4 ms·

Numbers show racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory found audience in Canada

6 points by car_analogy 4y ago

chiefalchemist 4y ago
> How did we get here? It’s a confluence of factors, experts say False. Yeah, ironic. Immediate topic aside, the universal fact is: What you perceive as truth is a function of who you trust. Yet the mainstream media - masters of shooting themselves in the foot (and apparently lacking the self awareness to realize it) - shamelessly blames social media. That's not how they're going to rebuilt the trust that they lost. The same applies to government(s). Disconnected from their own self-undermining and will to hold accountable anyone but themselves. The root problem for both of these group ls is simple. They don't understand Trust 101. That is, trust is earned. It cannot be given. It cannot be demanded. If it's not earned, it's not trust. And discrediting a "competitor" doesn't make your automatically more trustworthy. That's not earning it. Right or wrong, conspiracy theories are easylier to believe because traditional beacons of trust and truth (i.e., media and gov) have lost their way. This doesn't get fixed by blaming the symptoms.
- AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
  Do you think the Society of Professional Journalists' Journalist On Call [0] project has helped to restore trust in the media? Because it exists "in an effort to address the issue of dwindling trust in the media". If not that, how about The Trust Project? [1] Or AP's Trusting News project? [2] Or Duke University's News Measures project? [3] These and other projects intended to increase transparency, accountability, and trust in journalism have existed for years. I don't think the lack of trust in journalism is something that journalists can control. I think a significant reason for declining trust in journalism may be that many people don't like being advised of facts that do not reconcile to their world-view. [0]: https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1577 https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1577 [1]: https://thetrustproject.org/ https://thetrustproject.org/ [2]: https://trustingnews.org/about-us/ https://trustingnews.org/about-us/ [3]: https://dewitt.sanford.duke.edu/news-measures-research-project/ https://dewitt.sanford.duke.edu/news-measures-research-proje...
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    > many people don't like being advised of facts that do not reconcile to their world-view Facts like Trudeau Plans Record Number of Immigrants to Canada Through 2024 - Canada, a country that relies heavily on immigration to grow its labor force, has set an ambitious plan to bring in more than 1.3 million newcomers over the next three years to support its post-pandemic growth.? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-14/trudeau-plans-record-number-of-immigrants-to-canada-through-2024 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-14/trudeau-p...
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    > I don't think the lack of trust in journalism is something that journalists can control. You raise some good points. But it also brings to (my) mind this question: What is the definition of journalism / journlists they are using? For me, this Jim Lehrer framework works well: https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 When you apply it to what the media (and gov) call journalism as of late it becomes quite obvious the media (and gov) have lost their way. It's so lazy and blatant it's Orwellian. For me, perhaps not for all, the coverage of Covid was a great example. Best I could tell, most journalists don't understand basic math and statistics. A specific example: they don't know causation from correlation; or they do know the difference and they ignore it because it's not good for ratings, the narrative, etc. Along with that was the shameless use of hyperbolic statistics. If sheer numbers increased the fear, they pushed those. If percentages were better for their efforts they pushed those. In both cases, rare was the refernce to the other for context. That is, "OMG cases in ______ are up 100%..." but then conveniently failed to mention ______ went from 1 case to 2.That type of emotional manipulation was consistent. It's also not how you build trust. Finally, back to your points :) 1) As Frank Luntz says, "It's not what you say, it's what they hear." Journlists can put fist to table all they want, but unless they come to terms with the fact that they were their own undoing, their re-establishment will fail. How can we trust them when they can't be honest with themselves? 2) They need to be willing to police their own. They call out social media, Big Tech, or whatever, but rare do they lean in, report on their own, point out the journalistic failures, and then "ask" that other to do better. But this never ever happens. They want a comfortable cartel more than they want to be Trusted. 3) They need to stop passing off op-ed as journalism / news. How is they - the journalists? - don't know the difference?
version_five 4y ago
If you read the actual questions they ask, the truth is a lot less sensational. I'm still fuzzy on "replacement theory" since it jumped into the news after the Buffalo shooting as the latest boogeyman. But the question they asked was, according to the article, whether people believe (I don't know if it's on a scale or true / false) > There is a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native born Canadians with immigrants who agree with their political view. The bar here for agreeing looks pretty low to me, much lower than needing to believe in some global conspiracy. And it's certainly a question open to interpretation. Is believing that some political parties (or even some people in them) court immigrants and which there were more of them because they would get more votes really "racist" and a conspiracy theory? If they were doing real research, they would have had more probing questions about people's beliefs, not just interpreted the answers to ambiguous question how they want and making sensational claims about how ignorant they think people are. The real prejudice is coming from the people sensationalizing this crap
- moistly 4y ago
  > Is believing that some political parties (or even some people in them) court immigrants and which there were more of them because they would get more votes really "racist" and a conspiracy theory? It is both, and fucking stupid.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    High immigration and lack of border enforcement isn't something uncontrollable, like the weather. It's a choice, made by politicians.
    - swatcoder 4y ago
      I don’t think the anyone was saying that it takes a conspiracy theory to see that immigration policy is an ongoing political debate with politicians on either side. But if you think everybody you disagree with is acting with secret ulterior motives that they never divulge publicly (or only in slip ups), you get a a lot closer to one.
usrn 4y ago
- swatcoder 4y ago
  A lot of people of all races (and in both major US parties) either don’t think of race as a defining factor of their political identity or seek a future where they no longer need to. So they don’t concern themselves with “replacement” or with the loss of a majority measured on that axis. On it’s face, the concern is a peculiar one to people who think it’s important that their race maintains a majority, which is a racist concern by definition.
  - usrn 4y ago
    Regardless, most non-White races vote almost exclusively democrat. Also if you check the data it's only really White people who ignore race (although since it's been shoved in our face we're starting to pay more attention.) Also, being effectively kicked out of your country (yes, look at housing) is pretty upsetting even if the ugly political divide didn't come with it. Even though we're only barely a majority now the hostility towards us has gotten very extreme. Do you think things will be better for us as a minority? I don't see a single indication they will.
puskavi 4y ago
Well just look what happened to Europe few years back

6 points by car_analogy 4y ago

> How did we get here? It’s a confluence of factors, experts say False. Yeah, ironic. Immediate topic aside, the universal fact is: What you perceive as truth is a function of who you trust. Yet the mainstream media - masters of shooting themselves in the foot (and apparently lacking the self awareness to realize it) - shamelessly blames social media. That's not how they're going to rebuilt the trust that they lost. The same applies to government(s). Disconnected from their own self-undermining and will to hold accountable anyone but themselves. The root problem for both of these group ls is simple. They don't understand Trust 101. That is, trust is earned. It cannot be given. It cannot be demanded. If it's not earned, it's not trust. And discrediting a "competitor" doesn't make your automatically more trustworthy. That's not earning it. Right or wrong, conspiracy theories are easylier to believe because traditional beacons of trust and truth (i.e., media and gov) have lost their way. This doesn't get fixed by blaming the symptoms.

AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
Do you think the Society of Professional Journalists' Journalist On Call [0] project has helped to restore trust in the media? Because it exists "in an effort to address the issue of dwindling trust in the media". If not that, how about The Trust Project? [1] Or AP's Trusting News project? [2] Or Duke University's News Measures project? [3] These and other projects intended to increase transparency, accountability, and trust in journalism have existed for years. I don't think the lack of trust in journalism is something that journalists can control. I think a significant reason for declining trust in journalism may be that many people don't like being advised of facts that do not reconcile to their world-view. [0]: https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1577 https://www.spj.org/news.asp?ref=1577 [1]: https://thetrustproject.org/ https://thetrustproject.org/ [2]: https://trustingnews.org/about-us/ https://trustingnews.org/about-us/ [3]: https://dewitt.sanford.duke.edu/news-measures-research-project/ https://dewitt.sanford.duke.edu/news-measures-research-proje...
- car_analogy 4y ago
  > many people don't like being advised of facts that do not reconcile to their world-view Facts like Trudeau Plans Record Number of Immigrants to Canada Through 2024 - Canada, a country that relies heavily on immigration to grow its labor force, has set an ambitious plan to bring in more than 1.3 million newcomers over the next three years to support its post-pandemic growth.? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-14/trudeau-plans-record-number-of-immigrants-to-canada-through-2024 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-14/trudeau-p...
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  > I don't think the lack of trust in journalism is something that journalists can control. You raise some good points. But it also brings to (my) mind this question: What is the definition of journalism / journlists they are using? For me, this Jim Lehrer framework works well: https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 When you apply it to what the media (and gov) call journalism as of late it becomes quite obvious the media (and gov) have lost their way. It's so lazy and blatant it's Orwellian. For me, perhaps not for all, the coverage of Covid was a great example. Best I could tell, most journalists don't understand basic math and statistics. A specific example: they don't know causation from correlation; or they do know the difference and they ignore it because it's not good for ratings, the narrative, etc. Along with that was the shameless use of hyperbolic statistics. If sheer numbers increased the fear, they pushed those. If percentages were better for their efforts they pushed those. In both cases, rare was the refernce to the other for context. That is, "OMG cases in ______ are up 100%..." but then conveniently failed to mention ______ went from 1 case to 2.That type of emotional manipulation was consistent. It's also not how you build trust. Finally, back to your points :) 1) As Frank Luntz says, "It's not what you say, it's what they hear." Journlists can put fist to table all they want, but unless they come to terms with the fact that they were their own undoing, their re-establishment will fail. How can we trust them when they can't be honest with themselves? 2) They need to be willing to police their own. They call out social media, Big Tech, or whatever, but rare do they lean in, report on their own, point out the journalistic failures, and then "ask" that other to do better. But this never ever happens. They want a comfortable cartel more than they want to be Trusted. 3) They need to stop passing off op-ed as journalism / news. How is they - the journalists? - don't know the difference?

version_five 4y ago

If you read the actual questions they ask, the truth is a lot less sensational. I'm still fuzzy on "replacement theory" since it jumped into the news after the Buffalo shooting as the latest boogeyman. But the question they asked was, according to the article, whether people believe (I don't know if it's on a scale or true / false) > There is a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native born Canadians with immigrants who agree with their political view. The bar here for agreeing looks pretty low to me, much lower than needing to believe in some global conspiracy. And it's certainly a question open to interpretation. Is believing that some political parties (or even some people in them) court immigrants and which there were more of them because they would get more votes really "racist" and a conspiracy theory? If they were doing real research, they would have had more probing questions about people's beliefs, not just interpreted the answers to ambiguous question how they want and making sensational claims about how ignorant they think people are. The real prejudice is coming from the people sensationalizing this crap

moistly 4y ago
> Is believing that some political parties (or even some people in them) court immigrants and which there were more of them because they would get more votes really "racist" and a conspiracy theory? It is both, and fucking stupid.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  High immigration and lack of border enforcement isn't something uncontrollable, like the weather. It's a choice, made by politicians.
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    I don’t think the anyone was saying that it takes a conspiracy theory to see that immigration policy is an ongoing political debate with politicians on either side. But if you think everybody you disagree with is acting with secret ulterior motives that they never divulge publicly (or only in slip ups), you get a a lot closer to one.

usrn 4y ago

swatcoder 4y ago
A lot of people of all races (and in both major US parties) either don’t think of race as a defining factor of their political identity or seek a future where they no longer need to. So they don’t concern themselves with “replacement” or with the loss of a majority measured on that axis. On it’s face, the concern is a peculiar one to people who think it’s important that their race maintains a majority, which is a racist concern by definition.
- usrn 4y ago
  Regardless, most non-White races vote almost exclusively democrat. Also if you check the data it's only really White people who ignore race (although since it's been shoved in our face we're starting to pay more attention.) Also, being effectively kicked out of your country (yes, look at housing) is pretty upsetting even if the ugly political divide didn't come with it. Even though we're only barely a majority now the hostility towards us has gotten very extreme. Do you think things will be better for us as a minority? I don't see a single indication they will.

puskavi 4y ago

Well just look what happened to Europe few years back