Everything is Teaching the Controversy, Now

 

I was recently reminded, now that we're in the age of "alternative facts" regarding Covid-19 and the 2020 election and climate change and who knows what else, of some of the strategies of disinfo I first encountered when intrigued by the creationism movement.  It still strikes me as interesting that creationism still exists even after we've got oodles of examples of transitional types (as are we all) from the fossil record, and that nothing will ever persuade people who have made it their mission to not be persuaded. 

A book is a mirror: if an ape looks into it an apostle is hardly likely to look out. 

    Georg C. Lichtenberg

One of  the things to understand about humans is we are political animals--we do tribalism. We have a need for belonging, we are not islands to ourselves but members of societies. We tend to consider our "goodness" according to the ideas of our immediate culture.  We identify and signify. And when we see our opposite number, we attack.  People who have found a disinfo tribe will defend their territory. They are defending their very identity. They see defending a thing that might even not be true as being existential for them,

 For many people, it might be necessary to profess untruths to continue in their identity. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the main group of folks who support Trump, creationism, are climate change denialists, and now antivaxxers, are evangelicals. They are basically who the old news media covenant of "both sides" was made for--the habit of mainstream journalism to also include minority views no matter how batshit or miniscule. So as to satisfy a vocal and activist minority.

They are "teaching the controversy" and so long as some kind of controversy exists, even if it is just some ignoramus sticking their tongue out and saying "Nyah!"--that's enough controversy for some to hang a movement or at least, a meaningful sense of tribal belonging on to. You could say that the existence of UFO-enthusiasts is proof aliens are among us, if you don't actually require proof of the aforementioned aliens and only need proof that people are asking questions and looking into it. And that also stands for any other "controversy". 

So, Andrew Wakefield was debunked, but persists. because having existed, one could also say there is a controversy. Just like any tobacco farmer could claim they don't think there's a really for real link between smoking and cancer, and any oil company can deny climate change. Transport ballots hither and yon under the auspices of being contracted by a GOP State Senate and count them and count them and fiddle with machines a bit and stow some ballots in a cabin somewhere and invalidate future use of those election machines and also be really dodgy, and you've got some kind of...election controversy, I guess (Although a goddamn stupid one, because who believes anything this stupid? --Oh yeah! Tribalism!) 

I'd love to believe that as a species we could be better than this especially since recent weather events show the climate crisis foretold by science is really upon our asses, but I also get that for many, tribalism is a form of survival. They depend upon signifiers to tell other people of the tribe they are fit to endure. They need to tell the kind of lies that make their lives worth living. Their belonging is their infrastructure, even if their roads and bridges and potable water and electric grid and other stuff that government should manage, goes to pot. As long as they represent their team, they suppose they have a means to a necessary social end. 

So I view with rank skepticism the idea that vaccine deniers just need someone to talk pretty to them, for example, or that rational arguments will debunk election denialists. I sometimes find myself thinking they just need shunning and gross disapprobation, to understand that neighboring tribes won't harbor their asses. That there is some activity beyond the social pale. This seems far more commensurate with primate psychology.