Iâm not objecting to any specific post or topic in this thread, but donât
even people who occasionally enjoy echo chambers eventually get bored of
them?
;-)
Of course, since the earliest years of c.o.v weâve very frequently
witnessed their formation here. Maybe more often than in the present case
(though this topic is small, historically speaking), with at least a
tendency to have a continuing sub-thread at of least somewhat c.o.v.
subject-relevant content.
;-)
You know, it's funny. I've spent a lot of time over the last 8
years thinking about echo chambers, because it seemed so utterly
improbable that the American public could vote Donald Trump into
the presidency, not once, but twice. Surely his obvious lying,
his transparent grifting, his shameless and lifelong tendency to
take advantage of others was so clear that no one would take him
seriously, let alone vote for him. And yet, here we are.
So I have to ask myself, seriously, "do all those people see
something that I don't?" And, "am I the one that's wrong?"
After all, how would I know if I was, in fact, living in an echo
chamber.
My conclusion was that, no, I'm not just living in an echo
chamber; in fact, I know a lot of people who voted for Trump,
because they fully believe the things he's telling them. And
(not to praise myself here, but this is just true...) I know a
lot more people from very different walks of life than many of
my friends, neighbors, or family. Part of that is because I
have had more of an opportunity to live and work with folks,
e.g., in the military, that many people I know who followed the
high school straight into college and then into one or more of
{industry, grad school, academia, research} life track just
would not encounter. Many of those people have _very_ different
backgrounds than me, yet when you share a rack with them in an
open squad bay for three months, spending an hour sitting next
to them cleaning your rifle every night; or when you're working
with them with a 40' shipping container covered with camo
netting as your "office" for seven months, and sleeping next to
them in a GP tent lined with GI cots; well, you get to know them
whether you want to or not.
But something I _do_ think is that I inhabit a completely
different reality than they do. It's not that I don't _hear_
them or am never confronted with their existence, it's that I
don't _believe_ what they say, and vice versa.
So now I'm back to the other, bigger fear: do they see something
in this whole Trump/MAGA/whatever thing that I don't? Some of
these people I've literally trusted with my life; should I trust
them on this stuff?
And my conclusion again is no, they don't; Trump really is just
a lying conman. But this one is both harder and easier to
reason about and come to that conclusion.
First, much of the current rightwing drive towards fascism in
the US is predicated on belief in objective falsehoods: climate
change isn't real (we have data), we can't afford universal
health care (that every other developed nation in the world can
is the existence proof that this is false), tax breaks for the
very rich will trickle wealth down to the masses (been tried for
40 years and hasn't worked yet), Trump is a good businessman
(the dude bankrupted a casino. Twice. In Atlantic City).
Democrats are ritually sacrificing children to demons and
drinking their blood to live forever (I don't even know where to
start with this one), 5G cell phones give you COVID-19 and the
vaccine is full of microchips funded by Bill Gates (...), and on
and on and on.
On the other hand, the opposition aligns with things that are
frequently objectively testable, measureable, and falsifiable.
More often than not, what they say turns out to be correct,
while the right wing does not. I'm not a lawyer, but one _can_
look at, say, the evidence in the trial that Trump lost,
resulting in his felony convictions, and judge for oneself and
say, "yes, based on my understanding of the law, and that of
those with training in it that I trust, he did commit these
crimes." And that's a lot more persuasive than what appears to
be a counter-argument of the form, "I'm upset that it was my guy
who was busted, so I'm going to say it was a politically
motivated witch hunt!"
So in some sense it's easier to see this: I look at which side
most often aligns with objectively measureable reality, across a
variety of topics, and align with that side, because I believe
that they are correspondingly more likely to be correct about
Trump and the Republicans.
In another sense, drawing that conclusion is harder precisely
because of this: being right about subject A doesn't
automatically make one right about subject B, and indeed, that
is a well-known logical fallacy. But, if one sees the pattern
repeat itself enough times, about enough different things, then
I think that one _can_ have some confidence that it is more
likely repeating about a related subject.
So that's where I fall on echo chambers and belief bubbles. One
should always be vigilent against falling into either; but in
this case, evidence points to the correct interpretation.
And by the way, yes, I used the word fascism. Let's not delude
ourselves; that's precisely what Trump and the Republican party
are pushing in the US. Perhaps not (yet) of the Germany, 1933
style, but definitely of the Italy, 1925 style.
- Dan C.