4 ms·

A weird extra effect this time around: a sizeable chunk of the internet is trying to trick journalists into talking about the silliest thing imaginable as if it

by GlennS 5y ago

A weird extra effect this time around: a sizeable chunk of the internet is trying to trick journalists into talking about the silliest thing imaginable as if it were something people really believed. (I wasn't around for the first Satanic panic, nor am I American, so perhaps that was happening the first time too and I just don't know about it?)

throwanem 5y ago
People really believed it then, and really believe it now, in both cases I think because they need to believe something - as do we all; if there's any one thing that distinguishes humans from all other animals, a strong candidate is that we both make and need meaning - in a time when old verities seem to crumble ever more by the day, and chaos seems ever more ascendant. If you're young, a time like that can be immensely exciting, as the future feels open to be remade and you have the chance to help shape it. If you're not, the same time can be terrifying, as the ways in which you've always understood the world seem suddenly no longer to work. As with any "conspiracy theory", the schemes of reference we here discuss can serve the purpose of restoring that sense of understanding how things work, and I think that's a big part of their appeal - for all that these are not accurate ways of understanding the world, they certainly can be compelling, and for a lot of folks the one is as good as the other. Not as many in either case believe it as as participate in it, you're right about that - as ever, much of the most apparent heat and hype is generated by hucksters cunning enough to spot an emerging market and unscrupulous enough to exploit it without concern for whatever harm they cause by so doing. But if nobody really believed it, to whom could they sell? (If you're curious, my own scheme of reference is informed primarily by historiography, but I think the essential difference is that I understand the meanings I make are the meanings I make. So, when I say that in my analysis this looks very much like a rehash of the 70s "malaise" years, I know I'm saying that at least as much because I want to believe there is precedent for times like these, and for them being not catastrophic in the way they can sometimes feel, as because my study of US history strongly suggests as much. That said, I'm not without sympathy for those who believe in the way we here discuss; I think they're foolish to do so, sure, but I've been a fool myself betimes, and I may feel very differently two or three decades hence, when I can no longer help but feel myself always under the ferryman's eyeless gaze.)

by GlennS 5y ago

throwanem 5y ago

People really believed it then, and really believe it now, in both cases I think because they need to believe something - as do we all; if there's any one thing that distinguishes humans from all other animals, a strong candidate is that we both make and need meaning - in a time when old verities seem to crumble ever more by the day, and chaos seems ever more ascendant. If you're young, a time like that can be immensely exciting, as the future feels open to be remade and you have the chance to help shape it. If you're not, the same time can be terrifying, as the ways in which you've always understood the world seem suddenly no longer to work. As with any "conspiracy theory", the schemes of reference we here discuss can serve the purpose of restoring that sense of understanding how things work, and I think that's a big part of their appeal - for all that these are not accurate ways of understanding the world, they certainly can be compelling, and for a lot of folks the one is as good as the other. Not as many in either case believe it as as participate in it, you're right about that - as ever, much of the most apparent heat and hype is generated by hucksters cunning enough to spot an emerging market and unscrupulous enough to exploit it without concern for whatever harm they cause by so doing. But if nobody really believed it, to whom could they sell? (If you're curious, my own scheme of reference is informed primarily by historiography, but I think the essential difference is that I understand the meanings I make are the meanings I make. So, when I say that in my analysis this looks very much like a rehash of the 70s "malaise" years, I know I'm saying that at least as much because I want to believe there is precedent for times like these, and for them being not catastrophic in the way they can sometimes feel, as because my study of US history strongly suggests as much. That said, I'm not without sympathy for those who believe in the way we here discuss; I think they're foolish to do so, sure, but I've been a fool myself betimes, and I may feel very differently two or three decades hence, when I can no longer help but feel myself always under the ferryman's eyeless gaze.)