NancyLebovitz comments on The Institute For Propaganda Analysis, A Precursor and a Warning - Less Wrong

20 [deleted] 29 March 2012 06:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (10)

Comments (10)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 29 March 2012 07:08:54PM 7 points [-]

High points partial transcript of a lecture about polarizing political rhetoric. There's a link to the lecture, and I'll finish the partial transcript next week.

This is very careful analysis by a linguist-- relevent to your first paragraph, not the second.

Comment author: [deleted] 29 March 2012 08:05:01PM *  1 point [-]

This is very interesting indeed. A fascinating read, to be sure. While we here seem to take an instantaneous view of the political climate surrounding us, it is refreshing to see a historical perspective. Now that this Kathryn has highlighted the tendency, an explanation should, I think, be needed. Why is political discourse turning more harsh and irrational than it used to, and starting to turn out oddly similar to Nazi rhetoric?

Comment author: fubarobfusco 30 March 2012 09:16:49AM 11 points [-]

Some possibilities:

  1. It isn't. It always was this bad (Hearst's yellow journalism; Father Coughlin; the John Birch Society; Red Scares).
  2. Political discourse in the mass media is harsher not because of more divergent actual views, but because of reduced censorship / greater freedom of speech. Saying some of these things a few decades back would have attracted charges of libel, obscenity, or incitement to riot.
  3. Overt political violence is rarer than before (e.g. the Ku Klux Klan; or partisan thugs working for local machines); thus on the one hand rabble-rousers are free to make cruder attacks without fear of physical reprisals; and on the other hand, rhetorical violence acts as a substitute for real violence.
  4. Substitution of political group rivalries for religious or ethnic group rivalries, e.g. Protestant vs. Catholic, or overt antisemitism.
  5. Substitution of political values for religious values: equating having the right political views with being a good person; and having the wrong ones with being a heretic or infidel.
  6. Fascism is fun! Being part of a big bright-eyed movement that believes the right things, relies on one another's strength, has awesome leaders, and is obviously fated to triumph over those wimp-ass traitor motherfuckers over there, is a thrill a minute.
  7. It sells ads. Which reduces to asking: Why does it sell so well?
Comment author: gjm 30 March 2012 10:21:55AM 6 points [-]

Most of that is excellent, but #6 can't be an answer to "why is political discourse getting fascist-ish now?" unless fascism has become more fun recently. Is there any reason to think it has? (It's not impossible. If part of the fun is the feeling of being part of something big, that may be easier to achieve in our more highly connected age. But then, that goes for other non-fascist ways to be part of something big, too.)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 02 April 2012 10:16:51PM 1 point [-]

It's at least plausible that 9/11 made a good many Americans want simple forceful solutions.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 31 March 2012 12:34:07PM 1 point [-]

Point one doesn't work-- there are names and eras which are remembered when it was unusually bad.

It's possible that political hostility are more visible in the US because we have periods of relative civility.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit