Renee Diresta on niche propaganda; Sam Freedman on the UK health care system; Russ Roberts and Mike Munger on following moral norms; Helen Dale on Matt Goodwin on British politics
"Matt Taibbi, a longtime journalist who’s also a lead Substack writer, devotes many posts to exposing imaginary cabals for an audience that grew significantly after billionaire Elon Musk gave him access to company emails and other internal documents." What utter garbage. Taibbi-- a man of the left-- was able to overcome his own political tribalism, and saw through the Russia collusion hoax from the very beginning. If you are going to accuse someone of pursuing "imaginary cabals..." shouldn't you provide evidence? It is after all a very serious accusation. Shouldn't an "internet observatory" (lol) be able to provide proof of its claims?
Jacob Siegel identifies the Stanford Internet Observatory (where DiResta is a 'research manager') as one of the leading players in what he calls 'an industrial-scale censorship machine' in his TabletMag article "A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century." That's all you need to know about DiResta, apart from working at the CIA as a college student.
Yeah, DiResta herself doesn't exactly have clean hands when it comes to propaganda. The "paranoid style" of Substack is what you get when authors try to break out of the info ghetto to the mainstream - and are, of course, ignored. So they start yelling louder and louder... In any case, propaganda should be determined by its truth value, not its vehemence of style.
“Because of this, there may be some justification for Fear Of Others’ Liberty.”
When you say “[m]ay be some justification,” is the emphasis there on the “may,” as in its not clear if any fear is justified yet, or on “some,” in that there’s likely some, but it’s not really widespread and institutionalized?
Either way, at this point, it seems like that statement completely undersells it. In the early 2000s, there were a lot of conservative corners worrying about he risk to the cultural landscape and freedom of conscience with overturning a lot of moral legislation.
Much of those legislative changes may have been right in a vacuum, but I think those conservative fears have been largely vindicated in the past decade.
“Sometimes, the elites have supposedly silenced them”
A lot of truth to the Direstra excerpt + commentary you shared, but this quote from the article is triggering me a bit. It is quite possible, even common, for “things to be both popular and silenced” as Scott Alexander put it.
What government health care systems do you find to be efficient? Each of the Swiss, Swedish and other viewed efficient systems have gov saying overseeing but not running the systems which are run by insurance companies, similar to the old Blues in the US.
Perhaps here, Medicare Advantage might broadly fit in to the construct of what is seen in other efficient health care systems and has and continues to see growth.
> Delegitimization of outside voices is a core component of their messaging:
Pot, meet kettle.
> The “mainstream” media is in cahoots with the government and Big Tech to silence the people, while the media-of-one are independent free-thinkers, a disadvantaged political subclass finally given access to a megaphone …
But all of this is straightforwardly true. It documented (at least) in the Twitter Files. But it is also just out there to see the open in all the language about preventing the "spread of disinformation" or "amplifying trusted sources".
DiResta trying to tell you not to trust your lying eyes about this is a central example of "Delegitimization of outside voices "
> though in many cases, they have larger audiences and far larger incomes.
This is just a distraction. There come a time when engines of power are turned on tracks aligned philosophies of this still-heterodox tribe, but that time is not today. Today is still the time when universities gleefully discriminate against yellow people in order to fight racism, where employers are legally required to police the speech of their employees and where it's legally dangerous claim that men can't become pregnant. The fact that scribblers can move a lot of copy by decrying all this is not a sign that they control the Discourse. It's just a vote of confidence from the public.
> It seems likely that at least some of the audience believes that they have escaped propaganda and exited the Matrix, without realizing that they are simply marinating in a different flavor.
Yes, practical epistemology is hard, and we do all tend to jump in to bubbles depending on whom we believe. But there is value in having a republic where everyone jumps into *different* bubbles and yet are obliged to respect each others' rights, and to negotiate with them when exercising power.
Helen's take on the UK maps as you say, tho I'd call it GOPe, the college elite Reps, more than Paul Ryan (tax cuts and lots of immigration). Was pointing out to my son that after Reagan, G. Bush (41) was pushing NAFTA and lost to Clinton in '92 ... because of H. Ross Perot and "that big sucking sound of US jobs leaving for Mexico". Most Rep voters are non-college grads, tho most donors & GOPe are - and the Rep leaders are almost inevitably to be college educated.
"UK patriots" and US patriots would be even more accurate (than the "pugilistic, if not outright paranoid" Leaverstan) - wanting the good culture one lives in to remain a good culture. Many even remember the Reagan "Amnesty lie" ('86?) - accept one-time amnesty but then enforce the border and immigration laws. We got the Dem side amnesty, but not really good border enforcement.
But where are the poor single welfare mothers? And the slut-jerks who sleep with them, but don't marry (worse than Cad or even slut-cad). I'd guess this large group also has has the highest non-voting membership, but it's pretty big. Helen does a good review, but I'm planning on not buying that book.
One thing seems to get way less weight than it should in the US vs socialized medicine debate. If the US could gain nothing (better skills, equipment, drugs, etc ) from medical care in other countries, it would change very little. If other countries could gain nothing from US, their costs would increase, quality of care would drop, or both in huge ways.
Legal becomes approved - that's far from always true but still an excellent point.
Britain vs US - much like what I thought reading the quote from her. The extremes seem to control the discussion. I suspect it's not quite as bad as it looks though.
My wife and I like this term better than Arnold's "outrage porn" (earlier post) - because promiscuous use of "porn" weakens the disfavor over it. Loving to be enraged, usually at some "injustice" by the other tribe.
I do like it some, but think the truth should be most emphasized, which is the tribe I like the most.
"Matt Taibbi, a longtime journalist who’s also a lead Substack writer, devotes many posts to exposing imaginary cabals for an audience that grew significantly after billionaire Elon Musk gave him access to company emails and other internal documents." What utter garbage. Taibbi-- a man of the left-- was able to overcome his own political tribalism, and saw through the Russia collusion hoax from the very beginning. If you are going to accuse someone of pursuing "imaginary cabals..." shouldn't you provide evidence? It is after all a very serious accusation. Shouldn't an "internet observatory" (lol) be able to provide proof of its claims?
Jacob Siegel identifies the Stanford Internet Observatory (where DiResta is a 'research manager') as one of the leading players in what he calls 'an industrial-scale censorship machine' in his TabletMag article "A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century." That's all you need to know about DiResta, apart from working at the CIA as a college student.
Yeah, DiResta herself doesn't exactly have clean hands when it comes to propaganda. The "paranoid style" of Substack is what you get when authors try to break out of the info ghetto to the mainstream - and are, of course, ignored. So they start yelling louder and louder... In any case, propaganda should be determined by its truth value, not its vehemence of style.
https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2023/03/30/disinformation-is-the-word-i-use-when-i-want-you-to-shut-up/
“Because of this, there may be some justification for Fear Of Others’ Liberty.”
When you say “[m]ay be some justification,” is the emphasis there on the “may,” as in its not clear if any fear is justified yet, or on “some,” in that there’s likely some, but it’s not really widespread and institutionalized?
Either way, at this point, it seems like that statement completely undersells it. In the early 2000s, there were a lot of conservative corners worrying about he risk to the cultural landscape and freedom of conscience with overturning a lot of moral legislation.
Much of those legislative changes may have been right in a vacuum, but I think those conservative fears have been largely vindicated in the past decade.
“Sometimes, the elites have supposedly silenced them”
A lot of truth to the Direstra excerpt + commentary you shared, but this quote from the article is triggering me a bit. It is quite possible, even common, for “things to be both popular and silenced” as Scott Alexander put it.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/can-things-be-both-popular-and-silenced/
What government health care systems do you find to be efficient? Each of the Swiss, Swedish and other viewed efficient systems have gov saying overseeing but not running the systems which are run by insurance companies, similar to the old Blues in the US.
Perhaps here, Medicare Advantage might broadly fit in to the construct of what is seen in other efficient health care systems and has and continues to see growth.
I also find it interesting that four (?) of those 20 top writers seem to have acquired most of their following thanks to Covid-19.
Thanks for the link, Arnold (for Arnold's readers, the terms are defined and elucidated in my piece).
> Delegitimization of outside voices is a core component of their messaging:
Pot, meet kettle.
> The “mainstream” media is in cahoots with the government and Big Tech to silence the people, while the media-of-one are independent free-thinkers, a disadvantaged political subclass finally given access to a megaphone …
But all of this is straightforwardly true. It documented (at least) in the Twitter Files. But it is also just out there to see the open in all the language about preventing the "spread of disinformation" or "amplifying trusted sources".
DiResta trying to tell you not to trust your lying eyes about this is a central example of "Delegitimization of outside voices "
> though in many cases, they have larger audiences and far larger incomes.
This is just a distraction. There come a time when engines of power are turned on tracks aligned philosophies of this still-heterodox tribe, but that time is not today. Today is still the time when universities gleefully discriminate against yellow people in order to fight racism, where employers are legally required to police the speech of their employees and where it's legally dangerous claim that men can't become pregnant. The fact that scribblers can move a lot of copy by decrying all this is not a sign that they control the Discourse. It's just a vote of confidence from the public.
> It seems likely that at least some of the audience believes that they have escaped propaganda and exited the Matrix, without realizing that they are simply marinating in a different flavor.
Yes, practical epistemology is hard, and we do all tend to jump in to bubbles depending on whom we believe. But there is value in having a republic where everyone jumps into *different* bubbles and yet are obliged to respect each others' rights, and to negotiate with them when exercising power.
Helen's take on the UK maps as you say, tho I'd call it GOPe, the college elite Reps, more than Paul Ryan (tax cuts and lots of immigration). Was pointing out to my son that after Reagan, G. Bush (41) was pushing NAFTA and lost to Clinton in '92 ... because of H. Ross Perot and "that big sucking sound of US jobs leaving for Mexico". Most Rep voters are non-college grads, tho most donors & GOPe are - and the Rep leaders are almost inevitably to be college educated.
"UK patriots" and US patriots would be even more accurate (than the "pugilistic, if not outright paranoid" Leaverstan) - wanting the good culture one lives in to remain a good culture. Many even remember the Reagan "Amnesty lie" ('86?) - accept one-time amnesty but then enforce the border and immigration laws. We got the Dem side amnesty, but not really good border enforcement.
But where are the poor single welfare mothers? And the slut-jerks who sleep with them, but don't marry (worse than Cad or even slut-cad). I'd guess this large group also has has the highest non-voting membership, but it's pretty big. Helen does a good review, but I'm planning on not buying that book.
One thing seems to get way less weight than it should in the US vs socialized medicine debate. If the US could gain nothing (better skills, equipment, drugs, etc ) from medical care in other countries, it would change very little. If other countries could gain nothing from US, their costs would increase, quality of care would drop, or both in huge ways.
Legal becomes approved - that's far from always true but still an excellent point.
Britain vs US - much like what I thought reading the quote from her. The extremes seem to control the discussion. I suspect it's not quite as bad as it looks though.
I think readers of political substacks want the "tribal outrage thrill". That's why these are the top 20. They are serving their audience.
Rage-aholics!
My wife and I like this term better than Arnold's "outrage porn" (earlier post) - because promiscuous use of "porn" weakens the disfavor over it. Loving to be enraged, usually at some "injustice" by the other tribe.
I do like it some, but think the truth should be most emphasized, which is the tribe I like the most.