4 ms·

But it also creates an environment where you can't ever actually know what any group thinks. "Are there REALLY neo-nazis giving nazi salutes celebrating Trump'

But it also creates an environment where you can't ever actually know what any group thinks. "Are there REALLY neo-nazis giving nazi salutes celebrating Trump's victory on video, or is this a staged event to make Trump look like he has neo-nazi supporters?" "Are there even that many well dressed, non-tattoo'd neo-nazis?" (Maybe there are... I don't know any personally, but I wasn't expecting to see people in button down shirts and khakis and clean looking... apologies to any neo-nazis that may be reading this for having a pre-formed impression of what you might be like.) And what happens when a group comes along that REALLY DOES have absolutely crazy views? "Oh well, that was discredited, but that group doesn't ACTUALLY believe the (minority group here) are the cause of all our problems. That's just some fake news designed to discredit them. I like some of the less crazy articles by these guys. I think I'll still vote for the (actually batshit crazy neo-nazi party by another name of 2032)."

trprog 10y ago
Although the medium is new the idea of publishing stuff that misrepresents other people's position is nothing new. Here is a relatively modern example from the very early 20th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of... And although the term has a very tinfoil hat connotation "false flag operations" have also been a thing for millennia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag Even young children understand the logic of "I will do a thing and try to make it look like someone else did it." >But it also creates an environment where you can't ever actually know what any group thinks. You never could really. At best you could get a vague approximation that was hopefully not inaccurate in any way that would bite you in the ass.
- dvtv75 10y ago
  I seem to recall news video of Muslims firing guns into the air and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center actually being video of Muslims celebrating a sporting match victory, about 15 years ago.
Twisell 10y ago
Your second idea is actually aleready used by the French far righ supporters. They manage to say horrible things and get away by saying it's just humor and that people who infuriate just don't get it. And as French people have a very high proudness of their free speech policy, it's then very hard to oppose without being called a vile censorship supporter...
- gilleain 10y ago
  And the more general tactic was used very well by Trump during the campaign. For example when he claimed to be being "sarcastic" when he said Clinton and Obama "founded" ISIS. I found most fascinating - in a horrible way - the exchange he had with a conservative radio host (http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/ http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/): HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace. DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton. HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them. DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. ... [later] DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS. The problem here is that he's saying a) Obama IS the founder of ISIS, and b) Obama created the conditions for their rise. One of these is reasonable (in the sense that it can be discussed) and one is clearly nonsense. Which means that he can claim to his supporters one thing - the crazy one - and then defend himself against critics by pointing to the saner version and cry 'sarcasm!'. It's like the phrase "talking out of both sides of your mouth" but at the same time.
  - Sacho 10y ago
    I'm not sure this particular example fits the "sarcastic" angle. I believe a more charitable interpretation is possible: > HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace. You could infer from this that HH is trying to limit the President's culpability - a difference of "happened on my watch" vs "I am directly responsible". > DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton. Perhaps DT's objection is over the implication from HH's statement, rather than to be taken literally. He goes on to temper his statement - the President had a "very important role", etc. Outside of this context, DT's objection is not very coherent, but that's the nature of a (presumably) unscripted, antagonistic interview. Case in point, HH blunders in their retort: > HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them. This objection is moving the goalposts. You can be a founder of something and hate it - the founder can be displaced, the "something" can change course, etc. You can tell HH is reading into what DT is saying - HH seems to think that DT is pushing a "the President is an ISIS sympathizer" narrative, which isn't at all indicated by DT's words, and he immediately disagrees: > DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. In thinking about this interview and how I just overanalyzed it, I reached a frustrating impasse. It would certainly be great if DT had the eloquence of Obama, and his statements were well-crafted and not so open to interpretation. On the other hand, relying too much on the eloquence of politicians leads you into a hole of "empty talk" - they say a lot of words, take no positions and after analyzing their response you realize it lacks any substance. DT does not conform to the standard mold of a politician, so I think it's difficult to try and analyze him through it. He will eventually become President, and be forced to make decisions - actions are much easier to evaluate than words.
makomk 10y ago
We're already in that environment, it just doesn't get much coverage because it doesn't fit the mainstream narrative: http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/18/election-hate-crimes-hoaxes-hyperbole http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/18/election-hate-crimes-hoaxe...

trprog 10y ago

Although the medium is new the idea of publishing stuff that misrepresents other people's position is nothing new. Here is a relatively modern example from the very early 20th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of... And although the term has a very tinfoil hat connotation "false flag operations" have also been a thing for millennia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag Even young children understand the logic of "I will do a thing and try to make it look like someone else did it." >But it also creates an environment where you can't ever actually know what any group thinks. You never could really. At best you could get a vague approximation that was hopefully not inaccurate in any way that would bite you in the ass.

dvtv75 10y ago
I seem to recall news video of Muslims firing guns into the air and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center actually being video of Muslims celebrating a sporting match victory, about 15 years ago.

Twisell 10y ago

Your second idea is actually aleready used by the French far righ supporters. They manage to say horrible things and get away by saying it's just humor and that people who infuriate just don't get it. And as French people have a very high proudness of their free speech policy, it's then very hard to oppose without being called a vile censorship supporter...

gilleain 10y ago
And the more general tactic was used very well by Trump during the campaign. For example when he claimed to be being "sarcastic" when he said Clinton and Obama "founded" ISIS. I found most fascinating - in a horrible way - the exchange he had with a conservative radio host (http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/ http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/): HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace. DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton. HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them. DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. ... [later] DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS. The problem here is that he's saying a) Obama IS the founder of ISIS, and b) Obama created the conditions for their rise. One of these is reasonable (in the sense that it can be discussed) and one is clearly nonsense. Which means that he can claim to his supporters one thing - the crazy one - and then defend himself against critics by pointing to the saner version and cry 'sarcasm!'. It's like the phrase "talking out of both sides of your mouth" but at the same time.
- Sacho 10y ago
  I'm not sure this particular example fits the "sarcastic" angle. I believe a more charitable interpretation is possible: > HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace. You could infer from this that HH is trying to limit the President's culpability - a difference of "happened on my watch" vs "I am directly responsible". > DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton. Perhaps DT's objection is over the implication from HH's statement, rather than to be taken literally. He goes on to temper his statement - the President had a "very important role", etc. Outside of this context, DT's objection is not very coherent, but that's the nature of a (presumably) unscripted, antagonistic interview. Case in point, HH blunders in their retort: > HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them. This objection is moving the goalposts. You can be a founder of something and hate it - the founder can be displaced, the "something" can change course, etc. You can tell HH is reading into what DT is saying - HH seems to think that DT is pushing a "the President is an ISIS sympathizer" narrative, which isn't at all indicated by DT's words, and he immediately disagrees: > DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. In thinking about this interview and how I just overanalyzed it, I reached a frustrating impasse. It would certainly be great if DT had the eloquence of Obama, and his statements were well-crafted and not so open to interpretation. On the other hand, relying too much on the eloquence of politicians leads you into a hole of "empty talk" - they say a lot of words, take no positions and after analyzing their response you realize it lacks any substance. DT does not conform to the standard mold of a politician, so I think it's difficult to try and analyze him through it. He will eventually become President, and be forced to make decisions - actions are much easier to evaluate than words.

makomk 10y ago

We're already in that environment, it just doesn't get much coverage because it doesn't fit the mainstream narrative: http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/18/election-hate-crimes-hoaxes-hyperbole http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/18/election-hate-crimes-hoaxe...