"But then there’s also the fact that the Grey Lady, which will fact check the claim that the sky is blue, published a piece of what is really just speculative fanfiction."
As long as its the right kind of oppressed minority writing the right kind of fantasies about the right kind of celebrity. Then, they and those like them are just so special that they are entitled to everything that they deserve. Even if La Swift herself doesn't feel like going along.
The wrong kind of minority writing the wrong kind of fantasies about the wrong kind of celebrity is just icky and cringe and unrealistic.
Seriously, for sheer lack of contact with The Real World. these people make Marie Antionette look like a medieval gong farmer or a pygmy tribesman by comparison.
I don't really understand why anyone has any kind of elevated expectations for the NYT anymore. That paper has been garbage for at least 15 years, probably longer. I lost all respect for them when they made the decision to carry water for Dick Cheney and his torture program.
Agreed. Pandering to the part of its readership that connects with something like the Marks article puts The Gray Lady on the same level as Tiger Beat. Kinda funny, really, to see such a formerly dominant presence in the media landscape blow its own foot off with a pop gun.
No. Because something that Freddie does not mention was just how freaking long the piece was. There were like four times when I felt sure I was reading the concluding paragraph, but it just kept going.
Freddie - Not sure if this was directed toward my comment, but I hope it did not come across as saying something negative about your essay (which was excellent). I was talking about the NYT piece, which along with it's substantive problems, just seemed bizarrely long-winded, especially given the subject matter.
That was a joke, brother. I sent you a personal email just days ago thanking you for every word you wrote in a previous post where you turned off comments.
A long time ago, I remember a music critic writing, “Nobody is harder in his fans than Prince”. I think we have found someone who is harder on his fans. Still a fan, though.
Freddie’s reactionary behavior in his comments section is one of the most baffling things to me. I would think that someone with such great writing skills would have equal competence in reading the context clues of someone else’s writing. Idk why he takes things so personally sometimes.
And yea, that essay was ballsy. I figured comments would be off coming in so hot for the new year with that one. But it was great regardless.
Kinda unfortunate tho, every time he writes that particular essay I always want to point out the category error in his argument. Despite his coming to all of the correct conclusions, it’s a criticism that keeps the entire sentiment of the argument intact, but renders the need for presenting it in the way he does so moot *while also addressing the primary leftist/marxist criticism he receives for his stance.
It puts me in mind of that unbelievable tweet asking if girls in Afghanistan were aware of Black Girl Magic, tagging Beyoncé, Lizzo, and Regina King. The spirit of Tumblr has become a strange sort of pantheism.
"I’m forever battling people in the comments here who insist that nothing that ever happens on the internet can ever have any real-world impact."
Yes! Without the internet, the Unite the Right rally would've never happened. People organize to gather in physical space on the basis of this hyper self-reinforcing internet dynamic.
You really get it right when you question the actual political impact of representation. I think it's pretty clear all of these mass media shows are mainly about allowing people to congratulate themselves for not being a racist or a homophobe, like it's an achievement in life.
Or making them feel they've done a good deed each time they sit on their ass for a few hours watching TV. Eaten their greens and helped to make the world more diverse.
And the vast majority of people watching or listening to all of this representation-forward content are white and straight - it's just culture as vitamins.
Perceived political value has become a prized metric for how people praise or criticise art. It's reflected too in the way TV and podcast companies now make sure to add some spurious shit about the victims to their murder or true crime stories just so that people can still like those in 'the right way' and pretend that's the reason they're watching, as some form of reclaimed justice, since god forbid anyone admit that humans might be intrigued by violent crimes or aberrant behaviour.
I normally avoid comparing culture to food since McDonalds will kill you and no amount of pop music will, but a lot of what we see on Netflix etc these days seems to very similar to food labs and their endless quests to create a snack that doesn't make you feel full or sick after eating the whole bag.
Exactly. So much of this art made for a "diverse audience" is consumed by middle class white people. They could actually go to the poor oppressed people and sew what they like. But they won't because they know what they will find. It's better to pretend Jarrod Carmichael represents Black America and not Bernie Mac.
Be fair. The kid in Dead Poets Society killed himself because he was being forced to go to an Ivy League university and medical school. It apparently didn’t occur to him to just take the Ivy League bachelor degree, enjoy some theatre electives on the side, and then tell his parents sayonara upon graduation.
I always read it as him giving up because it became clear that his father would never accept him for who he is, and only for who he was expected to be. His father's love was entirely conditional, and thus the one person whose approval he craved, he would never have. Combine that with being packed off to some bastion of ramrod discipline, and it just became too much.
Telling his father fuck off after getting a degree wasn't actually going to solve his deepest hurts.
I wonder how much of this is also an outgrowth of the fact that the only financially viable feminist websites were basically entertainment gossip sites aimed at people aged 15-25. Older women or women less focused on parasocial relationships with celebrities just read the Times or the Post. When Feministing switched to long form reporting pieces, it failed financially, while Jezebel limped along for years acting like pieces about the Kardashians and Pete Davidson's dating life were going to bring about Bernie's revolution. The Cut ran that horrible Julia Fox piece on it's cover, while Ed Kilgore wrote a New York piece on abortion regulations. For about a decade, feminist media could only get clicks by telling young women that feminism was having pop culture make you feel validated because they couldn't afford actual female reporters who could report on things like healthcare, criminal justice, foreign policy, etc.
Excellent post that brings out the complexities but still nails what is in my view the bottom line. I especially appreciate that DeBoer, in critiquing the idea that art is supposed to speak for and to one's ascriptive identity, does *not* take the position that diversity in art is silly or pernicious. It's not. That the film industry finally started offering films like Malcolm X and Daughters of the Dust matters tremendously, for all kinds of reasons.
Yes, Fiona Apple was right. But it's even worse than she knew back in 1997. Then she worried that people were copying what famous people thought was cool and letting it shape their lives. But today, in the era of the influencer and Youtuber, I have a feeling that many, many people think they don't even really *exist* unless they themselves are something akin to a celebrity––that is, unless they have their lives witnessed by a mass audience of strangers.
When I was much younger, I would get into some of the gossip for celebrities because, let’s face it, life can be boring and it was a fun escape. However, with the rise of toxic fandoms and all the like, I stay away from it as it’s just sad to watch.
I read the article in the NYT and thought it was a bit off…wishing for someone to be a different sexuality that publicly and in the NYT was an interesting choice.
I understand why Swift would be angry at it but I refuse to feel bad for someone who has the wealth and privilege she does. This legitimately doesn’t affect her all that much and it will pass as all internet things do.
I would love for us to stop worshipping celebrity as a culture, but I don’t see it coming. Let’s just hope that more insane crap isn’t spun up in the sewers of the servers and unleashed upon us all.
This NYT piece haunted me since it came out, for all the reasons FDB talks about and then some. At the ripe old age of 33, I am old enough to remember when that sort of public speculating (and potential outing) about a celebrity's sexuality was trashy at best, dangerous at worst.
Item: My spouse is enrolled in a Masters of Environmental Science program and came home one night frustrated because the professor—the professor!—was musing about how we, as a society, might finally start taking climate change seriously if only Taylor Swift said something about it. I'm not necessarily a climate change doomer, and I shouldn't dismiss a professor, program, or field based on a few idle remarks, but if that's the sort of problem solving happening at the level of Environmental Studies these days then we are well and truly screwed.
Also: it is fine and fun to be invested in popular things, but I can assure you that, while it may not offer the ecstatic highs of the eras tour (which is a blast, I'm sure, if that's your thing), there's a more dignified, democratic, and emotionally/financially sustainable way of interacting with your favorite musicians as they get more independent and/or local. Like, you could buy Melissa Carper a beer and briefly chat with her at the merch table next time she comes to town, if you feel you must meet your favorite musicians. But maybe it's the safety in knowing you will never get within 100 yards of Taylor Swift that allows for this level of emotional investment. The presence of the human face, in person (not in a stadium) has a way of dissuading the sort of disordered behavior that otherwise normal people are engaging in online these days.
And, yeah, I'm not easily offended, and I'm not a part of the queer community, but I was offended at how this piece just erased the artists you mentioned and dozens more. Justice for Lavender Country! Brandi Carlile is out there like, "See that I'm the one who understands you/ been here all along, so why can't you see..."
"My spouse is enrolled in a Masters of Environmental Science program and came home one night frustrated because the professor—the professor!—was musing about how we, as a society, might finally start taking climate change seriously if only Taylor Swift said something about it."
Magical thinking is a sure sign of desperation. I've seen similar in an M.Ph. program.
Maybe the professor was commenting on the power of celebrities and the general public's rabid attention to celebrities instead of things that really matter? I hope..
At some point don't we have to acknowledge that we're an animal evolved to exist in tribes, and we crave acceptance in a tribe nearly as much as oxygen? It's pretty clear to me that religion filled that need for people for centuries, and now that America is a lot less religious people are grasping for something to take its place. I agree with some of your previous writings that religion without a literal belief in God probably doesn't work. But God damn, I hope we can find a better replacement for religion than whatever this is.
We can acknowledge quite a lot. One thing homo sapiens does much better than all other animals is think critically, which gives him the ability to not be stuck using actions wholly determined by evolution. Ffs.
I used to think that. I don't think that way though anymore, and this essay shows one example why. I think we're better than other animals at language and creating narratives which allow us to do the exceptional things we do. But we're pretty much chimps otherwise (Watch "Chimp Empire"). Thinking this way makes it easier to understand behaviors like those described here by FdB.
Oh, I didn't say we do the critical thinking thing well all the time! Nor that all members of a population engage in utilizing that particular skill! Nor that those same populations and the individuals that make them up aren't also susceptible to other, let's just say 'less benevolent', factors. I'm.just pointing to capability here.
Problem is: with social media/24 hour news cycles, some dumbass shit some woke or Nazi, respectively, wacko San Francisco or Texas school board member does is publicized loudly for the echo chambers of the opposing team, even though neither reflects most liberals or conservatives.
Yes, but tribalism has strong tendencies to quash speech that the tribes leaders and spokespersons (including media) claim to be detrimental to the tribe.
In addition to evolution, there are system dynamics (mob mentalities) which can quickly shut down free speech, making reason irrelevant. Once a stampede starts, no single member of the herd can stop without risking immediately death.
We once countered that, by a a tribe (nation) dedicated to the ideals of free speech, law and order, and social norms. Reverence for those ideals and norms has been eroded, by leaders of sub-tribes declaring "existential threats" of various kinds, demonizing half the nation - and widespread *lying* by mainstream media.
There is a strong human tendency for leaders to rise to the top based on loyalty, power dynamics, and corruption.
Reason and competence ideally will rise to the top, but often not - particularly for older structures and structures which have no consequences for failure or corruption.
For most humans most of the time, the fastest and surest way to wind up dead or seriously disadvantaged has been at the hands of other humans. At the same time, "our group", whether by faith, family, tribe, regiment, whatever, are the humans we can trust to have our back.
Therefore, whatever else happens, whatever we have to do, believe absurdities, blindly follow barking insane leaders, parrot obvious lies to our detriment, do or suffer terrible things, but please whatever you do, please don't kick us out of the group!
Those who have lived in the Third World and in developed countries should have a light come on about now.
What this also means is that when humans are presented with incontrovertible proof that the group narrative is wrong or that the group leaders are mad or charlatans or worse, rather than change leaders or change beliefs or change groups, most humans, most of the time will instead double down. Witness the behavior of cultists.
The process is called "cognitive dissonance" and it is abundantly documented. As alluded to earlier, there are entire religions organized around the principle.
Cognitive dissonance is not limited to stupid people. In fact, the intelligent are at least as prone, perhaps because they are better at rationalizing. In fact, much so-called "knowledge work" is basically learning symbol manipulation in order to rationalize something.
Yep. I spent all of my 20s and half my 30s wishing the world could all secularize so that people could be enlightened and rational and oh how much better things would then be. Now that I've seen what it's like...and how many people really are anti social and/or aggressive without fear of God/hell...I've changed my mind. Maybe it can sometimes be pulled off in places with some other binding pro social element, but we have nothing like that in the US and everything seems to be turning into a shit show now that no one (even the people who still claim to be religious) has any qualms about being judged by God.
I still think the fact that the NYT opinion section published someone who had written slashfic about Dennis and Mac from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is funnier than them publishing this.
"But then there’s also the fact that the Grey Lady, which will fact check the claim that the sky is blue, published a piece of what is really just speculative fanfiction."
As long as its the right kind of oppressed minority writing the right kind of fantasies about the right kind of celebrity. Then, they and those like them are just so special that they are entitled to everything that they deserve. Even if La Swift herself doesn't feel like going along.
The wrong kind of minority writing the wrong kind of fantasies about the wrong kind of celebrity is just icky and cringe and unrealistic.
Seriously, for sheer lack of contact with The Real World. these people make Marie Antionette look like a medieval gong farmer or a pygmy tribesman by comparison.
I don't really understand why anyone has any kind of elevated expectations for the NYT anymore. That paper has been garbage for at least 15 years, probably longer. I lost all respect for them when they made the decision to carry water for Dick Cheney and his torture program.
Agreed. Pandering to the part of its readership that connects with something like the Marks article puts The Gray Lady on the same level as Tiger Beat. Kinda funny, really, to see such a formerly dominant presence in the media landscape blow its own foot off with a pop gun.
I concur. Don't forget withholding information about the W regime illegally spying on Americans so as not to "interfere" with the election.
Personally, I stopped taking the Times' pop culture coverage seriously in 1992.
https://www.theringer.com/music/2017/11/8/16615842/grunge-new-york-times-slang
You can take the rest of the year off after this tour de force. But I hope you do not.
God, no kidding.
Right? Did Freddie write more words than the NYT piece?
No. Because something that Freddie does not mention was just how freaking long the piece was. There were like four times when I felt sure I was reading the concluding paragraph, but it just kept going.
What you mention has become a bit of a hallmark
If you don't like what happens around here, I'd be happy to prevent you from seeing any of it again
Freddie - Not sure if this was directed toward my comment, but I hope it did not come across as saying something negative about your essay (which was excellent). I was talking about the NYT piece, which along with it's substantive problems, just seemed bizarrely long-winded, especially given the subject matter.
That was a joke, brother. I sent you a personal email just days ago thanking you for every word you wrote in a previous post where you turned off comments.
A long time ago, I remember a music critic writing, “Nobody is harder in his fans than Prince”. I think we have found someone who is harder on his fans. Still a fan, though.
Freddie’s reactionary behavior in his comments section is one of the most baffling things to me. I would think that someone with such great writing skills would have equal competence in reading the context clues of someone else’s writing. Idk why he takes things so personally sometimes.
And yea, that essay was ballsy. I figured comments would be off coming in so hot for the new year with that one. But it was great regardless.
Kinda unfortunate tho, every time he writes that particular essay I always want to point out the category error in his argument. Despite his coming to all of the correct conclusions, it’s a criticism that keeps the entire sentiment of the argument intact, but renders the need for presenting it in the way he does so moot *while also addressing the primary leftist/marxist criticism he receives for his stance.
He's mentioned several times that he has "oppositional defiant disorder". Whatever the case may be, this here is the best $5 I spend each month.
It puts me in mind of that unbelievable tweet asking if girls in Afghanistan were aware of Black Girl Magic, tagging Beyoncé, Lizzo, and Regina King. The spirit of Tumblr has become a strange sort of pantheism.
Wow, I'm really glad I missed whatever that was you're describing.
Tweeted by a member of the American Embassy staff in Kabul. It was stunning.
Reminds me of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdrvpSfJM1w
"I’m forever battling people in the comments here who insist that nothing that ever happens on the internet can ever have any real-world impact."
Yes! Without the internet, the Unite the Right rally would've never happened. People organize to gather in physical space on the basis of this hyper self-reinforcing internet dynamic.
Personally I think Taylor Swift shows great empathy with the plight of mothers-in-law who are murdered by their mercenary children and their spouses.
I guess I am too far out of touch with popular culture to get this reference.....
Try this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1kbLwvqugk
Great...now I have to deal with that Taliban-women-art-class subject dancing around in my YouTube algorithm for months.
You really get it right when you question the actual political impact of representation. I think it's pretty clear all of these mass media shows are mainly about allowing people to congratulate themselves for not being a racist or a homophobe, like it's an achievement in life.
Or making them feel they've done a good deed each time they sit on their ass for a few hours watching TV. Eaten their greens and helped to make the world more diverse.
And the vast majority of people watching or listening to all of this representation-forward content are white and straight - it's just culture as vitamins.
Perceived political value has become a prized metric for how people praise or criticise art. It's reflected too in the way TV and podcast companies now make sure to add some spurious shit about the victims to their murder or true crime stories just so that people can still like those in 'the right way' and pretend that's the reason they're watching, as some form of reclaimed justice, since god forbid anyone admit that humans might be intrigued by violent crimes or aberrant behaviour.
I normally avoid comparing culture to food since McDonalds will kill you and no amount of pop music will, but a lot of what we see on Netflix etc these days seems to very similar to food labs and their endless quests to create a snack that doesn't make you feel full or sick after eating the whole bag.
Exactly. So much of this art made for a "diverse audience" is consumed by middle class white people. They could actually go to the poor oppressed people and sew what they like. But they won't because they know what they will find. It's better to pretend Jarrod Carmichael represents Black America and not Bernie Mac.
Another hidden gem, now I know about Mitski.
A recent great one from her: "Bug Like an Angel"
Be fair. The kid in Dead Poets Society killed himself because he was being forced to go to an Ivy League university and medical school. It apparently didn’t occur to him to just take the Ivy League bachelor degree, enjoy some theatre electives on the side, and then tell his parents sayonara upon graduation.
And also he was going to be transferred from the chichi private school to a military academy.
I always read it as him giving up because it became clear that his father would never accept him for who he is, and only for who he was expected to be. His father's love was entirely conditional, and thus the one person whose approval he craved, he would never have. Combine that with being packed off to some bastion of ramrod discipline, and it just became too much.
Telling his father fuck off after getting a degree wasn't actually going to solve his deepest hurts.
Ditto.
While we’re at it, I thought the girls in Virgin Suicides acted a bit hastily!!!!
I wonder how much of this is also an outgrowth of the fact that the only financially viable feminist websites were basically entertainment gossip sites aimed at people aged 15-25. Older women or women less focused on parasocial relationships with celebrities just read the Times or the Post. When Feministing switched to long form reporting pieces, it failed financially, while Jezebel limped along for years acting like pieces about the Kardashians and Pete Davidson's dating life were going to bring about Bernie's revolution. The Cut ran that horrible Julia Fox piece on it's cover, while Ed Kilgore wrote a New York piece on abortion regulations. For about a decade, feminist media could only get clicks by telling young women that feminism was having pop culture make you feel validated because they couldn't afford actual female reporters who could report on things like healthcare, criminal justice, foreign policy, etc.
The NYT article struck me as another manifestation of the "god-shaped hole;" we so want to make our gods in our own image.
That, crossed with cafeteria "spiritual, not religious" moral therapeutic deism.
Excellent post that brings out the complexities but still nails what is in my view the bottom line. I especially appreciate that DeBoer, in critiquing the idea that art is supposed to speak for and to one's ascriptive identity, does *not* take the position that diversity in art is silly or pernicious. It's not. That the film industry finally started offering films like Malcolm X and Daughters of the Dust matters tremendously, for all kinds of reasons.
Yes, Fiona Apple was right. But it's even worse than she knew back in 1997. Then she worried that people were copying what famous people thought was cool and letting it shape their lives. But today, in the era of the influencer and Youtuber, I have a feeling that many, many people think they don't even really *exist* unless they themselves are something akin to a celebrity––that is, unless they have their lives witnessed by a mass audience of strangers.
I worry for the parasocial amongst us.
When I was much younger, I would get into some of the gossip for celebrities because, let’s face it, life can be boring and it was a fun escape. However, with the rise of toxic fandoms and all the like, I stay away from it as it’s just sad to watch.
I read the article in the NYT and thought it was a bit off…wishing for someone to be a different sexuality that publicly and in the NYT was an interesting choice.
I understand why Swift would be angry at it but I refuse to feel bad for someone who has the wealth and privilege she does. This legitimately doesn’t affect her all that much and it will pass as all internet things do.
I would love for us to stop worshipping celebrity as a culture, but I don’t see it coming. Let’s just hope that more insane crap isn’t spun up in the sewers of the servers and unleashed upon us all.
If you are talking about whether to feel bad for Taylor Swift, I think you missed the point.
This NYT piece haunted me since it came out, for all the reasons FDB talks about and then some. At the ripe old age of 33, I am old enough to remember when that sort of public speculating (and potential outing) about a celebrity's sexuality was trashy at best, dangerous at worst.
Item: My spouse is enrolled in a Masters of Environmental Science program and came home one night frustrated because the professor—the professor!—was musing about how we, as a society, might finally start taking climate change seriously if only Taylor Swift said something about it. I'm not necessarily a climate change doomer, and I shouldn't dismiss a professor, program, or field based on a few idle remarks, but if that's the sort of problem solving happening at the level of Environmental Studies these days then we are well and truly screwed.
Also: it is fine and fun to be invested in popular things, but I can assure you that, while it may not offer the ecstatic highs of the eras tour (which is a blast, I'm sure, if that's your thing), there's a more dignified, democratic, and emotionally/financially sustainable way of interacting with your favorite musicians as they get more independent and/or local. Like, you could buy Melissa Carper a beer and briefly chat with her at the merch table next time she comes to town, if you feel you must meet your favorite musicians. But maybe it's the safety in knowing you will never get within 100 yards of Taylor Swift that allows for this level of emotional investment. The presence of the human face, in person (not in a stadium) has a way of dissuading the sort of disordered behavior that otherwise normal people are engaging in online these days.
And, yeah, I'm not easily offended, and I'm not a part of the queer community, but I was offended at how this piece just erased the artists you mentioned and dozens more. Justice for Lavender Country! Brandi Carlile is out there like, "See that I'm the one who understands you/ been here all along, so why can't you see..."
"My spouse is enrolled in a Masters of Environmental Science program and came home one night frustrated because the professor—the professor!—was musing about how we, as a society, might finally start taking climate change seriously if only Taylor Swift said something about it."
Magical thinking is a sure sign of desperation. I've seen similar in an M.Ph. program.
Maybe the professor was commenting on the power of celebrities and the general public's rabid attention to celebrities instead of things that really matter? I hope..
At some point don't we have to acknowledge that we're an animal evolved to exist in tribes, and we crave acceptance in a tribe nearly as much as oxygen? It's pretty clear to me that religion filled that need for people for centuries, and now that America is a lot less religious people are grasping for something to take its place. I agree with some of your previous writings that religion without a literal belief in God probably doesn't work. But God damn, I hope we can find a better replacement for religion than whatever this is.
We can acknowledge quite a lot. One thing homo sapiens does much better than all other animals is think critically, which gives him the ability to not be stuck using actions wholly determined by evolution. Ffs.
I used to think that. I don't think that way though anymore, and this essay shows one example why. I think we're better than other animals at language and creating narratives which allow us to do the exceptional things we do. But we're pretty much chimps otherwise (Watch "Chimp Empire"). Thinking this way makes it easier to understand behaviors like those described here by FdB.
Oh, I didn't say we do the critical thinking thing well all the time! Nor that all members of a population engage in utilizing that particular skill! Nor that those same populations and the individuals that make them up aren't also susceptible to other, let's just say 'less benevolent', factors. I'm.just pointing to capability here.
Interesting how often "unrealized" goes with "potential ".
Def
Problem is: with social media/24 hour news cycles, some dumbass shit some woke or Nazi, respectively, wacko San Francisco or Texas school board member does is publicized loudly for the echo chambers of the opposing team, even though neither reflects most liberals or conservatives.
Yes, but tribalism has strong tendencies to quash speech that the tribes leaders and spokespersons (including media) claim to be detrimental to the tribe.
In addition to evolution, there are system dynamics (mob mentalities) which can quickly shut down free speech, making reason irrelevant. Once a stampede starts, no single member of the herd can stop without risking immediately death.
We once countered that, by a a tribe (nation) dedicated to the ideals of free speech, law and order, and social norms. Reverence for those ideals and norms has been eroded, by leaders of sub-tribes declaring "existential threats" of various kinds, demonizing half the nation - and widespread *lying* by mainstream media.
There is a strong human tendency for leaders to rise to the top based on loyalty, power dynamics, and corruption.
Reason and competence ideally will rise to the top, but often not - particularly for older structures and structures which have no consequences for failure or corruption.
It's different for cats, I think.
For most humans most of the time, the fastest and surest way to wind up dead or seriously disadvantaged has been at the hands of other humans. At the same time, "our group", whether by faith, family, tribe, regiment, whatever, are the humans we can trust to have our back.
Therefore, whatever else happens, whatever we have to do, believe absurdities, blindly follow barking insane leaders, parrot obvious lies to our detriment, do or suffer terrible things, but please whatever you do, please don't kick us out of the group!
Those who have lived in the Third World and in developed countries should have a light come on about now.
What this also means is that when humans are presented with incontrovertible proof that the group narrative is wrong or that the group leaders are mad or charlatans or worse, rather than change leaders or change beliefs or change groups, most humans, most of the time will instead double down. Witness the behavior of cultists.
The process is called "cognitive dissonance" and it is abundantly documented. As alluded to earlier, there are entire religions organized around the principle.
Cognitive dissonance is not limited to stupid people. In fact, the intelligent are at least as prone, perhaps because they are better at rationalizing. In fact, much so-called "knowledge work" is basically learning symbol manipulation in order to rationalize something.
Yep. I spent all of my 20s and half my 30s wishing the world could all secularize so that people could be enlightened and rational and oh how much better things would then be. Now that I've seen what it's like...and how many people really are anti social and/or aggressive without fear of God/hell...I've changed my mind. Maybe it can sometimes be pulled off in places with some other binding pro social element, but we have nothing like that in the US and everything seems to be turning into a shit show now that no one (even the people who still claim to be religious) has any qualms about being judged by God.
I still think the fact that the NYT opinion section published someone who had written slashfic about Dennis and Mac from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is funnier than them publishing this.