5 ms·

That may or may not be true that they are expecting doomsday of sorts, but there are a lot of conspirologists which predict imminent doom literally for decades,

by smsm42 9y ago

That may or may not be true that they are expecting doomsday of sorts, but there are a lot of conspirologists which predict imminent doom literally for decades, and when it never comes they aren't bothered by it even a little. If that day will never come - and most likely that's exactly what would happen, if history teaches us something - there wouldn't be no other harm done than a bunch of folks wasting a lot of time on the internet talking about stuff. So far mob violence was a rather rare occurrence in political demonstrations, actually - and one that happened lately was mostly driven by antifa. That's pretty much the only movement right now that openly uses mob violence and achieves some political success by it - cancelling speeches, shutting down events, etc. Are there any other examples? I see a lot of explanations - especially on the left - how expressing certain views is akin to violence. If we had tons of actual violence happening - or clearly imminent to happen - we wouldn't need any speeches about how words are similar to violence. It would be clear to us that there's actual violence and there would be a lot of pointing to it instead. So, I take it as a sign that there's actually not much violence to be pointed at, if we are pointing at words instead.

tmuir 9y ago
I'll whole heartedly agree that there is no smoking gun to any of my theories. I don't equate this speech with violence. My point is just that situations that result in mob violence can deteriorate at a rate far faster than rational voices can prevail. People are programmable. The level of fervor I see on some of these subreddits tells me that someone is programming these people. People are using the tools of psychology to achieve goals that would not be achievable otherwise. In the time elapsed since the programming of this particular group of people, two years ago, all of the protests I've seen from Trump's base have not been airing of grievances, but more of "lets go gloat in public and see if we can trigger the left.". Trumps base is triggered with shadenfreude, not anger. My point is that there is a singular event, Trump leaving office prematurely, that large groups of the right will inevitably interpret as a coup. If that very situation arises, then the calm, see-it-coming-a-mile-away, clear signs of trouble you envision, is suddenly hundreds of thousands of people in crisis mode. I realize that there is a spectrum of using psychology to influence people, and I can't tell you where the line is of too far, but can we agree that the line exists?
- smsm42 9y ago
  > I don't equate this speech with violence. Oh I don't say you do. I am saying the need of so many people to do it suggests there's a distinct lack of violence to point at, otherwise they'd be pointing at it, instead of pointing at words. And since these people are highly motivated to find anything to point at, their failure to find it suggests maybe there's indeed not much political mob violence to find. > The level of fervor I see on some of these subreddits tells me that someone is programming these people. For some definition of "programming", maybe. But for that definition, everybody who debates on the internet "programs" everybody else participating in the debate. It's just a nefariously sounding way of describing mundane things, just like writing "contains chemical compounds!" on food packaging. > People are using the tools of psychology to achieve goals that would not be achievable otherwise Not sure what you mean by "otherwise". People communicate. Some of them use knowledge of human psychology to make their message more persuasive. It's not something that appeared today or yesterday or this century or this millenium. Is it harder to convince somebody in something if you ignore human psychology? Of course. But there's nothing nefarious about it - it's like saying "people are using tools of physics and chemistry to achieve goals that would not be achievable otherwise". Sure they do, all power to them! That's why we spend all the big bucks financing the science! > My point is that there is a singular event, Trump leaving office prematurely, that large groups of the right will inevitably interpret as a coup. That would largely depend on the manner of said leaving, I'd assume. For example, if he becomes gravely ill or suddenly dies, that sounds unlikely. If Democrats win majority in Senate and House in the next election and decide immediately to impeach Trump "because he's bad", without a proof of any real crime committed - that sounds much more likely. But that would be a consequence of highly inappropriate behavior resulting in loss of trust in the democratic system by citizens. The cure for it is not to behave like that. If there's no such behavior then the history shows there would be no significant violence. I've heard rumors that Bush would cancel elections and institute martial law, then Obama would cancel elections, and no doubt I'll hear about Trump cancelling elections, and then whoever will be elected after Trump would cancel elections too. There's always talk about this, because it's easy. > I realize that there is a spectrum of using psychology to influence people, and I can't tell you where the line is of too far, but can we agree that the line exists? Not really. There's no "using psychology" but plain old persuasion, and no persuasion is "too far". Well, of course, if you use violent methods like torture, you can also achieve psychological effects, but if we're talking about persuasive speech alone, then there's nothing "too far" in that. There's no words that can make robots out of people, and in fact convincing somebody to change one's mind on a political question by just throwing words at them is really hard. Possible, but hard. People may be "programmable", but not very easily. Usually if they become convinced in something, there are a lot of reasons for it and a lot of background for it, not just some nefarious article on some forum.
tmuir 9y ago
I guess this has been longer ago, but the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge takeover by the Bundys was essentially a militia challenging the government to armed conflict. I'm well aware that the case against these people ended in a mistrial because of exculpatory evidence that was withheld. That doesn't change the fact that conservatives have threatened violence in recent political protest.
- smsm42 9y ago
  I suspected somebody would bring up Bundys. However, given that the whole dispute is about grazing fees in some piece of federal land, I can't really take it as a political statement. Yes, Bundys proposed some political theories as justification of their actions, but if there wasn't $1M in grazing fees, I don't think any of it would happen at all. The fact that violence was threatened is bad - but it is hard to take this as a genuine example of politically-motivated violence.
  - tmuir 9y ago
    Well, luckily for all observers, the Bundy's erased any doubt that they were making political statements with their other armed standoff with federal authorities. You refer to the elder Bundy's grazing fees dispute, which played out at their Nevada ranch. This actually involved a grievance the Bundy's themselves held. I refer to his son Amon Bundy, who took up the cause of another father and son from southeast Oregon, who were jailed for starting fires on federal land, clearing brush. They were originally sentenced to some amount of time, which they served. A judge later determined, after they were already released, that there sentencing was somehow improper, and that they had to serve more time. The father and son willingly complied, and turned themselves in. Amon Bundy and his fellow Yeehawdists took over a National Wildlife Refuge, and essentially tried to provoke another standoff. They want federal lands to be wide open to do whatever they want with, to strip resources, and effectively get something for nothing. They see their inability to do whatever they want, and the consequences of doing so, as tyranny of the government.

by smsm42 9y ago

tmuir 9y ago

I'll whole heartedly agree that there is no smoking gun to any of my theories. I don't equate this speech with violence. My point is just that situations that result in mob violence can deteriorate at a rate far faster than rational voices can prevail. People are programmable. The level of fervor I see on some of these subreddits tells me that someone is programming these people. People are using the tools of psychology to achieve goals that would not be achievable otherwise. In the time elapsed since the programming of this particular group of people, two years ago, all of the protests I've seen from Trump's base have not been airing of grievances, but more of "lets go gloat in public and see if we can trigger the left.". Trumps base is triggered with shadenfreude, not anger. My point is that there is a singular event, Trump leaving office prematurely, that large groups of the right will inevitably interpret as a coup. If that very situation arises, then the calm, see-it-coming-a-mile-away, clear signs of trouble you envision, is suddenly hundreds of thousands of people in crisis mode. I realize that there is a spectrum of using psychology to influence people, and I can't tell you where the line is of too far, but can we agree that the line exists?

smsm42 9y ago
> I don't equate this speech with violence. Oh I don't say you do. I am saying the need of so many people to do it suggests there's a distinct lack of violence to point at, otherwise they'd be pointing at it, instead of pointing at words. And since these people are highly motivated to find anything to point at, their failure to find it suggests maybe there's indeed not much political mob violence to find. > The level of fervor I see on some of these subreddits tells me that someone is programming these people. For some definition of "programming", maybe. But for that definition, everybody who debates on the internet "programs" everybody else participating in the debate. It's just a nefariously sounding way of describing mundane things, just like writing "contains chemical compounds!" on food packaging. > People are using the tools of psychology to achieve goals that would not be achievable otherwise Not sure what you mean by "otherwise". People communicate. Some of them use knowledge of human psychology to make their message more persuasive. It's not something that appeared today or yesterday or this century or this millenium. Is it harder to convince somebody in something if you ignore human psychology? Of course. But there's nothing nefarious about it - it's like saying "people are using tools of physics and chemistry to achieve goals that would not be achievable otherwise". Sure they do, all power to them! That's why we spend all the big bucks financing the science! > My point is that there is a singular event, Trump leaving office prematurely, that large groups of the right will inevitably interpret as a coup. That would largely depend on the manner of said leaving, I'd assume. For example, if he becomes gravely ill or suddenly dies, that sounds unlikely. If Democrats win majority in Senate and House in the next election and decide immediately to impeach Trump "because he's bad", without a proof of any real crime committed - that sounds much more likely. But that would be a consequence of highly inappropriate behavior resulting in loss of trust in the democratic system by citizens. The cure for it is not to behave like that. If there's no such behavior then the history shows there would be no significant violence. I've heard rumors that Bush would cancel elections and institute martial law, then Obama would cancel elections, and no doubt I'll hear about Trump cancelling elections, and then whoever will be elected after Trump would cancel elections too. There's always talk about this, because it's easy. > I realize that there is a spectrum of using psychology to influence people, and I can't tell you where the line is of too far, but can we agree that the line exists? Not really. There's no "using psychology" but plain old persuasion, and no persuasion is "too far". Well, of course, if you use violent methods like torture, you can also achieve psychological effects, but if we're talking about persuasive speech alone, then there's nothing "too far" in that. There's no words that can make robots out of people, and in fact convincing somebody to change one's mind on a political question by just throwing words at them is really hard. Possible, but hard. People may be "programmable", but not very easily. Usually if they become convinced in something, there are a lot of reasons for it and a lot of background for it, not just some nefarious article on some forum.

tmuir 9y ago

I guess this has been longer ago, but the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge takeover by the Bundys was essentially a militia challenging the government to armed conflict. I'm well aware that the case against these people ended in a mistrial because of exculpatory evidence that was withheld. That doesn't change the fact that conservatives have threatened violence in recent political protest.

smsm42 9y ago
I suspected somebody would bring up Bundys. However, given that the whole dispute is about grazing fees in some piece of federal land, I can't really take it as a political statement. Yes, Bundys proposed some political theories as justification of their actions, but if there wasn't $1M in grazing fees, I don't think any of it would happen at all. The fact that violence was threatened is bad - but it is hard to take this as a genuine example of politically-motivated violence.
- tmuir 9y ago
  Well, luckily for all observers, the Bundy's erased any doubt that they were making political statements with their other armed standoff with federal authorities. You refer to the elder Bundy's grazing fees dispute, which played out at their Nevada ranch. This actually involved a grievance the Bundy's themselves held. I refer to his son Amon Bundy, who took up the cause of another father and son from southeast Oregon, who were jailed for starting fires on federal land, clearing brush. They were originally sentenced to some amount of time, which they served. A judge later determined, after they were already released, that there sentencing was somehow improper, and that they had to serve more time. The father and son willingly complied, and turned themselves in. Amon Bundy and his fellow Yeehawdists took over a National Wildlife Refuge, and essentially tried to provoke another standoff. They want federal lands to be wide open to do whatever they want with, to strip resources, and effectively get something for nothing. They see their inability to do whatever they want, and the consequences of doing so, as tyranny of the government.