Ancestors

Toot

Written by Marko Vujnovic on 2025-01-18 at 04:16

A term I just learned about that really describes everything right now: hypernormalisation. The elaborate pretense that clearly and obviously failing systems are not failing and everything is ok. Originally coined to describe life just before the Soviet Union collapsed, but also applies to late stage capitalism.

Crucially, it does not imply a conspiracy. It is engaged in by the majority of society, because the alternative is unbearable and unimaginable.

[#]uspol #canpol

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from dawngreeter@dice.camp

Descendants

Written by Coach Pāṇini ® on 2025-01-18 at 04:18

@dawngreeter

=> View attached media

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from paninid@mastodon.world

Written by ʙᴇɴ ᴄᴏᴛᴛᴇяɪʟʟ on 2025-01-18 at 04:44

@dawngreeter @Binder Here is a good Adam Curtis doc on it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from BenCotterill@mastodon.social

Written by Zhi Zhu 🕸️ on 2025-01-18 at 05:36

@dawngreeter

The "This is fine" dog is an example of hyper-normalization.

[#]Cartoon #Comic #Meme #Memes

=> View attached media

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ZhiZhu@newsie.social

Written by Heliograph on 2025-01-18 at 11:47

@ZhiZhu 😬 :thisisfinefire: #thisisfinefire @dawngreeter

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Heliograph@mastodon.au

Written by John on 2025-01-18 at 05:45

@dawngreeter

Why are so many people so sure conspiracies don't exist, when we have proof that in the recent past they did exist and that they dramatically altered the US political landscape to benefit specific interests?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from johnzajac@dice.camp

Written by rootfake on 2025-01-18 at 12:18

@johnzajac @dawngreeter So, it's not that conspiracies never exist, obviously they do, it's that, at the scale that most conspiracy theories require, they're next to impossible to hide. It's the "two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead" thing, the vaster the conspiracy, the more leaky it gets. Take Snowden, for example. Most people working in tech knew that the NSA was snarfing a bunch of data, maybe not specifics, but it was more "oh, so that's what they were doing".

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from rootfake@mastodon.social

Written by rootfake on 2025-01-18 at 12:35

@johnzajac @dawngreeter

The trick tends to be looking for the leaps in logic. A group of politicians banning a popular app all owning stock in it's primary competitor? Mundane claim, no real leap to say "they're probably not doing this for "national security"". However, a vast network of people, all with conflicting interests, working together to accomplish a goal with dubious benefit to any of them? It requires a lot more "okay but why?" and "is there any evidence of that?".

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from rootfake@mastodon.social

Written by rootfake on 2025-01-18 at 13:06

@johnzajac @dawngreeter It's quite important to note how often conspiracy theories are people trying to rationalize systemic problems. Often, the theorist identifies a real problem, caused by incentive structures within society, but cant reconcile that with their worldview. Instead, they decide that it must be intentionally caused by "them". In so many cases, the real issue is "this makes more money and is allowed" or something similar (like 75% are just capitalism).

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from rootfake@mastodon.social

Written by rootfake on 2025-01-18 at 13:14

@johnzajac @dawngreeter all this to say, most of the political influence ops in recent years have been open and blatant about what they're doing, it doesn't stop them from working, but they aren't really a secret. (they may also meet some definitions of conspiracy, but I assumed secret here) sorry for the infodump, I find conspiracy theories and why people believe them fascinating.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from rootfake@mastodon.social

Written by John on 2025-01-18 at 14:47

@rootfake @dawngreeter

The "leap of logic" rubric is interesting. Hadn't heard that. Thanks for the information!

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from johnzajac@dice.camp

Written by David J. Atkinson on 2025-01-19 at 08:39

@johnzajac @rootfake @dawngreeter “Leap of Logic” gives new legs to LOL

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from meltedcheese@c.im

Written by ➴➴➴Æ🜔Ɲ.Ƈꭚ⍴𝔥єɼ👩🏻‍💻 on 2025-01-18 at 15:19

@rootfake @johnzajac @dawngreeter I don't think this is a great argument. MKUltra and the early nuclear projects both involved tens of thousands of people. Both had private researchers scattered across the country keeping their mouths shut for decades.

I think the argument against conspiracy theories is that they very rarely predict actually conspiracies (suppression of climate evidence by Exxon), when they do they're full of wild inaccuracies (HAARP, MLUltra), or they are provably false (like a ton of UFO stuff that we now know was created by the US government to keep UFO conspiracies away from learning about top secret weapons development)

Conspiracy Theorists are the butt of a massive joke against them. They perpetuate what's false and distract from what's true.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from AeonCypher@lgbtqia.space

Written by John on 2025-01-18 at 15:27

@AeonCypher @rootfake @dawngreeter

COINTELPRO comes to mind as a conspiracy that was basically hidden or ridiculed for a half century before being revealed, that involved multiple government agencies and thousands of people.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from johnzajac@dice.camp

Written by ➴➴➴Æ🜔Ɲ.Ƈꭚ⍴𝔥єɼ👩🏻‍💻 on 2025-01-18 at 15:35

@johnzajac @rootfake @dawngreeter That's a great example. Though the people saying it was happening didn't use the phrase Cointelpro and weren't the usual conspiracy theory suspects. They were recounting personal experiences.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from AeonCypher@lgbtqia.space

Written by ➴➴➴Æ🜔Ɲ.Ƈꭚ⍴𝔥єɼ👩🏻‍💻 on 2025-01-18 at 15:38

@johnzajac @rootfake @dawngreeter same w MKUltra actually. Hippies amd others associated withthe country culture were talking about it before it finally came out in the hearings.

They didn't have special information, they were targets and were repeating their experiences.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from AeonCypher@lgbtqia.space

Written by rootfake on 2025-01-18 at 19:58

@AeonCypher @johnzajac @dawngreeter those are great examples! And yeah, lacking any sort of predictive power is another great argument against. The thing about COINTELPRO and MKUltra is that the core teams were actually fairly small. Like, MKUltra was massive, but most of it's size was the CIA funding research into psychedelics secretly, the core team out dosing people secretly and setting up CIA run brothels was a much smaller team that worked directly for the CIA

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from rootfake@mastodon.social

Written by ➴➴➴Æ🜔Ɲ.Ƈꭚ⍴𝔥єɼ👩🏻‍💻 on 2025-01-18 at 20:44

@rootfake @johnzajac @dawngreeter the MK family of programs was massive, but most of the people working on it had no idea they were working on it.

I also will not that there is a statistical problem with guesstimate how prevalent conspiracies are. In that we only have measurements for when they are discovered.

What is certain is that we can't take a conspiracy theory as evidence of anything. In fact, it's argue a body of conspiratorial literature is inversely correlated with fact.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from AeonCypher@lgbtqia.space

Written by rootfake on 2025-01-18 at 21:31

@AeonCypher @johnzajac @dawngreeter exactly! and yeah that's a really good point, there's definitely potential for lots of shady stuff we never found out about. It comes down to the same rule that applies to all knowledge, only believing things when there is evidence to support them. Conspiracy theories tend to operate on the exact opposite logic, creating a claim, then dismissing anything that doesn't support it, they're effectively weaponized confirmation bias.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from rootfake@mastodon.social

Written by John on 2025-01-19 at 01:51

@rootfake @AeonCypher @dawngreeter

Speaking of conspiracies...

=> View attached media

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from johnzajac@dice.camp

Written by Marko Vujnovic on 2025-01-19 at 02:47

@johnzajac @rootfake @AeonCypher I just think we need to keep in mind that one should never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to stupidity. Or, as the Brits would put it, cockup before conspiracy.

But more importantly than that, never attribute to either malice or stupidity what can more easily be explained by actors following incentives in a complex system.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from dawngreeter@dice.camp

Written by John on 2025-01-19 at 03:02

@dawngreeter @rootfake @AeonCypher

I mean, isn't "a large number of powerful people working in secret to hide a plague" and "a large number of powerful people working in secret to hide a plague because there are incentives in the system for them to do so" a distinction without a difference?

Obviously conspiracists have incentives, systemic or otherwise.

Also, this is both unprecedented and literally inexplicable absent a malign conspiracy. We don't do it with any other pathogen.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from johnzajac@dice.camp

Written by John on 2025-01-19 at 03:03

@dawngreeter @rootfake @AeonCypher

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from johnzajac@dice.camp

Written by rootfake on 2025-01-19 at 03:49

@johnzajac @dawngreeter @AeonCypher arguably the difference is that it's not really a secret. It's less "a shadowy cabal is covering up covid deaths" and more "society at large has decided "getting back to normal" is more important than people's lives". There's not really a "plan", just a lot of pressure to make things look more "normal". It's a mostly semantic distinction, but it's important because it changes how we look for solutions.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from rootfake@mastodon.social

Written by rootfake on 2025-01-19 at 03:53

@johnzajac @dawngreeter @AeonCypher the conspiracy theory gives a false sense of "here's who's behind this", which is comforting because it creates an enemy that can be fought. The reality is much more complex, and if you don't change the systems, the next group of people in power will just do the same thing.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from rootfake@mastodon.social

Written by David J. Atkinson on 2025-01-19 at 09:00

@rootfake @johnzajac @AeonCypher @dawngreeter …consider “emergent phenomena,” that is, an unpredictable behavior of a system as a whole that cannot be strictly attributed to any particular component of the system, e.g., stop and go traffic. No individual driver is responsible. It emerges from collective behaviors. “Conspiracy theories” may be bad explanations for phenomena based on what we are predisposed to see, i.e., intentional behavior.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from meltedcheese@c.im

Written by John on 2025-01-19 at 15:13

@meltedcheese @rootfake @AeonCypher @dawngreeter

POSIWID.

Stop and go traffic is a result of a culture bent on getting private, individual cars into the hands of as many people as it can, while not building, expanding or upgrading any alternative means of transportation.

I can see the argument that COVID eugenics is just our system's designed preference for death over equity. But it's not some random thing, and individuals are responsible for their immoral actions, regardless of the system.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from johnzajac@dice.camp

Written by David J. Atkinson on 2025-01-20 at 01:03

@johnzajac @AeonCypher @dawngreeter @rootfake Definitely agree with the personal responsibility part. In situations as serious as this, it is not excusable to simply follow the crowd.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from meltedcheese@c.im

Written by JimmyChezPants on 2025-01-18 at 15:48

@dawngreeter

Here's a Youtube link in case the BBC site doesn't let anyone in...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr7T07WfIhM

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jpaskaruk@growers.social

Written by Geoff Berner on 2025-01-18 at 17:45

@dawngreeter I think it's important not to be tempted to chalk this up to Human Nature, though. Hypernormalization is created. It's made by wealthy people paying for right wing think tanks and publicity machines. the Urgency of Normal messaging that convinced people to infect themselves and their children with Omicron was carefully crafted, focus-group tested, and blasted out with hundreds of millions of dollars of ads and media blitzes.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Geoffberner@zeroes.ca

Written by Marko Vujnovic on 2025-01-18 at 17:52

@Geoffberner I do think human nature is a part of it. Of course, there are clearly individuals and power centers that drive a large chunk of it. There is blame, both for action and inaction (this mostly being various government agencies and institutions).

But even for the complicit ones, I do think there is an element of human nature driving situational blindness. Late stage capitalism is a story of power centers and capital owners copying each other's actions and no one knowing why exactly.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from dawngreeter@dice.camp

Written by Geoff Berner on 2025-01-18 at 17:55

@dawngreeter no doubt you're right. Highly paid propagandists like the guy from the Brownstone Institute have a great feel for the weaknesses they can exploit in people. The buttons are there and they know how to push them.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Geoffberner@zeroes.ca

Written by Henry Edward Hardy on 2025-01-18 at 18:01

There is a great BBC series by Adam Curtis called, "Hypernormalization."

https://archive.org/details/HyperNormalisation

@dawngreeter

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hhardy01@mastodon.social

Written by Henry Edward Hardy on 2025-01-18 at 18:29

In, "1984" by Orwell, hypernormalization is called, "Doublethink."

"DOUBLETHINK means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt."

Orwell

1984

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

@dawngreeter

=> View attached media

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hhardy01@mastodon.social

Proxy Information
Original URL
gemini://mastogem.picasoft.net/thread/113847419616308294
Status Code
Success (20)
Meta
text/gemini
Capsule Response Time
658.401755 milliseconds
Gemini-to-HTML Time
14.237677 milliseconds

This content has been proxied by September (3851b).