"I could sit here and read figures until I'm blue in the face..."
August 17, 2016 6:11 AM Subscribe
Australiafilter: MeFi fave and science hearthrob Professor Brian Cox responds to climate change denier, sovereign citizen and Australian senator-elect Malcolm Roberts on ABC panel show Q&A.
Roberts - a member of the far right, nationalist, anti-immigration One Nation party - was elected to the Australian Senate in July 2015.
Not to be outdone, the leader of One Nation (and senator-elect herself) Pauline Hanson has released a bizarre video expressing her terror at squat toilets in government buildings. A third One Nation senator-elect is awaiting trial on larceny charges.
Meanwhile, writer Osman Faruqi argues that the media exposure granted to Roberts and people like him is nothing more than a cynical play for ratings.
Roberts - a member of the far right, nationalist, anti-immigration One Nation party - was elected to the Australian Senate in July 2015.
Not to be outdone, the leader of One Nation (and senator-elect herself) Pauline Hanson has released a bizarre video expressing her terror at squat toilets in government buildings. A third One Nation senator-elect is awaiting trial on larceny charges.
Meanwhile, writer Osman Faruqi argues that the media exposure granted to Roberts and people like him is nothing more than a cynical play for ratings.
I was stunned to see the sovcit stuff migrate from the US to here. He even uses the same weird shibboleths, without even changing the US references.
Q and A has been around for donkeys' years, but this is surely one of its low points. Poor Brian Cox. He deserved better than to have his time wasted by the scum scraped from the bottom of our political barrel.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:38 AM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Q and A has been around for donkeys' years, but this is surely one of its low points. Poor Brian Cox. He deserved better than to have his time wasted by the scum scraped from the bottom of our political barrel.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:38 AM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
His thoughts were red thoughts A lot of the sovcit stuff in the USA migrated from the UK, where nutters still mail the Queen crayon scrawled declarations of their intent to be sovcits. I'd bet a lot of the Australian sovcit stuff resembles American in part because they share a common ancestor with UK sovcit stuff.
posted by sotonohito at 6:47 AM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 6:47 AM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Watching Malcolm Roberts try to teach Brian Cox about scientific theory has been the highlight of my week thus far. Thanks!
posted by Defying Gravity at 7:03 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Defying Gravity at 7:03 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Consensus isn't science" is a real brain bender. It's close to a statement I would agree with (that we should rigorously test common consensus beliefs) and simultaneously totally misses the point of how the community of scientists work to arrive at truth.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:06 AM on August 17, 2016
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:06 AM on August 17, 2016
We've elected Norman Gunston to the Senate.posted by zamboni at 7:10 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
How did it come to this? We're not a nation of complete nongs. We're a nation who made a hero, across several generations of children, of a physicist who[se] trademark line was a four-word advertisement for science.
"Why is it so?" Julius Sumner Miller would ask, and we relied on science to provide the answer. Even Mrs Marsh tapped the boffin in us, with her chalk dipped in dye celebrating the benefits of fluoride. "It does get in!" said the kids, believing the evidence of their own eyes.
Oh no it doesn't, would be Malcolm Roberts' reply, perhaps with a triumphant assertion that teeth aren't made of chalk. And to the question "Why is it so?", he might reply, as he did on Q&A: it's a NASA stitch-up.
I went into this video with the expectation that I'd see Brian Cox blow Malcolm Roberts away with facts. It was, instead, a couple of line graphs which correlate in an apples-and-oranges way and otherwise mostly appeals to authority and "how can you not believe me, I'm a scientist, everyone agrees with me, STFU."
Maybe I missed the part of the video where Brian gave the woman in the audience the answer she was looking for - causal evidence of the human element in climate change - but I didn't see it.
This chart would have been all he needed to show. But instead he starts off his answer with "I could provide you with numbers and proof, but I won't, here is an emotional appeal." Weak sauce.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:13 AM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe I missed the part of the video where Brian gave the woman in the audience the answer she was looking for - causal evidence of the human element in climate change - but I didn't see it.
This chart would have been all he needed to show. But instead he starts off his answer with "I could provide you with numbers and proof, but I won't, here is an emotional appeal." Weak sauce.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:13 AM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
But instead he starts off his answer with "I could provide you with numbers and proof, but I won't, here is an emotional appeal." Weak sauce.
Numbers and proof won't sway the hardcore deniers, and honestly, an emotional appeal is unlikely to do so either. I appreciate Cox's gambit, but these are the kind of people who won't care about climate change unless they lose a house or something of value to them. Even then, caring is not a guarantee.
posted by Kitteh at 7:46 AM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Numbers and proof won't sway the hardcore deniers, and honestly, an emotional appeal is unlikely to do so either. I appreciate Cox's gambit, but these are the kind of people who won't care about climate change unless they lose a house or something of value to them. Even then, caring is not a guarantee.
posted by Kitteh at 7:46 AM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Watching this filled me with horror, frankly.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
posted by kinnakeet at 7:51 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
posted by kinnakeet at 7:51 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
grumpybear69, um, he does actually literally show the graphs, though?
He showed the graphs of human CO2 emission and then rising global temperatures, but not the in-between graph of human CO2 to atmospheric CO2 which is the link that the woman in the audience asked for. The data is there, it is incontrovertible, but he chose not to show it. It is confounding.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:53 AM on August 17, 2016
He showed the graphs of human CO2 emission and then rising global temperatures, but not the in-between graph of human CO2 to atmospheric CO2 which is the link that the woman in the audience asked for. The data is there, it is incontrovertible, but he chose not to show it. It is confounding.
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:53 AM on August 17, 2016
re "a cynical play for ratings".
Weren't the US networks overjoyed with Trump and the ad money it generated too?
"A cynical play" might soon become "a cynical plot".
posted by Captain Fetid at 8:00 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Weren't the US networks overjoyed with Trump and the ad money it generated too?
"A cynical play" might soon become "a cynical plot".
posted by Captain Fetid at 8:00 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Numbers and proof won't sway the hardcore deniers, and honestly, an emotional appeal is unlikely to do so either.
This is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:04 AM on August 17, 2016
This is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:04 AM on August 17, 2016
His thoughts were red thoughts A lot of the sovcit stuff in the USA migrated from the UK, where nutters still mail the Queen crayon scrawled declarations of their intent to be sovcits. I'd bet a lot of the Australian sovcit stuff resembles American in part because they share a common ancestor with UK sovcit stuff.
sotonohito
This got me interested so I fell down the Wikipedia rabbit hole about the history of this stuff. Apparently the "sovereign citizen" movement is from America, descending from the 1960s Posse Comitatus movement which was a right-wing, survivalist, white supremacist/Christian Identity movement founded by Minister William Potter Gale and a man who had been a member of the Silver Legion of America (the "Silver Shirts"), a Nazi-inspired fascist organization in the 1930s.
There's a similar Commonwealth movement called "Freemen on the land" that you may be thinking of. The article there is less clear about the history, but it seems to indicate that the British movement is descended from the American one, not the other way around, and other sources I read seemed to confirm that.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:28 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
sotonohito
This got me interested so I fell down the Wikipedia rabbit hole about the history of this stuff. Apparently the "sovereign citizen" movement is from America, descending from the 1960s Posse Comitatus movement which was a right-wing, survivalist, white supremacist/Christian Identity movement founded by Minister William Potter Gale and a man who had been a member of the Silver Legion of America (the "Silver Shirts"), a Nazi-inspired fascist organization in the 1930s.
There's a similar Commonwealth movement called "Freemen on the land" that you may be thinking of. The article there is less clear about the history, but it seems to indicate that the British movement is descended from the American one, not the other way around, and other sources I read seemed to confirm that.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:28 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even then, caring is not a guarantee.
But complaining and expecting recompense is.
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:46 AM on August 17, 2016
But complaining and expecting recompense is.
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:46 AM on August 17, 2016
I'm with grumpybear69 - I was really hoping to watch Brian Cox lay a clear case out for the cause-and-effect of CO2 emissions and temperature increases, and instead he showed us an effect graph, then showed us a cause graph (why couldn't he show us one that clearly combined them?), then didn't really say anything else about cause-and-effect but certainly kept citing the effect. He also just made fun of the (totally ridiculous) guy - the climate change denier is clearly wrong, but at least he didn't act like a sneering jerk.
I don't think this is how you win the argument on climate change. I get that it's lamentable that there even is an argument, but it's here and we have to have it in good faith in order to win it.
posted by ukdanae at 9:24 AM on August 17, 2016
I don't think this is how you win the argument on climate change. I get that it's lamentable that there even is an argument, but it's here and we have to have it in good faith in order to win it.
posted by ukdanae at 9:24 AM on August 17, 2016
Malcolm Roberts is (or was) apparently big on the sovereign citizen kookery movement.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:31 AM on August 17, 2016
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:31 AM on August 17, 2016
Oh, crap, that's what I get for not reading properly before I post stuff I found when I looked this guy up after seeing the video earlier today.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:32 AM on August 17, 2016
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:32 AM on August 17, 2016
From what I've read sovereign citizen ideas seem to be based on a rejection of legal positivism, instead adopting a confused understanding of common law conflated with natural law concepts. As such it's not surprising that these ideas spread to other English speaking common law countries.
posted by delegeferenda at 11:43 AM on August 17, 2016
posted by delegeferenda at 11:43 AM on August 17, 2016
Sangermaine Huh, thought American sovcits were descended from the Freeman on the Land thing?
ukdanae Didn't the studies show that facts make people retreat further into incorrect ideas? A bit of ridicule and/or emotional appeal seems, if anything, more likely to win the argument on climate change.
posted by sotonohito at 12:49 PM on August 17, 2016
ukdanae Didn't the studies show that facts make people retreat further into incorrect ideas? A bit of ridicule and/or emotional appeal seems, if anything, more likely to win the argument on climate change.
posted by sotonohito at 12:49 PM on August 17, 2016
Per Osman Faruqi's take: Whilst I agree that audience ratings incentivise giving controversial yet inane people exposure, I think it elides the benefits. Groups with extreme ideology exist in a bubble of like minded individuals where dissenting opinions are absent or recontextualised to fit the group narrative. Groups with conflicting ideologies are rarely exposed to each other's narratives outside the context of their in-group.
As I've seen expressed on MeFi, the algorithmic nature of social media and analytic driven nature of legacy media mean we are more often exposed to news we are inclined to find gratifying. Given the plethora of online communities that allow us to hyper specifically identify with a tribe, it increasingly takes concerted effort to open-mindedly expose oneself to dissenting opinion.
Although the format of media such as Q&A is adversarial by nature (as noted by Brian Cox in TFA), it is still relatively neutral ground that exposes and intermixes ideology outside of the context of the in-groups where it is most often espoused.
The benefits of this are notable in this MeFi comment section alone: various commenters have highlighted faulty aspects of Malcolm Roberts thinking and the particular nature of his SovCit background, whilst others have pointed out the ways in which Brian Cox missed an important opportunity to illustrate the causal link between human activity and climate change with the addition of one more graph.
Although MeFi is largely an outlier in terms of critical thinking and congeniality online, I think it often provides an example of the benefits of giving controversial opinions exposure.
Finally, I'd like to address the nature of Osman Faruqi's piece. What of contrarian hot-takes published in reaction to topical issues? Are these reactions a considered position, or are they pablum attached to a byline and headshot for the purpose of burnishing a public profile and increasing page views? Are the proliferation and value of these pieces analgous with that which Osman Faruqi is decrying?
posted by Outside Context Problem at 2:47 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
As I've seen expressed on MeFi, the algorithmic nature of social media and analytic driven nature of legacy media mean we are more often exposed to news we are inclined to find gratifying. Given the plethora of online communities that allow us to hyper specifically identify with a tribe, it increasingly takes concerted effort to open-mindedly expose oneself to dissenting opinion.
Although the format of media such as Q&A is adversarial by nature (as noted by Brian Cox in TFA), it is still relatively neutral ground that exposes and intermixes ideology outside of the context of the in-groups where it is most often espoused.
The benefits of this are notable in this MeFi comment section alone: various commenters have highlighted faulty aspects of Malcolm Roberts thinking and the particular nature of his SovCit background, whilst others have pointed out the ways in which Brian Cox missed an important opportunity to illustrate the causal link between human activity and climate change with the addition of one more graph.
Although MeFi is largely an outlier in terms of critical thinking and congeniality online, I think it often provides an example of the benefits of giving controversial opinions exposure.
Finally, I'd like to address the nature of Osman Faruqi's piece. What of contrarian hot-takes published in reaction to topical issues? Are these reactions a considered position, or are they pablum attached to a byline and headshot for the purpose of burnishing a public profile and increasing page views? Are the proliferation and value of these pieces analgous with that which Osman Faruqi is decrying?
posted by Outside Context Problem at 2:47 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jesus Brian Cox did a pretty poor job rebutting Malcom Roberts on that.
1. Roberts emphasis on empirical evidence should have been easily turned against his own issues. ie what does he think scientists base their work on?
2. Roberts complaints about appeals to Authority should have also been turned against his own claims. Which were merely appeals to other widely discredited authorities.
posted by mary8nne at 3:22 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
1. Roberts emphasis on empirical evidence should have been easily turned against his own issues. ie what does he think scientists base their work on?
2. Roberts complaints about appeals to Authority should have also been turned against his own claims. Which were merely appeals to other widely discredited authorities.
posted by mary8nne at 3:22 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: contrarian hot-takes published in reaction to topical issues.
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:57 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:57 PM on August 17, 2016
Finally, I'd like to address the nature of Osman Faruqi's piece. What of contrarian hot-takes published in reaction to topical issues? Are these reactions a considered position, or are they pablum attached to a byline and headshot for the purpose of burnishing a public profile and increasing page views? Are the proliferation and value of these pieces analgous with that which Osman Faruqi is decrying?
OCP, I don't really understand what you're getting at. Yes, contrarion hot takes are cynical clickbait. No, they're not reasoned or people like Andrew Bolt wouldn't be able to write them. Yes, I think there's a pretty clear argument that printed contrarian hot takes and interviews with anti-science and racist idiots are damaging in a similar way as manufactured controversy on TV shows. What's your point?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:06 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
OCP, I don't really understand what you're getting at. Yes, contrarion hot takes are cynical clickbait. No, they're not reasoned or people like Andrew Bolt wouldn't be able to write them. Yes, I think there's a pretty clear argument that printed contrarian hot takes and interviews with anti-science and racist idiots are damaging in a similar way as manufactured controversy on TV shows. What's your point?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:06 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
HTwRT, the sovereign citizen stuff (if not the actual movement) has been around in Aus since at least the mid/late 70's, when it seemed to be riding alongside the LaRouchians, OWG/NWO/Protocols types, and fellow goldbugs and *-denialists (who went on to form the basis of the group that, after being hijacked and co-opted by the far-right racists amongst them, became the Citizen's Electoral Council before they in turn were hijacked back by the LaRouchians themselves).
I was a kid/young teen at the time, and a mate of mine was fascinated by all that. His father was an Opposition member of the state government, & I remember him simultaneously mocking & caring deeply about the local oddballs who'd mail him 6 pages that read almost exactly like Malcolm Roberts' letter, followed by a sentence pleading for intervention over some imagined slight or minor matter from the very person who's legitimacy they'd just deconstructed and denied…
(Can't stand Q&A personally. Tony Jones is an excellent interviewer but an insufferably smug & ineffective panel host; it has far too many "Mr-Burns-your-campaign-seems-to-have-the-momentum-of-a-runaway-freight-train-why-are-you-so-popular?" Dorothy Dixer setups; I've never been a fan of deliberate conflict television; and it's very much a Claytons public discussion. Not that there's many other options for public intelligence on Australian TV, apart from the occasional exception of Insight on SBS. Someone should give Waleed Aly a proper show - he can be a bit supercilious too, but at least he sometimes tries to engage & tease out deeper points rather than subsuming them for the purposes of keeping the 'conversation' flowing…)
posted by Pinback at 5:36 PM on August 17, 2016
I was a kid/young teen at the time, and a mate of mine was fascinated by all that. His father was an Opposition member of the state government, & I remember him simultaneously mocking & caring deeply about the local oddballs who'd mail him 6 pages that read almost exactly like Malcolm Roberts' letter, followed by a sentence pleading for intervention over some imagined slight or minor matter from the very person who's legitimacy they'd just deconstructed and denied…
(Can't stand Q&A personally. Tony Jones is an excellent interviewer but an insufferably smug & ineffective panel host; it has far too many "Mr-Burns-your-campaign-seems-to-have-the-momentum-of-a-runaway-freight-train-why-are-you-so-popular?" Dorothy Dixer setups; I've never been a fan of deliberate conflict television; and it's very much a Claytons public discussion. Not that there's many other options for public intelligence on Australian TV, apart from the occasional exception of Insight on SBS. Someone should give Waleed Aly a proper show - he can be a bit supercilious too, but at least he sometimes tries to engage & tease out deeper points rather than subsuming them for the purposes of keeping the 'conversation' flowing…)
posted by Pinback at 5:36 PM on August 17, 2016
Thanks Pinback - that's really interesting. I fine the whole sovcit thing fascinating in a look-at-the-car-crash way.
What I find intriguing about this is that Roberts definetely seems to have just grabbed random shit from some American sovcits. For example:
What I find intriguing about this is that Roberts definetely seems to have just grabbed random shit from some American sovcits. For example:
I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with anyposted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:48 PM on August 17, 2016
material facts or evidence that the Commonwealth of Australia CIK# 000805157 is not a
corporation registered on the United States of America securities exchange, is not a
society and is not a trustee in the public trust, and believe that none exist.
Also, he starts his laughable sovcit document with:
FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT COELUM
Let Right Be Done, Though The Heavens Should Fall
I mean, this is just random Latin, but I am entertained by the idea that maybe he just grabbed it from Aldnoah Zero.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:49 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT COELUM
Let Right Be Done, Though The Heavens Should Fall
I mean, this is just random Latin, but I am entertained by the idea that maybe he just grabbed it from Aldnoah Zero.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:49 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can not stomach the idea of watching the show again to check (also, I'm at work, and the first time I watched there was much yelling), but from what I remember the graph was to refute Malcolm's assertion that there has been no recent increase in temperature. That NASA fudged the numbers in the 50's to create it or something. Which, just, there are no words. The idea that you can get the entire scientific community to agree to be knowingly wrong about something is ludicrous.
He then demanded empirical evidence to prove that the CO2 increase was causing the temperature increase that he didn't believe was happening, in a stunning display of incompatible criticisms, and by then everyone was realising that this man was going to insist that the sky was red no matter how many people told him it was blue. Also, I don't think there is any graph that demonstrates increasing CO2 results in a world wide increase in temperature. In paleo-climate records, the CO2 increase usually lags the temperature increase as the CO2 is absorbed less in warmer water. As Cox said on the show, you would need another world to do that experiment. Well, you'd probably need three, as scientists like to do things in triplicate. So proving the causality of CO2 and climate change is a combination of modelling and eliminating other causes.
Whilst I think it's ridiculous that they put Malcolm "I will believe anything so long as it means I can continue to avoid accepting the possibility that climate change might be real" Roberts on a panel during science week, I think it's good that Australia knows that there is a fuckwit in the senate. If enough people yell that it's nonsense before he gets to the senate, hopefully he'll be taken less seriously when he gets there.
posted by kjs4 at 11:40 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
He then demanded empirical evidence to prove that the CO2 increase was causing the temperature increase that he didn't believe was happening, in a stunning display of incompatible criticisms, and by then everyone was realising that this man was going to insist that the sky was red no matter how many people told him it was blue. Also, I don't think there is any graph that demonstrates increasing CO2 results in a world wide increase in temperature. In paleo-climate records, the CO2 increase usually lags the temperature increase as the CO2 is absorbed less in warmer water. As Cox said on the show, you would need another world to do that experiment. Well, you'd probably need three, as scientists like to do things in triplicate. So proving the causality of CO2 and climate change is a combination of modelling and eliminating other causes.
Whilst I think it's ridiculous that they put Malcolm "I will believe anything so long as it means I can continue to avoid accepting the possibility that climate change might be real" Roberts on a panel during science week, I think it's good that Australia knows that there is a fuckwit in the senate. If enough people yell that it's nonsense before he gets to the senate, hopefully he'll be taken less seriously when he gets there.
posted by kjs4 at 11:40 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's good that Australia knows that there is a fuckwit in the senate.
He's a One Nation senator. Being a fuckwit is a prequisite to party membership.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 11:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's a One Nation senator. Being a fuckwit is a prequisite to party membership.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 11:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but he's an old white dude who talks like he's been to university. People are much more likely to assume that he knows what he's talking about.
posted by kjs4 at 12:04 AM on August 18, 2016
posted by kjs4 at 12:04 AM on August 18, 2016
HTwRT - to clarify that final para: "OF seems to be making a cynical play for ratings by manufacturing controversy with a piece decrying cynical plays for ratings. What's all that about?"
I'm genuinely curious as to wether he wrote it as an honest opinion or for some other purpose (no judgement of value implied here).
OF's angle has a whiff of cognitive bias: when they do it, it's because of money; when we do it, it's because of principals. Ratings are clearly a part of the issue when media is a conduit for debate, but OF overstates it to the point of false dichotomy.
Although I think OF's thesis is largely invalid I also think his piece helpfully adds to the debate around the contentious issue of giving oxygen to repugnant ideology. That ties into my overall point: we all need reminding from time to time that we are flawed, biased, and gravitate toward things we agree with. Improving awareness of critical reasoning skills seems a better approach than censorship in terms of the greater good being the least harmful option.
Not knocking OF either BTW; I've interacted with him on Twitter and read a bit of his output. He often comes up with some good angles, although I can hardly attest to wether what he has written in this case is what he actually believes or is otherwise designed to cause some sort of effect. I am somewhat cautious given his involvement in politics at both party political and commercial levels, and I'm also mindful of that leading to bias on my part.
I'm very curious as to his motives for this piece and where they lay on a continuum of "cynical bullshit - noble intent"
Hope I cleared up what I was getting at, apologies if otherwise - I don't human much these days :)
posted by Outside Context Problem at 1:58 AM on August 18, 2016
I'm genuinely curious as to wether he wrote it as an honest opinion or for some other purpose (no judgement of value implied here).
OF's angle has a whiff of cognitive bias: when they do it, it's because of money; when we do it, it's because of principals. Ratings are clearly a part of the issue when media is a conduit for debate, but OF overstates it to the point of false dichotomy.
Although I think OF's thesis is largely invalid I also think his piece helpfully adds to the debate around the contentious issue of giving oxygen to repugnant ideology. That ties into my overall point: we all need reminding from time to time that we are flawed, biased, and gravitate toward things we agree with. Improving awareness of critical reasoning skills seems a better approach than censorship in terms of the greater good being the least harmful option.
Not knocking OF either BTW; I've interacted with him on Twitter and read a bit of his output. He often comes up with some good angles, although I can hardly attest to wether what he has written in this case is what he actually believes or is otherwise designed to cause some sort of effect. I am somewhat cautious given his involvement in politics at both party political and commercial levels, and I'm also mindful of that leading to bias on my part.
I'm very curious as to his motives for this piece and where they lay on a continuum of "cynical bullshit - noble intent"
Hope I cleared up what I was getting at, apologies if otherwise - I don't human much these days :)
posted by Outside Context Problem at 1:58 AM on August 18, 2016
I don't human much these days :)
Eponysterical :)
posted by harriet vane at 5:18 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eponysterical :)
posted by harriet vane at 5:18 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I had some thoughts pop into my head this morning due to this post. The rise of the Australian alt-right (or alt.right.australia if you're into Usenet) really gives me the shits at a very visceral level, but at the same time I really want to understand WHY they feel this way and I want to have enough empathy to understand the dis-empowerment and bewilderment that must drive their thinking and feelings of vulnerability. I anticipate both the actions of the au-alt-right and the reactions to the au-alt-right over the next few years are going to be pretty ugly and upsetting.
Firstly, ignoring repugnant ideology isn't going to work in this case. The Overton Window works both ways - if we don't approach repugnant view points critically that window slides further toward something scary. (Cf. Brexit)
Name-calling and and denigration are counterproductive. If we continue to engage with our own rapidly pupating alt-right movements purely through actions that denigrate and exclude, we risk hatching mutant versions of Y'all Quaida, further widening the gulf that is opening in our society. (Cf. counter extremism)
I think that in the first instance the best approach to this issue isn't to worry about where things fit in terms of morality, but to try be an empathetic person. Empathy isn't the solution, but it's a great first step.
As an aside, here is an example of something I've noticed when scoping out the au-alt-right, most recently via the FB page of the "True Blue Crew" (associated with Phillip Galea, recently arrested on terrorism related charges). How marginalised groups cope with cognitive dissonance is fascinating, and I've seen this in action among the au-alt-right.
In the past, I've seen a few encounters on Social Media and IRL where someone is espousing some particular anti-Islam ideology only to encounter a former Australian Soldier who has served in the Middle East. The Australian Soldier usually says something like "You are dickheads / WTF do you know about Muslims? / The situation is more complicated than you make out / You are outright lying / What you are saying is harmful to Muslims, Australians, and the Nation / You are not helping matters - you're making extremism worse by being divisive!"
This is almost always coupled with an Appeal To Authority - i.e. "I fought in the Middle East, I know the score, I'm an Aussie Soldier - you guys looooove the ANZACS, so if you hate me or disagree with me you're not the patriot you make yourself out to be."
In the past, the reaction from people of the au-alt-right persuasion was usually a fair bit of confusion occasionally accompanied by "you're lying - you never served, you're a fake"
Now, I'm starting to see this response pop up as a meme: "Yep, I looooove the ANZACs and proudly support Aussie Soldiers. But what you say makes you a traitor - you may have served, but you're supporting the enemy now so you're not someone I need to listen to - Aussie Soldiers aren't Traitors, and Traitors aren't Aussie Soldiers"
This is also part of why I think repugnant ideologies should be given oxygen (in a considered and critical fashion) - purely authoritarian approaches only solidify ideology among those of a reactionary tendency, even if significant mental gymnastics are required.
posted by Outside Context Problem at 10:31 PM on August 18, 2016
Firstly, ignoring repugnant ideology isn't going to work in this case. The Overton Window works both ways - if we don't approach repugnant view points critically that window slides further toward something scary. (Cf. Brexit)
Name-calling and and denigration are counterproductive. If we continue to engage with our own rapidly pupating alt-right movements purely through actions that denigrate and exclude, we risk hatching mutant versions of Y'all Quaida, further widening the gulf that is opening in our society. (Cf. counter extremism)
I think that in the first instance the best approach to this issue isn't to worry about where things fit in terms of morality, but to try be an empathetic person. Empathy isn't the solution, but it's a great first step.
As an aside, here is an example of something I've noticed when scoping out the au-alt-right, most recently via the FB page of the "True Blue Crew" (associated with Phillip Galea, recently arrested on terrorism related charges). How marginalised groups cope with cognitive dissonance is fascinating, and I've seen this in action among the au-alt-right.
In the past, I've seen a few encounters on Social Media and IRL where someone is espousing some particular anti-Islam ideology only to encounter a former Australian Soldier who has served in the Middle East. The Australian Soldier usually says something like "You are dickheads / WTF do you know about Muslims? / The situation is more complicated than you make out / You are outright lying / What you are saying is harmful to Muslims, Australians, and the Nation / You are not helping matters - you're making extremism worse by being divisive!"
This is almost always coupled with an Appeal To Authority - i.e. "I fought in the Middle East, I know the score, I'm an Aussie Soldier - you guys looooove the ANZACS, so if you hate me or disagree with me you're not the patriot you make yourself out to be."
In the past, the reaction from people of the au-alt-right persuasion was usually a fair bit of confusion occasionally accompanied by "you're lying - you never served, you're a fake"
Now, I'm starting to see this response pop up as a meme: "Yep, I looooove the ANZACs and proudly support Aussie Soldiers. But what you say makes you a traitor - you may have served, but you're supporting the enemy now so you're not someone I need to listen to - Aussie Soldiers aren't Traitors, and Traitors aren't Aussie Soldiers"
This is also part of why I think repugnant ideologies should be given oxygen (in a considered and critical fashion) - purely authoritarian approaches only solidify ideology among those of a reactionary tendency, even if significant mental gymnastics are required.
posted by Outside Context Problem at 10:31 PM on August 18, 2016
« Older Hot f***ing Wheels | there’s so much more diversity in our fiction, if... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I did get a swell of national pride at how ridiculous the idea of questioning NASA seemed. Nice to know that something we do gets that kind of respect.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:26 AM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]