RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?
so, for some nonsensical reason, that article i posted is receiving a lot of downvotes.
how many of you who downvoted it actually read it? it really raises some valid points. those people thought they were defending democracy. i hear it from my own relatives all the time: "the fight is to save democracy from a fraudulent election." even bolsonaro claims he always follows the constitution.
now whether you buy these claims is really up to your discretion, and it's irrelevant to the post. the point is, this is yet another example of social media destabilizing democracies. (need i remind you of what happened in burma (myanmar) in 2021)? you can call everyone you disagree with a fascist all you want, but that won't stop anti-democratic movements. this isn't the 1940s anymore; we're in the third decade of the 21st century. i would wager that the biggest threat to democracy nowadays is disinformation and conspiracy theories. we need to address those head-on (i.e. figure out how to effectively combat the proliferation of fake news) if we want to stop these anti-democratic movements on their tracks.
if you still think i'm being ridiculous, here's a nyt article that talks more about it (if you can get past the paywall, that is). The G (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- They're still anti-democratic. They've merely fallen for the Big Lie. The reason I downvoted (well I voted neutral) was because of the wording. These are fascist movements, just not the ones of the early 20th century. Of course they'd be different in character. These movements still fit most of the characteristics of Eco's definition, which is why they're called fascist. Vee (talk)
- that's a fair point. i'm not trying to whitewash them in any way. i'm just saying that the everyday people were merely useful idiots of a more sinister movement, and they should be approached as such. only 9% of americans believe democracy is working very well, with republicans more likely than democrats to say that it is not working well. now i may be spitballing here, but this might have something to do with some guy's big lie about that election. yes, i am aware that there were actual white supremacists in the 2021 capitol riots, but they are in the minority. the majority of republicans are every day people like you and i who were simply fooled into thinking that the election was stolen, and that shapes their view of the health of our democracy. the same applies with the brazilian right wing: the actual fascists are a minority while the majority (even of those who actually stormed the federal buildings) are victims (or useful idiots, if you prefer) of disinformation. The G (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
About that refutation
Without comment on anything else, the Jack Turban study it cites has been completely panned, even by other activists. The statistics in that study are a complete mess, and refutations of it are readily available. This isn't itself a reliable source, but collates a few in one place; here are other activists that basically have a Sister Souljah moment responding. It doesn't make the Shrier book right, but it's not useful evidence to the contrary either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)