7 ms·

QAnon Is Destroying the GOP from Within

49 points by shin_lao 6y ago

booleanbetrayal 6y ago
The common theme here is that media outlets are not good at regulating their own hysteria for the public good, and we're all left as collateral damage. Maybe we can bring back some orderly rules around broadcasting of controversial opinions. The FCC Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987 and there was an attempt to reintroduce it in 2019. Maybe it deserves reconsideration. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4401 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4401
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Defining fairness is tough, there are serious free speech concerns, and I don’t want a Trump-esque administration’s FTC deciding what’s “fair”.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  A Fairness Doctrine would require mainstream media to present QAnon's side of things equally with anti-QAnon. This doesn't help the QAnon folks, since they're still mad they're being censored (that's part of the thing, they're always censored, and there's a thousand videos they can show you to prove it). And it exposes people who otherwise wouldn't be to their views, as if they were accepted. I don't anticipate a fairness doctrine making people less prone to conspiracy -- it worked in 1987 because TV was the main source of news, but most "news" is not on TV or in print, it's on YouTube.
  - ploika 6y ago
    It would likely require proportionate rather than equal coverage. That's how it works in Ireland anyway (though not always uncontroversially - it's a hard thing to get right all the time). Fringe or extreme opinions don't automatically get credulous airtime.
    - booleanbetrayal 6y ago
      That's my understanding of how the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to work. Legitimized opinions are required for consideration. If they are not legitimized, then it will be a little harder for them to gain traction in the first place. Policies like these, while imperfect, can help to serve as a brake pump on the outlandish.
- nradov 6y ago
  The Fairness Doctrine was somewhat justifiable for broadcast TV because spectrum limits only allowed for a small number of channels. But with cable TV and the Internet that limit no longer applies.
k__ 6y ago
How is this possible that QAnon, which is literally just random text fragments, became something that breaks something like the GOP?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  The start is long before QAnon. Birtherism, Tea Party, Limbaugh and Hannity. Many things led here.
  - toyg 6y ago
    Indeed! Birtherism is arguably how Trump became a high-profile politician, the Tea Party is how the GOP lost control of its nominations, and there wouldn’t have been either Birtherism or Tea Party without the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity stoking flames - and Fox News exists because Newt Gingrich showed there was a market for right-wing extremists in the ‘90s, a market that had fed on shock-jock radio in the late ‘80s... It takes time to develop a popular ideological framework, but once it’s entrenched it is bound to reach some of its goals (in this case, to riot against Congress).
- Y-Bopinator 6y ago
  Fake news
- hprotagonist 6y ago
  30-plus years of social priming sure helps. You can peg this to Newt, or Goldwater in 64, if you want to go back a step, but at some point in the postwar 20th century the republican party decided to court insanity for votes, and now the inmates are running the asylum. For the moral indignation claims of Q, you can go back much further, if you like. QAnon is a thinly covered and warmed over blood libel, and we’ve had that particular bit of malign story with us since ... at least Carthage? Probably a lot longer. So it’s an idea that has a very long history of being one that is very good at worming its way into brains and staying there.
- orange_tee 6y ago
  Because the GOP thought it was a good idea to appeal to different groups of nutjobs to build their base of political support. They thought the nutjobs were easily controllable and they are right. They did not realize that somebody else other than them could take control of the nutjobs. And to be fair to them, before the internet it would have not be possible to do that. But now in the 21st century, everyone can appeal to nutjobs and start a cult over the internet.
loukrazy 6y ago
His point that conspiracy theories are acting as a substitute for religious community and purpose is interesting. I guess there are a number of different belief systems that can fill a void of purpose.
- DeafSquid 6y ago
  I was thinking about this the other day in relation to bitcoin
- boxed 6y ago
  That point should be driven home by the fact that the chronic religious ignorance of the US is the bedrock on top of which QAnon is built. You can't openly support ignorance about basic facts about reality for hundreds of years and expect this to have no consequences. Americans need to learn basic facts about religion in school. Separation of church and state does not mean everyone must grow up ignorant. It means the state shouldn't promote one religion over another (which the US is doing anyway).
  - la6471 6y ago
    No , what we need is basic common sense. Too much of anything is bad and as a nation we have a historical tendency to take things to extreme. We need to understand and acknowledge each other’s point of view and realize there is a sane middle path based on due diligence and rational investigation.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - boxed 6y ago
      People make this argument a lot. But tell me how to do this in practice on a large scale? My suggestion is timely, measurable, and proven.
dominotw 6y ago
Sorry for this tangent. But I still to do this day don't know if " Trump is a russian asset" theory true. Are parts of it true? I know bunch of people went to jail and stuff. I want to research this but there so much out there i get even more confused. How should i think about this whole 'russian collusion' thing? Seems like it completely fell off media radar when covid showed up on the scene. Is putin really behind whats going on in USA.
- pii 6y ago
  Seth Abramson wrote a few books about this, extensively researched.
  - dominotw 6y ago
    I have to read few books to really understand it? 'Trump is an russian asset' . How can it not be a yes/no question, he either is or isn't. I dont understand why I need to read few books. What can't someone just tell me the answer to the question. Edit: Looks like even the Atlantic thinks that Abramson is a conspiracy theorist https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal-fever-swamps/530736/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal...
    - loopz 6y ago
      Because heavy allegation require heavy evidence, not lies about something unfounded.
      - splintercell 6y ago
        Okay but can you give me at least an opening statement equivalent of this case? Like when a prosecutor says that they will demonstrate that how the defendant stalked the victim for days before committing the murder and he was observed by many witnesses disposing the murder weapon in the woods.
- x775 6y ago
  Yes. Why not give the Mueller report a read? Annotated versions are widely available, e.g. [1]. Alternatively, or perhaps additionally, give Sarah Kendzior's Hiding In Plain Sight [1] a read. It is a quick but exceedingly well-researched and well-documented read which neatly summarises the travesty that the Trump administration has been. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-t... [1] https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250245397 https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250245397

49 points by shin_lao 6y ago

The common theme here is that media outlets are not good at regulating their own hysteria for the public good, and we're all left as collateral damage. Maybe we can bring back some orderly rules around broadcasting of controversial opinions. The FCC Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987 and there was an attempt to reintroduce it in 2019. Maybe it deserves reconsideration. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4401 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4401

ceejayoz 6y ago
Defining fairness is tough, there are serious free speech concerns, and I don’t want a Trump-esque administration’s FTC deciding what’s “fair”.
freeone3000 6y ago
A Fairness Doctrine would require mainstream media to present QAnon's side of things equally with anti-QAnon. This doesn't help the QAnon folks, since they're still mad they're being censored (that's part of the thing, they're always censored, and there's a thousand videos they can show you to prove it). And it exposes people who otherwise wouldn't be to their views, as if they were accepted. I don't anticipate a fairness doctrine making people less prone to conspiracy -- it worked in 1987 because TV was the main source of news, but most "news" is not on TV or in print, it's on YouTube.
- ploika 6y ago
  It would likely require proportionate rather than equal coverage. That's how it works in Ireland anyway (though not always uncontroversially - it's a hard thing to get right all the time). Fringe or extreme opinions don't automatically get credulous airtime.
  - booleanbetrayal 6y ago
    That's my understanding of how the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to work. Legitimized opinions are required for consideration. If they are not legitimized, then it will be a little harder for them to gain traction in the first place. Policies like these, while imperfect, can help to serve as a brake pump on the outlandish.
nradov 6y ago
The Fairness Doctrine was somewhat justifiable for broadcast TV because spectrum limits only allowed for a small number of channels. But with cable TV and the Internet that limit no longer applies.

k__ 6y ago

How is this possible that QAnon, which is literally just random text fragments, became something that breaks something like the GOP?

ceejayoz 6y ago
The start is long before QAnon. Birtherism, Tea Party, Limbaugh and Hannity. Many things led here.
- toyg 6y ago
  Indeed! Birtherism is arguably how Trump became a high-profile politician, the Tea Party is how the GOP lost control of its nominations, and there wouldn’t have been either Birtherism or Tea Party without the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity stoking flames - and Fox News exists because Newt Gingrich showed there was a market for right-wing extremists in the ‘90s, a market that had fed on shock-jock radio in the late ‘80s... It takes time to develop a popular ideological framework, but once it’s entrenched it is bound to reach some of its goals (in this case, to riot against Congress).
Y-Bopinator 6y ago
Fake news
hprotagonist 6y ago
30-plus years of social priming sure helps. You can peg this to Newt, or Goldwater in 64, if you want to go back a step, but at some point in the postwar 20th century the republican party decided to court insanity for votes, and now the inmates are running the asylum. For the moral indignation claims of Q, you can go back much further, if you like. QAnon is a thinly covered and warmed over blood libel, and we’ve had that particular bit of malign story with us since ... at least Carthage? Probably a lot longer. So it’s an idea that has a very long history of being one that is very good at worming its way into brains and staying there.
orange_tee 6y ago
Because the GOP thought it was a good idea to appeal to different groups of nutjobs to build their base of political support. They thought the nutjobs were easily controllable and they are right. They did not realize that somebody else other than them could take control of the nutjobs. And to be fair to them, before the internet it would have not be possible to do that. But now in the 21st century, everyone can appeal to nutjobs and start a cult over the internet.

loukrazy 6y ago

His point that conspiracy theories are acting as a substitute for religious community and purpose is interesting. I guess there are a number of different belief systems that can fill a void of purpose.

DeafSquid 6y ago
I was thinking about this the other day in relation to bitcoin
boxed 6y ago
That point should be driven home by the fact that the chronic religious ignorance of the US is the bedrock on top of which QAnon is built. You can't openly support ignorance about basic facts about reality for hundreds of years and expect this to have no consequences. Americans need to learn basic facts about religion in school. Separation of church and state does not mean everyone must grow up ignorant. It means the state shouldn't promote one religion over another (which the US is doing anyway).
- la6471 6y ago
  No , what we need is basic common sense. Too much of anything is bad and as a nation we have a historical tendency to take things to extreme. We need to understand and acknowledge each other’s point of view and realize there is a sane middle path based on due diligence and rational investigation.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - boxed 6y ago
    People make this argument a lot. But tell me how to do this in practice on a large scale? My suggestion is timely, measurable, and proven.

dominotw 6y ago

Sorry for this tangent. But I still to do this day don't know if " Trump is a russian asset" theory true. Are parts of it true? I know bunch of people went to jail and stuff. I want to research this but there so much out there i get even more confused. How should i think about this whole 'russian collusion' thing? Seems like it completely fell off media radar when covid showed up on the scene. Is putin really behind whats going on in USA.

pii 6y ago
Seth Abramson wrote a few books about this, extensively researched.
- dominotw 6y ago
  I have to read few books to really understand it? 'Trump is an russian asset' . How can it not be a yes/no question, he either is or isn't. I dont understand why I need to read few books. What can't someone just tell me the answer to the question. Edit: Looks like even the Atlantic thinks that Abramson is a conspiracy theorist https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal-fever-swamps/530736/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal...
  - loopz 6y ago
    Because heavy allegation require heavy evidence, not lies about something unfounded.
    - splintercell 6y ago
      Okay but can you give me at least an opening statement equivalent of this case? Like when a prosecutor says that they will demonstrate that how the defendant stalked the victim for days before committing the murder and he was observed by many witnesses disposing the murder weapon in the woods.
x775 6y ago
Yes. Why not give the Mueller report a read? Annotated versions are widely available, e.g. [1]. Alternatively, or perhaps additionally, give Sarah Kendzior's Hiding In Plain Sight [1] a read. It is a quick but exceedingly well-researched and well-documented read which neatly summarises the travesty that the Trump administration has been. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-t... [1] https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250245397 https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250245397