In article <rplomgd0299k19gv7...@4ax.com
>On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 12:56:15 -0400, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>I think the media's possible motive is easier
>>to understand. The need for sensationalism is
>>always present in competitive media.
>Good. Yes, there might even be a unconspiratorial function at work. A
>number of explanations occur to me. Why not to you?
They do occur to me, obviously. They have always
occurred to me. Why haven't you noticed? Why is
the caricature you hold more important to confirm
than to modify?
>>Health authorities are perhaps like Noah and Ned,
>>and see the breakdown in public trust as only a
>>phenomenon of crazies and conspiracy theorists.
>I would say not only that. Perhaps not even that. Why would
>acknowledged crazies and conspiracy theorists break anybody's public
They don't, they are just claimed to by people
who want that easy answer as to why others
don't agree with them.
Othering. The explanations we use to dismiss
others we don't agree with are examples of
"othering" our opponents. In polarised America
it generally falls along liberal/Dem and
conservative/Rep lines. The former prides
itself on being the smarter ones, the educated
ones who have the best bead on reality, so
they "other" the latter with versions of them
being stupid and crazy, driven by conspiracy
theorists. The latter, in return, prides itself
on being moral, stable, honest and realistic, so
they "other" the former as being unserious
("women have penises!") and dishonest (deep
state deep corruption).
It's all about othering your opponents to
preserve your own view of yourself, and your
membership in your team. Your team rewards
you with affirmations.
So Ned doesn't just disagree with me, he
insluts me by reference to Wilson (a
conservative friend I happen to agree with
on many things). Othering.
So you don't just disagree with me, you attempt
to shame me by reference to my religious
commitments and thereby hinting at hypocrisy.
>>(That's a comforting and flattering explanation
>>for many people.) If this were the case then any
>>overstatement of the risk would be just a fair
>>counterbalance to the "disinformation" out there,
>>and they could see themselves as doing a net good
>>in this situation by permitting it. They could
>>even see correcting the record now as dangerous
>>to the public confidence they need to have in
>>order to manage the pandemic.
>Do you suppose that anybody is thinking so precisely (other than you)
>about the situation?
I don't know. Precision doesn't imply accuracy,
in any event, but imprecision can definitely lead
to inaccuracy, so it's still a worthwhile habit.
Reality is lopsided that way, it seems.