Good thread. I don't think we really reckon enough with the fact -- as supported by the vast bulk of the research -- that "deprogramming" cult members is a labor-intensive, individualized affair. There's just no way to do it at scale.
That means we've basically lost a generation of older white Americans, to say nothing of the younger people (especially suburban women) being pulled into this shit today. Some individuals can be saved, but there's no lever we can pull to bring them all back. They're mostly gone.
Two big implications: one, we'll be dealing with these folks & their distorting effects on politics for the rest of our lives. This is not a "solve" thing, it's a "manage" thing. Second, the top imperative must be cutting off the production of new cultists.
The only scalable solution is reducing supply -- preventing people from being exposed to this toxic shit in the first place. And that raises all kinds of difficult questions about free speech, elite gatekeeping, etc. etc. No one really loves thinking about that stuff.
But that's the only route to a scalable solution. Once you create these cultists, you are, for all intents and purposes, stuck with them. </fin>
Addendum: consider this woman. Think about what she gets -- emotionally & socially -- from being the "meme queen" of a tight knit, us-against-the-world community. Then think about what she would get, emotionally & socially, from acknowledging the truth. nytimes.com/2021/01/17/tec…
It just can't be emphasized enough that "you have an obligation to acknowledge empirical truth, no matter its effects on your social or emotional wellbeing" is a profoundly unnatural, modern idea that tacks directly against centuries of evolution.
Believing what your social group believes, echoing & affirming its common binding precepts, is adaptive. It brings social protection, belonging, & status. What does "believing the truth," in & of itself, get you? Nothing. Why would evolution select for it?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You've really got to read the 1776 report, not just summaries. The writing is so much worse than you think. It's like some twisted kind of performance art: how many plodding, pedestrian, ham-handed cliches can you pile atop one another? whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
The authoritarian mind is so plain, so utterly without aesthetic spark. It's not funny, or curious, or empathetic, or piercing. It is utterly blind to irony & contingency. There's a reason anyone who creates anything-- writers, artists, scholars, entrepreneurs --is a Dem now.
Over the last 5 years, I have walked hundreds of miles with my dogs. In the process, I've become something of an anthropologist, studying the habits of humans out walking. One observation: people really don't know how to be passed gracefully. Human nature? Bad socialization? 🤷♂️
My dogs & I walk very fast, so we're constantly passing people. It tends to be a little awkward -- you're going the same direction, maybe you both have curious dogs, you're not sure whether to say some kind of greeting, it seems to take forever. No one really likes it.
Given that no one likes it, you'd think people would take some obvious steps to minimize it. Instead, people quite often behave in such a way as to *maximize* it. They look over their shoulder, get nervous, speed up, & just make the whole thing take longer.
This article -- about Ted Cruz's aides & how shocked they are at his recent behavior -- prompts me to share a take I've had for a while, that's only gotten stronger in the last few years. (A short thread.) nymag.com/intelligencer/…
There's a kind of longstanding mythology in political journalism that the best work comes from getting "inside," getting sources that are close to the action. The idea is you're tapping into a kind of secret insider knowledge, the real deal, the stuff that matters.
It applies to punditry too -- supposedly you get the best insight from those on the inside, up close, who see the game & aren't fooled by the pageantry presented to hoi polloi.
Just hilarious, these Trump enablers hanging on until the literal, mathematical last second & then leaving amidst a bunch of self-congratulation. Just the worst possible people, all of them.
Like this guy. 🙄 Shove your "disappointment" up your ass, you grubby apparatchik. wsj.com/articles/kudlo…
Brave, brave Sir Azar ran away ... with this resignation set to go into effect the day he would have lost his job anyway. Such stirring courage. cnn.com/2021/01/15/pol…
The stance of "objective" media seems to be, if you listen to arguments on both sides of an issue & then decide one side is correct, you then become "partisan," which means you can't be trusted. Thus, the only way to truly be open-minded & trustworthy is to never take a position.
But of course, the people who have studied an issue most & understand it best are those *most likely to make a judgment on the merits*, so if you exclude them as "biased," you're left with glib, mealy-mouthed, "both sides have points" poseurs.
I just got online ... and ... Playbook did *what*?
If you want to spotlight & understand the very heart of US political media dysfunction, think about the nest of background assumptions required to imagine Chris Hayes & Ben Shapiro as equivalent.
One tries his best to tell the truth; one lies freely. One has a coherent, principled worldview that he tries to apply fairly; one glibly hops from faux principle to faux principle as it suits him. One has experience & skill in reporting; one has never done anything but Takes.