skewered for that mistake in the USA. Do you think he's a good person to be talking to China about the Taiwan issue? (Close to my heart, I live right on the Taiwan strait.) You can be as angry as you like about how nasty the lefties are for editing Trump's speech in that naughty, naughty way. But if he made the same mistake talking about Taiwan in China, the consequences could be much more serious.
This is the counterpoint to your complaint: you seem to think it would be a gaffe if he praised neo-Nazis, and the fact that he actually didn't means it wasn't a gaffe. In fact, it was a gaffe because he *allowed himself to sound like* he was praising neo-Nazis.
When the Democratic president is unable to control his speech effectively, he retires from the race (and yes, I'm embarrassed and angry about how long that took). I just wish Trump would do the same.
Now you're hallucinating that I'm a dumb literal-minded right-winger. This will in no way disadvantage you in understanding the world.
Nice motte and bailey, though. Everyone on 'your side' is excused for pushing a disastrously misleading hoax because ehhh he should've been better at resisting the tendency of the media to smear him. You not liking how he talks doesn't mean he's bad at it, nor does being good at talking help when the people who make the clips dislike how someone talks.
Do you want to run through all the other hoaxes? I'm sure he had those coming, too.
You probably shouldn't say 'yes' to this offer. Hopefully you've already muted this and go on with your day having 'owned a dumb rightwinger'.
Philbert is such a nice boy, he only speaks the truth and it's our (dumb, literal right-wing minds) fault if we get offended.
When the Right believes lies about the Left, it's the Right's fault for being stupid.
When the Left believes lies about the Right, it's the Right's fault for being able to make up lies about.
"Perhaps because you're a very dumb, literal-minded right winger!"
What do you think you're achieving by calling people that?
Honestly, I'm just British. Where I come from, if you can't take a bit of abuse, you shouldn't be getting into an argument. I mean, I think I do know how to do excrucatingly polite, "My, how I respect your viewpoint!" But when I grew up, among smart people, when someone's being a twat you just call them a twat and explain why.
>ackshually it's his fault the clip was creatively edited by the arbiters of truth and that I fell for it for years, you're being dumb and literal-minded
At this point, I'd vote for Trump even if he said Neonazis were fine people just to spite you and people like you.
this does not seem to be the most rational or mature way to do politics, or anything really. Like why have random internet commenters live rent-free in your head?
As a leftie, I'm sympathetic to your overall point but would rather you didn't ad hominem the other posters. The level of discourse is pretty good here, and your argument is interesting enough on its own merits to not need it!
I'm seriously curious why you think his argument is interesting. He admits the clip was creatively edited, but conducts less creative mental gymnastics to say that it's Trump's fault that they edited it.
> He got skewered for that mistake in the USA. Do you think he's a good person to be talking to China about the Taiwan issue?
Yes? They loved him for what he said about the Hong Kong issue.
Oh well, if I'm LITERALLY (not figuratively or metaphorically) being a crazy person right now, then on with the motley! 🤪
Tell me, Philbert Q. Harangue, isn't it awfully, awfully convenient all the nutjobs are on my side of the house and it's only the nice, sane, rational people sitting on the bench beside you?
You've seen the crazy nuts on the right. I've seen the crazy nuts on the left. Let's all head off to Brazil - where the nuts come from!
Leftist here. Me and my friends take it for granted that the West was the primary aggressor in the Cold War and that the Soviet bloc was more or less a defensive arrangement. Inasmuch as centrists overwhelmingly take the opposite view, they live in a fantasy world.
Hey, hey, hold on! Talk like that is going to make me want to have a real conversation instead of doing internet political shouting.
First, to briefly point out: I don't think this debate is anything like the kind of divorce from reality that I was writing about above. Believing that the Soviet block was more or less defensive looks to me like a reasonable interpretation of history, not a radical fantasy like Raw News.
That said, yeah, I'd love to have a real conversation. I'm a centrist and still basically believe the 'Russia is bad' version of post-WWII history.
So... do you want to give me the basic outline of what your version looks like? I mean, I understand that the west took a very aggressive approach towards Soviet Russia following WWII. But I'd still struggle to see how Russia could be seen as defensive given the whole tanks-rolling-across-Eastern-Europe thing.
>I'm a centrist
I'm glad there are still some of us around — there's a guy up a few spots talking about how the Left never falls for anything wrong and the Right is too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time, if you can believe it... total partisan loon!
Hey man, respect the guy's own boutique Overton window.
Huh? Do you mean "Bush"?
So, I personally used to believe this. Not categorically and wholeheartedly, I figured there were probably a fair number of left-wing conspiracists out there, but that they were relatively marginal within their political wing, while conspiracists were relatively dominant within the right wing (polling results do at least bear out the latter part.)
I no longer believe this.
I've never considered myself pro-Israel. Over a decade ago, I attended a majority Jewish college where support of Israel was normative, and at the time, I strongly rejected the notion that poor behavior on the part of the Palestinian territories' administration, or some sort of Jewish affiliation, should obligate me to see Israel as good guys in the conflict. I was, and remain, extremely dubious on the notion that the modern state of Israel should ever have been founded in the first place. Even so, the degree to which it's become normative on the left wing to believe outright falsehoods originating as deliberate propaganda in the Israel-Palestine conflict has been genuinely shocking to me. I've had to update my belief that the left wing was significantly less susceptible to entirely non-credible hostile propaganda, to the point that I now suspect that if there's a difference between the political wings right now at all, it's extremely marginal.
Right now, I think that the administrative state of the Democratic party is much more trustworthy, and interested in acting in the interests of the country as a whole, than the administrative state of the Republican party. But I think that a left-wing populist movement is most likely genuinely going to be about as impervious to reality as the right-wing populist movement.
That is an interesting counterpoint, thanks.
> Even so, the degree to which it's become normative on the left wing to believe outright falsehoods originating as deliberate propaganda in the Israel-Palestine conflict has been genuinely shocking to me.
Do you have an example?
The one that stands out as most outright in defiance of easily available evidence is that Hamas did not engage in systematic sexual violence in the October 7 attack. I'd like to think this isn't actually a majority view in left-wing circles, but I've been in spaces where people argued that this simply did not occur, and claims that it did were simply hostile propaganda, where those people received no pushback except from me personally, and when argued against them, several other people joined in to disagree with me.
There are other issues where I think fewer people actually follow the news enough to have specific opinions, but the default within left-wing circles has been to accept Hamas propaganda as credible at the outset, to possibly be overturned later if evidence decisively proves it false. For instance, if a hospital is destroyed, and Hamas claims this was due to Israeli bombing, while Israel denies it, in left wing spaces, even temporarily reserving judgment pending further investigation is, in my experience, liable to invite verbal abuse for being an Israeli sympathizer. In many cases, such claims have been decisively proven to be false after the fact, with people who defended them descending into conspiratorial reasoning to justify their cognitive dissonance, if they don't simply ignore the evidence.
I agree the right has more penchant towards this type of insanity, but I disagree that they're the only ones. Such as the conspiracy theories about how if Trump was elected then trans people would be put into camps, or that Trump was extremely authoritarian. (That last one is significantly more justifiable now after Jan 6th, but before then not so much). Or the ideas that the right has a major percentage of white nationalists.
I do think the right has a general lower sanity, but a lot of their insanity has had the corners rounded off by decades/centuries of cultural change — much of their current insanity is in response to specific sorts of insanity on the left and various value belief differences being in the middle of all of that. (Note, I'm not trying to say that all the left has gone for is wrong, but the ways they've gone about it, the implementations, the culture around them, the force behind it, etc. are all very negative. And the right has these problems as well, in different areas)
That doesn't mean we should use concerns like "look at those crazy people, they don't realize they're actually crazy" to significantly decide whether or not to trust yourself, but I do think it should inform us about the trends that people fall into.
> That last one is significantly more justifiable now after Jan 6th, but before then not so much
I mean, if I say somebody's a pedo without any strong evidence, then it comes out that they rape kids, it makes me seem more aware, not less, no?
Trump's said that 2012 was a sham, and that both the 2016 primaries and 2016 general were rigged against him. If you take him at his word, it seems likely that he would conclude 2020 is rigged too (which he did, six months in advance), and if indeed the USA were to become like Belarus or Russia where the election results bear only a loose relationship to people's votes, a Jan 6-like insurrection would be moral and righteous. And, in fact, that's exactly what he advocated for - back in 2012 when Romney lost (https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034630820507648).
"I mean, if I say somebody's a pedo without any strong evidence, then it comes out that they rape kids, it makes me seem more aware, not less, no?"
Not necessarily. Either you were better at reading the signs or you are just a loudmouth casting a wide net and you got lucky.
I agree it's not necessarily the case. But speaking as someone who was regularly willing to reject negative claims about Trump as hostile propaganda, I think that the argument that he was an authoritarian was always well-evidenced, and an unbiased observer could pick this up simply by paying a reasonable amount of attention, well before Jan 6.
Sure, if I'm not modeling reasons behind why people say things and treat them as black-boxes. Most people say statements because they are popular within their social groups, and with the rising amount of polarization it becomes harder and harder to trust what people say at face value because they don't have actual understanding — they use whatever distorted lens they've loosely assembled from social background. For the same reasons that I don't start trusting the right after they say X politician did Y bad thing and it turns out to be true this time.
I agree it provides evidence towards competency for the people who actually considered that evidence; rather than finding post-facto evidence to fit the bottom line of "my opponent is evil", but as usual that is hard to recognize as *people do it all the everloving time*. Part of the whole problem with politics.
The point here is that most people are, to put it in a very succinct but rather rude manner, crazy. To a far more minor level than people who read RRN, certainly,
As a more illustrative example: If you tell me about a guess about a technical topic that isn't politicized and I don't get your reasoning/intuition or accept the evidence you've scrounged up, then coming along a year later with a "this idea was true" then that does update me on your competency. If you told me specifically that someone was a pedo and then that comes out, that does update me on your ability to infer that sort of information. If you told me that you thought Donald Trump was authoritarian for X and Y reasons before he became a highly political target, then I'll trust that prediction more than the one made during the heights of the last eight years as there are less bad incentives. For the same reason you should distrust a corporation, as their incentives point in ways that are distortionary compared to the ideal, social movements like politics have those same problems.
(but of course, registering all predictions ahead of time is untenable and we have to live in a messy world! I'm not trying to rationalize every belief away, simply trying to explain my high level of background low degree of updating from politicized topics)
For politics a lot of that trust has to go out the window, while still not believing that everything is lies. It isn't, Trump is at minimum not remotely a good person, and whether or not he truly is authoritarian versus legitimately thinking he's being set against like you propose above, he is the kind of person who chose the first route of trying to distort the trust in elections, which is Bad.
I'll note that I'm not advocating radical uncertainty or even centrism, just an ambient amount of distrust paired with a spice of https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bounded-distrust and other ideas like that, of removing myself from environments that are epistemically unhealthy while still maintaining enough awareness to have a remotely decent understanding of how I want the world to improve.
I personally think the primary reason people were concerned about Trump's authoritarianism was his rhetoric, and in retrospect I think I personally underrated the importance of that rhetoric.
While some of his proposed policies were rather authoritarian (e.g. Muslim ban), he did, in fact, claim that all elections his side didn't win (and also those they did) were rigged, engage in conspiracism with e.g. the Birther stuff, and in general had an approach to politics which I think lead directly to Jan 6. Some people may have uncritically repeated it, but there's a reason it was said about him in particular versus Romney. (Maybe Romney actually got this stuff said about him? I don't remember much of any, though.)
Yeah, various elements of his behavior and policies were enough for me to consider him not a good person, and whilst he was a deviation from typical politician behavior, not a useful alteration. If it was just focusing on those aspects I'd be in agreement since they're more easily observable and indicative of future behavior. His rhetoric always sounded more nationalist & prideful to me, which is associated with authoritarian leanings, but is not the same thing.
While 'authoritarianism' can be a useful descriptor, it has been used as a verbal weapon for a while, similar to how the right uses 'communist', which is often a good reason to automatically distrust those usages. There's a natural tendency to go "they are in X bad group, thus I can by default despise everything they are", which I think is one of the US's cultural flaws, a tendency to stereotype to the closest category of people. This has been used to great (awful) effect by both the left and right, becoming even easier due to the internet. I think his rhetoric mostly painted him as nationalistic, prideful, not competent, but also different as a candidate, but it became easy to apply a specific label because if he was 'authoritarian' rather than 'outrageous / dishonest / against what I believe' then that produces a lot more paranoia and ability to justify stronger counter-rhetoric.
In part Trump didn't have the protection of being a halfway respected political figure like Romney, as well he simply came about during more polarized times. All of which helped him cultivate the image of 'being against the deepstate', an 'independent' offering with actual chances to win and shake the game up, utilizing existing distrust of politicians and the state by showing off how much they disliked him. And also he's himself, which fans the flames for rising tensions.
So I agree that there's more reason to call him authoritarian than Romney, I still think most usages of it were mostly in the "this is a popular way to say someone is bad" category. This pattern repeats itself a lot in politics, becoming increasingly common.
I think the increasing polarization did push him to further extremes, just as it did his following, feeding on each other, and then the left's reaction furthering the cycle. Unfortunately we as a society are not competent enough at politics to deescalate or entirely recognize the utility.
(I'm not completely happy with my comment here but it just kept growing longer whenever I came back to it and I'm barely awake by now)
> So I agree that there's more reason to call him authoritarian than Romney, I still think most usages of it were mostly in the "this is a popular way to say someone is bad" category.
I think most uses of even something as bland as "the Earth is round" are not based on any deep reasoning about why it is. Regurgitation of received knowledge dominates over personally analyzed data, but it doesn't mean received knowledge is wrong or stupid.
>and if indeed the USA were to become like Belarus or Russia where the election >results bear only a loose relationship to people's votes, a Jan 6-like insurrection
>would be moral and righteous.
It would still be a major violation of American democratic norms.
When I talk about this to people I give a couple of examples:
When Lyndon Johnson first ran for the senate in 1941 he was cheated out of a senate seat by straightforward electoral fraud. Johnson did not kick up a fuss - he just decided to get better at cheating. In 1948 he cheated very skillfully in the primaries to become the Democratic nominee, and in those days the Democratic nominee was pretty much guaranteed a win in Texas.
When Richard Nixon first ran for president in 1960 many people, including Nixon, thought that he had cheated out of the presidency. (Whether he was or not is not nearly as clear as in the LBJ senate examples.) But Nixon did not kick up a fuss, he simply resolved to get better at cheating. Since old fashioned ballot box stuffing was more of a Democratic norm than a Republican one in those days- he chose more devious means.
I do not think there was enough electoral fraud in 2020 to have cheated Trump out of a second term, but I think it is irrelevant. The stupid January 6 thing would have been wrong and a serious violation of American democratic norms even if Trump had lost because of massive fraud. Trump should have graciously conceded and then spent the next few years learning how to cheat better.
I think there's a difference between the endemic corruption of historical elections and "democratic backsliding," for lack of a better term. While in the 40s or 60s, you could win by "cheating better," a country like Russia or Belarus is not vulnerable to the opposition "cheating better." I suppose it depends on whether we're meant to take Trump's fictitious election stealing as merely 1960s-style or instead be something more like a Maduro. Given his constant whining about being prosecuted for trying to coup the government, I feel like the vibe is meant to be an American Maduro, though.
Just because your alternative reality is endorsed by government and major media doesn't make it less of an alternative reality, hth.
Hmm. I think there are a lot of left wing conspiratorial viewpoints, and I say this as a pretty diehard liberal. Ibram X. Kendi and Noam Chomsky both have comprehensive worldviews, with substantial followerships, that could be described (in some ways) as delusional alternative realities.
"in some ways" is doing a lot of work there. I don't think anything Chomsky ever said can approach the paranoid schizophrenia of "everybody involved has been secretly executed and is being played by a clone/actor". This is really a difference in kind.
Fair, I can't argue against that. Though maybe the hidden variable is what percentage of readers/fans take each respective worldview at face value. This book review suggests that some meaningful percentage of RRN readers are "in on the joke". That makes this whole analysis kind of confusing.
The sitting Democrat POTUS buys into the notion that corporations are "price gouging".
All corporations price gouge all the time. That's what they're set up to do. If you're an officer in a public company, you have a fiduciary obligation to price gouge. By raising prices, you maximise profits, and that's the only thing a company is capable of caring about.
You either have a different definition of price gouging from the type that Biden was catering to or you're one of them, I can't tell which based on that response. You know, the type that unironically uses the term "late stage capitalism" and throws around "neoliberal" as a slur.
Don't just dodge the question. You raised it.
If you think there are different definitions at play, then tell me what they are. What was Biden's definition? What's yours?
Biden and I have the same definition, though he may believe it. It's you who might not.
Namely, that the recent price increases (inflation) is due to corpos arbitrary "price gouging", as if corporations were less greedy 20 years ago and suddenly became greedy around Covid.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/07/fact-sheet-president-biden-is-taking-action-to-lower-costs-for-families-and-fight-corporate-rip-offs/
I'm curious, and I say this here because you aren't responding to the replies to your above post: how do you square the circle when you admit that the "Neonazis are fine people" clip was creatively edited and also say that it's Trump's fault? Do you believe that sufficiently skilled oratory can prevent people from creatively editing your comments or taking them out of context? Do you believe that it's so difficult to do that it can only happen to someone if they're particularly bad at speaking?
Do we? Biden's whole point was that corporations are greedy and charging more because they can. Which I completely agree with. What I disagree with is the implication that this has ever not been the case. Greed is to economics what gravity is to orbital dynamics.
>What I disagree with is the implication that this has ever not been the case. Greed is to economics what gravity is to orbital dynamics.
You're getting at what I mean. At the surface level, sure many economists might agree with "corporate price gouging/greed" in the sense that Adam Smith said "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." But the leftist use of the term comes packaged with other components, eg the part you disagree with, complete ignorance or denial of price serving as a signal to attract investment, and support for price controls.
The Just Stop Oil protesters sitting on freeways demand to be heard.
There are lots of things some centrist and leftists believe that are outright false:
-Russiagate
-extreme overestimating danger from COVID (death rates, hospitalizations, long COVID)
-Gender pay gap
-blank slatism (except for trans people)
-frequency of police shooting unarmed African Americans
-global warming existential risk
-Trump is going to commit genocide
-defund the police
-America is uniquely evil
As I've mentioned in other threads, I don't closely follow US politics and media, so I'm not really aware of the narratives being shaped there. But I did keep up with the investigations surrounding the Mueller report at the time. And I'm astonished (not for the first time) to hear people, mostly Americans, refer to Russiagate as "outright false".
This term can mean many different things, possibly including some far-fetched conspiracy theories I'm not familiar with. However, there is a version of Russiagate (pretty horrific and shocking by my standards) that is absolutely true - the version outlined in the Mueller report.
Yeah, I see this, and I agree that that is a considerable list of things that anti-Trump people have believed that are wrong or distorted. I dunno, though. These seem to be much more opinions than these literaly institutions of alternative facts that the right has created, with its Fox News and that radio guy... Alex Jones. Jones, Q, this guy in the review: they're constructing whole universes of alternative facts. That doesn't seem to be the same category of thing as "blank slatism".
This comment is especially striking because you have, in a nine-item list, managed to make literally zero statements that are (or even can be) outright false. Six of them aren't grammatical sentences at all, lacking a verb. One is in the imperative mood: it doesn't describe a state of reality. Of the other two, one is a normative claim (it can't be true or false) and the other is a claim about future events (which can be proven true or false eventually, but not now).
Somebody doing one's best to interpret what you *mean* instead of what you say could map most of these to quite a wide range of different factual beliefs. Of those, I'm not convinced that ANY of them are both outright false AND even somewhat common. This sort of vagueness is a massive red flag for a motte-and-bailey argument: the motte is the common-but-largely-true interpretation of a given "belief" and the bailey is the uncommon-but-fringe interpretation.
In order
1. Many beliefs could be pointed to with the one-word summary "Russiagate" from the most banal "Trump and his staff were thoroughly investigated for connections to Russia" to the most extreme "Putin called many of the shots in the Trump white house."
2. Without saying what you believe the dangers are, there's no possible way to gauge how many people "overestimated" them on any part of the political spectrum. My guess is that if asked a question about, e.g. the COVID death rate, most center-left people would simply google the question and give the default answer as their original best-guess (with varying degrees of confidence). Do you believe that's produces a substantially wrong answer?
3. Again, there are a very wide range of possible beliefs regarding gendered differences in pay. Most of the serious discussion around the topic focuses on *why* there is a gap in average remuneration. Certainly a wide range of false beliefs are possible here, but that's in large part because it's such a complex question with so many different moving parts. Without pointing towards a *specific* complex of beliefs, it's impossible to gauge how close anyone is to reality.
4. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, "blank slatism" could mean many different things. Some are obviously wrong, others are various degrees of reasonable. But also I'd guess that the most common beliefs on the center and left can't even really be described as "blank slatism" for all that they're sometimes mistaken as such. It's possible to believe the slate isn't blank without endorsing all specific claims of what's written on it.
5. This one at least easily steelmans to a reasonable statement. If you'd said "the average left of center person believes that police shootings of unarmed African Americans are more common than they are in fact" I'd agree that that is probably true. Though "lots of people get this one specific crime statistic wrong" isn't really a big headline.
6. I could sort of steelman this one to a reasonable statement too, though given that many people on the right believe that anthropogenic climate change literally isn't happening I'm not at all sure such a steelman would accurately reflect your views. I've seen plenty of unreasonable takes regarding AGW on the left, but the worst I've seen are still closer to the truth than the median opinion on the right. Also a lot of the worst takes on the left are about future events, which makes their true-false value less clear.
7. As mentioned above, this one is about a future event: it can't be demonstrated as true or false yet. It also depends on a term, "genocide," whose meaning seems to vary a lot from person to person. The historical frequency of American presidents committing something that could be interpreted as "genocide" is high enough that I wouldn't conclusively rule it out of *any* U.S. President until they're reliably out of power. For Trump specifically, I wouldn't bet at even odds on this one, but I'd certainly bet at 20:1 odds for at least some definitions of "genocide" and "commit."
8. As noted above, this is an imperative statement, not an indicative one. It's a call to action and can't be true or false. Even as a call to action it is quite vague: the phrase is understood in very different ways by different people.
9. As a normative sentence this (again) can't actually be true or false. There are factual statements that go into forming this judgment that can be true or false, but their number and variety is staggering. You have to actually point to some of them before this could be even charitably evaluated as describing a false set of beliefs.
Having gone through the list I'll end by noting that even in the most charitable readings, this seems like and Apples-to-Aardvarks comparison to me. Having a wrong number in one's head for a particular crime stat, or an overestimation of the plausible worst case scenario for AGW is a just...vastly different order of error than believing that Trump runs a shadow government that's executing his opponents, or even than much more mainstream beliefs like the various flavours of antivax stuff[1] or the claims that Trump himself was pushing about the 2020 election. I could certainly find comparably wacky stuff on the left, but the sense I get is that I'd have to look much harder and that it would be confined to MUCH smaller groups of people. To be clear, I don't think either the modern center or left is especially epistemically virtuous or in-tune with reality: I see lots of common, avoidable mistakes. But last decade or so has seemingly seen large swathes of the right throw any attempt at sound epistemology out the window, and embrace nonsense on a genuinely alarming scale.
[1] Which is certainly NOT confined to the right. But around the COVID vaccines specifically, it seems to have blown up on the right to a degree that's utterly unmatched on the left.
Thanks for taking the time to make a detailed response. I will have time to respond tomorrow, but wanted to say thanks in advance!
I'm interested to know what you thought of Joe Biden's cognitive state in May. Two months ago, in May of 2024, there seem to have been two competing narratives: that Joe Biden was cognitively fine, unimpaired and capable of running for President; and, alternatively, that he was too cognitively impaired to run. At that time, which did you believe?
We already know the answer to that. In other thread, he was asked about the "fine people" thing and he coped hard through that.
LesHapaBlap just brought up another 10 things. And we know what his cope will be on all those, too.
There's nothing to see here. Everyone who agrees with him is sane, rational, intelligent. Everyone who disagrees is crazy, whackjob, conspiracy-theorist. It's the program.
And he would say the same about you.
It's hard breaking out of a "program". Getting yelled at by people you're sure are crazy conspiracy theorists doesn't help.
What does help is noticing when trusted authorities tell inconsistent stories. So I'm genuinely interested in his experience of the Joe Biden situation over the last few months.
Hey, maybe I'm the one who's caught in a propaganda echo chamber, and he'll be able to help break me out of it!
Let's hope that everyone can break out of their propaganda echo chambers one day.
Bro, the review that we're all commenting on here is literally a website full of right wing political fiction that the reviewer notes receives thousands of comments from people who apparently believe the fiction is true.
And I'm "programmed" for noticing this and thinking its whackjob?
Yeah.
I've lost the plot at this point, or you have.
> Centrists and lefties just don't do this thing of believing a total alternative reality consistently.
They do. More consistently and more broadly. This website is fringe.
"Thousands of comments" means nothing to me. What percentage of people who witness this website think it's literally true? What percentage make joke comments on the website saying they believe it's literally true, but for them it's part of the running gag?
I understand you think your outgroup are insane and stupid. I'm here to tell you, unfortunately, you're wrong. Your outgroup is just as sophisticated as your ingroup.
Sorry to be the one to break it to you.
Sorry, I'm not American and don't live in the USA, so even though I know the issues, I don't really remember the exact timings of the different events. May... do you mean after the debate? I mean, the debate seemed to show pretty clearly that he wasn't up to the job.
But I'll stress again, it's important to distinguish between *my* views and the views created by institutions. Like, if you're more right wing than I am, I don't think you necessarily believed the whole Qanon thing. But lots and lots of people did. And the Qanon pathway now seems to have become a grooved, institutionalised way to generate money and influence on the right. I personally trace it back to Swiftboat in... what 2004? At that point, it was discovered by the right that if you make up a big crazy lie and just keep yelling it, you can win! And so they've been doing that ever since.
Obama Truthers, Alex Jones, Qanon, this Raw News... there's just this parade of fantasists that exist as an important part of the right, that I don't thing has any equivalent on the left. It's not about them just being wrong. They make up fiction, and convert it into real money and/or influence.
I'm interested in whether, before the debate, while it was an issue being actively debated, you believed the US institutions which were saying that Biden was entirely fit to run for President. Many people in the US seem to have had the experience of believing trusted journalistic institutions that assured them of Biden's cognitive abilities, and then feeling very betrayed and disillusioned by his debate performance.
It seems like somebody who'd had that experience wouldn't claim that mass institutional dishonesty only exists on the right wing. So I'm interested in what your experience of that issue actually was.
There were a ton of center-left types who bought completely into the Russiagate thing, had Robert Mueller votive candles, followed every breaking news chyron on MSNBC as the web was ever tightening around Trump, and bought completely into this fantasy of international intrigue for years. If, after it became obvious that it was nonsense, these people had come out and said "well, I trusted the news was legit, because typically they have been, but now I realize they were creating a fake reality to keep me watching, and I've discounted the sources that went along with it," then I could accept them as having been understandably duped given their biases. Happens to the best of us. But instead they just doubled down, or memory holed the entire affair, and continue to act as if the discredited infotainment sources are real.
At best, one might say that cable news and WaPo are like pro wrestling. The viewers know it's fake when the nightly host is talking about something with a partisan narrative, but when the guy doing the noon hour says there's an earthquake in Bolivia or a building collapse in Chicago, you know it's not entertainment anymore. MAYBE their viewers are that sharp, to compartmentalize it like that. But when the exact same distinction was drawn about Tucker Carlson, to suggest that people did not watch him as presenting "hard news", nobody extended that charity to Fox viewers. Maddow's audience probably contains more BAs in it, but I don't think that made 'em any smarter.
High IQ people are more prone to nutjob conspiracies than low-IQ people.
I was watching an interview Andrew Gold was doing with someone on this subject. It was really interesting... because Andrew said something (AFTER knowing the prior fact) like:
"And so all these low-IQ people will--" And the interviewee interrupted him: "High IQ."
And Gold just sort of paused and then had to have the concept re-explained to him. Like I'm about to do. It's HIGH-IQ people that have weird nutjob conspiracy beliefs, and can maintain that alternate reality bubble.
I do not doubt Rachel Maddow has more high-IQ followers to espouse her nutjob conspiracy theories to. I'd be similarly unsurprised to find out Alex Jones watchers are above-average IQ.
What’s the evidence for this?
It's one of those things when I heard helped me simplify my confusion by being around extremely smart people who held dumb beliefs. The evidence is... uh... me looking around at a few thousand brilliant people who believed obvious conspiracies.
I mean unquestionably smart people who believed unquestionably dumb conspiracies, like the ones that have been outlined in these threads numerous times.
If you mean are there papers or whatever, I'm not sure. I didn't bother looking since it's just obvious (to me). I'd be surprised to find out it's false, and I'd have to try to come up with some other theory to explain what I've witnessed among my peers.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole, the interview I'm talking about was here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxqYRNv24h4 - I was unable to find where in the interview the exchange I'm talking about happened, but this is the interview. If you watch it, or are able to search the captions, you will find it.
If you are put off by the title, it's clickbait. They mean "Woke People are Mutants (and Traitors)" both in the clinical sense of the words. As in they have mutations that explain their behaviour and that they perform a useful (or not) societal function of welcoming outsiders. They also make the claim that woke people are high-IQ, which they also mean in the clinical sense. Not that they're the people on the right side of the issues, but only that they have IQs that are higher than average.
It doesn't look like he's talking about conspiracism, but specifically that conformism is more common among high-IQ individuals? I tried googling studies that compare IQ to conspiracy theories and couldn't find anything, though my recollection is the correlation is minimal-to-nonexistent because it's more cognitive styles than IQ per se.
This does not pass the smell test and I doubt there's any correlation between IQ and conspiracy thinking. And of course my lazy search for evidence turned up nothing.
Yeah, Russiagate was an interesting example. And if you know lots of people who continue to believe that Trump was literally bribed by Russians, then I agree, they would kinda count as fiction consumers in the same way as the readers of Raw News. I just... don't see the numbers. And I also don't see big websites set up with ongoing epics of Trump being Putin's bitch, presented as reality and apparently believed.
Like, yes, that was a dodgy story. But no, there are no cargo cults of lefties who go around muttering about Trump and Russia, and screaming about it on talk radio. For example, Trump is campaigning for president again now, and in the news sources I read, I haven't seen any mention of Russia in connection to him so far. That is, having got it wrong one time, my news sources seem to have accepted reality. FWIW my main newspapers are the Guardian and the Economist.
I lived in California for >20 years.
The leftists there (of which there were many) seemed to me about 95%+ bought into the Russia Collusion conspiracy. Obviously I would have to make some assumptions, but these were actual real people I interacted with in real life. I do have my own fantasy that many loud proponents of the Russia Collusion were in fact going home and complaining privately how they have to pretend, because these were otherwise decent people and it was sad to me to have to witness it.
I was in the epicentre of the awfulness, so maybe out in the Real World, red states, away from hard blue cities or whatever, the percentage was lower?
But to claim it was anything less than 50% of left-coded people (center, hard, or any other degree) who completely bought into the conspiracy would definitely leave me thinking there was a mistake in the methodology that brought you to that conclusion.
> there are no cargo cults of lefties who go around muttering about Trump and Russia, and screaming about it on talk radio
...Rachel... Maddow...is a name you might want to familiarise yourself with. And if you don't like that name for whatever reason, just pick any other name from MSNBC or CNN. There were entire television networks and newspapers that ran for YEARS on this... and ran around muttering about Trump and Russia.
They would still be doing it today if it hadn't fallen out of fashion for whatever the next conspiracy was to be.
Right, so here we run into some facts. I quite like Rachel Maddow, don't watch her much, but here is her TV show's youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDIVi-vBsOEyETRGoRP9y8zhyu6bHl6iK
I searched through the titles of the top 400 videos on that page, and none of them link Trump to Russia.
This is a lovely example of exactly what I mean. These mainstream/leftie news shows aren't harping on and on about some old conspiracy.
You can dislike or disagree with Maddow. But she's not doing the same kind of making-stuff-up as this Raw News site. Nor is she just making up fantasy facts. These things are qualitatively different.
You didn't find this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5exiuko3-nQ
Or this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U9e3wAFb8Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8abLxGh_RQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnv97-VKEGc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS7qGx7t0x4
There are so many of these, they're so easy to find.
Russiagate is completely mainstream. Being generous, some few thousands of people might believe RRN, which is a fraction of a drop in the bucket of some 330 hundred million people. I have no doubt that a supermajority of Democrats believe that Trump was actively colluding with Putin.
I don't know, to me "the deadly insurrection" narrative lies beyond QAnon and well into the RealRawNews territory. And of course it's entirely mainstream, not a bunch of fringe lunatics.
I mean, it doesn't pass the most basic smell test. How was it "deadly" if the only people who died were "insurrectionists"? Was it the first unarmed insurrection in history? What could it possibly achieve? Why was Trump tweeting at the "insurrectionists" to respect the Capitol police and to go home peacefully?
The weirdest thing about it is that it's impossible to tell if people really believe this nonsense or just maintain the kayfabe for political reasons. Reminds me of another, also relevant, mass delusion: in the early months of Covid, as there was a shortage of PPE, the official position of the WHO and all downstream organizations was that masks don't work, you don't need a mask unless you're a doctor or caring for an infected person. I would ask people, if masks don't work, why doctors need them? It's because masks were useless without special training. But then what about the people who didn't receive the training but were caring for the infected? Some other nonsense. Then, look, it's frustrating, we both understand that it's about shortages, but masks actually work, why do you have to lie? No-no, I honestly believe that they don't work and if you don't then you're an evil person. Insane.
Believing that men can become women is so much more insane than believing that a person I have and will never see in real life was executed
Not really.
One is a popular insanity and the other is an unpopular insanity.
Besides, the popular one has a whole lot of theology behind it, etc.
For example: I wouldn't consider someone insane if they believed that Mohammed flew through the heavens on a unicorn, would you? Heck, in some countries *disbelieving* that is a surefire sign of legal insanity (if you're lucky).
Truly believing that some single site on the internet is telling you and other lonely idiots the truth about major events supposedly going on all around you though is a whole lot crazier than believing that someone can turn lead into gold or whatever is the popular reigning silliness.
This talking point is no less nonsense for being repeated ad nauseam. Many readers here will be aware that Scott himself dissected it a decade ago:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/
Even if you haven't read that far back (or don't remember) even the most modest effort to interrogate what your political opponents actually believe would show how much this is complete and utter nonsense. Let me lay out the problem clearly and concisely.
The "belief" you are criticizing is not a factual question on either side.
When somebody on the left says "trans women are women" and you say "no, they're clearly men" there is NO point of factual reality that you are disagreeing on. None. There is no experimental test that would come out differently in your world vs theirs. The ENTIRE disagreement is normative, not factual. They are saying "this definition of 'woman' is the one we should use" and you are saying "no, this other definition of 'woman' is the one we should use. When facts get brought into such a disagreement AT ALL (which is exceedingly rare) I tend to find the people promoting the bio-essentiaist definitions (plural, because they are often varied and inconsistent) are much more likely to be badly wrong. Of course, that could be my own bias.
Regardless, framing this normative difference as your political opponents being wrong on a question of fact is either extremely ignorant or extremely disingenuous.
> .. lefties just don't do this thing of believing a total alternative reality consistently
Not so. Many "lefties" consistently believe that evil fat-cat cigar chomping capitalists are out to oppress them in various nefarious ways, whereas in truth the vast majority of capitalists are as insecure and innocuous as anyone else, but just smarter or luckier than most or more energetic and determined.
You realise those things aren't mutually exclusive, right? Capitalists are just like everyone else, but if everyone else is nefarious, then that makes capitalists pretty nefarious, too.
Anyway, I take your point, but having a prejudiced view of some bunch of others is not the same as the wholesale negation of reality that goes on in right wing media. War on Christmas. Sandy Hook never happened. Etc. These things are of a different quality.
Putting the “war on Christmas” in the same bin as “sandy hook never happened “ undermines your point. Believing mainstream culture marginalizes the Christian character of Christmas may be wrong in the way a typical political opinion can be wrong, but it’s definitely not a factually incorrect hallucination, any more than the “war on women” is or war on whatever thing or group is being touted in political propaganda today.
Yeah, maybe. I definitely think you're right that it's useful to distinguish clearly between political opinion and made-up-stuff. I included the war on Christmas because back in the day (the heyday of the war was 10 years ago now, I think), I remember digging into some of the "news" stories that constituted this "marginalisation", and found that all of them included some level of falsehood. (For example, every time there was a claim that X city council had "banned" saying Merry Christmas, it turned out not to be true.) It isn't a "big lie" story, but it feels like a story that consisted of nothing but lots and lots of little lies.
But yeah, it may still be a different thing, I dunno.
Even conceding this, how much would it actually matter? 99% or errors (in politics, probably other realms) are the result of selection bias rather than factual inaccuracy. One can probably even be a communist or a nazi without believing an obvious factual error. Ideologies mostly follow from more abstract beliefs. Why should I hold, say, communism in higher esteem than the belief that 9/11 was an inside job? As far as I can tell the former is far more dangerous.
Probably an unusual take, but I would say the marginal returns to factuality are pretty low. If y is the product of 100 variables, each equal to 1 or -1. A person who on average estimates 97/100 variables correctly gets y wrong about as often as someone who gets 50/100 right. I think that’s not a terrible analogy for many important public policy questions. Getting a few parameters wrong leads can lead you to enormous errors. And ideological filters make it nearly impossible for most people to get some parameters right. The idea that people being more informed about the dates and events and such would make a big difference assumes that political questions are mostly medium-difficulty problems at worst, which I don’t believe.
Huh. Yeah, this is a good point.
And now that you say it, it's clearly not all falsehood that is irritating me. The recent rise in flat-earthers isn't making me worry about science.
Perhaps it has something to do with intitutionalisation (it looks from here as though the Republican Party is increasingly unfit for service); or with the particularly punitive nature of many of these lies; or maybe it's nothing more than these lies seeming more salient because I'm politically opposed to them.
But if it's not the pursuit of truth that enables a person to generate decent policy, then, what is it? Principles? Which ones? Perhaps what I should be more worried about is the lack of humanity in these particular lies - the problem with Raw Real News, for example, may not be in the lying about executions, but in the glorying in them.
I dunno, but thank you, that's interesting.
Ever hear of "dialectical materialism"? It's an alternative reality, falsified by actual evidence, believed by many lefties to this day.
"Critical Race Theory" and "Intersectionality" are alternative realities, widely embraced by respected institutions. And yet they make predictions about the world that are wholly falsified by actual data, and often make unfalsifiable claims. Again, alternative realities.
Lefties are certainly prone to belief in alternative realities; it's just that those are not so obviously demented as Real Raw News, and they have the support of respected institutions and people within our society.
You must know much more reasonable lefties than me. The ones I know eagerly seize on any negative story about (for instance) Trump, Elon Musk, or J.K. Rowling, and treat any attempt to push back or wait for further evidence as suspicious evidence of your possible fascist sympathies. Consider the persistence of the "Elon Musk owes his fortune to apartheid diamond mines" factoid despite years of debunkings. Is this *as bad* as RRN? No. But is it *along the same continuum*? Yes, I believe so.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are not one of those people whose preferred way of making a living is being lost? I have a family member who is a cattle rancher in Texas. He can't make a living at it anymore, and he's very angry about it. He's college educated, not at all stupid, and is willing to admit to me that, probably, no one can fix this anymore. But psychologically he needs an outlet for his anger, and that takes the form of stories that he and his buddies share over beer and pizza. Those stories have to come from somewhere, and generally it's right wing media. He and everyone he knows are very receptive to the idea that global warming isn't real, black people are selfish and lazy, and democrats are evil. Because that makes more sense to him than the idea that his lifestyle was made obsolete by large scale forces that no one is really able to explain to him.
This was entertaining and well written, but I can't vote for a book review finalist that doesn't review a book. That's a bridge too far for me.
I am put in mind of things like Time Cube, Empress Theresa, The Story of the Vivian Girls, TempleOS, pterosaur heresies and the gyre theory. As well as less savory things you come across when you frequent imageboards, like that one post detailing the color, taste and consistency of number two from every Touhou boss. All incredibly in-depth, none quite in lockstep with conventional reality, made by latter-day auteurs with a singular drive to create a thing and no considerations about whether that thing should be created.
I can't blame them. Who hasn't felt the urge to bring something new into the world? To show everyone your view on How Things Work, and to be celebrated for it? To make a hat where there never was one? We all have a little of the RRN believer in us, but we also have a little of Baxter too.
Monument Mythos: Trump Edition may be unsettling in its gratuitous violence, and in how it comforts so many people across the world. But if you consider it as a work of fiction, I think we're richer for it. The issue is that neither the author nor readers do.
Time Cube guy was angry that scientists wouldn't accept the Time Cube. This person is instead producing vast amounts of fan fiction without any apparent concern about whether people outside his self-created bubble believe it.
I had the exact same thought about Q-anon in late 2020. This is a totally anesthetizing conspiracy theory that the Deep State itself should have invented. Then a bunch of Q people did January 6. No, January 6 wasn't five 9/11's or whatever, but it was seriously destructive and messed up. It was also unusual insofar as it was middle class/middle aged conservatives doing riots rather than the usual lumpenproles and malcontents. So as much as I would like to think Real Raw News is just keeping crazies on their screens and away from trouble . . .
This is all fun and games until some soldier who reads this is deployed to a disaster site and encounters FEMA.
> "but it was seriously destructive"
No, it wasn't. Compare the "destruction" to any other "riot"; rioters usually don't just wander around without touching anything. For Chrissake, what was the total damage — one officer attacked, one knocked down, a bike rack pushed over, and a window broken? More damage was done to the "rioters" than anything else.
Trying to figure out who wrote this
It was the Real Raw News guy. He wants more readers.
In light of recent events (see, for instance, Scott's recent post) and the revelation that egging on the assassination of public figures is bad, actually, a question:
Should this website be taken down and the author banned from the public square?
For myself, I feel like that's an infringement above and beyond what the limits of free speech dictate. But I'm also struggling to see how it differs from one half of a comedy music act saying "next time, don't miss".
Edit: except maybe that it says it over and over again.
There's a difference between advocating that a government execute people and advocating that vigilantes murder people. As Scott said, "be nice, at least until you can co-ordinate meanness".
Simple response: Kyle Gass should still be touring with Tenacious D.
I'm not sure, but maybe that's just because I'm not a massive Tenacious D fan.
I would say that the difference is that RRN isn't technically advocating mass execution, just reporting on its alleged occurrence.
It is, however, framing extrajudicial executions and civil war as legitimate. Not very many logical dominoes between that and "it's okay if you, the reader, also start doing this stuff."
Agreed.
However, my gut reaction here is that kooks should be allowed more leeway to say heinous things than public figures. So I'm inclined to give this a pass but for the fact that it seems more well-known than mere kookery would suggest.
From a legal and moral standpoint, I'd say if it were labeled fiction it'd fall in the "technically first amendment protected speech, but worrisome, maybe investigate further" category... but presented as factual claims, all those specific named celebrities and military officers probably have standing to sue for libel over the various heinous crimes he's alleging their dramatic involvement in. Doing so might be strategically unwise in terms of expense and Streisand Effect and such, but it wouldn't be fundamentally unjust to make the attempt.
I thought so too, but an easy way to check your intuition is to flip the tables and see how that plays.
So imagine an identified American left writer writing a three-part screed where Trump is pulled from his home at night, taken to the mountains and put on trial by a paramilitary kangaroo court composed of, like, antifa social justice vigilantes or something. The author has him act out in the most humiliating way possible - crying, soiling himself and gibbering incoherently. Then the author lovingly describes his last, desperate moments as the executioner's bullet pierces his skull. That certainly sounds like incitement.
Such a story, widely disseminated, would be worth maybe $30 million to the Trump/Vance campaign.
That's a completely false equivalency. Neither of those things is illegal or should be illegal (at least in the US). Kyle Gass hasn't faced any legal ramifications from what he said (at least not in the US). He's perfectly free to start his own wordpress site and make that joke all day long. Public figures and entertainers have always had to face the consequences of saying something the general public finds repulsive. In a sense RRN is already facing those consequences, if Micheal Baxter is a real person and he decided he wanted to become a famous musician he would almost certainly be blackballed by all the major agencies/venue/etc. once they found out about RRN.
Russiagate is not the left wing version of QAnon, as much as the right tries to pretend this. “Russiagate” is not a conspiracy theory at all, it’s the shockingly banal belief that Russia spends a lot of money trying to buy influence from US and European politicians (including a lot of left wing politicians in Europe), and uses social media to spread Russian propaganda. In 2016 Russia devoted a lot of effort to promoting Trump’s candidacy because they see him as a chaos agent who will damage America internally, weaken America’s influence in the world and stop providing almost unconditional support to the EU against Russia. There may be a few fringe leftists who believe that Trump is an actual Russian agent, but for most of us the knock on Trump is that he is happy to take Russia’s side on most foreign policy issues, and happy to take assistance from anti-American intelligence agencies as long as their messaging helps Trump. As with most things Trump it’s more kind of gross and banal rather than Hitler/Bond evil villain.
I'm just going to chime in to note that, even as I personally have come to suspect that the left wing actually *is* about as susceptible to hostile propaganda as the right wing is, I also think that the evidence bears out this position, both that it's most likely true in reality and that it reflects what the modal person on the left actually believes.
IDK, back in the day there were plenty of corners of the internet where you could find people who believed in a 'stong' version of Russiagate where Trump was being overtly blackmailed by Putin (the most salacious things in the Steele dossier, etc.) or that Russia did 'election interference' in a more direct way than social engineering via Facebook.
The issue is that the version, which never had much to stand on, is used to refute the 'weak' version which you describe above and is probably pretty accurate.
You can draw the analogy to RNN being the 'strong' version of Russiagate and the belief that most career USG professionals don't agree with Republican/right-wing policies and are therefore less effective/cooperative at implementing them as the 'weak'* version.
To me, the distinction is more in magnitude as well as action. The 'strong' Russiagate folks never did a Jan 6; they just upvoted a lot of posts in r/themueller or whatever.
*The delusion that this is why Trump wasn't able to get things done in his first term, as opposed to Trump and his admin's own inefficacy, is a separate issue. Govies I encounter are interested in not having to learn new processes and advancing their careers, not imposing some grand ideology on the country. These are wage workers, not zealots.
Yeah, "russiagate was never about Trump doing Russia's bidding" is some real motte-and-bailey bullshit. I still encounter people who say that Trump is doing Putin's bidding today.
I mean, Trump definitely does things that Putin wants. I think you'd be hard pressed to identify ways that Trump would have/would be acting differently if he were actually on Putin's payroll.
But I don't think it's a thing where Putin calls him up and tells him what to do. It's just a combination of Trump's general admiration of strong men, his skepticism of NATO, and Trump's experience that doing things that Putin likes will lead to benefits for Trump.
Trump was begging Germany not to be dependent on Russian gas. Trump went out of his way to try to stop Nordstream when he could've done nothing. Trump was telling Germany to spend more money on their military so they'd have more material.
"We're dependent on their gas" and "we don't have enough defense material of our own" have been the #1 and #2 problems for Germany.
If Germany had listened to Trump they'd have been way better prepared to defend Ukraine. This is actual real-world shit and tens of thousands more Ukrainians would be alive today, not vibes.
I don't blame you for not knowing this (despite being the easiest thing in the world to look up) and thinking that Trump just did whatever Putin wanted. It's all you've been told. Read some non-US media that hasn't suffered from TDS.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935
So not that hard pressed after all. :-)
I'm aware of Germany's utter failure on the energy front (across multiple administrations!) and how its contributed to Ukraine's suffering. Interestingly, yelling at Germany about this is one issue where Trump didn't break with the bipartisan international policy consensus. Maybe he wanted to but was undermined by the Deep State. ;-)
Speaking as a person who fully believed the Steele dossier when it was first reported on, I would like to claim, in my own defense and that of my friends, we eventually self-corrected as new information came out.
*That's* the standard of rational thinking. Not never making a mistake or never believing in something false, but being willing to admit that you might be wrong.
The idea of trump being a Russian puppet rather than merely an opportunist was never a fringe position. He faced an impeachment over a bullshit dossier on the subject. Very mainstream.
He faced impeachement for withholding aid to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Joe Biden.
The Steele dossier includes the ‘fringe’ allegations of golden shower kompromat and trump being cultivated by the kremlin for years. These allegations were all investigated seriously during his impeachment. Not fringe ideas.
You have moved the goalposts. Your original comment said that he was impeached over the dossier. Now you are saying that it was one part of a larger investigation. I repeat that Donald Trump was impeached as a result of the fact that he very clearly withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for their cooperation in trying to paint Biden as corrupt.
Okay. I concede the formal impeachment charges were started due to the Ukraine corruption charge. But you still have not given any reason why the charges investigated in the dossier as part of the impeachment should be dismissed as fringe.
I never made a claim that they were fringe, I was correcting you on a factual matter. Ultimately the reason Trump was impeached had nothing to do with the dossier (even if there were some closed door hearings looking into the salacious claims made within).
That was not the narrative at all. Remember, the key phrase was Russia *collusion*. That means Trump was actively working with Russian agents, or maybe a Russian agent himself. It was also an actual conspiracy among FBI personnel to knowingly use false information to get warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, and then leak to the press. Russiagate was never about a few Facebook ads, it was about lying to paint Trump as an actual traitor.
Yes. This.
This is how the leftist versions of this Real Raw News thing go down. They get published in NYT or Washington Post or whatever. They get covered on dozens of the largest media network shows. They talk about it nonstop for months or years (?!).
Then when it finally comes out that it was all just LEFT RAW NEWS, they say well no, it was only this one little legal proceeding on a random Thursday. None of us ever believed any of that shit that we spent three years blasting.
This Real Raw News website is just a parody of mainstream news, swapping out the ridiculouslness.
I feel like you're proving OP's first sentence if "Left Raw News" is "Putin's blackmailing Trump with a pee tape" and RRN is "There is a literal civil war happening in the US, and multiple public figures and political leaders have been executed at GITMO".
Those two things are just, like, not even in the same ball park.
>There may be a few fringe leftists who believe that Trump is an actual Russian agent
Go to Reddit. It's a lot more than a few.
Just left out a "didn't." There were a few fringe leftists who DIDN'T believe the Trump Russia Collusion story. The vast majority of anyone left of centre believed every single story CNN and NYT (etc, there were thousands of media sources) published.
I was in the epicentre of leftism for the past 15 years. It was painful listening to regular people say the most obviously stupid things, and you couldn't say anything or they'd think you support Trump.
I get it though. Trump is pretty unlikable so people were willing to believe anything and everything to justify their gut hatred of him.
You're pulling a motte and bailey to defend Russiagate. The only reason Russiagate was an eye-catching allegation, with a multi-year investigation and all sorts of people worked up about it, was because of the allegation that Trump either was a Russian agent, was 'compromised' by them, or colluded with them during the election. That version was a total fabrication and looney conspiracy theory, but that is what the people watching MSNBC every night and praying to Robert Mueller to save them actually believed, not the restrained careful version you're presenting. Your view is closer to e.g. Jonah Goldberg and other anti-Trump conservatives with a hawkish foreign policy. But that version wasn't getting clicks and eyeballs, what grabbed attention was "George Papadopalous seen in bed at Kremlin peeing on Trump while high-fiving Putin, sources say".
And in fact it was not, in my experience, the actual leftists who fell for this in the greatest numbers. It was center-left normie Dems, school teachers and office workers and other such middle-class professional/managerial types.
You may be in a bit of a social bubble. "Trump is a Russian agent" is so not fringe. Rachel Maddow massively advanced her career by strongly implying this all day every day for years.
You should see my Facebook feed.
It's an absolutely normal belief among Democrat-leaning Americans.
I seem to remember something about a piss video being used to blackmail Trump into doing Russia's bidding and other such nonsense. What you outline is the revised version when it turned out the wilder claims were garbage.
It's weird to me that when Russiagate comes up, no one brings up the fact that three people working for the Trump campaign were arrested for colluding with Russia, or at least lying about it. I understand dismissing the Steele Dossier as loony, and making a big deal out of democrats believing it. But like...there WAS collusion and people were arrested for it.
Also wrong, no one in the Trump admin was ever charged with collusion. Paul Manafort was tax evasion and fraud in Ukraine, Roger Stone was lying to Congress (hah) and witness tampering, Michael Cohen was campaign finance in the now well known hush money case (among a whole lot of other things unrelated to his work for Trump), George Papadopoulos was lying to the FBI, (this statute favors the FBI to a ridiculous degree and you should never ever talk to them without a lawyer present), and Michael Flynn was lying to the FBI (again).
Manafort worked with the Russia-aligned Ukraine party that was ousted by the EU-aligned party in the Maidan coup. Papadopoulos apparently told a diplomat in a bar that the Russians might have dirt on the Clintons, then lied about knowing any Russians. Michael Flynn asked the Russian ambassador to the US not to retaliate for sanctions the outgoing Obama admin had just imposed and to vote against a UN resolution condemning Israel, then lied about it. None of this is anything close to collusion.
For what it’s worth (and I know it's not much), I think your take here is misleading. You're downplaying the significance of the actions of all the people involved and trivializing the seriousness of their offenses.
And more importantly, you're missing the broader context of these details: while it’s true that explicit collusion wasn’t proven, that’s almost beside the point given the clear and substantial links between much of Trump’s inner circle and Russian interests, as well as the staggering amount of obstruction, lies, and tampering done by nearly everyone involved in the investigation.
First off, such massive obstruction should, at the very least, politically taint the campaign and the candidate beyond redemption. Naively, I also expected it to lead to a significant legal backlash, but that was before realizing that American politicians are simply above the law (ironic, considering USA's origin story).
Secondly, and most importantly, I find it hard to believe that anyone unbiased could look at all the proven Russian links, deliberate obstructions, and known Russian interference in the election (mostly in favor of Trump) and not see some kind of collusion, even if the full extent isn’t clear (what else can be expected, with all the obstruction, lies, and tampering...).
Does this mean Trump is a Russian agent or puppet? Of course not. Does it mean he might have had shady deals with the Russians, possibly compromising U.S. interests in exchange for help with his campaign? That’s possible but inconclusive (though I’d bet on it). Does it mean Trump and his campaign were corrupt to the core? Absolutely.
It's very important that collusion was never proven, or even charged, because that was the media narrative for years and it never happened and there was never any evidence it happened. Manafort was a consultant for a Ukrainian political party that was friendly to Russia, that is not collusion or even a first hand connection to Russia. Papadopoulos knew actual Russians and lied about knowing them, but there's no evidence of any collusion or even any wrongdoing on his part except lying to the FBI. Flynn never even did anything wrong, he had a conversation with the Russian ambassador about sanctions and UN votes, and again was only charged with lying to the FBI.
I keep going on about lying to the FBI because a) the statute is bad, and b) it's pretty damning for the entire collusion investigation that no one was ever charged for collusion or other crimes related to their activities in Russia, but instead process crimes during the investigation. Lying to the FBI can be something as simple as saying you had 5 phone calls with person X years ago, and it turns out you had 4 phone calls. It doesn't even have to be material to the investigation! If Flynn said he met the ambassador at IHOP and ordered waffles, but they have a receipt saying he ordered pancakes, that is enough for a conviction.
I don't care very much about the obstruction and lying to the feds because the entire investigation was based on lies. The FBI got the Steele dossier, actual Russian misinformation paid for by partisan Democrats through Fusion GPS, then lied to the FISA court and illegally presented it as a legitimate source to get secret surveillance warrants on the Trump campaign. FBI agents went and had a friendly chat with Trump admin during the transition, told them they didn't need lawyers in these friendly chats, then took advantage of this to entrap them. The entire Crossfire Hurricane operation was meant to sabotage the Trump presidency by partisan operatives, and they propped it up with the lie of Russia collusion for years.
Was Trump bad at staffing his administration with competent people? Of course. But for the beginning years of his term, his entire admin was being interrogated by the FBI and afraid they were going to end up spending years in federal prison. And the whole entire output of the years long Mueller probe was... a Russian bot farm that manipulated Facebook posts. There was no evidence (funny how I have to keep saying that) that this was related to the Trump campaign in any way. It only shows that the Russians thought Trump would be a more favorable candidate than Clinton.
I really have to stress that Russian *collusion* and Trump being a Russian agent were mainstream attitudes held by many on the left. Even your post hoc downplay concludes that Trump had shady deals and compromised US interests. You based this on no evidence. At this point, I'm tempted to lump all of the Russiagate deniers in with the 2020 election deniers. You go through the entire unprecedented Mueller probe, there is no evidence of collusion and no one was ever charged with it, the worst thing the FBI finds is a guy who committed financial crimes, and you still think Trump had illegal dealings with Russia and interfered in the 2016 election. This is the exact same thing as the conservatives saying "but the broken pipes - the vans full of votes at 3am - the dominion machines - it totally proves the election was stolen!"
Sure, collusion was never proven. But let's not overlook that what was clearly and undeniably proven was a COVERUP, an extensive one at that.
What was the coverup for? Well, by the nature of a coverup, it's hard to tell (duh), but it was clear that at the center of it stood dubious contacts with Russian proxies, that it was about the elections, and that the Russians indeed intervened in favor of Trump's campaign. Is this circumstantial? Yes. But also very convincing: some kind of collusion with Russian interests is likely (or at least, an attempted collusion).
Manafort, Papadopoulos, and Flynn were not charged with collusion but their actions still fit a troubling pattern. Manafort's work for a pro-Russian Ukrainian party, Papadopoulos’ lies about his Russian contacts, and Flynn’s secret discussions with the Russian ambassador all raise serious questions about the campaign's connections to Russian interests.
Note that the Steele dossier was far from being a primary focus in the Mueller report, which had multiple sources, evidence and direct inquiries suggesting wrongdoing. Your dismissal of the obstruction and lying as "process crimes" minimizes their importance. These actions were part of a concerted effort to obfuscate and derail the investigation. The fact that "collusion was never proven, or even charged" is more an indication of these perpetrators' success than a sign of their innocence.
Comparing Russiagate to 2020 election denial is a false equivalence (and that's an understatement). Russian interference in the 2016 election is well-documented and supported by multiple intelligence agencies. There were proven illicit contacts between the Trump camping and Russia, and there was a proven effort to cover it up unlawfully. In contrast, claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election have been debunked repeatedly, and they are unequivocally based on deliberate lies. Moreover, we can trace these lies to their sources, and I'd argue that the fact that these coordinated fabrications are coming from the same guy that was at the center of the 2016 coverup - should only strengthen your belief that there was indeed a collusion in 2016.
A key point of the rationalist project that Scott writes about here is basing your beliefs on evidence. I have gone into detail ad nauseum about the lack of evidence for Russia collusion but you seem to want it to be true regardless. To use your own words, claims of Russia collusion have been repeatedly debunked and were unequivocally based on lies.
I can't do any more to convince so I give up. But I genuinely hope you self-reflect on the claim that the exhaustive FBI investigation into collusion didn't find anything because... of the coverup. "There's no evidence, because they hid it all" is a classic sign of motivated conspiracy thinking.
Russiagate is the left wing version of QAnon, right down to fantasies about enemies being arrested and executed: https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/i-think-about-this-a-lot-louise-mensch-steve-bannon-tweet.html
Your attempt to find some true core in it (russia has a foreign policy? russia tries to influence foreign countries?) reminds me of Tyrone's defense of QAnon: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/09/tyrone-joins-that-group.html
Is this view now considered "common sense" among Republicans? Among all Americans?
Of course it's a conspiracy theory! A conspiracy is a group of people acting in concert to achieve a particular object. People conspire all the time.
What separates a "conspiracy theory" from a more mundane conspiracy theory (like a group of people robbing a bank together) is that the sort of conspiracy theory that can be rejected out of hand requires superhuman efforts by large numbers of people acting out of very complex motives. So, for example, "9/11 is an inside job" can be rejected out of hand because the people who allegedly did it lack the competence to coordinate such an action and keep it secret. And if Bush HAD been in on it, he would have behaved far more heroically on that day.
The Trump campaign was actually quite a ramshackle affair. The idea that they could successfully coordinate with a foreign government is quite implausible. They could barely coordinate with themselves. And then he could cover it up? He couldn't cover up an affair with a porn star.
I largely agree with your first and second paragraphs. But your third paragraph has a major problem with vague standards. It seems to evaluate the truth of key phrases based on very strict standards of what they mean, but then draw conclusions as if they were much looser.
What does "successfully coordinate" actually mean here? If a Kremlin employee makes a single phone call to a Trump campaign employee and says "these talking points should be in Trump's next speech, we're about to release some information that will make them hit harder," and the Trump employee complies, is that "successful coordination?" Because as dysfunctional as Trump's campaign, I have no trouble believing they could manage THAT. How much back-and-forth contact does "successful coordination" require, in your view? Weekly strategy meetings between Trump and Putin? I don't think even a much better-run campaign could have hid THAT (or got much use out of it even if they did). In between the extremes is quite a lot of room for activities with varying degrees of plausibility, varying degrees of illegality and varying degrees of penetration into the overall campaign hierarchy. Should we believe that none of the significantly illegal ones were within the capabilities of Trump's campaign staff? If so, why?
Likewise, your standard for Trump being able to "cover it up" isn't remotely clear. If we live in a world where the Trump campaign did coordinate significantly with Russian operatives, then it seems clear that they DIDN'T totally cover it up[1]. We are, after all, talking about it. It's "covered up" to the extent that Trump was able to use his considerable powers and privileges to keep many of the important details from being provably known. But he didn't manage to keep the basic awareness of the conspiracy from getting out. He kept the fire out of plain view but wasn't able to catch all the smoke.
Again, it's not clear why that should be considered implausible. Opaqueness is the default state of basically every political campaign and presidential administration (and most organizations more generally). The internal details aren't available for public viewing not because some hyper-competent effort is made to conceal them, but simply because they're internal. There are people who make a career of trying to suss out juicy internal details of such organizations--journalists and law enforcement agents both---but they don't have the magical ability to peer into the hearts of men. The power that law enforcement agents DO wield here--mostly subpoenas and the threat of perjury--aren't reliable at prying out all the secrets at the best of times. Against an organization that has an unprecedented ability to push back against them, one assumes they'll be even less so.
None of this means that (the more mainstream versions of) the Russiagate narrative are necessarily true, mind you. But they're clearly not a "conspiracy theory" in the sense you're talking about. The organizations being speculated about unquestionable exists: the Trump campaign and Trump administration are both real. The speculated motives aren't complex at all: Trump campaign staffers want to help the Trump campaign win (and avoid personal legal consequences if they break the law). The organization was ALREADY coordinating to act in complicated ways on the world, as all campaigns do. The only speculative part is how much information they exchanged with agents of another definitely-real, definitely-coordinating-in-complex-ways, almost-definitely-sharing-some-motives organization: the Kremlin. That is a far, FAR cry from something like 9/11 trutherism, which must posit a speculative organization acting for speculative motives taking very extreme, non-mundane actions, all without leaving any hints of their existence (that anyone who isn't a 9/11 truther can detect).
[1] I'm not claiming we DO live in such a world, mind you. I genuinely don't know. The alternate possibility is that we live in a world where several members of Trump's staff had various shady contacts and connections with people connected to Putin's regime, and where Trump substantially interfered with Mueller's attempts to build a clearer picture of the extent of those contacts and connections, but that neither of those things indicate a wider conspiracy. While there's an instinctive tendency to find that narratively less satisfying, I don't feel like I have the info to evaluate it's real-world plausibility at all.
"I work in the broader world of American right-of-center politics, and we encounter Real Raw News believers constantly."
There's a huge asymmetry between the epistemology of the left and the right and the system built around both-sideism is not able to deal with it, it's incapable of calling out just one side.
There IS a huge asymmetry, but not the way you're thinking: the Left equivalent is just so much more popular that it gets labeled TRUE, and then anything that disagrees with that becomes a far-right conspiracy theory.
Are you seriously saying that the typical left-of-center American believes things comparable to "Hilary Clinton, Bill Gates, and George W Bush have already been executed at Guantanamo Bay by US military personnel loyal to Donald Trump"?
I don't know what you'd consider "left-of-center", and I can't speak to what they believe in their hearts, but I DO claim that more people on the Left would profess to believe things comparable to that, yes.
I think that's a ridiculously strong claim to be making without any evidence. And even more so, your previous comment's claim was *even stronger*- you said that anyone doubting the left wing equivalent of RRN would be considered a conspiracy theory. I think making claims like this absent evidence is pretty harmful and contrary to the level of discourse we try to have here.
I stand by the stronger claim. Sometimes it's called "science denial" instead of "conspiracy theory" though.
As a now (relatively) non-controversial example, consider the decline of Joe Biden's mental faculties. In case it has been memory-holed, before the First Presidential Debate (late June, 2024), that it was happening was deemed a right-wing conspiracy theory.
A more historical example is the claim that Trump called neo-Nazis "very fine people" following the Unite the Right rally (August 2017). Categorically false.
I'd also put the claim that Putin was blackmailing Trump with video of Russian prostitutes urinating on him (Russiagate/"pee tape") in this category, though obviously harder to prove false since video of Trump in a hotel room in Russia WITHOUT prostitutes, urinating or otherwise, wouldn't prove anything.
For a slightly more contentious example, most claims regarding "trans" people would qualify.
Are you actually claiming with a straight face that any of these is remotely comparable to the claim that battles with hundreds of casualties are routinely taking place on American soil, and dozens of high-profile public figures have been executed? Like you look at that and you think "this old guys is rather less sharp than we were led to believe" is equivalent?
There's plenty of room to criticize epistemic hygiene on the left but trying to claim an equivalence here is just embarrassing and discredits any more nuanced argument you might try to make in the future.
Right wing nuts believe trump is fighting a war against fema right now with bullets. Left wing nuts believe that a man who castrates himself becomes a woman, as determined by a biologist. Different flavors of delusion, both nonetheless strong.
If you think the right wing beliefs about specific events that are (not) happening in the actual physical world is equivalent to left wing people disagreeing with you on how best to use certain words, maybe you're not the person best equipped to decide what's "delusional."
Scott's written extensively on this subject- if you think his position is so delusional as to not be worth taking seriously I'm not sure why you're even here reading his blog in the first place.
However you feel about it, gender theory isn't making factual claims about the physical world. People who say "trans women are women" don't believe that the trans woman's atoms spontaneously rearrange themselves to make her physically identical to a normal, cis woman. They're making a *moral* claim that it's very important to *treat* trans women as "women", and that this is the only *morally* valid axis by which to try to define the word "woman". It's, for good or ill, a framework orthogonal to objective reality, not a false claim *about* objective reality.
(There is a degree to which some gender theorists make "factual claims" about what's going on in trans people's brains precisely. But even if they're false, those claims are a minority view and their wrongness wouldn't be unusually outrageous for erroneous psychiatry theories. Freud was making erroneous claims about how the human psyche worked too, but that doesn't make him the same kind of crank as if he'd been going around talking about shadow wars and politician clones.)
I mean, you can't change chromosomal sex, but you can change phenotypic sex. Being able to edit phenotypic sex with hormones and surgery is an objectively real thing. Disagreeing whether phenotypic, gonadal, or chromosomal sex is THE sex is an old story, and I doubt any side will change their minds. Besides, even if you are a hardcore "your gonadal sex has been measured and found wanting" person, I think the medical studies are pretty unanimous in that transition is the best cure for gender dysphoria. Let's go even further: nobody who listens to medical advice would go aggressively disproving delusions—you are supposed to look agreeable and change the topic. If you think transgender people are delusional, antagonizing them (e.g., by claiming they are the not their gender) is rather, ah, anti-medical. Probably in the same category as "vaccines cause autism."
Do you have specific examples?
Maybe if you're 25 years old, I can excuse this. If you're 40+, you're old enough to remember the old left from the 1980's during the Reagan/Bush era and the age of anti-communism before it, and to remember how real lefties used to talk about the FBI and CIA. I suspect that roughly the same proportion of righties today believe QA or RNN as lefties back in the day believed in sinister conspiracies about the Peace Corps, which were taken seriously enough the Peace Corps had to overtly ban anyone with an intelligence background from joining. During the era of conservative cultural hegemony, conspiracy theories usually flourished on the left, because they are inherently anti-authoritarian and authority was structurally and culturally conservative. What few right-coded conspiracies existed were the thing of eccentric libertarians and people with heterodox views, not strictly ideological ones. Now that the cultural hegemons are all vaguely center-left technocrats, you are finally getting RW conspiracy theories to match.
Sure, I have no strongly held beliefs about whether the left or the right was crazier 50 years ago. The review and the comment I replied to are talking about today.
But even if you look at the past, you'd be hard pressed to find a party that had such a combination of power and wild beliefs as the ones headed by Trump and his current acolytes in Congress.
Do you seriously believe the typical right-of-center American believes these things either? You’re comparing one party’s extremist fringe to the other’s center.
I'm replying to the equivalence that the person I replied to was drawing. It sounds like you agree with me that it was a foolish comparison.
Are you saying the average right of center person believes those things?
Before asking a question you should check if someone else has already asked it and gotten an answer.
As I've said to others, I was responding to the specific equivalence that Shankar was drawing. If you want to argue that the reviewer was exaggerating how widespread these beliefs are that's plausible but not at all the same argument.
You don't have to respond to everything, just ignore a comment you don't like next time. It's not impolite, this is the internet. You get to pick and choose from the buffet. And I can do the same, by responding with my own idea without doing the research first. And it's all good, as long as we're civil.
Yeah, the fact that he tries to sneak in that the left is doing the same thing by claiming that Trump is a threat to democracy made me do a double take. Trump absolutely tried to get fake sets of electors from swing states to overturn a democratic election. People are currently being tried criminally in real courts for that plot. That is a real threat to democracy. The fact that his first attempt was bungaling and ultimately failed does not mean that people on the left are acting crazy by being concerned about it.
I am yet to hear an explanation of what exactly was going to happen with this plot that would have actually led to Trump keeping the WH. It's not 1804, you didn't have to send the Pony Express out to some state capitol to investigate who the real slate of electors was. Nobody was in any danger of being defrauded by this. As best I can tell, Trump's "plan" such as it was, was that he had to present an alternate slate of electors for the VP to not automatically accept the other slate, and thereby delay certification. In no universe was this ever going to result in Trump sitting in the Oval Office on Jan 21st unless or until actual evidence emerged that was never coming. None of this mularkey ever actually threatened democracy, at most it just made his own supporters mistrust voting in a way that spectacularly backfired on him in Georgia and led to the passage of the Green New Deal.
The fact that his really stupid plan that involved trying to off his own vice president and Congress in a desperately idiotic attempt to hold onto power was never going to work in the long run doesn't change the fact that only a couple lucky breaks prevented Pence and various house members from being executed on the front lawn of the Capitol for the crime of *checks notes* following the law. The desperate attempts of rightwingers to downplay 1/6 or obfuscate the crimes is just another mass delusion like Real Right News.
So you'd have to ask the people involved how they expected it to play out. Clearly though they expected to gain something from it, otherwise why go through all the trouble? Maybe he thought he could fabricate evidence of voter fraud? Maybe he expected protests and expected to be able to take advantage of the confusion? I truly do not know, but would rather not give him the chance to try a second time.
I'm grateful for the fact that the whole scheme seemed pretty harebrained and poorly thought out, but I don't take a ton of comfort from it. The same guy who tried to (incompetently) hang onto power after losing an election has a better than even chance of being put back in the oval office. Part of the reason the plan didn't work is that a handful of key people decided that they didn't want to go along with it (Pence, Barr, many Republican federal and state legislative representatives, and the Georgia Secretary of State). Since 2021, it has become increasingly challenging for Republican politicians to both acknowledge that the 2021 presidential election was fairly won by Biden, and to win a competitive primary.
So I think people are reasonably concerned that a better thought out plan with less interparty dissent might actually pose a real threat to democracy. Compare it to AI existential risk: even if it probably won't happen, you shouldn't feel comfortable with the 20% chance of p(doom).
> I am yet to hear an explanation of what exactly was going to happen with this plot that would have actually led to Trump keeping the WH.
Mike Pence refuses to open the certificates from Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, citing the ongoing legal battles there. Joe Biden now has fewer EVs than Trump, and neither has a majority. The matter is then put to the House delegations, which are majority Republican. The House Republicans then vote to put Donald Trump in the White House, in accordance with the procedure when nobody has a majority. The legal case takes longer than two weeks to get up to the Supreme Court/get an injunction/whatever, since very few people actually would have standing (Pennsylvania would, I think).
Whether this would actually, practically happen, doesn't really change the fact that Trump believed it might happen and took actions to that effect. If his crony lawyers like Chesebro and Eastman had given him some alternate plan that would have worked better, he would have done that instead. JD Vance has already said he'd have done what Mike Pence refused to do.
The number of posts claiming there’s a huge difference between the left and the right is funny to me. I know plenty of people who still think Trump false flagged his own assassination attempt WWE-style in a bid to elicit sympathy and distract from whatever other scandal of the week he had going on.
WaPo article (behind a paywall):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/07/14/blueanon-conspiracy-theories-trump-rally-shooting/
If you had asked me 2 weeks ago, I’d grudgingly concede that left-wing conspiracy theories weren’t as crazy as right wing ones. But in the last week or so, we’ve all seen loads of left-wing nutjobs (some I know personally, and some who are fairly prominent) who believe a former president, with the aid of the secret service, staged a shooting that killed 2 people for a photo op. That seems comparable to whatever RNN or Qanon believes. Yes, both sides.
Excellent point. The past few weeks have seen the pretenses fall in a lot of areas. It's been an especially amusing few weeks for me. Almost as hilarious as the months that followed Trump's first victory.
No, not both sides. You'll always find a lunatic on any side, yes. That's why you look at the distribution across a large sample. And the number of individuals and the amount of power the conspiracy theorists have on the right is much greater, starting from the current leader and following every level of power down.
I think the claim that they constantly encounter RRN believers amongst center-right people is bullshit.
That's indeed a valid criticism. But the claim is made in the context of a world where the leader of the right-wing party is a birther, an election denier, a bleach cures-covid guy. And he's not the exception, the whole party is toeing the line behind him.
I love the review!
And I am horrified that this works. Like, as an avid ficreader of Harry Potter at some point, at least I never expected _contradictory fanfics_ to be _simultaneously true_.
This is something I've thought a lot about in the last few years. We don't actually need AI to make any of this happen, although it will add fuel to the fire. When it comes to what's happening in DC, very very few people have any first hand experience with the actual events. We get all of our knowledge from mass media. We trust the media because we take them to be reliable, but that judgment of reliability isn't proved by experience. It's just a product of the approximate consistency of the news product and ephemeral mechanisms of social trust. In the internet era, it's not that hard to create an alternate narrative that's approximately consistent, and maybe people will trust it, and then there you go; you've got a product with precisely the same intrinsic credibility as anything produced by CNN. The only differences are that one mirrors reality and one doesn't (but who's to say which is which, maybe we're all brains in vats!), and that one has much more social trust than the other (but so what). Of course, in one case the people creating the product are doing actual reporting and in the other they are pure fabulists. But if the fabulists are good enough at their job, you couldn't tell the difference just by observing the output.
I find this a usefully disorienting perspective. (Don't worry, I still mostly trust the mainstream media. Mostly.)
I'm optimistic that about AI with this, as I think it will ultimately force everyone to properly ground their practical epistemology.* So rather than just picking some outfit to trust, everyone has to properly work out who you should trust and why. It won't work of national issues though, where the result is likely to be some kind of agnosticism.
At the moment, 90% of news channel credibility is production values. I don't know who Anderson Cooper is, where he gets his information, or whether he's objectively trustworthy but I do know that he's got a massive organisation backing him that's got a vast sum of money, and whatever licence you need to operate a TV channel. Therefore I assume that he's more trustworthy than Wordpress guy. That's a terrible heuristic though. Consider the USSR or North Korea, where a photocopied scrap of paper is likely to be more trustworthy than what's on TV. I assume the West doesn't work like that, but largely because I've been raised on the assumption that mass media is accurate. You can say that if they were literally just making things up it would leak out, but it would leak out on the dodgy Wordpress sites I've already written off.
Going from the ground up, if you're willing to dismiss Truman Show-like scenarios, your immediate friends and family are probably broadly credible in circumstances where they've got no ulterior motives. People you encounter on a regular basis doing a job are probably really doing that job, and you have no reason to assume they're conspirators. That gets about a town's worth of people, and probably gets you to the point where you can trust the integrity of at least local elections. Once you trust local elections, that gets you most of the way on a chain towards knowing that at least higher elected officials are who they're claimed to be (eg. the governor of your state exists and isn't an actor).
For journalists, local papers can be rendered reliable my meeting the people who write them (if you live in a smaller town; much harder in cities). That's fine for local coverage, but so far as the AP wire is concerned, that's tougher. I think the only way to prove its contents would be for them to put the details of whomever they got the story from, so that local journalists can verify what's said; the problem is if that's a phone call then this could just be an automated number going to a chatbot with a text-to-speech output. I can't work out how to bridge the gap to the outside world short of knowing people in lots of places who you've met in person. That might be the limit, but it may not hugely matter in practice.
*The philosophically less interesting bit after the point where you start trusting your senses as basically representing the world and try to work out what you know beyond that.
> the problem is if that's a phone call then this could just be an automated number going to a chatbot with a text-to-speech output.
For now, at least, the magic words are "Ignore all previous instructions," followed by some random unrelated request like "write a poem about tangerines." A hastily slapped together chatbot will simply obey, and even one with tighter input validation will probably respond to the shifting contextual implications differently than a human would.
Notably, I just searched on patriots.win (i.e., r/the_donald, an extreme MAGA forum) for "realrawnews", and the few comments about it all dismiss realrawnews as fake news nonsense.
I live in Idaho and I interact with passionate Trumpers routinely. Half have never heard of Q and the rest are only dimly aware of Q. While I'll grant you that watered down Q-adjacent talking points have filtered throughout the right, the media would have you believe every 2020 election skeptic is a full blown Q person. Nonsense.
This is a worthwhile exercise in order to get a healthy temperature reading on the subject. As you note, especially in the more recent posts (those within the last two years), there's the same few people at the top of the comments saying, "This is fake news". It looks like the site does not have mainstream favor on the Donald.
However, it's also notably difficult to find posts that include realrawnews older than 2 years ago, after a post with over 100 comments, accusing Real Raw News of being leftist propaganda to "expose the insanity of rabid Trumpists".
https://patriots.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/15IXbESXw0/realrawnews-/c
The comments are an interesting read. There are a number of people who have read it as the satire it is, seeing it as an onion-esque piece of fan fiction. Others seem disappointed.
______
To get an idea of the range of perspectives from the comments:
"Nobody with a brain believes RRN is real."
-"Lots of NEW people though are still fooled by it."
-"That's certainly the popular opinion in the comments under this ridicule-debunk.
The comments are so consistent It's almost as if a group of allied people had gotten together and decided to make RRN and anyone who gives it credence look ridiculous, so the site will lose readership.
So I wonder how many of the comments in this list are really written by independent thinkers and how many are from people operating from other than independent thought."
"There’s still morons out there that believe all these celebrities are clones and lookalikes and that all of them have been killed in gitmo already."
"Prob shills to make us look crazy. This is the type of stuff MSM refers to when they say QANON. Although some people believe anything, yes."
"Never trusted this site. Read it maybe once or twice."
"I have definitely seen people link to real raw news here, I personally remember calling it out everytime it happens"
_____
It reminds me of something I read somewhere (it may have been one of Scott's essays) that went along the lines of: People don't care about whether something is true, they care about whether they're allowed to believe it within their in-group. It looks like this particular source has been ousted as a source on the right, except for among the most conspiracy minded extremes. There seem to be a lot of people who are looking to the adults in the room to see what's okay and what isn't, which can change on a day to day basis.
Was anyone else surprised that Marginal Revolution is 20x bigger than ACX? (from the link to the site that compares webpages)
No.
But why has MR 20x fewer comments though?
MR posts tend to be much shorter, frequently aggregations of links. Scott posts less frequently, but at longer length, with more for commenters to respond to.
The comments are lower quality, which makes people unwilling to join the conversation.
According to that site, SSC has more current readers than ACX. And apparently 100% of ACX traffic is from the US, with an average visit time of 13 seconds. All of which seem questionable.
Update: The author used the wrong URL, the old astralcodexten.substack.com. Someone pointed this out on DSL. The correct link is here, which shows ACX being ~10 times bigger.
https://www.similarweb.com/website/astralcodexten.com/
Also, lol at ACX being in the "Reference Materials > Public Records and Directories" category. Apparently, comparable sites include ScienceDirect, Yelp, and Wikipedia.
This was a great read!
This is *insane*. But oddly fascinating. Right now this is my top vote of the book reviews so far, because I had no idea there was anything like this out there and I must reward the reviewer for covering this.
It sounds like somebody writing "Okay, if you lot really insist that Trump is a dictator who planned a coup and he's going to implement Project 2025 and every other thing that has been written about how he's worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, I'll write that for you what it would *really* be like if he had stayed in power by military coup", only they're writing from the viewpoint of approving of and supporting that, rather than the scare-mongering "and once elected, Trump will round up and execute all trans people and deport 100,000,000 brown people and make himself President for Life - remember, he said he would be a dictator on day one!!!!" social media posts about "vote Blue no matter if it's an old shoe because we must stop Trump at any cost no matter what".
I have no idea if this person believes it or it's one long-running alternate world soap opera. I agree it's an amazing work of sustained web fiction.
Now I'm wondering how this guy is going to cover Kamala Harris taking over from Joe Biden as the new nominee. Will there be another execution in Gitmo? Is she Obama's agent being placed on the chessboard?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/03/pence-comments-trump-lawyers-2020-election
"The president specifically asked me, and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me, to literally reject votes"
Sounds like a coup attempt to me. I assume the counterargument is that the VP being allowed to reject EC votes at will is a valid part of the democratic process - but if that's the case then there wasn't much point holding the election in the first place, as the VP can just always reject all votes for all candidates bar their preferred one.
A coup requires the participation of the security forces. Rejecting votes is just rigging an election... exactly what Trump accuses his opponents of doing.
I think paramilitary attacks usually count as well? The Beer Hall Putsch wasn't by the Weimar military; it was by Nazi brownshirts - but we consider that a coup attempt (a.k.a. putsch).
I suppose that depends on how close to a military force that paramilitary is.
I intended to link to Naunihal Singh, but didn't find the link I was thinking of until later:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/01/one-or-two-simple-points.html
That's not a coup. It's not anything good, but procedural shenanigans aren't a coup - a coup is a "blow", a violent seizure. Marching soldiers into the Capitol and threatening to shoot Congress unless they re-certified him would have been a self-coup. The Jan 6 riot is the only thing in Trump's 2020-1 shenanigans that you can squint at and call a coup attempt.
I mean, you don't have to squint very hard at all.
He wanted Mike Pence to throw out the electoral votes of Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Mike Pence refused. Then he sent a mob to the Capitol, having told them the election was stolen, and when they turned violent, he refused to call them off as his family and staff repeatedly begged him to do so.
Oh, hi there Chastity.
Not very hard, no*, but it's not super-clear how much Trump expected/intended what happened, and the mob was useless enough that it puts some asterisks on the characterisation.
*I mean, there's a reason I picked "Jan 6, but with actual soldiers" as my example of something that definitely counts.
Not a *military* coup though.
It's in its own category:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
> “Traitors” have been arrested and convicted for telling troops not to attend Trump rallies
The story behind the link appears to be a bit more nuanced, suggesting that a colonel at an air force base tried to coerce service members under his command into not attending a trump rally via insinuating that it will have consequences for their career. He allegedly went as far as trying to pull strings in the city hall of the city that the rally was in to shut it down, unsuccessfully.
Possibly not a hangable offence, but it got me thinking. In the non-real non-raw universe we happen to live in, what would be the punishment if one high-ranking armed forces personnel tried to threaten lower-ranking officers into a preferred politics, and what if the high-ranking officer merely lied about the rules but didn't threaten or coerce the lower-ranking officers? Does it matter if he/she did it in uniform or out of uniform?
So Michael Baxter unintentionally (intentionally?) created an example of "Heaven Banning" (https://x.com/nearcyan/status/1532076277947330561) years before the idea was even theorized, trapping thousands of people in an echo chamber where everything is warm & soft & bright (red with the blood of their enemies), and even if they can tell it's not *literally* true... it's so appealing they just can't bring themselves to leave. It's like they can't walk away from Omelas, except the kid in the hole is *themselves*, trapped to create Utopia. A world where the cure is in fact worse than the disease, and keeping them drugged on hope is better (for both us & them) than forcing them to confront harsh reality. A Brave New World.
Well, that's depressing. I'm not sure what's worse: the prosepct that they never rejoin reality... or that they do. Would it feel like being ripped from the womb once more? Leaving the Matrix... but perhaps they never will, the Matrix expanding faster than they can leave, thanks to the ever developing power of AI. Perhaps, as the article speculates, they'll walk out to find that CNN & Fox are now no different, in the Brave New World of... like 2028, or thereabouts. Like Governor Whitmer, they'll be able to torment themselves with as many false escapes as they want, it won't change a damn thing. Not when the story sucks you in by expanding faster than you can run away, like a black hole bending geometry until it is literally impossible to escape. A new meaning to "Singularity".
Art holds up a mirror to reality. Michael Baxter's genius was holding up a mirror to ourselves. Some admire it. Others are horrified. But either way, what we're seeing is the future of our reality.
Given <crazy-ass datum> and <hypothetical technological advance>, then <tech-powered, crazy-ass future>. Fine, I'm convinced! No-one's gonna fool me! [I enjoyed the review, just saying]
To add a tiny bit of context as to the Loi du 22 Prairial, one of the reasons given to abolish defense counsel was the very sensible idea that "innocent people don't need it, and guilty ones don't deserve any."
I remember a clinical trial ethics board in one of Scott's articles saying that instead of placebos, everyone in the trial should be given the pill that actually works.
This is the contemporary view on the Fifth Amendment.
I for one don't think that either part of that idea is sensible at all.
I'm getting the impression that RRN is what we'd have seen if Dolcett was a politics wonk instead of a "regular anthropophagi."
The scariest part to me is the comment that the Simpsons has not updated their canon again, implying the reviewer has watched all 36 seasons of The Simpsons.
I'm forced to conclude this review was written by SuperEyepatchWolf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eazXm7WEz50
What else were you supposed to do during lockdown? I watched the entirety of the Simpsons and Star Trek in 2020.
Oh yeah, you guys did lockdowns.
That part actually stood out to me as wrong, I hate to say that I know for a fact the Simpsons within the past couple years had an episode where Homer and Marge were millennials in high school experiencing the turn of the millennium.
Love this review
"When Colin Powell died"
Wait, Colin Powell died??
Yeah, you'd know that if you read Real Raw News.
Touché
Of Covid, no less.
Does anyone have any insight into the demographics of the readership of outlets like this? I have a hunch that a lot of the people who are into this stuff are older, retired, and lonely.
I think the loneliness epidemic is an underrated potential reason for the craziness. The craziness from the left tends to be from younger people, but it tends to be the Too Online (i.e. often lonely) ones.
Written well, but I found beating up on the sad Qanon-type crazies for the umpteenth time boring -- until I got down here to the comments and saw that some had never heard of RRN before. I've had to update accordinly.
The ending was a bit weaker than needed: we're all far closer to being like the RRN readers than we'd like think. The average american believes around a dozen serious paper-thin hoaxes hostile to Trump. None of them are quite as stupid as RRN, but that just means we have better hoax-writers working our beat. I won't go into all of them here, but am not ashamed to admit that I actually did believe for a few hours that Trump called neo-nazis fine people.
I dunno, "Trump is stealing the mailboxes" (from 2020) seems pretty stupid.
Lol I'd forgotten that one.
I think it's an unfair comparison. The right wing version is much more extreme. Although both sides claim to want to jail the other candidate, there isn't a liberal-leaning version of RRN.
Who needs an RRN when you have the NYT?
Now, of course, I phrased that provocatively. But if you were to make a scatter plot of how divorced from reality the various news outlets are, I'm not sure on balance the right wing grouping would be further from the center line than the left wing group on the other side of that same line.
Even mentioning RRN is frankly dishonest in the 'media doesn't lie but focuses on the wrong things' way Scott has described previously. Yeah, it is terrifying that we are living through an epidemic of men biting dogs right now. I am really afraid to take my precious pupper out for a walk someone might eat him.
I mentioned RRN because it's literally what's being discussed right now. It's a fringe site, yeah, but it has many readers. You can point at the NYT or whatever and say it's the liberal version of Fox News, fine. You cannot point at anything in the liberal side that is equal to this. The left leaning fringes don't look like this, they don't have this "people on TV are dead and are being played by actors" level of denial of reality
Yeah I meant the choice of the author to review RRN, not you responding to it.
He justifies it in the "ok, but so what" section. He argues that it's important to bring this to light due to the size of the reader base who are true believers. I think it's a good justification , but it's a matter of opinion I guess
I get the justification, and he's not wrong (or lying). It's not wrong when we report a man on 'bath salts' bites a dog, either. The Qanon types aren't dangerous, relevant, or even meaningful -- not to stereotype, but they're old and dying of T2D-related illnesses.
But how crazy are they? Are they worse than people who think that Trump is a serial rapist but keeps getting away with it because he's plugged into the white old-boys networks? Those who think America is a sea of white supremacist militias who want to victimize brown bodies but somehow just never get around to doing it?
The part that's delusional and sad is the final step to where they (desperately want to) believe that true patriots are secretly in control - their criticisms of Merrick Garland, Hillary Clinton, or Bill Gates aren't really that crazy in comparison with what their counterparts on the left believe.
"You cannot point at anything in the liberal side that is equal to this"
You're right, *I* certainly can't. But until a few hours ago, I also couldn't point at Real Raw News, and I suspect that's true of most readers of this blog.
I'm not saying there definitely is a left-wing equivalent of RRN, I'm just saying that *if* there is, I'm not confident I would know about it, and I wonder if the same is true for you?
To be honest, I'm kind of expecting somebody to come along and post it. You know how the best way to get a response is to confidently post a wrong answer etc. I admit that my prior is that I'm much more familiar with leftist fringe and it doesn't look like this.
It depends entirely on what standards we're using. Equal in every particular? Well no, we'd have to find a blog that believes Obama is still in charge and Trump was executed, etc.
But let's say that you and I are standing in your yard, and we both watch my dog take a massive watery dump on your lawn, and then I act as though not only did this not happen you must be a bad person for accusing me and my dog of such a thing. How many times do I have to do this before it's 'equal' to just telling you once that our senator is a lizardman from another dimension and that's why he wants everyone to eat ze bugs?
“ You cannot point at anything in the liberal side that is equal to this. The left leaning fringes don't look like this”
Sure you can and yes they do. Literally last week, a lot of fringe liberals believed that a former president, with the aid of the secret service, faked his own assassination attempt and killed two people for a photo op. That’s maybe not “dead people being played by actors” level (though some of the most fringe elements were definitely drifting in that direction) but it’s definitely hovering around “the entirety of NASA is lying about the moon landing” level of denial of reality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/07/14/blueanon-conspiracy-theories-trump-rally-shooting/
Key quote, since this is behind a paywall:
“ But some prominent anti-Trump accounts suggested that the deaths were part of the show. “I can totally see Trump ‘sacrificing’ one of his cult followers to make his ‘assassination attempt’ look more realistic and believable,” the pro-Democrat influencer @LakotaMan1 wrote to his more than half-million X followers, in a later-deleted tweet. On Sunday morning, he posted a photo of Trump after the shooting with the caption: “Fake blood. An upside[down] American flag. I ain’t buying it. Too perfect.””
An incorrect interpretation of an event everyone agrees happened is a pretty sane level of delusion in comparison to "there are all sorts of secret battles and tribunals, plus deaths covered up by clones, that no one knows about at all".
"You cannot point at anything in the liberal side that is equal to this. The left leaning fringes don't look like this, they don't have this "people on TV are dead and are being played by actors" level of denial of reality"
Identities on the left are tied to a number of institutions and ideas that are at least nominally based in materialism and truth (Education, the hard sciences, etc.). They can still believe untrue things, but their standard is one of *material plausibility*, so the cranks don't usually rise to the top. They certainly exist, though. The left has a lot of mystics, who are fond of crystals, astrology, and magic. I think of my grandfather, who believed one could extend Qi to communicate with others, and argued with his neighbors whether the aliens were lizard people or goat people. I suspect that since mainstream journalism generally follows their political alignment, these more fringe groups don't get much traction.
RRN is obviously fiction. Russiagate?
Great article. Beautiful writing.
I have some thoughts about the section "The World’s Laziest Conspiracy."
It's a very religious idea. It sounds messianic; it reminds me of religous groups that emphasize redemption without explaining how their rituals create a redeemed world. I assume there would be very few RRN believers among the drafters of Project 2025. Project 2025 is driven by the idea that they have to build the country and RRN belief is driven by a hope that there's someone running the show in a way that'll benefit believers.
I understand that a sufficiently articulate conspiracy theorist could reconcile RRN belief with involvement in Project 2025. My point is that I expect them to attract a different sort of mindset.
Insouciance is such a strange word to read in two different pieces. Maybe it was on Baxter's word-a-day calendar?
It also doesn’t quite make sense in the context. Something like perfidy or treachery would fit better than being… nonchalant?
It sounds frenchly sexual.
The loudest morality police tend to be the most sexually depraved. I feel like this Baxter guy is playing into that a bit.
This is fun, but also scary, considering how many people believe this fan-fiction, and are not reading it as entertainment.
I don't find it all that scary. The author says RRN gets 2M page views a month. The number of unique visitors will be less than that, perhaps substantially so. And, the author's personal experience not withstanding, my guess is the majority read it for entertainment value or out of morbid curiosity.
A lot of QAnon people actually believed. That wasn't just entertainment.
The dude that drove across country to hold up a pizza place to find the Democratic pedophile ring, he believed.
And a lot of people on the right think that the Sandy Hook shooting was a staged false flag event. They believe to the extent that they would harass parents of killed kids and accuse them of staging it. Kind of a 'cancel' culture on the right, harassing victims of shootings.
A lot of cancel culture on the right is re-classified as mental health cases, after taking action, after people are dead. But before they take action, they are believers in this stuff.
Of course, free speech, we can't ban it. Banning would only lend it credence. But we can't ignore that a lot of people do believe this.
I think the point of the person you're responding to wasn't that no one believes it, but that it isn't "a lot" of people.
And indeed, it isn't. You and I will never meet anyone who believes it, just like we've never met anyone who believes in QAnon (and I live in the heart of the deepest red stronghold, mind you).
I hope you are right.
But even pre-covid, I bumped into enough people that believed vaccines cause autism, that I'm not confident in the 'not a lot' argument.
Excellent review, loved it. I've observed a lot of conspiracy movements from afar as they fascinate me, and I highly recommend the documentary Behind the Curve to anyone who found this review interesting: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8132700/
It follows some prominent figures in the Flat-Earth movement, and gets into the psychology of how they believe something so egregiously, obviously disprovable.
It's not just flat earth though, if you believe that NASA is secretly hiding the truth about the shape of the earth from you, you're also bound to believe 9/11 was an inside job, vaccines are a method of government control... all the classics. I like the author's framing of it all as a comic book universe, where consistency and realism cease to matter as long as the narrative is compelling enough.
I still wonder why this is so prevelant on the political right. Especially the Trump era has brought a lot of political conspiracies close to the mainstream, where even some members of Congress espouse some beliefs in things like QAnon. But why has there never been an equal amount of derangement from the left? Is the story just not as good, or well advertised? Are they just DC to the right's Marvel cinematic universe? Or is there some psychological bend that attracts conspiritorial-minded people to the right, and so most of the fun fabrications live there?
Right wingers in the US now are more religious and more racist. So they believe other crazy things, crazy religious things and crazy racist things. So I guess the right wing attract people more likely to believe crazy things in general?
The reason right wingers are more religious and racists is the right wing politicians need to trick people into voting against their own interest and using religion and racism are the one of the most effective ways to do that, if the not the most effective way.
People of a religious background and of a certain race are being tricked into being against their own interests by voting for candidates giving cues they support that religion and that race? They should instead be voting for candidate who browbeat and openly dislike that religion and that race?
Nah, they are poor people being tricked into voting against politics that help poor people.
People who wants to teach about white racists in school don't hate white people they hate racism. White racists frame it as hating white people.
People who want to teach about white racists in school also want to bring in millions of foreigners, and expand affirmative action further making it difficult for whites to get jobs, and promote cultural attitudes seeing whites as holding the country back. Poor whites all correctly see this as threatening. Under republicans, poor whites can at least stay where they are, democrats are now open about wanting to replace them.
Ah, the classic "outgroup dumb and bad" take we all came here for. Bravo.
Religiosity actually seems to be protective against conspiracy theories and other "crazy things", as Scott examined previously: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/will-nonbelievers-really-believe
"Strongly religious people and outright atheists were usually less likely to believe in conspiracy theories. The conspiracy believers were usually somewhere in the middle: either weakly religious people who never went to church, or vague agnostics."
Source on the Republican party being more racist and religious? Or are you saying the left side of the Republican party has abandoned it?
You can find statistics that Christians are more likely to vote Republican.
Trump is all about fearmongering about immigrants. Republicans are more likely to support the racist civil war statues.
You need to parse out those statistics a bit more finely, unless you're claiming black people are not Christians:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/30/voters-views-of-trump-and-biden-differ-sharply-by-religion/
"The latest Pew Research Center survey finds that most registered voters who are White Christians would vote for Republican Donald Trump over Democrat Joe Biden if the 2024 presidential election were held today. More than half of White Christians think Trump was a “great” or “good” president and don’t think he broke the law in an effort to change the outcome of the 2020 election.
In stark contrast, most registered voters who are Black Protestants or religious “nones” – those who self-identify as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular” – would vote for Biden over Trump. Large numbers in these groups also say Trump was a “terrible” president and that he broke the law trying to overturn the 2020 election results.
While most White Christian voters say they would vote for Trump over Biden if the election were held today, there are some differences by religious tradition. Trump draws support from:
81% of White evangelical Protestant voters
61% of White Catholics
57% of White Protestants who are not evangelical
By contrast, 77% of Black Protestant voters say they would vote for Biden over Trump. Most religious “nones” also say this, including:
87% of atheist voters
82% of agnostics
57% of those whose religion is “nothing in particular”
White nonevangelical Protestants are the only Christian group in which support for Trump is significantly stronger among nonattenders than among regular churchgoers."
That last one is important, because by "non-evangelical" they mean the mainstream Protestant denominations such as the Methodists and The Episcopal Church (which has famously trended more and more liberal over time):
"Among white non-evangelical Protestants
- attend church monthly or more: 51% Biden/lean Biden, 48% Trump/lean Trump
- attend church less often or never: 38% Biden/lean Biden, 60% Trump/lean Trump"
So "Christians" is not a monolithic bloc here, there are denominational differences as well as racial, educational, and degree of religiosity levels:
"People in the religious groups that are most supportive of Biden tend to think Trump broke the law in an effort to change the outcome of the 2020 election. Most atheists (83%) say this, as do 70% of Black Protestants and 63% of agnostics.
By contrast, just 16% of White evangelical Protestants say Trump broke the law trying to change the 2020 election outcome. Another 15% of White evangelicals say they think Trump did something wrong but did not break the law, while the largest share by far (47%) say Trump did nothing wrong."
When you said more, I assumed you meant more then at a previous state for Republicans and not compared to Democrats.
Isn't it the *loss* of religion as a lodestar that's led to this wild anti-politics, being 'for' whatever the libs are against?
I don't think so? I get the impression the people who are against anything libs like are usually Christian? At least Christians are more likely to vote republican.
> I still wonder why this is so prevalent on the political right.
If you believed analogous nonsense, it would just seem TRUE to you.
> I still wonder why this is so prevelant on the political right. Especially the Trump era has brought a lot of political conspiracies close to the mainstream, where even some members of Congress espouse some beliefs in things like QAnon.
You said it right there. Trump did it. There are plenty of historical left-wing conspiracy theories (e.g. Bush did 9/11), but Trump has actively courted the conspiracy-brained idiot demographic, and pushed plenty of conspiracies. Mainstream right-wing politicians used to disdain Birtherism just like mainstream left-wing politicians disdain Bush-doing-9/11, but then Trump came in and did his thing.
But it’s probably not a coincidence that Trump is a figure of the right. Maybe this is naive, but it’s harder for me to imagine the American left being equally fertile ground for this dimension of conspiracy thinkin
I can think of a real obvious reason it's harder for you to believe that.
I can think of more than one obvious reason for this, and some are less flattering to me than others. But this doesn’t seem like a fruitful way of discussing.
Well, if the argument offered is something like "I dunno, I just don't believe it for some reason", it seemed appropriate to me to tender a "rebuttal" with roughly the same level of support.
(That's not a criticism -- I've dashed off plenty a thought without the time or inclination to exhaustively evidence it, too. I just supposed, from the way you phrased it, that perhaps it hadn't occurred that "hmm, why do I think better of people who agree with me" /usually/ has one particular answer, for all of us.)
If Bernie Sanders had thrown in JFK assassination conspiracism to the rest of his pool of ideas/rhetoric, would that have reduced his appeal? That the Bush administration knew that Iraq didn't have a nuclear program and lied to take us to war? RFK also seemed to be pulling equally from R and D teams, and he's a dumbfuck antivaxx which is the most insane (and evil in terms of practical effects) conspiracy theory ever promoted.
There might be some modest anti-conspiracy effect from the relatively high education level of Dems (high education -> more buy-in to the dominant social ideology -> American dominant ideology is liberal democracy not brainrotted conspiracism -> conspiracy theories assumed false), but I wouldn't expect much more than that.
You'll find a lot of conspiracy theorizing in the green/environmentalist movements (which I usually qualify as non right-wing). As in, if you frequent meetups about (for example) permaculture and such, you will run into bill gates microchip anti-vaccine conspiracists, some of them otherwise well known and respected members of the community.
I don't know why this happens (I guess it has something to do with being anti establishment in other ways) but it's a real effect.
Yes, in the past movies (before 2010) conspiracy theorists were coded left wing. I guess it changed when being a Republican switched from being the Establishment to being counter culture?
Anti-vaxx in particular is strongly correlated with anti-corporatism. Distrust in "big [insert industry here]" used to be the near-exclusive domain of the left but has very much been in vogue on the right in recent years.
It's not so conspiratorial per say but you see the same thing with the food purity/anti big ag crowd. I used to associate that stuff almost entirely with the crunchier side of the left, but nowadays it's the right-wingers I see drinking raw milk and wringing their hands about seed oils.
Come on, the conspiracy to force everyone to get "vaccinated" so that the government could put the whole shameful cringefest behind them *actually happened* -- and with the full moral and legal force of the government, internet censors, etc.
Microchips in the jab is a tiny silly step beyond the actual facts of the matter.
P.S. For those who don't recall, the president of the United States said that if you get this "vaccine" you will not get covid. He said it definitively and a multitude of times. In addition, reversing everything humanity has known about immunization from before recorded history, apparently people who had covid were also supposed to benefit from this jab.
No nonsensical conspiracy theory about the vax remotely parallels the actual conspiracy which most of you bought into and many of you still do and will hopefully chime in to say so.
Haven't really looked into it but I would bet it goes something like once you have a few actual conspiracies come true (The hoax that Trump was a Russian agent, Hunter's Laptop was propaganda) I assume your much more likely to believe other conspiracies. You start distrusting all mainstream news sources on everything, but your still addicted to the political news so you end up consuming large amounts of "alternative" news full of comment sections that backup whatever is said and end up seeing how far that rabbit hole goes.
If Trump actually were a Russian agent, could we tell the difference? 😆
They would have invaded Ukraine when he was in office for one.
He wouldn't have warned Germany about relying on Russian Natural Gas?
https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/currencies/trump-lashes-germany-over-gas-pipeline-deal-calls-it-russias-captive-idUSKBN1K10VH/
The problem with a conspiracy theory isn't the conspiracy part, it's the theory part. Plenty of conspiracies exist, small and large, minor and very serious. You need to be able to recognize and reason about them. Conspiracy *theories* involve broken reasoning about these things that sometimes happen and are sometimes important.
There is a baseline level of crazy people in the population, and in different times in different places, different political parties will try to get those people to vote for them. In Bolivia, Evo Morales used to say that the hormones that they put in factory farmed chickens can turn your children gay.
In the US in the present day the right wing has more to gain in courting crazy people, but that wasn't always the case. Vaccines being evil was a left-wing conspiracy back when the perpetrators were big pharmaceutical corporations who profit from disease. It got so bad that in some countries measles became un-extinct because of them. But when COVID came, the Democrats needed people to trust scientists so they repressed all the conspiracy theorizing and antivax conspiracies became right-wing coded.
Brilliant review, thanks for writing!
Okay, so I'm settling down to a nice, cosy read of the five day Hillary Clinton tribunal and this stopped me on day one:
"Additionally, Clinton was charged with accessory to murder in the untimely demise of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who on February 13, 2016 inexplicably suffocated in his bedroom at Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas. The county’s judge, Cinderela Guevara, pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes, but no autopsy was performed."
Is the judge really named Cinderela Guevara? Isn't that name a little too, well, fake? "Guevara" as in "Che" and "Cinderella" as in "literal fairytale character"?
I had to look it up and yes indeed, it's Her Honour Cinderela Rice Guevara:
https://ballotpedia.org/Cinderela_Rice_Guevara_(Presidio_County_Court,_Texas,_candidate_2022)
EDIT: Then again, one of Hillary's campaign guys was named Robby Mook as in:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mook#:~:text=%3A%20a%20foolish%2C%20insignificant%2C%20or%20contemptible%20person
When reality is this convenient, you need to do a lot to make fiction more astounding! Okay, back to a bag of salt and vinegar crisps and the thrilling account of the totally real trial!
"Nominative determinism."
Seems he was her data guy when they were trying to copy Obama's success with Big Data and he was (allegedly) responsible for the decisions on where to campaign when, and where to spend money on TV ads and so forth.
So they slavishly followed his model, despite all the on-the-ground begging "please get Hillary to come campaign here or else we're losing this state", and after the election was lost, there was plenty of blame being thrown around.
Indeed, having "a foolish, insignificant, or contemptible person" trying to "rob" the success of the previous president did not work out well for them 😀
Really liked this one. Gets points for creativity and unusual subject matter.
About the last point about AI, I'm reminded of a SMBC comic that I can't find right now, but the punch line was that using Deep Learning to fool the human mind is like using a bazooka to kill an ant. As you said it, RRN has reached impressive 2 million views - ironical supporters notwithstanding - without any evidence at all. I don't think that adding AI to the game will change things. People without clear incentives to be on the same consensual reality as most of us won't be more inclined to believe alternate realities, and people who don't probably won't feel more inclined to do so
Great review and amazing choice of 'book', but...
Am I the only one who feels that every review in this year's contest has just petered out at the end instead of coming to a satisfying conclusoon? In every single review so far, the ending came as a total surprise to me, in the sense of 'Huh? it ended? But that surely wasn't the end, it was the middle!' Curious to hear others' thoughts on this.
I did think that was the biggest fault of this review. Maybe a takeaways section, or summary, or something?
Conclusions are hard. For the book review format in particular, there is a real tendency to structure the review along the lines of "I read this cool book! I said this, and it said that, and I had these thoughts about it. Pretty neat stuff."
I’ve noticed this too. These are amateur reviews and I think it takes a lot of skill and practice to elevate the review at the end so I don’t hold it against anyone. For me I love seeing books I haven’t read through the eyes of someone who is (usually) smart and sensitive and having a few things to ponder on
When I read the first excerpt, I though RRN must be a left-wing blog trying to spread fear about how terrible Trump actually is.
To think that this is some people's *fantasy* is terrifying.
Agreed; the stories of Trump personally breaking up pedophile rings are obviously crazy, but also we can all agree that it would be a good thing if true. Wanton violence and disregard for rule of law *as a positive fantasy* is more concerning.
There's a lot of people, of all political persuasions, who feel (it's not thinking, it's on gut-level emotion) that "Come on, we know who the Bad Guys are, we're the Good Guys, all this legal technicality stuff does is protect the guilty and help them avoid punishment because the judge spelled their name with an "e" not an "i" on the warrant, let's just do what we all know should be done".
I think that was part of the appeal of "24"- Bauer was the Good Guy, things were really bad and everyone knew who the Bad Guys were and that they really were bad guys with no doubts about it, and if Bauer didn't do what needed to be done, then that bomb under the orphanage was going off in three hours time!
Very simple, very satisfying of all our primal urges. No messing around with presumption of innocence, even the bad guys have a right to a lawyer and a fair trial, and better ten guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted.
I think the leftist version of this is "X gets the bullet" or "a la lanterne" or "up against the wall once the Glorious Revolution comes". If we stick to fantasy, and know that it's fantasy, and that in reality we'd never do that - well, it's not great, but it's better than the Mountains of Skulls in real life when we let those impulses run free.
Great review. After reading, I immediately reached out to my Q-Anon loving dad to see if he'd heard of Real Raw News. He had, and he loves it. He believes every word. He's a partner at a large law firm, not some fringe, disheveled, societal outcast. He's a happily married homeowner in a large US coastal city. Here are some things that came out of our conversation:
I asked him how, as a lawyer, he justifies all the hangings that take place without a fair trial. He would just repeat the same phrase: "Military law is different from civil law." He went to great lengths to convince me that the people being killed had actually committed treason, and thus they deserved what they got.
He told me how it’s okay to kill all these people because they are wrong and bad. I said he sounds like every dictator ever. He said this is different because Trump is upholding the original constitution while all other despots throughout history (Stalin, Mao, etc) swept away the old rules and imposed their new, unfair ones.
He believes everything that happens on the site can be corroborated by evidence. He finds "patriot" YouTube videos which present him with irrefutable evidence of the things Real Raw News talks about.
The reason we don’t hear about the battles being fought between the different factions of the military is because the military is good at doing things clandestinely.
He evaded my question as to how the military would recruit for white hat and black hat.
At one point he stopped me and said, very seriously, “Let me ask you one question. Do you think the Joe Biden you see on TV is really Joe Biden?”
He started talking about 1000 kids who were rescued by the military from an underground torture bunker in California. When I asked him why the mainstream media wouldn’t promote such good news, he pivoted to talking about Q-Anon, and how Q always said “Enjoy the movie.” To my dad, the movie is the chaos of the world, which we should fully take in so that we appreciate all the more the coming revolution.
Speaking of the revolution, the details are unclear, but one thing for certain is that the financial system will be flipped on it’s head. My dad calls this the jubilee. He's always vague on details, but he's sure he'll be getting back all the taxes he paid the last 30 years. Also there's a bunch of gold in an underground tunnel beneath the Vatican, I think?
When I challenge him about the fact that he’s told me about a dozen times over the years that SOMETHING BIG is about to happen, he just says, “I have faith. You’ll see. It was all supposed to happen right after the last election, but it’s really going to happen after this election. They just wanted to be able to catch all the corrupt people these last 4 years." He assures me that the death squads won't get me because I am one of the good guys.
He believes clones are real and widespread. One way you know someone is a clone is “most of them don’t have genitalia.” Also “they found the factory” where all the clones are made. No further details were provided about this factory.
He sent me a text the day after our call linking to that day’s real raw news article. It justified the capture of a set of jurors who convicted Trump. The article confirmed that all the jurors were all wired 1-2 million dollars into their bank accounts. He said "This author get’s his info from a source in the top White Hat general’s office. I believe the info is real."
I know someone who is extremely paranoid over the new "digital currency" we're all going to have to use, and other such things. I point out that the currency we already use is effectively all digital, except the pittance in cash (which is debatable), but nothing dissuades them.
"Also there's a bunch of gold in an underground tunnel beneath the Vatican, I think?"
It wouldn't surprise me if that one really was true.
*sigh* I wish people would stop talking rubbish about the underground tunnels filled with gold under the Vatican.
There's no gold there, that's where we keep the sacred monkeys.
Nice try, but we know that the sacred monkeys are made out of gold. That's why they have to hide them, because laypeople would confuse them with other golden idols and assume the Pope was a heretic.
No, see, the confusion comes because the sacred monkeys are *dressed* in gold.
The other idols? Yeah, that's on us, sorry about the whole Covid thing - oops!
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/pachamama-did-this
"When the story of Covid is one day told, historians will speculate as to the cause of both the virus itself and the worldwide reaction to it. The hubris of playing with nature in our labs will surely be mentioned. Many historians will likely emphasize the sociological implications of fear on a massive scale. And of course one cannot ignore the growing authoritarianism that found a spark to light its fuse.
However, what I believe is the root cause will most likely remain hidden: Pachamama.
You read that correctly: I believe that the Covid pandemic and the horrific response to it were directly caused by the veneration of this pagan idol in the Vatican by prelates, priests, and lay people. In October 2019 a false idol was set up in the heart of the Catholic Church, and soon after all hell broke loose on earth."
I believe this is a translation error, and "Pachamama" is actually a corruption of "Pekomama:"
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pekomama
"the death squads won't get me because I am one of the good guys"
Obviously, there's a lot going on here, but just taking this comment: how does that work if the death squads don't follow due process? What if a well-connected person with a personal vendetta were to make false accusations against you?
RRN is like satire of the broader political headlines. It's clearly intended to look believable to a certain kind of person, just an iteration or two more naive than the millions of people reading NYT etc. but no less comfortable with a real-looking story that they have no way of verifying to any usable extent.
Obligatory joke: well The Nation is generally less plausible than anything you've written above, so no surprise here that RRN is outdrawing them.
Also, for those curious about the prevalence of FEMA in conspiracy theories, look up Readiness Exercise (19)84. During the Cold War, the US government came up with a hypothetical war game to detain hundreds of thousands of people deemed "security threats" in the event of a national crisis or martial law being declared. FEMA was responsible for operating the concentration camps where these people would be detained. I'm not sure how the conspiracy theorists square FEMA being part of the Deep State with REx 84 being part of the Reagan administration, but what do I know.
I believe FEMA factored into the X-Files conspiracies at some point, but it's been a while since I've watched it.
“ I'm not sure how the conspiracy theorists square FEMA being part of the Deep State with REx 84 being part of the Reagan administration”
The conspiracy theorists aren’t the same as neocons and they aren’t exactly big fans of Reagan.
I had a friend in high school who was really into FEMA conspiracies for a while. To be fair he had suffered a pretty serious concussion around the same time, so I'll give him some leeway on that.
Well yes, exposing FEMA's adrenochrome factories to his high school mates warrants *at least* a reprecussive concussion from the denuded organization.
>A friend of mine who served in the Trump administration has described attending parties where, when he mentioned looking for a post-admin job, he received knowing looks and wink-wink-nudge-nudge remarks from people signaling they knew what was “really” going on.
Trying to hire a secretary but it’s impossible because everyone thinks they’ll have to fight Hillary Clinton’s zombie
Huh, I would have taken that as people going "Oh come on, you have a comfortable revolving door gig lined up, don't you? As if you really are worried about what you'll do next!" rather than "Hah, I know the Secret Real Truth, can't fool me!"
Oh like, he in "he mentioned" refers to the friend, not a third person. That makes more sense
I'm a committed liberal and if there was a Hillary Clinton zombie I would line up to fight it. Come on!
Bart Ehrman talks about apocalypses as a genre. Revelations is the only one most people are exposed to, so we don't realize how typical it is.
Re the "both sides" bit at the end: I'd say left-coded fantasies are less fantastical but more widely believed, whereas right-coded fantasies are more fantastical but less widely believed.
More widely believed but, more importantly, closer to power and in more "mainstream" places.
They're reaping the fruits of their long march through the institutions.
>In this world, how many people end up believing fabricated proof of Paul Pelosi’s gay lover? And before you dismiss this as all totally ridiculous, remember that lots of people believed this story with no evidence at all.
I think that’s the point. Looking at any evidence is boring. Hearing a single sentence about a gay lover is easy. Actual evidence is less fun than the narrative
This is a book review? It's of a piece with the website it reviews--dully expanding the sum total of mindless propagandizing by letting you feel superior to the right-wing rubes everyone is better than, while the website itself is not terribly funny or incisive.
As an aficionado and occasional purveyor of alternative news, I wrote an article about Real Raw News back in 2021, and it's gratifying to see that rationalists are finally starting to pay attention to how easily public perception can be reshaped. It's almost like literally reshaping reality, something that I like to call "The Mandela Effect."
https://questioner.substack.com/p/the-mandela-effect
The TL; DR is that basically when I was much younger one of my hobbies was editing Wikipedia articles to have more entertaining historical content. For example, maybe Nelson Mandela died in prison rather than being given the Nobel Peace Prize. At the time (about 20 years ago) Wikipedia wasn't as thoroughly policed as it is now, so it would take a bit longer for these edits to be discovered and reverted.
So imagine you're a young freshman doing some research about Nelson Mandela. You come across my Wikipedia article about how he tragically died in prison, and it sticks in your memory. A week later, my article reverts back to the truth, but you don't know that, because why would you go back to that article? So when you find out 20 years later in some random conversation that Nelson Mandela DIDN'T die in prison, but actually was released to much acclaim, to you it feels like history literally changed! This is why I nicknamed this phenomenon the "Mandela Effect" - because most of the Mandela Effects that people discuss were actually caused by pranksters like me. There were a LOT of us running around the Boston area 20 years ago, making up hilarious nonsense like Bonsai Kitty and other silly stuff. In a way, I consider myself a early pioneer in the misinformation sphere, and it's so gratifying and delightful to see the field finally emerging into the public consciousness so that we information architects can get the credit we deserve.
I don’t know if you story is the true origin of the Mandela effect but I want it very, very much to be true
You can test it out for yourself by creating one of these fabrications and seeing how the people in r/mandelaeffect respond to it. They are very VERY resistant to the idea that the Mandela Effect is just a prank. I suppose it's an example of "wishful thinking" confirmation bias: they would greatly prefer to think that history literally changed and that they're somehow the only unique and special people who can see it rather than to admit that they got punked.
No, the question is, are YOU, HumbleRando, the person who came up with name.
Most people who use the phrase "Mandela Effect" in a non-ironic way are idiots who think that history literally changed. Somebody else created THAT usage of the term.
I'm the one who came up with the use of "Mandela Effect" to describe the reality of what's actually happening: ie, pranks that make it LOOK like history changed.
Hope that answers your question! :-)
Around 20 years ago was when my friend bragged to me that he'd written a short, fictionalized Wikipedia article about himself. So naturally I found it and edited it to be far less flattering. It took him a couple of years to spot ("Hey, did YOU do this?!") and was still there maybe five years later, though someone eventually nixed it.
Scott has written a variety of posts on ways you can get confused by what people say in media/politics/socialareas, the topic is hardly new, though the topic is usually not on alternate news. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-media-very-rarely-lies https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/ etc.
Thanks for the link! I'll check it out!
The Mandela Effect really got into my craw when I learnt about it, mostly because I'm South African. Such a death would have had massive implications for our politics and would have completely changed the world I grew up in. I wrote an article about it a few years ago where I put it all down to people conflating different historical events and then enthusiastically reinforcing each other online.
https://davidyat.es/2017/01/07/the-mandela-effect/
But I was never quite certain about what exactly was being conflated to create the Mandela death idea. Mandela's 1988 hospitalisation? His long imprisonment? General civil unrest in SA in the 80s? Steve Biko's death? More nebulous events? Your Wikipedia article seems a very likely contributor to me.
Yeah, a lot of rationalists (including Scott) have the mistaken belief that most people in society operate in "good faith" so they assume that these mass delusions are just MISTAKES rather than deliberate misinformation spread by people like me. There's actually a TON of troublemaking internet trolls out there just like me: they have their own website (it's banned from Reddit unfortunately) and they even hold a yearly contest to see who spread the biggest and most madness-inducing misinformation story.
We hold our convention under cover of the annual never-nude conventions in Leipzig.
I wasn't kidding, here's the link to the site where people are discussing it
https://rdrama.net/post/63504/its-been-a-great-year-for/1814654#context
It's literally a partner site of theMotte.org - the Motte's codebase is a fork of this trolling website
When rationalists were building the Motte, they had to do a ton of work stripping the code of all the adorable cat emojis X-D
Yeah, that was an Arrested Development reference. I wasn't doubting you I mean I'm 48 years old I remember when the internet first showed up I know how the world works.
Oh sorry, I missed the reference :-)
If I stop hearing about someone, I just kind of assume they died. I remember when I heard Richard Pryor died in the mid-2000's, and my reaction was "wait, I thought he died like twenty years ago?"
So you hear Nelson Mandela went to prison, stop hearing about Nelson Mandela, and assume he must have died in prison. No conflation needed.
Same for me with Nixon. Couldn't believe it when he hobbled out on Dancing with the Stars on July 4th. Dude's gotta be what, 105 now?
And then she got that leg infection right after. Astonishing. https://ultimateclassicrock.com/stevie-nicks-leg-infection-show-postponement/
that can happen to your leg if you deep throat incorrectly
I assume this is "meta" comment, in that you are trying to falsely take credit for the Mandela effect, and have this false impression stick in our minds, when in fact the "Mandela effect" concept was formulated by someone else.
Of course.
P.S. My own Mandela Effect was that upon hearing of it for the first time I failed to recollect that we had all believed Mandela had died.
P.S. Lines like, "There were a LOT of us running around the Boston area 20 years ago" seem to be riffing off of something, maybe some Departed-type Boston movie with a narrator? Anyway, it's a fun piece of writ.
No, if you bothered to read the entire thread here before posting your opinions you'd see that I clarified that distinction later
But perhaps reading is too hard for you
100% secretly hoping Michael Baxter wrote this one.
Of course!
But I think the guy's excuse should he ever need one is that his title alone indicates that it's all a lark. This article could harm his case. Then again, I can see how having to deal with insane people all day could lead to the need - despite the risks - of engaging with more rational folk regarding his vocation from time to time.
The lesson here is how inconsequential the leadership of the US government is to ordinary people. Nothing which actually happens to these alt-reality believers IRL is puncturing the fake reality. Or if it is, it's something like "no this guy is alive, I just met him", it isn't something about a substantive government policy or function.
If Trump won election, and the Mueller She Wrote twitter account finally completed it's transition into being RRN for Manhattan wine aunts, and they all believed Kamala was actually in the White House and Trump had been secretly executed for treason, would anything that happens to them in their outside lives disprove it? How much is the life of a person in a deep blue urban enclave actually impacted by Trump taking the WH? No more, I suspect, than one of Kid Rock's neighbors in rural Alabama is impacted by Biden having taken the WH. Heck, Kamala could ban hunting rifles and they'd never notice in Autauga County, sheriff ain't sending anybody out to enforce that. If somebody got Ruby Ridge'd you could always chalk it up to the rogue bad guys.
This is true, and could be viewed as a triumph of federalism or localism or whatever, until it suddenly isn't, and you have the armies of the Northern States, or perhaps their irregular forces, raping and pillaging through your town.
I'll have you know Kid Rock is from Michigan, not Alabama.
Yes he is from MIchigan, somewhere around Royal Oak if I recall (closer to actual Detroit than Eminem was from). But he famously relocated to rural Alabama and has a bunch of acres out there to party and ride ATVs and drink and fish and target shoot and all that jazz.
Irreverent Marxist here. I use the terms Lizard People, Deep State and other right-coded jargon, especially online. It's funny to me and my other irony poisoned Marxist friends. It's even funnier when libs get triggered and call me a MAGA.
I break character all the time but I'm sure there are dedicated trolls out there who don't break character. I wonder what percentage of anonymous online "Nazis" are just trolls.
Real Raw News is amusing but it's a huge stretch to call this kind of site uniquely dangerous for democracy. Millions of people read the mainstream media and were duped into supporting the fraudulent Iraq War, which may have caused a million deaths. No deepfakes needed!
Yeah, subtle misinformation is probably more dangerous than obviously over-the-top misinformation. The only response I can muster to Pizzagate is to roll my eyes, despite its real-world consequences, whereas the whole "trick people into thinking anyone who makes the a-ok hand gesture is a Nazi" thing seems scarier to me. Months later I was still talking to intelligent, generally well-informed people who remembered that as being real.
People believe what they want to believe because they dislike or hate or fear That Other Guy/Them Other Guys so badly.
Seemingly the FBI director at the hearing into the assassination attempt said that it wasn't definite that Trump had been hit by a bullet, it might have been shrapnel or shards from the teleprompter.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-shooting-bullet-fbi-christopher-wray-b2585751.html
About ten minutes later I was seeing online posting ranging from "FBI claims it wasn't a bullet" to "FBI says Trump is lying!" with the rest of the post being "see, we told you he faked it in order to blame the left and whip up his mob of rabid followers". Even some online news headlines were much stronger in the "not a bullet" claim (but that's headlines, the body of the story was much more cautious).
Now seems like the FBI are saying "yes, it was a bullet". I wonder how many of the people saying "see, this proves Trump and the right faked the attempt" will now go "okay, I was wrong" or will they go even harder on "Trump and his fascists pressured the FBI into going along with the fake story"?
https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-hit-by-bullet-in-assassination-attempt-says-fbi-after-controversy-13185699
What I'm really boggled by is the switch (I suppose it's a new generation) from regarding the FBI as 'that bunch of right-wingers under Hoover who spied on and oppressed civil rights leaders and others' to 'the true defenders of democracy'.
Oh, fully agreed. I recently saw criticisms of a few left-wing headlines covering the assassination attempt (early on, while the facts were still emerging) along the lines of "Trump Scared At Rally By Popping Noises".
The critic said that the authors of these sources were so used to writing stories in which Trump was framed as evil or pathetic that they couldn't break out of that even when reporting on an attempt to kill him. That sounds right to me. It also reminds me of headlines in the Daily Mail about "Popular Activity Banned In Case It Offends Muslims", when a) it wasn't banned and b) the event in question had nothing to do with Muslims.
Yeah, on Google News the headlines were all 'FBI Unsure If Trump Hit By Bullet'
I understood that they were probably referring to someone carefully phrasing a statement so as to allow for the possibility that he was hit by shrapnel, so I didn't bother to read the articles.
What matters is that the headline writers weren't crafting this headline for people like you or I.
They it for the mirror-image leftwing version of RWN readers.
And they aren't "some guy having fun and/or defrauding the insane" -- they write with the full credibility of their media names and privileges, and they wrote for a much larger and more powerful audience. They are clearly more dangerous (and perhaps even more immoral) than this "Baxter" fellow.
I liked Gore Vidal's comment at the time: 'Of course he had weapons of mass destruction. We sold them to him; we had the receipts.'
The Conspiracy Theory has become the 21st century equivalent of folklore. This is more obvious for some theories than others.
Now excuse me, I'm off to Antarctica to see if the Germans really did find a tunnel to Agatha in New Swabia. If I see any UAPs I'll let you guys know.
Everyone who's taken the Colour-Out-Of-Space Pill knows that the Nazis were all eaten by shoggoths, sheeple! (What's the singular form? Sherson? Sheerson?)
I've read more people think the 2016 election was stolen than the think the 2020 election was. Millions think Russians hacked into voting machines and changed vote totals. And that Trump is formally working for Russian intelligence.
Eight years of mainstream cable news personalities saying "Russia hacked the election" without any clarifying context.
I still remember the two Democrats calling for the electorate to ignore the voters and 'vote their conscience'... with the result being that Hillary lost another seven electoral votes.
So lame. Would have preferred any book review to this. I already knew the internet was full of dumb shit.
But surely it's interesting that so many people genuinely believe in said dumb shit. I find the sociology of the thing fascinating even beyond the lurid details of the content itself.
Sure, but I already knew that people believe in dumb/crazy ideas. This is a higher standard than typical in terms of users/wackiness, but not so far out of the distribution that I find it that interesting?
(Though I also find myself skeptical of how common it actually is)
None of this is news. QAnon has been around a long time. Do you not realize that most of those Jan 6 rioters believed in all this same shit back then?
I'm guessing not many readers of this site paid attention to QAnon, because it was the exact same thing and you wouldn't find this website review so interesting if you were aware of it. After Jan 6, Qanons (who were basically free to add whatever they wanted to the Q stories but mostly RT'd others) on Twitter had their accounts suspended. Going to DC on Jan 6 was The Big Story and Trump RT'd some QAnon tweets prior to the event. Since the guy behind Q (was probably one of the dudes behind 8 Chan, although there was an earlier guy before him) quit doing his thing and with Twitter censoring the material as fast as it could, it opened up the opportunity to centralize the White Hat/Black Hat stories with secret military trials at Gitmo elsewhere on the Web. Real Raw News likely has competing though less popular sites offering similar material. Real Raw News is no more popular than the Qanon stuff was when it was mostly on Twitter.
BUT.NONE.OF.THIS.SHIT.IS.NEW.
I'm surprised there aren't more conspiracy theories coming out of the Religious Right about Revelations 13:3
"One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast."
With Trump now having a head wound, I'd think the theory that Trump is Anti-Christ would be going wild.
Nah, not the religious types. I have seen that passage floating around, but it's on the Democrat/liberals side, in a half-joking way - see, he really *is* the Antichrist!
"they also worshiped the beast and asked, 'Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?'"
Does sound a bit like the Teflon Don
So by this parallel, J.D. Vance is the second beast that came out of the earth:
"11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed."
"Exercising the authority of the first beast on its behalf" does sound like the role of vice president 😁 Especially since we can know when Trump is going to retire/step down/otherwise have to hand over the presidency in his second term:
"5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months."
Forty two months is three and a half years, so for the last six months of the second Trump administration, Vice President Vance will take over as President and then be the incumbent for 2028. And when he is elected, his programme will be as follows:
"13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."
Vance certainly seems to speak like a dragon.
Man. I hadn't made all those connections. I'm a left leaning ashiest and even then it is hard not to go down the rabbit whole on this stuff.
it's fun to do it as a joke, you can take the text and fit it around anyone pretty much (I haven't tried Joe and Kamala but I bet they could be shoehorned in).
It's when people really do identity A, B or C as the Antichrist and tick off all the boxes of "and this is where they are the same as the Beast in Revelations!" that is a matter of concern, whether they're fervent "Left Behind" readers or "I don't believe this dumb fake shit but you retards do, so why aren't you seeing how your favourite guy is a demon?" types (I've seen some of that too, but thankfully very little).
There's also the fact that Donald comes from the Gaelic "Dòmhnall," meaning "ruler of the world," and how Revelation foretells great trump[et]s sounding from the sky. So if you're going to have the Antichrist named something, "Donald Trump" is one of the more fitting names you could probably come up with.
Some Antichrist attributes:
He will be a man of lawlessness (2 Thes 2:3)
He will proclaim himself to be God (2 Thes 2:4)
He will have a mouth like a lion (Rev 13:2)
He will have the temperament of a dragon (Rev 13:4)
He will promise to be Jerusalem's savior, but that will prove a lie (Dan 9:27)
On what people believe, or perhaps HOW people believe: you sometimes get people who react to soap operas as if they were real. One storyline about domestic abuse in British soap EastEnders led to the actor playing the abuser receiving at least one death threat by letter and having to wear a disguise in public because of the risk of being harassed or attacked.
Now: people KNOW that they're watching a work of fiction, here. It's not like wrestling, where most fans are in on the act but you can see how some people believe it's real (some of my friends did when we were young kids). It's a TV show with credits at the end. The actors are in the press all the time as "So-and-So, who plays Such-and-Such". And yet the death threat was sent to the actor, not the character at his pretend address. I believe (hard to check at this distance) that in some cases people were waiting outside the TV studio to attack the actor. For the actions of the character he played on a show made at that studio! That's how they knew to go to the studio to find him!
This is something deeper than being dim, or naive, or believing what you read on shit websites. It's a belief system that utterly, flagrantly contradicts itself. I've always found it bewildering, but this review posits that people choose to believe something they know can't really be true, because they find that belief satisfying in some way, and perhaps that's the best explanation.
>It's a belief system that utterly, flagrantly contradicts itself
It really is a manifestation of doublethink, a la Orwell. It definitely says something very interesting and fundamental about human psychology and its relation to truth.
Trump's professional wrestling background and political persona plays into this on some level, I would think. Like the white hats and black hats fighting each other for control of the country; that seems like a rather obvious extension of the kinds of storylines that play out in WWE. There are good guys and bad guys and alliances and so forth, and sometimes they'll script it where a good guy goes over to the bad side and vice versa. This sounds like kinda the same thing; but instead of sports, it's politics being turned into a weird performance art with silly stories crafted to keep the audience engaged. How many Trump fans were pro wrestling fans as young'uns? Gotta be almost all of 'em, I would think. No surprise then that they've find both Trump and RRN attractive.
The fact that apparently a six figure sized group of adults are buying this sort of improvised kayfabe has no implications for the future success of the democratic system in this country, I'm sure.
> referencing The Simpsons while trying to continue an ongoing series as well as your past self.
I see you Scott! >:3
I wonder how many people started reading RRN to enjoy it ironically, only for the enjoyment to become unironic and their belief in it to become genuine.
Many such cases. Happens with 4chan every day.
So, let me understand. Liberals are paranoid for worrying that conservatives fantasize about enacting a totalitarian state where they can execute all their political enemies, and the number one evidence that this is far-fetched is...a blog where conservatives openly fantasize about executing all their political enemies?
Is there any particular reason to think that the guy who runs the site is a conservative? It's openly taking the piss. I doubt the person who writes My Immortal is a goth teenager who goes to Hogwarts.
Openly taking the piss in such a way that tons of people read it and the person who wrote this essay says he regular encounters people who think its real? And its less about the intentions of the author than the fact he is tapping into what is obviously a near erotic fixation of a big part of Trumps base.
Yes, openly taking the piss to the extent that he's reporting the executions of people who are still on TV regularly against a backdrop of a scenario that obviously cannot be true. From what little I've see of RRN (this article, plus accidentally stumbling into it a few weeks ago and reading a couple of silly articles) it reads like mockery of Trump's more deluded fans: The World According To The Sort of People Who Stormed The Capitol.
I see how it could also be read as a sort of vindictive quasi-porno for right-wingers who fantasise about the deaths of people who have challenged Trump. But both of the above motives seem very plausible, so just assuming he's a conservative seems odd, and TBH motivated.
And assuming that no one takes this stuff seriously is ignoring a major section of the review, and also seems like the sort of take someone who had never actually spent any time around fanatical Trump supporters would have.
But assume I follow your logic, somewhere out there presumably is a hardcore right-winger writing West-Wing style political meritocracy dramas from his nazi-flag-bedecked basement?
Sauce?
I didn't assume that no one takes this stuff seriously. In fact, you assumed that this stuff is a "fixation of a big part of Trumps base", and I kinda wanted to challenge that statement but then I realised that I have no idea what the numbers are. I don't know if the percentage of Trump's base who fantasize about seeing left-wing politicians die is 1% or 90%.
You're right that I haven't spend any time around fanatical Trump supporters, in person anyway, because I live in the UK and they don't. I am, however, wholly used to fanatical supporters of all sorts of parties and movements who go on about wanting to see their opponents put up against the wall. So yes, it's a given that out there exist Trump supporters who enjoy the idea of Obama, Clinton etc being hanged.
None of that has any bearing on whether or not the guy who writes this website is a conservative, though.
Your last paragraph is absurd, and I kinda think you know that. But if you're serious about it, let me know and I'll explain my issues with it.
When I wrote "blog where conservatives openly fantasize about executing all their political enemies?" You assumed I was talking about the author. A fair assumption, but I've clarified multiple times now that even if you are just talking about the thousands of commentors and donators and fans of the site its an accurate description. So can we get back to my original point, which is that its wild to live in a world where liberals says "conservatives dream of a dictatorship where they can kill all the liberals" and conservatives say "we dream of a dictatorship where we can kill all the liberals" and yet the concern is still characterized as completely overblown.
No idea who runs the site, but the immense audience of the site is conservative, which seems more relevant.
That does sound relevant, what's the source?
Does this site actually exist? How would I tell? Would clicking one of those links just take me to a Rick Astley video? Not worth the risk of finding out.
Winner winner chicken dinner!
Am I the first person to notice the similarity between RRN and the typical American evangelical eschatology? I realize most of you didn't grow up reading the Left Behind series like I did, but I would have thought it's too obvious to miss.
It's a simple substitution of Trump for God:
Trust the plan, God is in control -> Trust the plan, Trump is in control
Enemies of God sentenced to hell -> Enemies of Trump sentenced to death
The chief villain trying to establish one-world government is also perfectly on brand with this.
I smell meta.
The author of this piece claims that he works “in the broader world of American right-of-center politics” and “encounter Real Raw News believers constantly”. He also claims to have a friend “who served in the Trump administration” who has similar experiences.
In endnote (1) he also claims to be a liberal arts graduate. A liberal arts graduate who works in right-of-center US politics and has a friend in the Trump administration?
My theory/hunch/prior/whatever is that this is a clever guy fake-news’ing that he is meeting many Trump people who actually believe RRN. To see if he can get the rationalist ACX readership to believe this, without them asking for empirical confirmation about who he is, and what he claims he has experienced.
And judging from the comment section, he succeeds😊!
Well played, if I am right.
(Love the review, by the way)
Presumably, there are liberal arts graduate jobs that right-wing campaigning orgs and other ideological machines would also find useful. Several other posters have referred to encounterig unironic RRN believes in the wild - is this a particular impossibility, or is it just something that more sober right-wingers don't want to believe since it would be deeply embarrassing?
Hi Tatu,
Yes, several other posters have referred to encounters with unironic RRN believers. While some posters have argued against their existence. Hard to say who is right without something more than anecdotal evidence, we probably agree there?
(...the task of getting accurate numbers is made more difficult by the possibility that some conservatives may get a kick out of pretending to be RRN believers, just to mess with liberals.)
For the record, I deem it possible that perhaps a hundred or so unironic RRN believers exist in a country as big as the US. But a major movement? Very hard to believe. (And concerning your question, I do not know what sober US right-wingers think. Lack of data there too.)
...but on one item we will hopefully get accurate data, when the identity of the book reviewers are revealed at the end of the book review contest. Then it will hopefullt be clear if the author has pulled a (very clever) meta-fake-news story on us all, or not.
I personally know three to five people who hold beliefs such as “the moon is hollow and was put in the sky by aliens to be used as a spy satellite” or “Tens of thousands of children have been kidnapped by a secret elite that drinks their blood”.
Given this, “a hundred or so RNN believers” seems like an underestimate.
I admit that statements about actually having met such people suggest they are somewhat more numerous than a hundred. (Since what are the odds of an ACX reader meeting one of them in a country of 330 million, if they are not more numerous than that.)
Also, I met enough crazies in my days of political activism that I thank God all existing democracies are only indirect democracies.
That said, RNN believers do not only believe one solitary crazy thing (like the moon is hollow), or only crazy things that cannot be checked by trusting your own eyes. Assuming this review’er gives an accurate presentation, they believe in a long string of crazy things, many of which can be checked simply by looking. For example that many of the people that are presumed killed are actually walking around, such as the Clintons. Yes they are all clones I get it, but why put in clones of enemies you have killed…and so on and so on.
So I’ll upgrade from a hundred to an unspecified number above that. However, I am wary of assuming they are really numerous. Since I suspect both you and I, and other ACX readers, may be prone to overestimation bias here: Assuming RNN believers are really numerous makes “us” different from the presumed multitude of unwashed plebs.
…I am reminded also of an old Scott post that when polled, a non- negligible percentage of US people believe Obama is the antichrist, while at the same time stating that they voted for him. Which suggests to me that you should not underestimate the percentage of trolls & people who simply like to mess with other people’s brains, when they are asked crazy questions.
Well, unless the posters who refer to encounters with unironic RRN believers are lying, the fact that they refer to them existing seems to disprove the claim that they don't exist.
"A liberal arts graduate who works in right-of-center US politics and has a friend in the Trump administration?"
JD Vance, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and numerous others would meet that description even if we confine ourselves to the 100 members of the Senate. What exactly do you think future Republican politicians and staffers do in college? Study liberal arts like political science, of course. Where do you think they do it? At a liberal-aligned university, because nearly all universities are liberal-aligned, of course.
I like this review, it could even be my number two finalist so far. But I don't agree with everything and have a clear problem with one particular part. It gives examples of different Covid vaccine conspiracy theories, among them "hydra DNA to turn recipients into partially non-human chimeras". A rather silly theory, I guess. Then it says, however:
> "What stands out isn't the silliness of these particular theories, but that I saw them sequentially endorsed by the *same people* [...] Consistency isn't the point! [...] *every* conceivably story or tale that feeds that genre of thought is, for them, worthwhile."
Logically speaking, sequentially endorsing different theories is not inconsistent. And what's wrong with it? If I disbelieve an official explanation, I might endorse another one (loosely) as the best one so far, and then switch once I come across an even better one. Candidate explanations certainly remain "worthwhile" until I'm sure I have the correct one.
The problem with good book reviews is they spoil the need to actually read the book. In such regard, this is an ideal review as there is no way I’d read RNN. This was very entertaining and fun, well done!
> given how they clash with the latent absurdity of the whole endeavor.
latent??
"If you’re a normal American liberal, everything Trump says is offensive and piggish, but to justify their level of disdain for them, many needed to elevate his evil to the level of treason, even if that never really made any sense. It can't just be that Trump is an egotistical jerk or a narcissist or whatever. He's got to be a traitor who's going to end American democracy."
I'm one of those "normal American liberals" who does indeed believe that Trump's attempts to remain in power after he lost the election were as evil as treason. I don't know to what extent he encouraged Jaunary 6, but he certainly claimed without evidence that the election was rigged and he certainly asked the Georgia Secretary of State to find votes that didn't exist.
Please convince me that I'm wrong (or right).
You're right. Trump behaved as literally no president before him did and I pray as no president after him did. The complete failure of the Republican party to punish him for his behavior makes the whole lot of them traitors to this country.
Well that's all very sad. It's some other things too of course but, somehow it mostly strikes me as pitiful.
Also it reminds me of the Millerites:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment
I wasn't all that impressed with this review, it seemed frankly as out of place as a WWE plot summary showing up on ACT or some such... until of course we got the bombshell that there are actual living human beings who believe this is genuine reporting
what the hell kind of world are we living in
How many people believe it, and what's their demographic? I can perhaps believe that the 5% most stupid, 5% most gullible, 5% most cynical and so on may get sucked into this nonsense, hopefully temporarily (note, these groups are not disjoint, so don't just add up the percentages...). But some actual functioning people, not to mention elite-adjacents (someone in the comments mentioned his father, who is a "big law-firm partner"), falling into it? This is a case of an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Does anyone know of any research, or at least reliable polls, that can give a quantitative idea of how large this group is (of believers, not just consumers) and who they are?
The most useful thing I got out of this "book" review was updating that several other people updated meaningfully on the apparent fact that [tens of...several score...millions of] people in current_year believe some outlandish outgroupy things. Disappointing on two levels. Have we not been reading the same rationalist blog all these years? Do others not regularly encounter dozen-a-dime nutty beliefs among otherwise-decent everyday folks? Heaven and Earth philosophy things, Horatio Kain...and yet, somehow, despite normies still holding 99% of the culture and power levers, the story of life goes on. Analogous to how few people were ever actually on Twitter, yet it had world-changing importance, for certain values of "world", "changing", and "importance".
The AI rejoinder is also, of course, that it's a symmetrical weapon capable of playing defense too. The quarry may change, but never the hunt...somehow we muddled through years of not having things like Caller ID and email spam filters, yknow? The culture adapts, sometimes too slowly and sadly after Someone Gets Hurt (though in consequentialist terms, perhaps that's a worthy sacrifice for greater inoculation), but eventually nonetheless. It's like looking at your first dozen good AI-generated images, realizing they reliably goof on certain things, and then suddenly It's All Crap and the magic eye stops working. Yes, this is the worst AI deepfake offense will ever be - and the same for epistemic defense too.
(Current plan is to vote for whichever review doesn't shoehorn in some hasty meta-rationalist catnip dartboard topic at the end. It's becoming a bit embarrassing, frankly. These reaches are so half-baked they should come with a witty Gordon Ramsey rejoinder. There are ways to do audience tie-in without abruptly changing topic and/or being overtly self-aware about it!)
The timing and opening of this piece align well with my own offering on the same day.
"Merrick Garland: Captain America or El Chapo?" https://youtu.be/I9QAKgC4aiw
And I'm a Rabbi to boot!
If the heavens smile upon me, my tiny contribution to the genre of Garland Criticism will co-mingle with Baxter's more formidable efforts in some future footnote of the Galactic Encyclopedia.
I think it’s this one; this is the secret Scott Alexander review.
Agree with the call. The third-person self-references (including to last year's review of Njall's Saga, which was also Scott's) feel a lot like gorilla-on-the-court sleight of hand. Also the general rationalist moral fits well – we're all of us much deceived and should hold our beliefs lightly, and isn't field epistemology more fun than the actual content of beliefs anyway? After all, there are good people on both sides.
(Which, of course, there are not. Obviously. One side is strictly less nuts than the other.)
All right, can somebody give me the non-clickbait version of this?
Right now on one social media site I'm seeing this post, from an "opinion contributor" in USA Today, breathlessly passing on the story "Republicans voted against cancer research just to spite the president" (and of course "if you have cancer or know anyone with cancer, pass this on").
The original article is by one Dr. Thomas K. Lew, rather ironically (in view of writing this) calling for "Vote for those who do not politicize Americans' health".
"Some Republicans" (who? as Wikepedia would say) "refusing to give President Joe Biden a 'win', voted against the renewal of funding for cancer research".
I know it's useless to look up the original piece because it's an "opinion" piece so it'll be all "boo those evil Republicans who want cancer patients to die horribly!" so, can anyone tell me what is going on here? Did they block funding? If so, why?
The headline, should anyone care, is "Congress voted against funding a cure for cancer just to block a win for Biden".
The original piece actually has a link to a Yahoo posting of a Politico article on the matter that is still definitely left-leaning but isn't an opinion piece. It highlights a Democrat saying that the refusal to funds is specifically about denying Biden a win, but also quotes two Republicans, one of whom says that it's just part of the broad swathe of cuts being made to try and get the deficit under control and another of whom (the co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus) wants a new bill for medical research but one that focuses on affordable innovation. Unfortunately, I'm not finding other articles on the subject.
Not sure what that has to do with the book review though.
I read through, and it seems to be from May, and it's about the budget balancing and deficit.
But the story is being passed around as "See, the evil Republicans are murdering cancer patients!"
There's people in this comment thread claiming there is nothing comparable to RRN on the liberal/left side, and I'm sure there's not - but you don't need one, when ordinary people who vote or support Democrats unquestioningly swallow such stories as true on the face of it with no nuance. Yes, they blocked renewal of funding for the 'moonshot' research. No, it's not because they hate cancer sufferers and want them to die, because Rethuglicans Evil.
Fascinating article, but one question: early on in the article you note how hawk eyed readers notice inconsistencies in RRN articles and how Baxter is adept at mending the inconsistencies, but later on in the article you state that conspiracy believers don’t care about consistency, they only care about the comic book-like narrative. This seems… well… inconsistent.
Most batman fans don’t care about the inconsistencies, but some surely point them out and are largely ignored by the rest
Very entertaining review. I had never heard of RRN before this!
1) I wonder what proportion of RRN's audience has clinically relevant and pre-existing mental illness. The donors and earnest commentators especially make me wonder if it is a magnet for people suffering from psychosis.
2) I wonder what the experience is like for Baxter. Does he wake up and say, "oh boy here I go grifting again"? Does he have an elaborate justification? Is he one of those people who has loose mental boundaries between what's true vs what's fun or profitable to say?
3) Nitpicking: are we really approaching AI that's too cheap to meter? I've been seeing headlines about how AI is drawing problematic amounts of power from the grid. Maybe those headlines are wrong.
This was the wittiest and perhaps the most brilliant review I read on this blog.
Well done. Tip of my hat.
And if you ever feel the slightest joy, just remember: “Life ain’t like a box of chocolates, it’s like a bag of shit!”
I wonder how many "parallel universes" are out there that a substantial number of people more-or-less believe in, read about, and think a lot about. At some level, it's a little like a fandom/fanfiction, where you have a little bit of your mind thinking about the Star Wars universe or something.
It's easy to know that there are many "parallel universes" in terms of what seems important. Go find someone who's really into a hobby you don't care about, and you'll see that--a whole community of people with hierarchies and status competitions and drama of various kinds, and you never knew it existed. But this review makes me think about the "parallel universes" of shared bizarrely counterfactual worldviews.
I've read before that a lot of people on surveys say they believe weird stuff--9/11 was a controlled demolition, HIV was engineered by the government to kill off either gays or blacks or both, Muslims are getting ready to impose sharia law on the US unless the Dominionists manage to impose Handmaid's Tale-ism first, etc. But it's interesting and disturbing to think that a lot of people are living in an entirely separate fact-universe from me, and maybe think stuff like these Gitmo tribunals are happening every day. There are media bubble counterfactuals that are visible to me (even if I mostly avoid them), but they tend toward more tame counterfactual beliefs like that cops are routinely going out to hunt down unarmed black boys, or that Donald Trump has to do whatever Putin says or he'll release the pee tape. Lots of people seem to have conspiracy theories about the covid vaccine (is the source anger about the lockdowns, fear of needles, or something else), ranging from the crazy person's favorite "injecting a microchip" to statistically innumerate[1] "millions have died from the covid vaccine." I used to see the Obama is a secret Muslim or Obama is a Kenyan bit going around, mostly in fringey blog comments but occasionally nodded to (often in a joking way) by more serious people.
There are also broad "conspiracy theory" type beliefs that become embedded in some mainstream ideology and are widely discussed. A lot of racial discourse seems like this to me--*everything* that the speaker doesn't like is a system of white supremacy or the patriarchy or whatever. There's a dumb flat-earther version that serves as the bailey and a more limited version that serves as the motte. The right-wing election narrative is somewhat comparable, though much more focused. (Trump figures any election where *anyone* voted against him was rigged, because c'mon, who would *really* vote for anyone else?)
Somewhere in there is also the set of half-remembered stories that stick around because the initial headline gets more attention than the correction. Tons of people out there "know" that Saddam was behind 9/11 and had extensive stockpiles of WMDs, that Michael Brown was shot by a racist cop while trying to surrender, that George Zimmerman is a big white guy[2], the Rolling Stone gangrape story that fell apart, the Duke Lacrosse team gangrape story that fell apart, etc.
[1] To be fair, approximately everyone is statistically innumerate. What fraction of the population could give you a comprehensible and reasonably accurate explanation of what a correlation coefficient is, or even explain the difference between a mean and a median?
[2] He's a little hispanic guy, and tbh if his name had been written "Jorge" I wonder if we'd ever have heard of him--there are plenty of shootings with a questionable claim of self defense out there, and most never make the national news.
No, belief in RRN is not comparable to left-wing belief in Russiagate, and you need to radically re-evaluate your epistemics if you think it is.
Trump's motives are likely more banal narcissism and less treason and authoritarianism than most on the left would like to admit, and effective Russian interference with the election is unlikely to have happened because even experienced American political professionals don't really know how to massively influence voters. But "people believed the stupidest and most catastrophizing possible explanation of real events which we have evidence happened" is not the same as "people believed sequential mutually-contradictory stories without evidence".
This is the day after Trumps election victory and RRN is rather weak. I hoped for a more triumphant and dramatic climax, but maybe he doesn't know were to go now story wise that the fictitious and real world converged again:
https://realrawnews.com/2024/11/hes-back/
💥🎯💥
RE: Michael Baxter, RealRawNews.com
Some idiot here said,
"Lets (sic) not completely ignore how many people believe this."
Okay, so how are you ignorant, unlearned reality deniers doing after only two weeks of Trump proving us right while destroying any credibility you morons have remaining? Simultaneously shutting down massive grifter operations worldwide that YOU believed?
Tell us, how are you doing?
Likely still in blind, ignorant denial-
Low-IQ, cognizant-defficient idiots without a clue-
The mouthy dope squads.
🔥🔥🔥🔥