Political Memes

7916 readers

2278 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.

Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1563

Only The Best People (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

208 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

In an insanely propagandistic Media environment (both sides: notice the New Tork Times coverage of the Gaza Genocide) you're going to get lots of people who aren't above average educated types with high political awareness trying to gut feel their way into "who are the ones who lie the least" by going for the kind of discourse that sounds the least like the style of propaganda of the last couple of decades, and right now the "not the usual liar politician sounding" was the "populist strongman" because the trafitional media's propaganda has been slick highly-educated technocrat style for years.

Further you can't really start from your own "predisposed to believe that Democrats are truthful in what they say" point of view when trying to understand people who are not aligned with either "tribe" and for whom neither side is assumed honest so they're trying to figure out which one is less dishonest (or just think "they're all liars" and won't vote).

(I see the exact same issue with the members of the small leftwing party I'm a member of in my own country - they simply don't get it that most people don't just presume like them that the words of the party leaders are honest and those of other party leaders are dishonest)

I think the point the OP was making was that the Democrat leadership didn't even try to sound more believable to sway such people - they just kept on saying the usual things in the very same style as the propaganda of the last 2 decades thus sounding the same, whilst the Republican changed their discourse style so even though they lied even more than before, they sounded "not the usual lies" for some of the people trying to "gut feel" their way around politics coming from a non-aligned standpoint.

The nicest possible interpretation is that the Democrat leadership are guilty of massive incompetence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

This makes a kind of sense. If you assume they're not listening to any of the words, but just the tone, then I guess that might explain things. But I don't want to think so many people are acting like literal dogs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Picture this:

Several people are telling you a story, and they're all slightly different versions of supposedly the same story.
You can't actually interrogate any of them or even talk to them, you can only listen to whatever story they chose to tell you.
You can either chose one story or no story at all. You cannot chose more than one story.
Each of them would gain something if you chose their story.
You don't really know any of them personally, hence have no predisposition for trusting the story of one over that of the others or even know for sure that at least on of the stories is the true (i.e. they could all be lying to you).

This is the position of a non-aligned voter in present day politics.

In such a situation, people will either just go "I chose no story" (i.e. "all politicians are liars") or try and figure out who is the most trustworthy of those telling the stories, via indirect things (remember, people can't even directly speak with, much less interrogate the story tellers), so they will try and gauge a storyteller's trustworthiness based on how they talk, their posture and expression, the format of their storytelling, things they know about them outside the storytelling and so on and as part of that they will for example be less likely to trust those who look like or sound like previous story tellers who later turned out to be deceitful or even lying (and the more in the past they've been exposed to a certain type of story teller that turned out to be deceitfull, the least likely they will be to believe that story telling style).

It's this dynamic in choosing who to trust that modern populists like Trump are exploiting.

Curiously at other points in Time, after a period when the populists were in power fucking things up, the same dynamic worked to help the serious sounding highly educated style of storytelling gain power from the populists - at a high level and over longer periods (decades), the process is actually an oscillating system.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 36 minutes ago

The first and last points are flawed, though.

Several people are telling you a story, and they’re all slightly different versions of supposedly the same story.

Sometimes the issues are like "We should ban books" vs "We shouldn't ban books". They're not slightly different so much as opposites. For something like "income tax should stop at 40% vs 80%" sure, but a lot of what's on the table now is not that nuanced.

Which leads me to

You don’t really know any of them personally, hence have no predisposition for trusting the story of one over that of the others or even know for sure that at least on of the stories is the true (i.e. they could all be lying to you).

This implies that information and truth is unknowable. That you can't open up wikipedia, click through to sources, read a book. You shouldn't have to go solely on "does their body language seem confident?". This is supposed to be the information age!

But I guess a lot of people cannot read well, and certainly don't know how to determine what's a good source and what's not. I've seen people just go by some youtube video some nobody made and... oh, I see the problem. If you assume everyone and everything is just as credible as anything else, even some pseudonymous youtube video, knowing anything becomes dubious. Maybe this is why you have "Four dozen studies from nineteen universities have shown human activity is contributing to climate change" -> "well, CoolDog420 on their youtube channel said it's just because the sun is having PMS, and I like his videos."

That assumption that all things are equally credible is really bad. In college I took an intro to journalism course as an elective, and one of our first assignments was to go through a list of sources and determine which ones were good and which were not. Some were partisan think tanks, some were actually satire, some were real. It was a good exercise. Some students got taken in by all of it, and I think benefited from the professor walking them through how to investigate.

This is probably all downstream from under-investing (or outright sabotaging) public education.

I don't know how to fix this.