The Social Media Speculation $hitshow
- because conspiracy is good for the bias
I'm NOT going spend much time on what I consider the obvious, except to say, political violence - like all violence - should be condemned and makes us less human. In the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
When Deb informed me that someone had made an assassination attempt on Donald Trump's life, I commented, "The conspiracies were fully-formed before he got off the stage."
True to form, on both the left and the right, I watch otherwise decent and rational people pointing fingers and reaching conclusions. Unsurprisingly, those conclusions, without fail, insinuate or outright claim that the "other side" is part of a nefarious coverup. Anyone who doesn't see that is obviously biased and blind.
These confident assertions, while bereft of data, are the unfortunate byproduct of a tribe first lack of skepticism that the social media attention algorithms feed off.
In case you haven't read or experienced, social media, all platforms, want (NEED) engagement. While cute kitten videos garner some attention, NOTHING draws eyeballs like ire. Anger, fear, and being part of the mistreated group is a far greater motivation than laughter, beauty, or community. And definitely far more than skeptical analysis.
Standing up in the din of angry and unfounded speculation, from ALL-CAP arm-chair analysts, wins you only derision.
In fact, skeptical analysis may the first casualty of the social media outrage machine.
And once the thought is posited and confirmed by those first few likes and comments, pulling back from the abyss requires one to admit they jumped the gun on speculation and turned it into a solid proposition - if only in their mind. This all prior to any evidence being gathered or offered.
While gaining new information that corrects old information should be a positive, that is not how the human animal operates. We don't like to be wrong and we fight, diligently, to affirm what we "know" is true. Even when we don't truly know.
New information that does not confirm our prior conclusions becomes the confirmation of the cover-up.
At that point, a grainy video that insinuates our worst fears is far more tangible than a report that details findings. Even when that report was put together by experts on the scene; expert that spent days poring over video, speaking with others on the scene, and gathering hard evidence from the scene and from other locations and people the data led to.
Of course the "other side" is lying. Of course, "they" would say this.
The need to be right about the speculation is far more important and self-affirming than an, "I should hold my thoughts and judgement until we know more" response. Being right in our outrage feeds our dopamine receptors in a way that, "I don't know" never can.
I mostly avoided social media for that reason alone.
The skeptic has the most boring, and least visible, voice on social media. Standing up in the din of angry and unfounded speculation, from ALL-CAP arm-chair analysts, wins you only derision.
"You obviously cannot be that blind," is the only conclusion one can arrive at. Once they have determined the truth - evidence be damned - actual truth becomes far more tenuous and difficult to determine, let alone, accept.
You should know that the "other side" is assessing you the same way you assess them. And, of course, they are wrong, blind, sheeple, etc. - and you are, obviously, right. Can I get an amen!
That does not mean there are no conspiracies. That does not mean "they" - whoever "they" are - have not lied before. They have! "They" probably do that more than we care to admit.
But ask yourself a few questions....
Is is true that my side has never lied? Why is it that the my speculation always leans in my favor - always demonstrates that the "others" are in the wrong?
Do I, in fact, have evidence - hard evidence - to corroborate my point of view?
None of the speculations I've seen - and none of the speculations that have crossed my mind - warrant much attention. But algorithms and outrage will give them attention - warranted or not. That is the algorithm’s sole purpose.
Unless you are gathering data on the scene and have the type of expertise that understands how to assess that data, unless you are cross-referencing that data with other data, and working with other experts to analyze that data, the hard truth is, you don't know. You truly don't.
And more than, "sorry", "I don't know" seem to be the hardest words.
Thanks for dropping by.
Matthew Moran
July 15, 2024
Freakshow Confidential
Moran's contentions are absolutely correct.
That which is hysterical, hyperbolic and hateful always gets top billing.
For example my substack posts that I am proudest of are hardly examined. People are not interested in a detailed, dispassionate analysis. They want something which, in the words of old cereal advert., has snap, crackle and pop. My posts which are inflammatory and almost demagogic are loved.
Shit sells.
For example, George Wallace said, after he lost his first gubernatorial race in Alabama, that his adversary had "out-niggered" him, i.e., he had lost because his opponent used more virulent and hateful anti-black rhetoric. That's how Wallace's meteoric political ascent began: He triumphed by becoming one of the most racist pols in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Once again well said. Engage the fear machine, right. It is a tragedy that one attendee died and others were critically wounded. The why it happened will get sorted out but honestly my thoughts are for the families of the people who lost their life or were hurt.