Bigfoot Logic

My single-minded aim is to give existence to fantasy.

– Claes Oldenburg

Ideological thought is unfalsifiable, due to the immense need for ideological preservation. Any thought that goes against the narrative is almost immediately reshaped into something that does. This usually means that an obtuse, unprovable explanation is given. I call this “Bigfoot logic”.

Imagine you are at a camp site and go away from the tent to go fishing. You come back to your tent destroyed and items broken. What could be the explanation? An animal attack might be logical and sensible. A thief or a bad wind storm might also make sense. The conspiracy theorist’s explanation: Bigfoot! This of course is not provable because there is no solid evidence for Bigfoot’s existence. There was no way of knowing what hit your campsite. A regular animal attack would be provable as it is logical, and footprints and bite marks would be present. But declaring Bigfoot would mean that the conspiracy theorist is correct, and reinforce the narrative.

As an example, Stanford’s rate of sexual assault were low. What could be the reasoning for this? The logical explanation might be that sexual assault is just not committed. Perhaps the sexual assault awareness programs are effective (never mind that the actually are not). What is their answer? The rates must be fixed! The university is clearly covering up the mass amount of rape! Women are reporting less frequently! These are of course, unprovable accusations. If the university was investigated for cover ups and they were found to have done so, it proves the narrative. If the investigation is inconclusive, then it is simply the university covering itself up again. There is no hard way to prove that students are reporting less frequently (and no, self-report surveys have massive problems, not to mention all of the issues that the 1 in 5 studies have on their own). If they do report less often, then the narrative is reinforced. If they do not report less often, it is still a cover up or they are still scared of reporting. There is no way out of the narrative.

Another great example is the one Gad Saad uses. A student wore a hijab for 2 weeks to seek out islamophobia and bigotry on campus. It turns out everyone was kind and accepting. The obvious conclusion is that everyone is not a bigot. The actual answer? It is just the students trying to make up for the fact that they really are bigoted! Not only is there no way out, there is no way to prove that the students are closet bigots, outside of secretly monitoring them.

Now, there is also no way to prove that students are always tolerant and accepting. But “proving” a theory is not necessarily the key point. A simple, straightforward, and logical example is all that should be considered. Assuming the unlikely does not work. An explanation that a normal person would accept should be enough. Ideologues are not normal people, as they are beholden to their narratives.

Ideological Thought

Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science.
– E. O. Wilson

Another interesting (and dangerous) part of ideologies and bias are the effects on thought. Ideological preservation implants itself into the mind quite easily. People obviously have their biases and read things how they want to, leading to blatant confirmation bias. However, ideologues go much farther, not allowing or giving any possible thought to alternate explanations most of the time. Otherwise, they risk their narrative being shattered. Thus, ideologues need to practice this far more than normal individuals.

Let’s take a simple example: the second amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The process goes something like this: the statement is read in the base language. Additional information such as context are thought of as well. This goes into the mind to be processed by the brain. Then, it hits the “ideological part” of the brain. An NRA member will read the 2nd amendment will focus on the “right of the People to keep and bear arms” segment. An gun control activist will focus on the “well regulated militia” segment. The other parts of the statement will most likely be ignored. Again, we read what we want, but ideologues have a bigger duty to preserve the narrative, and thus the typical bias is enhanced.

Another example is the controversy and narrative around the new Ghostbusters movie. The narrative is that anyone who does not want to see the movie is just a sexist. Any other explanation can be given, such as the movie is not funny or the special effects are bad, but this goes against the narrative. The narrative must be preserved at all costs.

On a different note, the narrative becomes pervasive when it is mixed with identity politics. The narrative needs to be preserved, even with non-arguments. For example, a male saying that the wage gap does not exist would be declared a sexist. One can point to a female saying that the wage gap does not exist, and the answer is usually “internalized misogyny” or they are “uneducated”, all of which are attacks on the individual instead of their position. The narrative implants itself in the brain. There is no possible way a female or a “true feminist” could argue against a feminist narrative or argument. So there has to be some kind of alternate explanation. It is difficult if not impossible to argue against non-arguments. Ideological preservation is the only thing that the ideologue cares about. It again goes deeper than bias, because the bias is necessary for the ideology’s survival. There is no possible way for an ideologue to think neutrally.

Argumentative Labelling

No day passes without a Democratic politician, a left-wing commentator, or, if I may be excused a redundancy, a left-wing academic labeling Republicans and conservatives racist.
– Dennis Prager

Ideologies pose a danger in that they not only limit their members, but outsiders as well. You obviously have to call your movement something. This is where things fall apart. All too often, the name of the ideology is used as a defense for it. Don’t approve of Black Lives Matter? You’re a racist! Don’t approve of a feminist idea? You must be a sexist! It is the ultimate non-argument, because it literally avoids any possible argument.

This is very important in opposing ideologies. For example, if you attack Democratic ideas, you must be a Republican. If you’re for Democratic ideas, you must be left-wing. This leaves the idea out of the question. You can’t debate the idea for what the idea is worth. You have to line yourself up with a particular ideology in order to debate it.

Another very important issue is “guilt by association” or just simple smearing. On Buzzfeed or other typical leftist sites, Republicans or conservatives are racist, sexist, bigots etc. So, if you are a Republican (or echo a conservative idea) you must be racist. The same thing happens to the alt-right and men’s rights activists. Yes, there are problems with these groups, but they do not give a true sense of the movement or ideas, as they are selected examples (new law: when media posts an article about trolls / “harassment” on the internet, and tweets are embedded, the tweets more often than not have 20 retweets/favorites or less). Of course, it still is ignoring the basis of the ideas. If the idea itself is bigoted, then why do you need to connect it to a movement? If the idea is so helpful and virtuous, can it not stand on its own?

It also leads to endless ad-hominems. “You are not a true conservative” or “you don’t understand the movement” is again ignoring the core idea. Why should I have to know everything about an ideology to criticize an idea that affects broad society? Of course, the person who claims to be a “true” part or that understands the movement, is the other person. It is a position that can not be argued against – because it is not an argument.

Outsiders are crucial , as the entire purpose of a movement or ideology is to attract those not in the movement, and create a positive perception (or so it would seem to an outsider). If someone not in your movement finds something off or generally does not agree, it can be used as a tool of recruitment. One can explain why their argument is flawed, or the movement could gain new insight for a problem. Of course, any internal or external disagreements lead to the collapse of an ideology, hence this behavior and the need for ideological preservation.

Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee

I’ll get back to the regular posts soon enough, but this case is just too good to pass up.

For those (somehow) unaware, Tyler Kissinger held a protest on May 30th, and is facing expulsion. The (failing) New York Times gave the following details:

He went in to Levi Hall without permission
He lied to security officers
He waited and let other unauthorized people in
He stormed the president’s office and staged a long-term sit-in

Of course, as someone who literally carries copies of the University of Chicago speech codes with me at all times, he did not comply with any of them. His behavior for sure disrupted the operations of the University. He also gained access to a building that he was not supposed to be in (why wold he wait and hide to let others in if that was not the case?). This is a private university. Any standard protections are gone. So, by all extents, he should be expelled. However, the “free speech activists” have come out of the woodwork to defend him.

This is a standard blatant leftist hypocrisy. If censorship or suppression of free speech goes to stop the violent and racist phrase “Trump 2016” or to shut down any other event, it’s perfectly fine! They’re all bigots! Yet, when a person breaks several rules in the name of a minimum wage, it is a problem. We should place contrived limits on freedom of speech, but when we literally break the actual limits of free speech, that’s perfectly great!

This thought process is incredibly dangerous. It is what leads to such things such as encouraging violence against Trump supporters and people saying that Black Lives Matter can’t lynch people (have we gone full regressive already?!). The “ends justify the means” mentality that is apparent here is despicable. You can’t be a half-activist of free speech. You can’t endorse free speech only when it helps your cause. Maybe I should denounce Trump and endorse Hillary. I can call anything I don’t like “hate speech”, and then commit literal crimes and be protected under the guise of progressiveness.

Bernie did endorse his behavior, but he’s just practicing endorsing criminals.

Why the DNC is screwed.

With Hillary’s indictment looming, the Democrats are in a pickle. Here is how things will most likely go down in every possible scenario.

Clinton is indicted, pardoned, and nominated: Complete disaster. Several FBI agents and other staff will resign. Obama will have his legacy tainted. Trump will be running against a literal criminal. It will be framed as if she wasn’t one, since she was not indicted (just like Bill Clinton is not considered impeached when he was not removed from office). Bernie supporters will all drop and never back her. Some of the Clinton voting block might stay home.

Bernie is nominated: Some of the Clinton camp will drop out and not support Bernie. Bernie is too far left for any reasonable person, and will alienate some of the Clinton block. He may revise some of his policies to be less socialist, but this will only alienate some of his voters. Trump destroys Bernie easily, regardless of polls. Just some reminders of Venezuela and that should be enough. It also depends who is VP. Elizabeth Warren is a death wish on any staff on the ticket.

Another candidate is nominated: The entire voting block is alienated due to feelings of disenfranchisement. Pathetically easily landslide for Trump. Biden is the safest option, but would have to make up for 1 year of lost time. Warren, again, is a death wish.

Ideological Preservation Part 2: Ignorance and Dismissal

The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.

– Robertson Davies

One of the most basic mechanisms of ideological preservation is simple ignorance. If conflicting facts are not presented, then there is no need to explain them. This is primarily done in classrooms and academia because it is extremely simple to do so: just don’t mention it. Of course, the purpose of a university (in theory…) is to present multiple views on a subject to encourage critical thought. However, at least in my experience, this has not occurred. In my sociology classes throughout the year, it took until nearly the end of the last quarter to bring up any criticism of Marxism. If students do not seek out criticisms, whether they do not want to or do not know where to look, then the ideas in the classrooms are presented as a singular entity. One of my professors said “If you don’t think Thomas Kuhn is correct, then you’re just wrong!” I suppose Alan Sokal is just wrong then…

Media of course plays easily into this role as well. I already went into detail about how social media ruins any critical thought. Obviously, the media is in control of the narrative. They for example, won’t make headlines stating that Obama banned all Venezuelan immigrants (as of the time of writing the search “obama venezuela immigration” only returns Reddit results). This is because they want to keep the narrative that Trump banning entire countries from immigrating is unacceptable. It is also why feminist websites will never post about Hillary Clinton’s foundation pay gap.

When these facts are brought to light, the next step is dismissal. The easiest way, at least in academia, is to simply say that they are wrong. The source is unreliable or ill-argued. This is done from a position of power and nothing else. We are trusting that the professors be unbiased, and take their word for it. They do not need to justify any complaints that something is wrong. The classic way to dismiss is to simply label the work. Saying that a work is “outdated” or even conservative (God forbid that someone has a different belief system!) is another simple method of dismissal which requires no substantive explanation or defense of one’s own ideology (Kimball, Roger – Tenured Radicals pg 20). When you’re out of ideas, one can fall back on the good-old fashioned tried and true method of comparing things you don’t like to Hitler (Tenured Radicals pg 5).

Feminism gains far more power by accusing something of being racist or sexist. These are simple yet powerful words. They still hold no meaning, especially in academia. Stating that something is sexist does not necessarily make it so. In my opinion, only the intent matters in acts. The problem is that otherwise, such terms become nebulous and tricky to define. Does one person calling a view sexist make it so? Does it have to be two or more? Does it have to be every female professor? If one person does not find the view sexist, is it enough to cancel it out? If a female professor agrees that it is not sexist, does that cancel it out? There is no way to determine if something is sexist or racist. There is no definable objective test as to whether a view is sexist or not, it can only be subjective in nature. As such, it is ripe for abuse, as one can then simply claim any view they don’t like is sexist or racist (Tenured Radicals pg 20).

Ignorance is bliss. By ignoring conflicting facts and reason, the ideology preserves itself quite well. Marxism and feminism are, in universities, presented as the only correct view. This also applies to other current paradigms such as postmodernism or critical theory. This is dangerous, as it means no other interpretations are considered. Putting all the problems in these paradigms aside, all of these ideologies are just one method of interpreting the world. Encouraging and implanting one world view is detrimental to the university experience as well as in real life. Of course, the ideologues are far more concerned with the upkeep of their ideology, rather than considering other points of view.

Dismissal is also dangerous to individuals as well. When something is dismissed, it is done through a position of power. Power is then used as the justification. When a professor says a view is incorrect or wrong, they do so with presumed authority. Of course, this does not mean that professors can’t correct an incorrect presumption or view, they just have to do it factually and rationally. Simply saying it is wrong is not enough. Referencing their own ideological positions are not enough either, especially when such ideology is also easily debunked. The classic feminist line is “educate yourself and check your privilege!”. This is also done from a position of power, as it is presuming that the one using the line is more informed about the subject. The main issue is that it increases animosity towards other points of view. If you’re view is right, why should you have to explain it? You’re clearly the more informed one. Anyone who brings out criticisms must not know what they are talking about! In that regard, dismissal then plays multiple roles. It preserves the ideology by giving a simple, inarguable reason to get rid of opposing views. It also functions as a recruiting tool, as dismissing from a position of power, especially when they are a professor, makes one want to learn the “right” way of thinking. When ignorance and dismissal fails, that’s when the reshaping process begins…

Big Media and Critical Thought

“The devil gave humans critical thinking, which God didn’t want us to have.”

– Unknown

Big media has ruined critical thought both intentionally and unintentionally. The notion that the internet is truly open is misguided in practice. Firstly, one chooses what to see. Subreddits and Youtube channels are subscribed to, Facebook pages are liked, friend requests are approved, and who you follow on Twitter are all selected. You get to choose your own environment. This is obviously not an issue on its own. However, one still only gets views that one approves of. This is highly dangerous as one view is usually stated over and over, even if this view can easily be proven factually incorrect. It also labels enemies quite easily. If someone if your group posts something that is not approved of by that group, it is fiercely attacked, even if it shows factual basis. People are more likely to respond harshly online as opposed to in-person. This creates a dangerous atmosphere where people might be afraid to post due to fear of backlash. It is also extremely easy to unfollow / unfriend someone, making it easy to simply hide different points of view or posts rather than confront them.

This issue goes farther when sites are catered to one’s preferences, or just outright censors. In 2011, Facebook implemented an algorithm to tailor user’s main pages based on the links that they clicked. This means that content that did not “interest you” (i.e. you didn’t click the links) would be filtered out. Not only can one tailor social media themselves, the companies can do it for you. One now only has a guaranteed singular perspective. There have been reports of Twitter and Facebook silently censoring views or posts that they do not agree with. It is of course up to the company to decide what is acceptable or not, but they primarily censor conservative views, or any hashtags or posts critical of feminism. This brings the ability to hide views up to the highest level. Now even if people want to see opposing views, they do not have the ability to do so.

This leaves us with an illusion that the internet is truly a free flowing area of information. The main point to take away from this, are the effects in real life. If one spends all of their time on Facebook, they are glued to the views that they hold. When someone comes and challenges that view in person, the view is held on to. You have seen many posts and articles about it, it must be true! Even when presented with factual evidence, the articles have trained you to disregard it, because what you have seen can not possibly be wrong, everyone has said it! It does not help when these views are also parroted by mainstream media, and sites such as Buzzfeed. Big media also prevents considering other points of view by using the usual buzzwords. A great example is the phenomenon known as “gamedropping”, where in a completely irrelevant article, Gamergate is mentioned for no reason. This also frequently occurs in any mention of MRAs (men’s rights activists), whom the media frequently paints as “misogynistic manbabies”, while associating them with shooter Elliot Rodger (who was never even related to MRAs in the first place. Nor is it right to blame the actions of one on a few, unless we already hate that group). Big media truly controls what we see, whether we like to or not. It is extremely dangerous, and has been the root of the formation of ideologies such as feminism and the #NeverTrump movement.

Political Tribalism and Identity Politics

There were people attending the Republican convention in blue jeans. Some asked if they were lost and if they needed directions to the Democratic convention.

– Newt Gingrich

One of the many divisive aspects in politics has been the two party system. Especially in the modern age, everyone is all too eager to label their ideological opponents. This is clear despite the recent surge of people calling themselves independents. These labels have become increasingly hostile over the years, almost to the point of them being slurs in some areas. It’s clear that something is at play when Caitlyn Jenner says she gets more hate for being a Republican than for being transgender.

The reason why Trump is attractive to many people is that he appeals to moderates that have been pushed out of the left by this increasing hostility. For example, I disagree with tight gun control. I’m not a second amendment freak, or think we should arm nine year olds. I just think that it would be ineffective. If people want drugs, they will get drugs. If people want guns, they will get guns. But then the leftist media will spam you with that story of that gun activist who was shot by her 4 year old son. Because it’s not like accidents happen or one person disregarded gun safety, it’s those evil guns and those idiot gun owners!

You can’t criticize policies for policies’ sake anymore. You can’t argue against an idea because you think it’s wrong. You can’t take a slice of cake without having to eat the whole thing. There must be some ulterior motive. When I argued against the idea there is a wage gap or a rape culture on campus, I was asked by my resident heads if I was part of any conservative groups on campus. When Milo Yiannopoulos and Caitlyn Jenner are against gay marriage, there must be something really wrong. When latinos are against illegal immigration, they must be secretly racist.

Identity politics have indeed divided more than it has brought us together. Viewing people as labels has made it easier than ever before to dismiss arguments without making any points. Admittedly, this also happens with the GOP who say Trump is not a “real conservative”, whatever that means. (But stereotyping and profiling people is wrong. We shouldn’t judge people based on their identity, unless we think their identity is wrong!) When this is combined with the idea that when you say you support a candidate, you support them 110% on everything, it only leads to mass anti-intellectualism. Especially with the current 2016 election, it is all too simple to label all supporters as the most extreme, distorted version of what they stand for. Trump supporters are all Nazis! Look at this picture of a Trump supporter doing a Nazi salute with no context (see side note)!! Honestly, it is only 5 or 6 words: “I support X as president”. You don’t know why they are supporting a candidate or if they even agree with them completely. Because there can’t be different reasons for liking a candidate. We must all be divided into individual camps that are clearly incompatible with each other.
Side note: The picture of the old white lady doing the Nazi salute at the Chicago Trump rally has been described by various sources as: an evil Trump supporter, a Hillary Clinton supporter doing it as a false flag, and a Trump supporter doing it ironically to piss off the protestors. Nuance is dead. But the good thing is it still represents all that is wrong with the Trump movement, right?

The Media is Sometimes Right (When They Agree With Me)

In fact, however, the supporters of the welfare state are utterly anti-social and intolerant zealots. For their ideology tacitly implies that the government will exactly execute what they themselves deem right and beneficial. They entirely disregard the possibility that there could arise disagreement with regard to the question of what is right and expedient and what is not.

– Ludwig von Mises

Trump and Sanders are often two sides of the same coin. One labelled “fascist” and the other labelled “progressive”. This is not about their views, but mainly about their treatment by the media, and the public’s reaction to such claims. When the Washington post posted 16 anti-Sanders articles in under 16 hours, it demonstrates a very clear media bias. When anti-Trump article after anti-Trump article is posted, it’s certainly fine because clearly any sane individual would be against Trump (except for losers like Caitlyn Jenner).

When Trump and his supporters get shut down, beat up, and silenced for supposed racism, this is an amazing act of progressive bravery. When Sanders was shut down by BlackLivesMatter for supposed racism, this was the clear result of overly entitled idealogues. When Trump is considered fascist for retweeting a Mussolini quote (because the first thing we do in school is memorize a list of Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini quotes so we can avoid saying them. Also, authoritarian / fascist / nazi / communist leaders have to be great leaders. Otherwise, they would be shot) this is great evidence to not support Trump. When Sanders is implicated for sexism for defending himself against interruptions by Clinton, this only serves as a ridiculous, horribly incorrect outlook.

When people call Sanders a socialist or a communist bent on infiltrating and destroying the country, this is just a dumb, extremist outlook on him. Nevermind that he is surely supported by some hardcore socialists. But when Trump is called a white supremacist, this is obviously a clear assessment of the facts. After all, he is supported by the Ku Klux Klan! Nevermind that the KKK has been irrelevant for years.

One of the things that has really removed me from the left is this sort of minority fetishism. No woman, person of color, or hispanic can do any wrong. When a woman makes a false rape claim, it’s alright! She was just starting a conversation and probably ruined someone else’s life! But with Trump specifically, he is sometimes only labelled a racist because the media says so. His famous quote on immigrants uses the word some. Not all, not most, some. Yes, some illegal immigrants do bring crime, drugs, gun, and are rapists. Some. Yes, some immigrants use the system for their personal advantage, learn English, and send their kids to college. Why is it so xenophobic or racist to tell the truth? Some people abuse the system, some people use the system to their advantage. Why can’t we fix the system to keep the bad guys out and the hard workers in? I don’t think the wall is the best solution, but it sure is better than anyone else’s. Trump is not completely against immigration. He wants to reform the system to cut down on illegal immigration.

Dangerous Thoughts

Tag Archives: media spin