4 ms·

While control of language is not in the public's attention, it has been used quite knowingly for decades.[1] More recently though, rather than too much propaga

While control of language is not in the public's attention, it has been used quite knowingly for decades.[1] More recently though, rather than too much propaganda on a savvier public, the more modern addition is to convince a public that ultimate truth is unknowable. Often just by validating conspiracy theories just enough to the rival of real news. For example: the Russian news for the MH17 shoot down was not a consistent particular story but a wide variety of extremely wild stories on different outlets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1970s_and_1980s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1...

skybrian 7y ago
It seems like flooding the zone with false stories might be a way of making the truth actually quite difficult to figure out? In response, understanding that you are confused might be the best way to start getting a grip on the situation.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Absolutely, it's a basic technique of information warfare. One variation on this is to undermine a political consensus by creating false support for it that appears enthusiastic but depends partially on fallacies. For example, suppose you run a baseball team engaged in psychological warfare with another baseball team. You are so evenly matched that it is impossible for either of you to win other than by having the loudest cheering fans. Sadly, neither side can gain an advantage through cooler uniforms or better walk-on music, so you are forced to use more clandestine methods. You dress up as a fan of the opposing team and mingle with their fans. 'I sure love X team, we are so much better than Y team,' you say over and over, and soon you have penetrated to the core of their seating section. Now you strike. 'I sure love X team, we're so much better since we got Babe Ruth on the roster,' you say to anyone who will listen. Of course, Babe Ruth is not on the roster because he is dead these many years. And that realization and subsequent confusion causes a few fans to cheer less while they try to figure out your strange remark. If you can cause sufficient confusion before your tactic is recognized and deployed against your own side, it may be enough to tip the game.
godelski 7y ago
Really most conspiracies come out of official stories that are incomplete. People want to complete them and tie together all the loose ends. Sometimes it is just fluxes and highly unlikely events. Sometimes it is because part of the true story is classified and can't be widely discussed. Very rarely is it where the conspiracy goes. Which often rely on large and exceptionally organized groups/individuals that keep a story together (which in reality never happens, because there are leaks everywhere). And frequently those colluding individuals are all morally corrupt. Which I find interesting too, because even corrupt people have morals (which is why we have whistleblowers). What I do find interesting is Flat Earth Theory. Because it is the only conspiracy theory I'm aware of that there isn't clearly someone gaining power. Like sure, they claim NASA is winning, but it isn't clear what they are gaining from it.
- V-2 7y ago
  The Flat Earth movement is simply about trolling.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    That's a dangerous mistake to make. Some of them clearly are trolling, but there are people who genuinely believe the Earth is flat.
    - V-2 7y ago
      There is no such notion in this world that you wouldn't find some people who genuinely believe it :) I specifically said "the movement", my point being it's not the "true believers" who built and lead the movement. Every trolling platform will attract some people who aren't really in on it. That's one of the core elements of trolling.
      - anigbrowl 7y ago
        Yes, but like many other kinds of jackassery trolling can go really bad. Look at the qanon conspiracy; there have been several suicides already and there's a lot of people emotionally involved to an unhealthy degree. The things that make conspiracies engaging are very similar to those of cults, and what starts out as an ironic joke can devolve. Scientology is an example of something that started as an ironic grift and is now regarded as a rather skeevy cult. The extreme case is something like Jonestown or Aum Shinrikyo.

skybrian 7y ago

It seems like flooding the zone with false stories might be a way of making the truth actually quite difficult to figure out? In response, understanding that you are confused might be the best way to start getting a grip on the situation.

anigbrowl 7y ago
Absolutely, it's a basic technique of information warfare. One variation on this is to undermine a political consensus by creating false support for it that appears enthusiastic but depends partially on fallacies. For example, suppose you run a baseball team engaged in psychological warfare with another baseball team. You are so evenly matched that it is impossible for either of you to win other than by having the loudest cheering fans. Sadly, neither side can gain an advantage through cooler uniforms or better walk-on music, so you are forced to use more clandestine methods. You dress up as a fan of the opposing team and mingle with their fans. 'I sure love X team, we are so much better than Y team,' you say over and over, and soon you have penetrated to the core of their seating section. Now you strike. 'I sure love X team, we're so much better since we got Babe Ruth on the roster,' you say to anyone who will listen. Of course, Babe Ruth is not on the roster because he is dead these many years. And that realization and subsequent confusion causes a few fans to cheer less while they try to figure out your strange remark. If you can cause sufficient confusion before your tactic is recognized and deployed against your own side, it may be enough to tip the game.

godelski 7y ago

Really most conspiracies come out of official stories that are incomplete. People want to complete them and tie together all the loose ends. Sometimes it is just fluxes and highly unlikely events. Sometimes it is because part of the true story is classified and can't be widely discussed. Very rarely is it where the conspiracy goes. Which often rely on large and exceptionally organized groups/individuals that keep a story together (which in reality never happens, because there are leaks everywhere). And frequently those colluding individuals are all morally corrupt. Which I find interesting too, because even corrupt people have morals (which is why we have whistleblowers). What I do find interesting is Flat Earth Theory. Because it is the only conspiracy theory I'm aware of that there isn't clearly someone gaining power. Like sure, they claim NASA is winning, but it isn't clear what they are gaining from it.

V-2 7y ago
The Flat Earth movement is simply about trolling.
- DanBC 7y ago
  That's a dangerous mistake to make. Some of them clearly are trolling, but there are people who genuinely believe the Earth is flat.
  - V-2 7y ago
    There is no such notion in this world that you wouldn't find some people who genuinely believe it :) I specifically said "the movement", my point being it's not the "true believers" who built and lead the movement. Every trolling platform will attract some people who aren't really in on it. That's one of the core elements of trolling.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Yes, but like many other kinds of jackassery trolling can go really bad. Look at the qanon conspiracy; there have been several suicides already and there's a lot of people emotionally involved to an unhealthy degree. The things that make conspiracies engaging are very similar to those of cults, and what starts out as an ironic joke can devolve. Scientology is an example of something that started as an ironic grift and is now regarded as a rather skeevy cult. The extreme case is something like Jonestown or Aum Shinrikyo.