4 ms·

I think you capture it, but to make it clear, post-modernism existed before the Internet. I’ve never considered the post-truth perspective as having anything t

I think you capture it, but to make it clear, post-modernism existed before the Internet. I’ve never considered the post-truth perspective as having anything to do with intentional misrepresentation, but rather relativism (which is dangerous in other ways, imho). Outright lying has been used by authoritarians, but it really seems like we need a term to describe societies controlled by blatant, obvious lies (which is where I would consider the US at the moment). People like to use fascism, Marxism, etc., but those used similar techniques, for very different ends.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
I have a suggestion for the word to describe the current situation in the US: Agitprop. It's not just blatant, obvious lies. It's lies *designed to agitate people". I mean, the goal is "media engagement" (and secondarily, "political engagement"), but that comes downstream from getting everybody stirred up.
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago
  There are 330 million people in the US, and 1.4 billion in India. You don't need lies for agitprop - such numbers will furnish you with enough real incidents to drive whatever narrative you wish, if you're in a position to pick what gets publicity. Cherrypicking. I'm sure you can think of a few recent examples.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    That’s some kind of meta-lying, too. By cherrypicking, you are implicitly saying, “these are the issues of our times, why would I else present this important issue”
13of40 3y ago
I wrote up a much longer reply to this, but I can't get myself to submit it. tl;dr is there are some basic things you cannot say in public today without getting cancelled. And I'm not talking about kiddy porn or extreme Trumpisms. Edit: Literally took 5 minutes for the first downvote, despite not mentioning a single "issue". What's that old phrase? QED?
- quesera 3y ago
  I suspect your comment is downvoted because it's ominous and substance-free. Reasonably so, I think. Your comment is in fact a negative drag on the quality of conversation here. Live a little. Go ahead and share your perspectives. The maximum downvote damage is -5 points. You'll survive. I'll upvote you even if I disagree. Unless they're just the standard talking points from one side or another on some contentious topic, which is too boring to upvote.
  - 13of40 3y ago
    OK, here's an example: A couple of months ago they were tossing around the idea of "retaking Crimea". I believe that any effort to do that should be based on a best effort assessment of the will of the people living there, because those are the people who will be getting artillery shells in their livingroom in exchange for it. Based on my own experience with expats from there and Donbas, who still have family in the area, those people are happy being Russian again. Show me on CNN or NPR where their voices and perspectives are being shared. Again, this is just an example, not my personal agenda. What I want to point out is that we've normalized that there are a handful of forbidden topics that you will get punched for if you approach them with anything but a pre-formed opinion that matches the status quo. Edit: And just as a turn of the screw, I'm going to say that the COVID vaccines are pretty shit compared to ones like smallpox, polio, and rabies vaccines, which actually (and sometimes retroactively) prevent you from getting the disease you were vaccinated against. Oh heck, I'm not allowed to say that thing that we all know. I mean if you take a high level view of it, they take the edge off the problem, but they still kind of suck.
    - FabHK 3y ago
      > those people are happy being Russian again. Show me on CNN or NPR where their voices and perspectives are being shared. Here we go, as requested: https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/16/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/16/world/europe/ukraine-cris... > One voter, Grigory Illarionovich, told CNN, “I’m for restoring Crimea to Russia. Returning what Khrushchev took away.” > Another voter in Perevalnoye, Viktor Savchenko, said he would never vote for the government in Kiev. “I want us to join Russia, and live like Russians, with all their rights,” he said. > Victoria Khudyakova said she also had voted to join Russia, which she sees as being “spiritually close” to Crimea. “For me, Russia is an opportunity for our Crimea to develop, to bloom. And I believe that it will be so,” she said. [...] > CNN analyst and Russian journalist Vladimir Pozner similarly stressed that Sunday’s vote was in no way staged. “When you look at the celebrations, you can’t doubt that these people really are very happy,” he said. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/591266939/how-people-in-crimea-view-the-union-with-russia https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/591266939/how-people-in-crime... > DEMID KUPAYEV: (Through interpreter) I witnessed how babushkas came up and said, thank God the time has come for Crimea to return to its historic homeland. > KIM: Kupayev says international sanctions have made finding work in commercial shipping harder. But like many Crimeans, he calls economic hardship the acceptable price of joining Russia.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

I have a suggestion for the word to describe the current situation in the US: Agitprop. It's not just blatant, obvious lies. It's lies *designed to agitate people". I mean, the goal is "media engagement" (and secondarily, "political engagement"), but that comes downstream from getting everybody stirred up.

NoRelToEmber 3y ago
There are 330 million people in the US, and 1.4 billion in India. You don't need lies for agitprop - such numbers will furnish you with enough real incidents to drive whatever narrative you wish, if you're in a position to pick what gets publicity. Cherrypicking. I'm sure you can think of a few recent examples.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  That’s some kind of meta-lying, too. By cherrypicking, you are implicitly saying, “these are the issues of our times, why would I else present this important issue”

13of40 3y ago

I wrote up a much longer reply to this, but I can't get myself to submit it. tl;dr is there are some basic things you cannot say in public today without getting cancelled. And I'm not talking about kiddy porn or extreme Trumpisms. Edit: Literally took 5 minutes for the first downvote, despite not mentioning a single "issue". What's that old phrase? QED?

quesera 3y ago
I suspect your comment is downvoted because it's ominous and substance-free. Reasonably so, I think. Your comment is in fact a negative drag on the quality of conversation here. Live a little. Go ahead and share your perspectives. The maximum downvote damage is -5 points. You'll survive. I'll upvote you even if I disagree. Unless they're just the standard talking points from one side or another on some contentious topic, which is too boring to upvote.
- 13of40 3y ago
  OK, here's an example: A couple of months ago they were tossing around the idea of "retaking Crimea". I believe that any effort to do that should be based on a best effort assessment of the will of the people living there, because those are the people who will be getting artillery shells in their livingroom in exchange for it. Based on my own experience with expats from there and Donbas, who still have family in the area, those people are happy being Russian again. Show me on CNN or NPR where their voices and perspectives are being shared. Again, this is just an example, not my personal agenda. What I want to point out is that we've normalized that there are a handful of forbidden topics that you will get punched for if you approach them with anything but a pre-formed opinion that matches the status quo. Edit: And just as a turn of the screw, I'm going to say that the COVID vaccines are pretty shit compared to ones like smallpox, polio, and rabies vaccines, which actually (and sometimes retroactively) prevent you from getting the disease you were vaccinated against. Oh heck, I'm not allowed to say that thing that we all know. I mean if you take a high level view of it, they take the edge off the problem, but they still kind of suck.
  - FabHK 3y ago
    > those people are happy being Russian again. Show me on CNN or NPR where their voices and perspectives are being shared. Here we go, as requested: https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/16/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/16/world/europe/ukraine-cris... > One voter, Grigory Illarionovich, told CNN, “I’m for restoring Crimea to Russia. Returning what Khrushchev took away.” > Another voter in Perevalnoye, Viktor Savchenko, said he would never vote for the government in Kiev. “I want us to join Russia, and live like Russians, with all their rights,” he said. > Victoria Khudyakova said she also had voted to join Russia, which she sees as being “spiritually close” to Crimea. “For me, Russia is an opportunity for our Crimea to develop, to bloom. And I believe that it will be so,” she said. [...] > CNN analyst and Russian journalist Vladimir Pozner similarly stressed that Sunday’s vote was in no way staged. “When you look at the celebrations, you can’t doubt that these people really are very happy,” he said. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/591266939/how-people-in-crimea-view-the-union-with-russia https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/591266939/how-people-in-crime... > DEMID KUPAYEV: (Through interpreter) I witnessed how babushkas came up and said, thank God the time has come for Crimea to return to its historic homeland. > KIM: Kupayev says international sanctions have made finding work in commercial shipping harder. But like many Crimeans, he calls economic hardship the acceptable price of joining Russia.