Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

US election 2020 thread

This whole mess is extremely topical for me because I happen to be studying the topics of citizenship, political action and participation literally these actual days. So I thought I'd share some of that.

Regarding how somebody ends up going down any route to politicised action, the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA) may be of interest. This states that social identity is the core driver of political action, with beliefs in injustice and the ability to do something about it also driving likehihood of change, but that social identity itself influences those beliefs, so that you end up with this:

1610315671231.png

This SIMCA is elaborated by identifying that (a) it is when social identity becomes politicised (which in turn means that personal and political beliefs have become synchornised) that action is likely; and (b) moral conviction underlies the politicisation of identity as well as being a motivator of beliefs in injustice and also group efficacy.

1610315746530.png

Now, what is truly fascinating to me is that my course notes identify the limitation that this model has been studied chiefly in the context of left-wing action and so it remains an open question how applicable it is to right-wing politicisation. And yet here we are, and this whole qanon and MAGA thing seems to fit perfectly. I won't belabour the politicisation of the identity (as we saw in that social media history of Ashli Babbitt), the group-based anger of the qanon/MAG mob or their belief that they could effect a change. But I'm willing to bet that somewhere, there are social psychological researchers arms-deep into research on it!
 
We do not know what others' internet worlds are like, only are own. Two people who google separate things, get separate results. Everyone's facebook page is different, everyone's youtube experience is different. Everyone's news feed is different.

Is there such thing as a "national narrative" any more? Just billions of voices talking to themselves maybe.
 
BigMoaner said:
Was awaiting for the usual "I understand your anger", "lets focus on fighting the enemies that have forced us into this situation". didn't come.



Tristan Harris, the creator of the documentary The Social Dilema, is good on this. He explains it very well. It goes something like this: the more emotionally catchy/charged content is, the more it is likely to be viewed. The more it is likely to be viewed, the more money the creators of the video make. Youtube, in simple terms, recommends stuff you might be interested in - but then the content of such videos is where the emotionally charged dopamine hits comes in. So you have the hybrid of an algorithm that recommends you more of the same, and the videos themselves fighting for views so are filled with emotionally charged content. Harris claims this is a lethal blend and the only way you will solve it is if you completely restructure the algorithm, similar to what they have done in Taiwan, where the social media companies are obliged, I think, to balance out what they recommend people. In summary, you can spend 6 hours on youtube exploring your political views, and not stumble across one other single opposing view. The Rabit Hole. Now there are I suppose good Rabit Holes to fall down: literature reviews, comedy podcasts, fitness, etc. And not so good ones - Qanaon, etc. So you're right, according to Harris. Check out his lectures on youtube, lol.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll check him out.
 
I suppose before the internet social media was talking to your mates about the news in the pub or in the cafe. No one "liked" you comment in the cafe, no dopamine hit. I dunno, political opinion felt more private, more subjective - that there was a deeper sense of seperation between persons - it's like the contents of consciousness has been thrown up and thrown out onto the net. There's not a single political thought we have that cannot be found online, I doubt. I felt I had more to bring to the table back then and people seemed to enjoy debate more.
 
two sheds said:
Does sound very similar to progression into a cult. Which is unfortunate because the main way I've heard of getting someone out of a cult is to show up inconsistencies between what the cult leader says and does, or says on different occasions. Only here there are multiple cult leaders: Trump, Q, lots of randoms ...
Click to expand...

Yep. I've been noticing for a while how a lot of "truthers" do talk and behave as though they are cult members; the only difference has been - or used to be - no single leader.
 
Dystopiary said:
Yep. I've been noticing for a while how a lot of "truthers" do talk and behave as though they are cult members; the only difference has been - or used to be - no single leader.
Click to expand...
Maybe the "theory" itself acts as the leader - and when that leader shows cracks, or doubts creep in, they find another "leader" - that's why it's rare if they end up staying with one theory. I would think the most powerful theories invoke a kind of "spiritual awakening" - no longer beliefs fighting other beliefs, total cohesion, an all-reaching explanation for all the craziness and emptiness of life. Oh, I know why life is shit, it's because one of the major forces in our country are Satanists! Cue massive feelings of self assertion and lack of internal conflict. Glint in eye. The need to spread the truth to others. A cult leader similarly provides all the answers - followers believe they are beyond all the usual sheeps' programming.
 
Last edited:
two sheds said:
I have a mate who I'm sure believes half that shit although I've not talked to him for a while (for that reason :) ). He believed it years n years ago with the moon landings and colloidial silver and stuff. We just talked about other stuff - if he brought it up I subtly changed the subject as soon as I could. We're still in contact because his wife is one of the loveliest, funniest people I've met and is similarly infuriated with him. He's so far down the path I'm pretty sure there's no way back for him :(

This was while this sort of belief was relatively harmless though. A half-hour analysis of which way the flags and shadows were pointing on the moon was just tedious rather than the dangerous shit that's going around at the .
Click to expand...
BigMoaner said:
Maybe the "theory" itself acts as the leader - and when that leader shows cracks, or doubts creep in, they find another "leader" - that's why it's rare if they end up staying with one theory. I would think the most powerful theories invoke a kind of "spiritual awakening" - no longer beliefs fighting other beliefs, total cohesion, an all-reaching explanation for all the craziness and emptiness of life. Oh, I know why life is shit, it's because one of the major forces in our country are Satanists! Cue massive feelings of self assertion and lack of internal conflict. Glint in eye. The need to spread the truth to others. A cult leader similarly provides all the answers - followers believe they are beyond all the usual sheeps' programming.
Click to expand...
Yes, that makes a kind of sense of it. Evangelical about "chemtrails" (eg) for months, then onto something else, often no mention then of the thing they were originally pushing into every single conversation.
 
spitfire said:
Ah look I'm sorry for the constant twitter posts but here are some actual MAGA tears. :D

Click to expand...


TBF it would be interesting to see who they've put on that list, how far the no fly list restriction goes (in the sense of whether its people who did something criminal on Wednesday, or just went near the Capitol, or whether its just people who said they'd attend the rally) and how they obtained those details. For people to be on it less than a week after an event does sound remarkably fast, although I suppose they could have spent the last three months taking the details of everyone who banged on about 1776 and then added them all once it happened.

(edit: assuming he on the list, and not just kicked off because he refused to wear a seatbelt)
 
Dystopiary said:
Yes, that makes a kind of sense of it. Evangelical about "chemtrails" (eg) for months, then onto something else, often no mention then of the thing they were originally pushing into every single conversation.
Click to expand...
Yes - and the theory stretches out so far. So it's not just a belief in chemtrails. It's "they are doing" this to us, and I have seen through their game, therefore I have witnessed what is causing darkness and mass deception, and I am light shinning onto it. It's incredibly powerful. Good vs evil shit.
 
agricola said:
TBF it would be interesting to see who they've put on that list, how far the no fly list restriction goes (in the sense of whether its people who did something criminal on Wednesday, or just went near the Capitol, or whether its just people who said they'd attend the rally) and how they obtained those details. For people to be on it less than a week after an event does sound remarkably fast, although I suppose they could have spent the last three months taking the details of everyone who banged on about 1776 and then added them all once it happened.

(edit: assuming he on the list, and not just kicked off because he refused to wear a seatbelt)
Click to expand...

I reckon he's on the list, he's crying about being called a terrorist.

On a more serious note than "MAGA tears lol", from the little I've picked up on the No Fly list it is deeply problematic on a civil liberties front. You don't get told why and it is very hard/impossible to get off it.
 
BigMoaner said:
Maybe the "theory" itself acts as the leader - and when that leader shows cracks, or doubts creep in, they find another "leader" - that's why it's rare if they end up staying with one theory. I would think the most powerful theories invoke a kind of "spiritual awakening" - no longer beliefs fighting other beliefs, total cohesion, an all-reaching explanation for all the craziness and emptiness of life. Oh, I know why life is shit, it's because one of the major forces in our country are Satanists! Cue massive feelings of self assertion and lack of internal conflict. Glint in eye. The need to spread the truth to others. A cult leader similarly provides all the answers - followers believe they are beyond all the usual sheeps' programming.
Click to expand...
What does the cultist get out of their relationship with the cult leader? Validation, a sense of belonging, a source of truth.
This thing is a cult without leaders, or rather it is a cult where everyone is a leader to everyone else. Decentralised. Impossible to stamp out.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Connecting everyone to everyone is also a fantastic thing, though, with amazing possibilities for exchanging information and ideas. And for getting out subversive messages from places in genuine strife - eg the role of the internet in the Arab Spring.
Click to expand...

The trouble is, this stuff can still be very top-down when it might appear grass roots, videos can be funded and pushed, media channels have rich benefactors and so on. It puts a lot of power in the hands of people with the money to pay for it. There’s been a lot of ‘dark money’ behind things like Bolsanaro succeeding in Brazil, or more locally some of the Brexit stuff. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the Arab Spring stuff was seeded and amplified by outside parties.
 
hitmouse said:
Apologies for bringing even more twitter into this thread, but noticed some arguments where I'm really genuinely unsure where I stand - one of the MAGA lot has been identified as a union member, there's people saying he should be thrown out of the union, poster as_a_worker is arguing very strongly that allowing people to get kicked out of unions for political activity taken off the job is a bad precedent to set and numerous people are now getting pissed off at him, I really dunno where I stand on the "of course unions should be able to expel people who bring them into disrepute" vs "these powers will always be used against the left and it's a bad idea to encourage them" debate. If anyone wants to dig into the beef, it's split across a bunch of different threads, e.g.:




Curious as to what other people think?
Click to expand...

Interesting point and deserving of its own thread. Back in the 1960s, dockers in East London had a fair few Enoch Powell and NF supporters. Rather than having them booted out of the union (and creating a scab force), anti fascist dockers argued with them for workers unity (whether black or white). It had some success.

You go to work and people have all sorts of fucked up ideas. You have to try and get people to break with those reactionary views if we ever want to get anywhere.
 
Crispy said:
What does the cultist get out of their relationship with the cult leader? Validation, a sense of belonging, a source of truth.
This thing is a cult without leaders, or rather it is a cult where everyone is a leader to everyone else. Decentralised. Impossible to stamp out.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and of course a lot of these will have been in / are still in evangelical movements that are pretty cult-like to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RD2003
South Africa election
Replies
2
Views
351
RD2003
RD2003
A380
And now a French General election too (2024)
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
11K
yield
Y
O
European parliament elections
2 3
Replies
71
Views
2K
Hotel Chocolate
H
T & P
Why is so politically significant for US TV networks to call election results?
Replies
12
Views
705
Jennaonthebeach
Jennaonthebeach
P
Mexico Presidential Elections 2/6/24
Replies
4
Views
387
rutabowa
R
Back
Top Bottom