Weaponizing ridicule
September 2, 2017 7:57 PM Subscribe
"Venezuelan women stripped off their pants and threw them at riot police, taunting the already demoralized young men to “man up” and put them on. Jeering crowds laughed at the confused paramilitary forces, chanting for them to “wear some pants” and side with the people against the tottering Maduro dictatorship. Suddenly, the truncheon-wielding, helmeted police and their armored vehicles didn’t seem quite so menacing." An essay on the potential military uses of ridicule.
What the fuck US Army
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:44 PM on September 2, 2017
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:44 PM on September 2, 2017
The author is disappointed that it was left to civilians to mock the Admiral Kuznetsov. He'd like NATO to have jumped on the opportunity first.
The military seems to me, though, like one of the worst institutions to deploy ridicule as a weapon. There's a reason that it's artists and women and teenagers who are the most devastating deployers of ridicule: Ridicule works best when it's the weak undermining the strong. Somehow I don't think that NATO generals making fun of the Admiral Kuznetsov or drawing Putin in drag would've worked out the way he might've hoped.
And the author seemed a bit fixated on ridicule based on deviations from heteronormative hypermasculinity. Am I wrong to assume that this might be a reflection of the limited imagination one might expect from a military Ridicule Division? A bunch of jokes about how gay Bashar al-Assad is, from an organization that could probably use some ridicule directed its own way about its hypermasculine obsessions?
posted by clawsoon at 9:06 PM on September 2, 2017 [23 favorites]
The military seems to me, though, like one of the worst institutions to deploy ridicule as a weapon. There's a reason that it's artists and women and teenagers who are the most devastating deployers of ridicule: Ridicule works best when it's the weak undermining the strong. Somehow I don't think that NATO generals making fun of the Admiral Kuznetsov or drawing Putin in drag would've worked out the way he might've hoped.
And the author seemed a bit fixated on ridicule based on deviations from heteronormative hypermasculinity. Am I wrong to assume that this might be a reflection of the limited imagination one might expect from a military Ridicule Division? A bunch of jokes about how gay Bashar al-Assad is, from an organization that could probably use some ridicule directed its own way about its hypermasculine obsessions?
posted by clawsoon at 9:06 PM on September 2, 2017 [23 favorites]
8. This writer was part of the online effort to ridicule the Kuznetsov on its maiden combat deployment to the Mediterranean.
So literally a keyboard warrior then?
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:57 AM on September 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
So literally a keyboard warrior then?
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:57 AM on September 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
Oh yes, hilarious, putting Putin in drag and implying he's homosexual, that really helps actual gay people not to feel like the butt of the joke when they're battered in the streets. Being gay is just a joke right, the worst thing you can say about a bloke, right?
"But but it's funny because he's a homophobe!"
So let's put the leader of the KKK in blackface then too? Give that aryan nations meathead a yarmulke?
Asshole.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:12 AM on September 3, 2017 [20 favorites]
"But but it's funny because he's a homophobe!"
So let's put the leader of the KKK in blackface then too? Give that aryan nations meathead a yarmulke?
Asshole.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:12 AM on September 3, 2017 [20 favorites]
The list of "Vulnerable Leaders" is lacking a very topical leader known for his thin skin and sensitivity to ridicule and criticism. There are some obvious reasons why, but it makes me wonder about the article.
posted by BinaryApe at 1:57 AM on September 3, 2017 [19 favorites]
posted by BinaryApe at 1:57 AM on September 3, 2017 [19 favorites]
The military seems to me, though, like one of the worst institutions to deploy ridicule as a weapon. There's a reason that it's artists and women and teenagers who are the most devastating deployers of ridicule: Ridicule works best when it's the weak undermining the strong.
This. And of course ridicule applied by the stronger party is just bullying. But I do like the idea of US intelligence operating an incredibly serious "ridicule unit" somewhere -with its own logo featuring eagles and stars and staffed by a posse of Nelson Muntz characters.
posted by rongorongo at 2:20 AM on September 3, 2017 [5 favorites]
This. And of course ridicule applied by the stronger party is just bullying. But I do like the idea of US intelligence operating an incredibly serious "ridicule unit" somewhere -with its own logo featuring eagles and stars and staffed by a posse of Nelson Muntz characters.
posted by rongorongo at 2:20 AM on September 3, 2017 [5 favorites]
The CIA tried back when with Fidel, attempting to poison him so his beard would fall out so he'd be a laughing stock.
posted by MartinWisse at 2:32 AM on September 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by MartinWisse at 2:32 AM on September 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
The author cites Douglas Feith who some may remember as an architect of the New American Century's rebuilding of Iraq. Throwing panties at opposition troops is a tactic with echoes of Abu Ghraib (and Arpaio). A while back I reacted to someone saying that a "good way to other" Trump was by questioning his mental health. MartinWisse(above) put my objection in different terms, but it's the same notion: you don't "Other" other people; you don't close out other members of the human race. Not, of course, unless your world view turns on Us vs. Them. But never if you are an inclusive Humanist.
posted by CCBC at 2:39 AM on September 3, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by CCBC at 2:39 AM on September 3, 2017 [3 favorites]
Truly wearing pants apparently more intimidating than weapons.
posted by filtergik at 5:31 AM on September 3, 2017
posted by filtergik at 5:31 AM on September 3, 2017
MartinWisse: The CIA tried back when with Fidel, attempting to poison him so his beard would fall out so he'd be a laughing stock.
Funny how that made the CIA look ridiculous instead of Castro.
Reagan's deployment of Soviet jokes was a rare example that didn't backfire and didn't seem like bullying. But he was ridiculing a system, not an individual; he didn't use sexuality or gender as the basis of the ridicule; he borrowed jokes from the oppressed and ostensibly used the jokes on their behalf; and he had a way of making everything sound friendly. It was everything that "lol putin ur gay" isn't.
Part of the problem is that the U.S. isn't against dictators or authoritarian regimes in general. It's against some dictators, and it has some favourites. Plenty of effective jokes could be made about dictatorship as a system of government, but they won't be used because they would undermine "friends" as well as enemies. So all that's left, apparently, is ridiculing individual leaders using their own misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic values. ...which reinforces those values.
Ah, nostalgia for competition with the Soviets, a time when governments ridiculed each other (however hypocritically) on the basis of how well they took care of their citizens...
posted by clawsoon at 6:45 AM on September 3, 2017 [9 favorites]
Funny how that made the CIA look ridiculous instead of Castro.
Reagan's deployment of Soviet jokes was a rare example that didn't backfire and didn't seem like bullying. But he was ridiculing a system, not an individual; he didn't use sexuality or gender as the basis of the ridicule; he borrowed jokes from the oppressed and ostensibly used the jokes on their behalf; and he had a way of making everything sound friendly. It was everything that "lol putin ur gay" isn't.
Part of the problem is that the U.S. isn't against dictators or authoritarian regimes in general. It's against some dictators, and it has some favourites. Plenty of effective jokes could be made about dictatorship as a system of government, but they won't be used because they would undermine "friends" as well as enemies. So all that's left, apparently, is ridiculing individual leaders using their own misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic values. ...which reinforces those values.
Ah, nostalgia for competition with the Soviets, a time when governments ridiculed each other (however hypocritically) on the basis of how well they took care of their citizens...
posted by clawsoon at 6:45 AM on September 3, 2017 [9 favorites]
Hitler had only one big ball
Goering had two but they were small
Himmler was very similar
And Goebbels had no balls at all!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:08 AM on September 3, 2017 [4 favorites]
Goering had two but they were small
Himmler was very similar
And Goebbels had no balls at all!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:08 AM on September 3, 2017 [4 favorites]
Ridicule works only so long as the powerful people holding the guns refrain from shooting the ridiculers.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:39 AM on September 3, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:39 AM on September 3, 2017 [7 favorites]
I wouldn't recommend putting white supremacist leaders in blackface, but checking their DNA (not exactly an ethical thing to do) for sub-Saharan African ancestry might turn up some amusing results.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:50 AM on September 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:50 AM on September 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
....Sometimes ridicule is the thing that provokes people into an act of violence, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:06 AM on September 3, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:06 AM on September 3, 2017 [4 favorites]
It's been remarked, but anyone who puts their degree in their byline is suspect.
What if we just called them out as nincompoops as a matter of national policy?
Then "we" look even more like children. As touched on above, this doesn't really work if it comes from the military.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:51 AM on September 3, 2017
What if we just called them out as nincompoops as a matter of national policy?
Then "we" look even more like children. As touched on above, this doesn't really work if it comes from the military.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:51 AM on September 3, 2017
I don't know quite what to think about this in the context of a confrontation with heavily-armed members of the military.
But per the recent experience of an Austin acquaintance, I think the fart whistle might hold some potential for shutting down white supremacist blowhards.
posted by pantarei70 at 8:54 AM on September 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
But per the recent experience of an Austin acquaintance, I think the fart whistle might hold some potential for shutting down white supremacist blowhards.
posted by pantarei70 at 8:54 AM on September 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm all for poking at dictators, but any tactic that depends on the reluctance of the people you're making fun of (or protesting) to not shoot you should be deployed with care, particularly if you're taunting them. If the goal is to provoke them into violence, with the exposition of the violence as the end goal, that's a legitimate tactic, but a fairly big ask of fellow protesters.
I admit to being in something of a pessimistic mood this morning, but I wonder that as repressive states see the success of Chinese-style media control, which I think is getting easier rather than harder with the transition to an all-digital media, if we will not see a resurgence in downwardly-directed political violence. It is, after all, the press that generally prevents dictators (and states, generally) from simply bottling up protesters in an alleyway somewhere and breaking out the belt-fed machine guns, then tossing the bodies in a hole somewhere — leaving the families to simply do the arithmetic: go to a protest, don't come back.
Protests in which people with guns are met and repelled by people without guns are largely a product of the protesters having access to friendly media and press. (Going back to, just as a familiar example, the American Revolution and the so-called "Boston Massacre", where the British fired on a crowd of ridiculing protesters and gave the Patriots a propaganda victory.) Take away the friendly press coverage and the ability to leverage a violent reaction into a propaganda win, and protesting becomes a much more dangerous sport—in fact, in the limiting case there isn't any "protesting", just "rioting" (and no "massacres", just "restoring order").
The person who controls the information environment gets to decide whether it's a government-orchestrated massacre of non-violent protesters, or if it was brave soldiers facing down overwhelming odds, fighting until their guns jammed against wave after human wave of crazed and bloodthirsty rioters. (For best helmetcam footage, I'd recommend kettling and driving the protesters towards the machine gun nests; if you drop a few grenades behind them to get them running, all the better. But that's all old-school propaganda stuff.)
The same technologies that people, myself included, believed—perhaps naively—would empower democracy by lowering barriers to communication, could just as easily end up being 'force multipliers' for oppressive regimes, by allowing much more efficient control over information dissemination; once everyone is hooked on digital media and traditional means of information-distribution are gone, the exercise of centralized control and propaganda distribution is far easier than in the analog past. Going around busting up printing presses requires a significant expenditure of manpower; selectively censoring Twitter accounts doesn't.
For the moment, the advantage still seems to lie with the protesters (except, perhaps, in China, where the government appears quite ahead of the curve with regards to information-environment control—although their attempts at ridicule need some work), but I do wonder if as more states work out efficient media control, that we won't see fewer "protests" and more "riots".
This all makes me wonder if the author's fixation on ridicule-as-offensive-weapon misses a point — maybe it's not so much that a bunch of women throwing their pants at soldiers is especially demoralizing, but it's particularly hard to turn that situation into one that you can violently suppress and not cede a propaganda win on. It's only by taking the situation visibly further and further from a "riot", where an observer (even of a well-edited video montage) would find themselves sympathizing with the soldiers, that you make it safe(r) to protest. Thus by dialing up the ridiculousness, you make it harder to engage in actual one-sided violence. Thus the ridicule isn't an offensive tactic, when done in person (as it is when done online, from the safety of one's keyboard), but actually defensive.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:33 AM on September 3, 2017 [9 favorites]
I admit to being in something of a pessimistic mood this morning, but I wonder that as repressive states see the success of Chinese-style media control, which I think is getting easier rather than harder with the transition to an all-digital media, if we will not see a resurgence in downwardly-directed political violence. It is, after all, the press that generally prevents dictators (and states, generally) from simply bottling up protesters in an alleyway somewhere and breaking out the belt-fed machine guns, then tossing the bodies in a hole somewhere — leaving the families to simply do the arithmetic: go to a protest, don't come back.
Protests in which people with guns are met and repelled by people without guns are largely a product of the protesters having access to friendly media and press. (Going back to, just as a familiar example, the American Revolution and the so-called "Boston Massacre", where the British fired on a crowd of ridiculing protesters and gave the Patriots a propaganda victory.) Take away the friendly press coverage and the ability to leverage a violent reaction into a propaganda win, and protesting becomes a much more dangerous sport—in fact, in the limiting case there isn't any "protesting", just "rioting" (and no "massacres", just "restoring order").
The person who controls the information environment gets to decide whether it's a government-orchestrated massacre of non-violent protesters, or if it was brave soldiers facing down overwhelming odds, fighting until their guns jammed against wave after human wave of crazed and bloodthirsty rioters. (For best helmetcam footage, I'd recommend kettling and driving the protesters towards the machine gun nests; if you drop a few grenades behind them to get them running, all the better. But that's all old-school propaganda stuff.)
The same technologies that people, myself included, believed—perhaps naively—would empower democracy by lowering barriers to communication, could just as easily end up being 'force multipliers' for oppressive regimes, by allowing much more efficient control over information dissemination; once everyone is hooked on digital media and traditional means of information-distribution are gone, the exercise of centralized control and propaganda distribution is far easier than in the analog past. Going around busting up printing presses requires a significant expenditure of manpower; selectively censoring Twitter accounts doesn't.
For the moment, the advantage still seems to lie with the protesters (except, perhaps, in China, where the government appears quite ahead of the curve with regards to information-environment control—although their attempts at ridicule need some work), but I do wonder if as more states work out efficient media control, that we won't see fewer "protests" and more "riots".
This all makes me wonder if the author's fixation on ridicule-as-offensive-weapon misses a point — maybe it's not so much that a bunch of women throwing their pants at soldiers is especially demoralizing, but it's particularly hard to turn that situation into one that you can violently suppress and not cede a propaganda win on. It's only by taking the situation visibly further and further from a "riot", where an observer (even of a well-edited video montage) would find themselves sympathizing with the soldiers, that you make it safe(r) to protest. Thus by dialing up the ridiculousness, you make it harder to engage in actual one-sided violence. Thus the ridicule isn't an offensive tactic, when done in person (as it is when done online, from the safety of one's keyboard), but actually defensive.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:33 AM on September 3, 2017 [9 favorites]
Kadin2048: I'm all for poking at dictators, but any tactic that depends on the reluctance of the people you're making fun of (or protesting) to not shoot you should be deployed with care, particularly if you're taunting them.
Mowing people down sometimes works well for regimes, if they can stomach it. One thing that seems to make a difference is the composition of the army. If the army's killers are all knights on horseback, they'll have no problem massacring participants in a peasant Jacquerie. If they're all Saddam Hussein's second and third cousins, same thing. But if you want to make your army bigger, you have to recruit from a wider social base, and that makes things more interesting. Your soldiers might be wondering if their mother or sister is in that crowd taking off her pants. You can train and organize your army to try to minimize that possibility, but the bigger the army gets, the riskier that a massacre gets.
posted by clawsoon at 10:02 AM on September 3, 2017
Mowing people down sometimes works well for regimes, if they can stomach it. One thing that seems to make a difference is the composition of the army. If the army's killers are all knights on horseback, they'll have no problem massacring participants in a peasant Jacquerie. If they're all Saddam Hussein's second and third cousins, same thing. But if you want to make your army bigger, you have to recruit from a wider social base, and that makes things more interesting. Your soldiers might be wondering if their mother or sister is in that crowd taking off her pants. You can train and organize your army to try to minimize that possibility, but the bigger the army gets, the riskier that a massacre gets.
posted by clawsoon at 10:02 AM on September 3, 2017
TheWhiteSkull: Hitler had only one big ball
Goering had two but they were small
Himmler was very similar
And Goebbels had no balls at all!
From the same proud tradition, as taught to me by my mother:
Whistle while you work
Hitler was a jerk
Mussolini
Pulled his weenie
Now it doesn't work.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 2:14 PM on September 3, 2017 [2 favorites]
Goering had two but they were small
Himmler was very similar
And Goebbels had no balls at all!
From the same proud tradition, as taught to me by my mother:
Whistle while you work
Hitler was a jerk
Mussolini
Pulled his weenie
Now it doesn't work.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 2:14 PM on September 3, 2017 [2 favorites]
Amazing story. Once people finally realize that socialism is pure evil then maybe these things will no longer be necessary.
Socialism is pure evil, and nothing can ever change that.
posted by NeoRothbardian at 2:31 PM on September 3, 2017
Socialism is pure evil, and nothing can ever change that.
posted by NeoRothbardian at 2:31 PM on September 3, 2017
MartinWissee
But, don't you see that it is positive for good, liberal, right thinking people that are portraying Trump and Putin as gay lovers. Their intentions are all that matter. If they commit mass murder because they are pushing for socialism then I guess we should just accept it.
posted by NeoRothbardian at 2:34 PM on September 3, 2017
But, don't you see that it is positive for good, liberal, right thinking people that are portraying Trump and Putin as gay lovers. Their intentions are all that matter. If they commit mass murder because they are pushing for socialism then I guess we should just accept it.
posted by NeoRothbardian at 2:34 PM on September 3, 2017
CCBC
-that was exactly what I was getting across in my original post above. As long as the people mocking gays or transgender's or blacks are doing it for the right reason (fighting capitalism, promoting socialism, advancing social justice, etc.) they are lauded.
Even though their behavior is reprehensible, cognitive dissonance has destroyed the ability for most American liberals to see that they are utterly wrong by not taking principled stand against bigotry in all forms.
We are were liberals 2008 to 16 while Obama bombed over half dozen countries and killed over 1 million innocent people?
posted by NeoRothbardian at 2:38 PM on September 3, 2017
-that was exactly what I was getting across in my original post above. As long as the people mocking gays or transgender's or blacks are doing it for the right reason (fighting capitalism, promoting socialism, advancing social justice, etc.) they are lauded.
Even though their behavior is reprehensible, cognitive dissonance has destroyed the ability for most American liberals to see that they are utterly wrong by not taking principled stand against bigotry in all forms.
We are were liberals 2008 to 16 while Obama bombed over half dozen countries and killed over 1 million innocent people?
posted by NeoRothbardian at 2:38 PM on September 3, 2017
NeoRothbardian: As long as the people mocking gays or transgender's or blacks are doing it for the right reason (fighting capitalism, promoting socialism, advancing social justice, etc.) they are lauded.
You may not have spent enough time with modern left-wing types yet. In my experience - much of it here on Metafilter - people doing that are attacked rather than lauded.
That's not true in all left-wing groups, but it mostly is here.
Socialism is pure evil, and nothing can ever change that.
As a Canadian, I'll have to register polite disagreement. We did a bunch of socialism via Crown corporations; so did a bunch of western European countries. Then we decided to privatize most of it. It was okay - not bad, not great, but okay. Worked out fine. Turns out there's no inevitable Hayekian road to serfdom.
posted by clawsoon at 3:07 PM on September 3, 2017
You may not have spent enough time with modern left-wing types yet. In my experience - much of it here on Metafilter - people doing that are attacked rather than lauded.
That's not true in all left-wing groups, but it mostly is here.
Socialism is pure evil, and nothing can ever change that.
As a Canadian, I'll have to register polite disagreement. We did a bunch of socialism via Crown corporations; so did a bunch of western European countries. Then we decided to privatize most of it. It was okay - not bad, not great, but okay. Worked out fine. Turns out there's no inevitable Hayekian road to serfdom.
posted by clawsoon at 3:07 PM on September 3, 2017
Just think about how badly Trump's still reeling from this!
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:17 PM on September 3, 2017
posted by Joseph Gurl at 10:17 PM on September 3, 2017
« Older Little Horribles | Somebody died; these are her friends Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I seem to remember this more or less being the take in the press. posted by BungaDunga at 8:28 PM on September 2, 2017 [3 favorites]