You have to understand that being part of the movement isn't binary, but a spectrum, and it is for those that are in the serious believer range that the book is for, to be used as a tool of argumentation to pull those in the "sorta sympathizers but not 100% on board" range closer. That is why the academic (citations at least) book format…
You have to understand that being part of the movement isn't binary, but a spectrum, and it is for those that are in the serious believer range that the book is for, to be used as a tool of argumentation to pull those in the "sorta sympathizers but not 100% on board" range closer. That is why the academic (citations at least) book format is important, it provides the sheen of legitimacy via appeal to an agreed upon authority on truth. So when the Party people are telling their less committed targets "Look how bad all those rural people are!" and their targets respond "Well, I don't know... my aunt lives out in the sticks and she's alright," the Party can respond "Well, maybe she is, but have you read this book? It very clearly shows what the problem is, which is exactly these people who are horrible on average. It's science!"
You see the same thing with academic studies that find, purely coincidently no doubt, exactly the findings that the author's political overlords wanted, and thus the study gets famous and pushed on tv and the authors are doing interviews all over etc. Never mind that every other study shows the opposite, and no serious academic takes the new one as gospel that overturns all the others. The point is to have the legitimacy to claim the claims you want so there is always one thing people can wave to say "Look how right we are about this!"
No matter that in 5 years they will be arguing the opposite and there will be another book or study showing that, about as often as not by the same authors...
I take your point. (I have to keep in mind that I’m not normal. At age 19 in 1974, I read a TIME magazine article about Nixon & Watergate that said “Nixon claimed (blah-blah-blah).” I thought “Why ‘claimed?’ Why not ‘said,’ or ‘stated?’” Ever since, I have viewed media language with skepticism, and validate stories (of interest) with other sources. (True for sources on both sides.)
Yea, people like us that really pick things apart are rare, and worse most people who DO pick things apart generally only do so in situations where it validates their priors. Hence "microaggression" nonsense from people who are sloppy as hell with their own language use. Most of the propaganda value of this sort of thing is feeding into that confirmation bias of people who are on the fence, and telling them "Oh, no those people who disagree are wrong, here's some very basic evidence to convince yourself of that. Just go with your feelings and follow us, it is completely right."
I dunno, I think the first time after someone catches "The Authorities (tm)" in obvious bullshit it makes them more likely to look for more bullshit. That starts a cycle of spotting more bullshit, and since there's so much of it, eventually you develop a rule that "I'm going to assume this is bullshit until proven otherwise", which turns out to be a great rule.
That said, not everyone does this at the same pace, some are much faster than others.
The problem is many still believe their propaganda that the dissidents are in the minority, I think the opposite is true. I always take the time to talk to strangers, and statements like "Well, I think there's baby-rapin', baby-eatin Satanists at the top of the pyramid" are much more well received nowadays than say, just a few years ago...
Sometimes, but I notice that Gell-Mann Amnesia is extremely strong for many, possibly most, people. And frankly, most people don't pay enough attention or know enough to recognize BS. So they miss almost all of it, then when they spot it they just figure "Eh, he was wrong about that" and then go on believing everything else they want to.
As to majorities, it really depends a lot on where you live. I swing between very rural and relatively urban areas, and the differences in assumed beliefs is very large. Notably, both areas have their BS blind spots as well.
“…many still believe their propaganda that the dissidents are in the minority, I think the opposite is true.”
The proof will be in November’s election. If people who believe things are bullshit still vote for the incumbent, then those people’s beliefs are irrelevant. It’s only people who react tangibly to new-to-them information who matter in this context.
A Democrat would argue that the fraud was an “insurance policy” that turned out to have been unnecessary.
To my mind, there are a series of incontrovertible pieces of evidence: the vertical blips in the blue lines on the vote total graphs in the swing states occurring between 1am and 6:30am on Nov 4, 2020. Sudden huge blocks of Biden-only votes flowed in, contravening patterns in all tracked elections.
The only known comparable pattern emerged in the 1948 Democratic primary election for Senate in Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County, Texas, when 202 county residents voted unknowingly in alphabetical order, 2 for Stevenson and 200 for Lyndon Johnson, giving Johnson the win by 87 votes out of 988K statewide.
Lara Trump was on FNC yesterday in her new role making noise about how the RNC will be unrecognizable this year in its prodigious vote harvesting efforts in all swing states. We’ll see…
Fortunately, trying to manufacture reality with propaganda, astroturfing, and pay-to-play papers isn't holding up to well against reality. Hell, it doesn't even hold up well against half-assed MS Paint memes.
I don't know about that. Higher education is dead, having been replaced by an indoctrination and propaganda machine, and I don't see a lot of motion towards it returning to an institution that seeks truth in a rough and ready fashion any time soon. The US government has gotten both bigger and less efficient every year for the past 70+, and finding people who want to cut it or shrink it in particulars is difficult.
I think that outside of a few obvious piles like COVID (which many still adhere to the official narratives on) there are many issues for which the propaganda works just fine.
You have to understand that being part of the movement isn't binary, but a spectrum, and it is for those that are in the serious believer range that the book is for, to be used as a tool of argumentation to pull those in the "sorta sympathizers but not 100% on board" range closer. That is why the academic (citations at least) book format is important, it provides the sheen of legitimacy via appeal to an agreed upon authority on truth. So when the Party people are telling their less committed targets "Look how bad all those rural people are!" and their targets respond "Well, I don't know... my aunt lives out in the sticks and she's alright," the Party can respond "Well, maybe she is, but have you read this book? It very clearly shows what the problem is, which is exactly these people who are horrible on average. It's science!"
You see the same thing with academic studies that find, purely coincidently no doubt, exactly the findings that the author's political overlords wanted, and thus the study gets famous and pushed on tv and the authors are doing interviews all over etc. Never mind that every other study shows the opposite, and no serious academic takes the new one as gospel that overturns all the others. The point is to have the legitimacy to claim the claims you want so there is always one thing people can wave to say "Look how right we are about this!"
No matter that in 5 years they will be arguing the opposite and there will be another book or study showing that, about as often as not by the same authors...
I take your point. (I have to keep in mind that I’m not normal. At age 19 in 1974, I read a TIME magazine article about Nixon & Watergate that said “Nixon claimed (blah-blah-blah).” I thought “Why ‘claimed?’ Why not ‘said,’ or ‘stated?’” Ever since, I have viewed media language with skepticism, and validate stories (of interest) with other sources. (True for sources on both sides.)
Yea, people like us that really pick things apart are rare, and worse most people who DO pick things apart generally only do so in situations where it validates their priors. Hence "microaggression" nonsense from people who are sloppy as hell with their own language use. Most of the propaganda value of this sort of thing is feeding into that confirmation bias of people who are on the fence, and telling them "Oh, no those people who disagree are wrong, here's some very basic evidence to convince yourself of that. Just go with your feelings and follow us, it is completely right."
I dunno, I think the first time after someone catches "The Authorities (tm)" in obvious bullshit it makes them more likely to look for more bullshit. That starts a cycle of spotting more bullshit, and since there's so much of it, eventually you develop a rule that "I'm going to assume this is bullshit until proven otherwise", which turns out to be a great rule.
That said, not everyone does this at the same pace, some are much faster than others.
The problem is many still believe their propaganda that the dissidents are in the minority, I think the opposite is true. I always take the time to talk to strangers, and statements like "Well, I think there's baby-rapin', baby-eatin Satanists at the top of the pyramid" are much more well received nowadays than say, just a few years ago...
Sometimes, but I notice that Gell-Mann Amnesia is extremely strong for many, possibly most, people. And frankly, most people don't pay enough attention or know enough to recognize BS. So they miss almost all of it, then when they spot it they just figure "Eh, he was wrong about that" and then go on believing everything else they want to.
As to majorities, it really depends a lot on where you live. I swing between very rural and relatively urban areas, and the differences in assumed beliefs is very large. Notably, both areas have their BS blind spots as well.
“…many still believe their propaganda that the dissidents are in the minority, I think the opposite is true.”
The proof will be in November’s election. If people who believe things are bullshit still vote for the incumbent, then those people’s beliefs are irrelevant. It’s only people who react tangibly to new-to-them information who matter in this context.
Assuming there's a fair accounting.
If they had the majority they wouldn't have had to engage in absentee voter fraud last time.
That alone should prove they're not in the majority, but there's other signs (e.g. all the polls are push polls, except perhaps Rasmussen).
A Democrat would argue that the fraud was an “insurance policy” that turned out to have been unnecessary.
To my mind, there are a series of incontrovertible pieces of evidence: the vertical blips in the blue lines on the vote total graphs in the swing states occurring between 1am and 6:30am on Nov 4, 2020. Sudden huge blocks of Biden-only votes flowed in, contravening patterns in all tracked elections.
The only known comparable pattern emerged in the 1948 Democratic primary election for Senate in Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County, Texas, when 202 county residents voted unknowingly in alphabetical order, 2 for Stevenson and 200 for Lyndon Johnson, giving Johnson the win by 87 votes out of 988K statewide.
Lara Trump was on FNC yesterday in her new role making noise about how the RNC will be unrecognizable this year in its prodigious vote harvesting efforts in all swing states. We’ll see…
Fortunately, trying to manufacture reality with propaganda, astroturfing, and pay-to-play papers isn't holding up to well against reality. Hell, it doesn't even hold up well against half-assed MS Paint memes.
I don't know about that. Higher education is dead, having been replaced by an indoctrination and propaganda machine, and I don't see a lot of motion towards it returning to an institution that seeks truth in a rough and ready fashion any time soon. The US government has gotten both bigger and less efficient every year for the past 70+, and finding people who want to cut it or shrink it in particulars is difficult.
I think that outside of a few obvious piles like COVID (which many still adhere to the official narratives on) there are many issues for which the propaganda works just fine.
"there are many issues for which the propaganda works just fine"
For now.
High quality critique!