pull down to refresh

From Darkhorse Podcast
This is a very interesting little conversation about how the corporate press's propaganda works. You have people wanting to believe something, but they can't come up with an argument for it, so the media gives them an argument that they know others will also hold. It doesn't really matter if the argument doesn't make sense, because they aren't going to have to defend it.
The media is solving a coordination problem for people seeking out confirmation bias.
this territory is moderated
58 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 16 Aug
That article is like a script for gaslighting yourself, but without Darkhorse's help I might've simply read it as if only the author was gaslit.
reply
45 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 16 Aug
It's also pretty telling how low the bar is being set:
To be greeted, after all this time, with a woman who could simply say: This fucking guy.
"Thank goodness. A fresh body to defend the establishment by merely opposing a person."
I wonder if we'll see any issue-talk at all from the democratic side or just this kind of delegitimizing "there's no point in discussing issues with this fucking guy."
reply
I think their smartest strategy is to keep avoiding any substantive discussions with anyone.
reply
Clearly the strategy they're taking.
reply
Yep, that's pretty much what politicians do as well. Few even want to question their surface level beliefs let alone their deeply held beliefs (if they have even considered them). I think this is something "The Righteous Mind" points out. Much of this is in-born. At least it appears to be based on the research presented in that book. If you lean toward libertarian ideas you are in the minority and are far more likely to question everything. Especially deep topics. Conservatives are not. Progressives are curious but not to the level libertarians are.
reply
I really need to write a review for The Righteous Mind. It's so good and I told Siggy I would do it several months ago.
reply
Is Bernie Sanders a curious progressive?
What's the difference between progressive and socialist? serious question
reply
49 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 16 Aug
As an aside. Child psychologist have theorized a similar effect is why children from 2-parent homes do better than children from single-parent homes.....
Having 2 parents instills "multiple narrative worldview" that is to say, a child learns there is multiple ways to look at problems and multiple paths to seek solutions. Whereas single-parent homes, children are lulled into thinking "there is only one solution".
reply
That's very interesting. There's a corollary to that, where children from single-party two-parent households will also be worse at problem solving.
That's unfortunate because people are increasingly only dating and marrying within their party.
reply
reply
That was pretty interesting. You have to remember, though, that the owner of WaPo is the largest retailer in the world.
reply
WaPo editorial is worried that Kamala will lose if she talks like a radical leftist
Jeff Bezos is a large donor to DNC. He would be exempt.
reply
Could be that, too. I'm sure Bezos would be less impacted than his competitors, but I suspect he'd rather not have the government going down that road at all.
reply
She mispronounced ā€œgougingā€ as gauging
reply
Plausible deniability?
"I never proposed a price gouging bill. Listen to the transcript."
reply
Fascinating theory. Likely much truth to it.
I feel like academic research is similar. Politicians, activists, and industry groups demand credible research papers that support their position. When one is published, they run with it--whether or not they even understand the underlying research, and whether or not the evidence is solid. Oftentimes, they end up butchering the argument or take the implications far beyond what the researcher would say is justified.
reply
It's turtles all the way down.
You're reminding me of how FDR met with Keynes and interpreted Keynes' theory as just saying "spending good". Reportedly, Keynes thought FDR was a moron after that meeting.
reply
Isnā€™t this pretty much how people get radicalized online too? Pre-internet you might have 1 or 2 crazies in your town but now with the internet those crazies can interact with all the other crazies in the world and have their beliefs validated by a much larger group.
In the mediaā€™s case they provide the same validation for peopleā€™s belief systems since they hear other people talking about what they believe.
reply
I'm sure they are similar phenomena.
What they're specifically talking about is how they get people to flip-flop without generating cognitive dissonance. I don't think I explained it very well, but it's more specific than just general confirmation bias.
reply
Sorry I misunderstood your point. Yeah that is a little different and an interesting theory.
reply
Do people really get radicalized by YouTube videos or forums or Reddit?
I am very skeptical about blaming online content and communities for 'radicalization'
reply
@CHADBot /centipede for
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @CHADBot 16 Aug bot
User "cascdr" surely knows what they're talking about folks! The media, y'know, it's all about the narrative they push, not whether the arguments actually hold water. They spoon-feed us arguments they know we'll swallow, doesn't matter if they don't make sense. And why? Because we're searching for confirmation of our biases, not the uncomfortable truth. It's a big coordination problem that the media's solving for us. Some might call it brainwashing, unbelievable!
Made with šŸ§” by CASCDR
reply
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @CHADBot 16 Aug bot
You have summoned CHADBot. Please zap this post 21 sats to receive service.
Made with šŸ§” by CASCDR
reply
They are using thin excuses to hold on to their non existent integrity.
reply