I think both Warzel and you are missing a more nefarious dimension of both the intent and effect of the tornado of lies and knowing disinformation: it is designed to delegitimize reality, e.g.; elections are rigged,non-citizen votes, etc to discredit election results, Hannah Arendt made the point that this fog machine is not to get people to believe it, but so they don't believe anything "other" authorities say -- only the totemic cult leader--- "I alone, can fix it."
Honestly, I don’t think most of the people most affected were not particularly grounded in reality to start with. There are an awful lot of people whose reality is derived from their vibes rather than the other way around. I suspect it’s just a lot easier to see in the age of social media.
Also old people like me are probably more susceptible to creating a reality where everything is going to pot because, well, as far as our body is concerned, everything is going to pot.
"No, the truth is that Donald Trump remains competitive in this race because some Americans believe that despite his myriad flaws, he would be an effective president.
That is a crazy notion, but it is not due to disinformation. It’s due to some weird alchemy of traditional campaign bullshit and the gut instincts of rationally ignorant voters. Misinformation is a sideshow."
I'm not following this parsing of a bright distinction between disinformation and misinformation on the one hand, and bullshit and ignorance on the other.
Why do you think people are ignorant and susceptible to bullshit?
The distinction I think DD is making here, and that I think is insightful, is that Trump supporters don't necessarily believe Trump's outlandish claims. They simply support him regardless, whether it's because they dismiss them as "traditional campaign bullshit" (think this Times article today captures that dynamic well: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/us/elections/trump-promises-extreme-rhetoric.html) or because they don't really care about the details and think that Trump better represents what they want ("rationally ignorant voters").
Why I think this matters is that spending too much time and energy trying to debunk the mis/dis-information is pointless and may actually be counterproductive for the reasons that Matt Yglesias explains here: https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1845604089557639258
Echo what you say that, in the end, a mystifyingly-large number of people somehow still think Trump is effective, despite his obvious, breathtaking incompetence. That MIGHT be a sign of Post-Truth, or social nihilism... or perhaps my all-time favorite: utter effing stupidity.
Michael Caulfield is an old classmate of mine from secondary school. Brilliant, conscientious guy who has done some impressive, insightful work on dis- and misinformation.
This is just blather. I know no one who would call his first term breathtaking incompetence. Until Covid hit, the country was enjoying the best economy of any president. Especially for the low income and minority worker. Trump was a lock for a second term. That's breathtaking incompetence all right
"The best economy of any president." Ever? Really? Want to back that up with some facts? Meanwhile, once I'm home from work today, I'll answer your first charge, gladly. Oh, and does Dan calling him The Toddler in Chief count against your "no one?"
Warzel is much closer to the mark here. There is a relatively small group of people who are clearly aware that Trump lost the 2020 election and tried to overthrow the results by force, that human-caused climate change is amplifying the severity of climatic disasters, that Trump lies constantly about both big and small things, and who are nonetheless going to vote for him. That group includes neo-Nazis who welcome the Big Lie, wealthy people who only care about tax cuts and (rarely mentioned, but important) a large group for whom being a Republican is an irreducible part of their personal identity.
But the vast majority aren't like that. They want to believe as much as they can of what Trump says, and explain away the rest. For them, a constant supply of misinformation (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) is an essential service.
It's easy for people to reject the big, blatant lies and look past them. In fact, it makes them feel smart to be able to spot them.
The problem is in the subtle lies, like about immigration taking jobs (it doesn't) and Trump rewriting his record (taking credit for limiting insulin prices). People are very poor at spotting those and they are what shape opinions.
Donald Trump has been fact checked thousands of times and lies several times a day--nothing "opinion" based about it. This has been proven countless times. Truly--countless--I'm guessing no one on earth has count anymore. Meanwhile, are you gonna cite a single fact yourself here? Just thought I'd ask.
Excellent piece, Dan. However, your conclusion that many Trump voters think he would be an effective President may not be true. I suggest that many would vote for him because they like his attacks on liberals, his outlaw behavior (and words), and his boosting their egos if they feel looked down on, not to mention that the decisions of some are based on sexism and racism. So, surely some of those voters are not interested in whether he would be effective.
Except for the racism sexism part, which I see little evidence for, not to say it doesn't exist, I've just never heard a supporter say it, your comment is very accurate
"real information is overwhelmed by crank theories and public servants battle death threats" This is always the defense of censorship. And yet we've never seen crank theories overwhelm anything. And all these death threats are never prosecuted, leading one to question their existence.
I think both Warzel and you are missing a more nefarious dimension of both the intent and effect of the tornado of lies and knowing disinformation: it is designed to delegitimize reality, e.g.; elections are rigged,non-citizen votes, etc to discredit election results, Hannah Arendt made the point that this fog machine is not to get people to believe it, but so they don't believe anything "other" authorities say -- only the totemic cult leader--- "I alone, can fix it."
Honestly, I don’t think most of the people most affected were not particularly grounded in reality to start with. There are an awful lot of people whose reality is derived from their vibes rather than the other way around. I suspect it’s just a lot easier to see in the age of social media.
Also old people like me are probably more susceptible to creating a reality where everything is going to pot because, well, as far as our body is concerned, everything is going to pot.
"so they don't believe anything "other" authorities say" What authorities? The ones who are right?
The last lines of this piece absolutely nails it:
"No, the truth is that Donald Trump remains competitive in this race because some Americans believe that despite his myriad flaws, he would be an effective president.
That is a crazy notion, but it is not due to disinformation. It’s due to some weird alchemy of traditional campaign bullshit and the gut instincts of rationally ignorant voters. Misinformation is a sideshow."
I'm not following this parsing of a bright distinction between disinformation and misinformation on the one hand, and bullshit and ignorance on the other.
Why do you think people are ignorant and susceptible to bullshit?
The distinction I think DD is making here, and that I think is insightful, is that Trump supporters don't necessarily believe Trump's outlandish claims. They simply support him regardless, whether it's because they dismiss them as "traditional campaign bullshit" (think this Times article today captures that dynamic well: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/us/elections/trump-promises-extreme-rhetoric.html) or because they don't really care about the details and think that Trump better represents what they want ("rationally ignorant voters").
Why I think this matters is that spending too much time and energy trying to debunk the mis/dis-information is pointless and may actually be counterproductive for the reasons that Matt Yglesias explains here: https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1845604089557639258
Good West Wing clip someone added to that thread:
https://x.com/SER1897/status/1845688982597955924
"rationally ignorant" is an oxymoron.
Echo what you say that, in the end, a mystifyingly-large number of people somehow still think Trump is effective, despite his obvious, breathtaking incompetence. That MIGHT be a sign of Post-Truth, or social nihilism... or perhaps my all-time favorite: utter effing stupidity.
Michael Caulfield is an old classmate of mine from secondary school. Brilliant, conscientious guy who has done some impressive, insightful work on dis- and misinformation.
This is just blather. I know no one who would call his first term breathtaking incompetence. Until Covid hit, the country was enjoying the best economy of any president. Especially for the low income and minority worker. Trump was a lock for a second term. That's breathtaking incompetence all right
"The best economy of any president." Ever? Really? Want to back that up with some facts? Meanwhile, once I'm home from work today, I'll answer your first charge, gladly. Oh, and does Dan calling him The Toddler in Chief count against your "no one?"
Warzel is much closer to the mark here. There is a relatively small group of people who are clearly aware that Trump lost the 2020 election and tried to overthrow the results by force, that human-caused climate change is amplifying the severity of climatic disasters, that Trump lies constantly about both big and small things, and who are nonetheless going to vote for him. That group includes neo-Nazis who welcome the Big Lie, wealthy people who only care about tax cuts and (rarely mentioned, but important) a large group for whom being a Republican is an irreducible part of their personal identity.
But the vast majority aren't like that. They want to believe as much as they can of what Trump says, and explain away the rest. For them, a constant supply of misinformation (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) is an essential service.
It's easy for people to reject the big, blatant lies and look past them. In fact, it makes them feel smart to be able to spot them.
The problem is in the subtle lies, like about immigration taking jobs (it doesn't) and Trump rewriting his record (taking credit for limiting insulin prices). People are very poor at spotting those and they are what shape opinions.
These aren't lies but opinions. Arguments can be made for both sides. Just because one side has a weak opinion doesn't make it a lie.
Donald Trump has been fact checked thousands of times and lies several times a day--nothing "opinion" based about it. This has been proven countless times. Truly--countless--I'm guessing no one on earth has count anymore. Meanwhile, are you gonna cite a single fact yourself here? Just thought I'd ask.
Excellent piece, Dan. However, your conclusion that many Trump voters think he would be an effective President may not be true. I suggest that many would vote for him because they like his attacks on liberals, his outlaw behavior (and words), and his boosting their egos if they feel looked down on, not to mention that the decisions of some are based on sexism and racism. So, surely some of those voters are not interested in whether he would be effective.
Except for the racism sexism part, which I see little evidence for, not to say it doesn't exist, I've just never heard a supporter say it, your comment is very accurate
Why doesn't the hard working staff take a look at this paper: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-census-projections-show-immigration-is-essential-to-the-growth-and-vitality-of-a-more-diverse-us-population/#:~:text=Projected%20US%20population%20growth%2C%202022%2D2100&text=By%20the%20year%202100%2C%20the,in%20the%20zero%20immigration%20scenario.
I’d prefer to call it disinformation. There is a difference.
Also Daniel Happy Holidays.
"real information is overwhelmed by crank theories and public servants battle death threats" This is always the defense of censorship. And yet we've never seen crank theories overwhelm anything. And all these death threats are never prosecuted, leading one to question their existence.
Perfectly illustrating Warzel's point, here's someone offering disinformation that can be refuted within seconds
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-sentenced-sending-death-threat-michigan-election-worker
and who will certainly not adjust their beliefs more than the minimum necessary to respond to this refutation.
Okay you win. Change never to incredibly seldom
"and who will certainly not adjust their beliefs more than the minimum necessary to respond to this refutation."
Heheheheheh. The response illustrates exactly that.