fleegar

@shoutplenty

what’s useful about the kinda argument is to raise *awareness* of associations. everyone would rather be aware if their fanhood of classical european culture is correlated with racism. this goes double for politics, where you have to assess authors’ biases

4/16/2024, 3:41:54 PM

Favs: 0

Retweets: 0

fleegar

@shoutplenty

while it’s necessary to be open to the idea that smth is a front for smth else, i’ve noticed the average person reads these links as logical implications. they get conditioned by their role models to classify their own views as null hypotheses and others’ views as dogwhistles

4/16/2024, 3:41:55 PM

Favs: 0

Retweets: 0

fleegar

@shoutplenty

null hypothesis meaning explained by randomness, or just assuming good faith

a classic example is “anti-vax” – libs tend to be very controlled by the establishment on this topic, so immediately associate dissenting stances with the far-right and are blind to the big pharma lobby

4/16/2024, 3:41:55 PM

Favs: 0

Retweets: 0

fleegar

@shoutplenty

realistically, given that and w/o further research, i would say anti-vax stances are equally likely to be correct as pro-vax. but the problem i’m getting at is the asymmetric, partisan application of null hypothesis vs dogwhistle assessments of views

4/16/2024, 3:41:56 PM

Favs: 0

Retweets: 0

fleegar

@shoutplenty

all this leads to uncritical acceptance of popular stances and othering of opposing ones, hence echo chambering and polarisation

that there do exist many dogwhistles among popular commentators is a symptom of the problem, not an invitation to entrench it by assuming in advance

4/16/2024, 3:41:56 PM

Favs: 0

Retweets: 0

fleegar

@shoutplenty

so while awareness of associations is good, you’ll do well to assume things are not dogwhistles and judge the exact things someone is saying only. how you judge others’ views is an intentional act that will signal how you form your own [7/7]

4/16/2024, 3:41:57 PM

Favs: 0

Retweets: 0