Item one: in the wake of Hispanic voters' weakening alignment with the Democratic party, liberal pundits have begun to pinpoint Spanish language radio as a source of "misinformation" radicalizing older Latin voters and some younger ones as well. The relative conservatism of these broadcasters is a longstanding fact, and draws from the attitudes of its traditional listeners. In other words, the stations aren't making them think anything that they weren't already inclined to. But you can't blame the would-be political monoculture of Anglo-Saxon media for trying.
Item two: Neil Young has made an ultimatum―or at least tried to―toward Spotify, saying that he'll pull his music unless they drop Joe Rogan's podcast. This is over some vaccine-sceptic theories that Rogan has aired through his interviews but not exactly endorsed. It may also trace back to when Young caught heat for saying nice things about then-President Reagan, so that he's determined to never leave his left flank unguarded again.
What these two stories have in common is the concept of misinformation. But what does the word mean? I've always thought that it meant "something that isn't true," and I figured this definition was shared pretty commonly. But the working definition of late seems to be "something you're not supposed to say, true or not." Or if there is a truth standard, there's no commonly understood way of demonstrating something to be true or false.
Except for appeal to authority. And if the rule is that anyone disagreeing with Jen Psaki can be held to be a liar and punished accordingly, well, that's not sustainable. Not unless we've all fallen through the Earth's crust into hell.
2 comments:
I read the Tablet article with real interest. It makes a lot of sense that well (or maybe over) educated influencers and political apparatchiks prefer to call themselves Latinx who look down on Hispanics as ignorant and uneducated. What a sorry group of snobs.
Neil Young has simply embarrassed himself by focusing attention on his own lack of relevance in the current era. He appears to believe he's still living in 1975 rather than acting his age. I haven't listened to any of Joe Rogan's lengthy podcasts myself but I've heard bits and apparently he draws an audience of eleven million or so to his interviews.
What seems to be missing in both examples, but particularly the former, is any willingness to compare the rhetoric to reality and see how well it performs. The managerial aristocracy of those who consider the bulk of humanity as lesser beings see their mission as taking charge of people's future through 'science and reason' toward their preferred version of social change. It’s become increasingly clear that the premise was not just wrong but delusional.
When a ruling class puts more stress on using the right abstractions than on getting the right results, those who have to put up with the failures (the rest of us) withdraw their loyalty from the system.. no matter what Jen Psaki says.
The word "Latinx" first appeared on the Internet (big surprise) around 2004. It seems to be much more popular with social justice nonprofits than with the group it's meant to describe. It would be best used for a team of mutant superheroes from South and Central America. But yes, there's a lot of class war going on that's meant to appear as something else.
I'm in a weird position because if it came down to whose life work had meant more to me over the years I'd have to pick Young over Rogan. Partly because I don't really get into podcasts in general, and there may be a generational aspect to it as well. But the attempted cancellation of Rogan over alleged COVID misinformation and now dumb accusations of racism strikes me as a harmful move to shut down the conversation in general
The kind of sterile rhetoric you describe doesn't come from the street, or really any real-life social interaction. It is entirely a creation of the expert class. And the thing about the expert class is that they are very invested in being right. This does not mean that they will amend their previous conclusions if contradictory evidence appears. It means the opposite.
I think we're seeing that withdrawal of loyalty now. It will probably take the establishment a long time to process.
Post a Comment