Information Warfare Education, Propaganda, and How to Tell the Difference

Town Square
113

Before this conversation takes off in some new direction, I’ll share some views.
We’re all aware we’re living in the Information Age, with an explosion of data through the Internet. To nail down “truth” in this relative world of the manifest can be difficult, and yet there are “approximations” that are closer to the truth and to facts than others, and not kind of close, but much closer. Qanon is far, far away from facts and truth, in my opinion. And while what percentage of the population might subscribe to Qanon beliefs has some importance, also important is how loud that voice is and what positions of power those individuals and voices hold in society. It’s kind of like fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity–while a minority among the Christian population, they seem to be the loudest, seem to have pretty good access to mega airwaves.

If one looks at the conspiracy theories affecting the country, Qanon is certainly one, but there are also the conspiracists around COVID and vaccines, with some of this group not being a part of Qanon or being Trump supporters either. There are also the conspiracists around election fraud. Certainly there is overlap in all these groups, but they can also be separated out a bit, and one can ask: what do they have in common? I want to look at that through an Integral lens in a moment, but first I would just point out the obvious: they all have Trump in common. And I am back to my post about matrika shakti, how the power of speech plays a role in the creation of the world/culture, in supporting the world/culture as it is, and in changing or transforming (for better or worse) the world/culture.

I feel it is only partially accurate to say that Trump is “not the cause but the symptom” of a post-truth world. This is an either-or frame that should be a both-and; the either-or dismisses his own agency, and as we’ve come to see, the power he has with a certain segment of the population. Speech is important; and Trump lied continuously throughout his term, and is still lying. It took the mainstream media 3 years, until the final year of his term, to even use the word “lie” instead of a euphemism in regard to his utterances, and that only happened because his utterances were contributing to the spread of Covid (and deaths). “It will just disappear, like a miracle,” by Easter 2020, he said. He continued to downplay it in his speeches even after being hospitalized for it himself. And yes, he did rush vaccine creation; there’s a dichotomy for you.

I will get to how I see this figuring in to the conspiracies we’re confronted with in a moment. But I do believe if Trump would speak out about Qanon, COVID/vaccines, and stop promoting the Big Lie of election fraud, much of all of this information warfare would calm down. But he won’t do that, and my sense is that we will be living with and working our way through these issues until 2024. I don’t think Trump stands a chance of being re-elected in 2024; I doubt he will even run. I read a blurb just today that he’s saying ‘unless he gets a health recommendation from his doctor not to, he will.’ (paraphrased) That could be his truth, or, it could be his setting up an excuse or an “out” in advance, much as he did around the 2020 election, saying the only way he could lose is if the election is rigged. Trump now has numerous civil and criminal suits against him or his organization; subpoenas are going out to many people in his circle around the Jan. 6 insurrection, and there is that matter of his health–all of which is to say, from where I sit, things do not look real rosy for him as a candidate down the road.

As for the conspiracies, I view them all as a social contagion to which certain people are susceptible, a contagion transmitted through speech, or oral and written words. And I do gain understanding via both the Integral quadrants and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. For instance, in my readings/research over the past months and couple of years, I have come across numerous psychologists/psychiatrists who say that conspiracists generally have a common trait in that they “mistrust authoritative sources of information.” This seems to be a personality tendency, a personality bent towards that mistrust, although an underlying psychological disorder in some people might be present (but we have no way of knowing that). This is UL quadrant, individual interiors, subjective experience. We see that with the current conspiracies: there is mistrust of the media, the medical establishment, institutions, election officials, for instance (LR quadrant). (This all may seem so simple and obvious, and yet we sometimes dismiss the simple and obvious, because, well, it’s just that…) And yes, those establishments may have earned some mistrust through their own behaviors, but certainly not to the degree that we’re seeing.

One writer I read pointed out that ‘conspiracy theorist’ is an inappropriate term because no one is really “theorizing,” rather, they are searching for and finding information that is “out there” that supports their mistrust. (Confirmation bias, as we know it–UR quadrant, behavior). And that information they’re finding out there comes along with some pretty peculiar thoughts and beliefs, but hey, “they, like me, do not trust…” so they adopt to one extent or another some of those idiosyncratic beliefs they have “heard” from someone else or “read” about (the power of speech again). (I could get into delusions here, but this is going to be quite long anyway.)

But think about this for a moment, imagine how uncomfortable, how insecure, how unsafe, how stressful! it would feel if a part of your personality or psychological make-up was such that you truly did not trust authoritative sources of information. Not your doctor, your mechanic, your lawyer, your teacher, your government, the media, etc. Trust is the foundation of all relationship, so that’s pretty hampered in some ways. Plus, we all want a congruency between what we sense/feel/think/believe/experience inside ourselves, and the exteriors–so seeking out information and others who confirm our mistrust makes some sense in a roundabout way if one is trying to reduce inner stress. This all hooks up for me with Maslow’s second level of needs: “safety and security”.

A second trait shared by conspiracists according to what I’ve read is a LL quadrant issue–people feeling socially disconnected. Anxiety, depression, loneliness, isolation. So Maslow’s “belongingness” is the need here not being met. Imagine the thrill (we’ve all hopefully felt) of finding your “us.” Where you fit, belong. Not an ‘all of us,’ but an (amber) us that has that similar inner experience as do we, a similar basic mistrust of authoritative information.

Then add Trump to this story. I’ve always thought that his rallies were like rock concerts for attendees, a great source of excitement and entertainment. Seeking excitement is one way people try to self-treat depression. But not only this, this group that mistrusts the usual informational authorities now have an authority they totally trust. They can feel safer, more secure, because he speaks their language: “the media is the enemy of the people” “Covid will just disappear” (while denigrating medical professionals and state officials who try to tamp the pandemic down) “The only way I will lose this election is if it is rigged.” And he’s not just any authority, but was the most powerful man in the country. So people are not only getting their belongingness needs met, or their needs for safety and security, but they are having fun doing it, and riding on the coattails of power.

Which brings us to Maslow’s next level of needs: self-esteem, or a positive regard for oneself, often acquired for many people through external validations. By not invalidating Qanon beliefs, covid vaccine conspiracies, or beliefs in election fraud or voter fraud (which he’s the primary proponent of), he is validating and empowering them, and the people who hold these beliefs. He has done this with white supremacy (“fine people on both sides,” “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by”–speech matters). And some of those people, with their safety and security concerns (around “white replacement” theory, for instance), acted pretty red-level stage of development on Jan. 6. Some of it under the name of Jesus.

Some people are getting not just self-esteem, but a lot of (orange-rational stage) “bank” from this conspiracy culture. Money and careers are being made, name-recognition and social and political status advanced, in the name of “rights” and “freedom” often. Some people are even self-actualizing, including no doubt some green-stage alternative health/medical people promoting one natural cure or preventative for Covid after another.

I have emphasized the power of speech/words throughout here as instrumental in causation of the current problems, and I think that’s also a large part of the solution. And I think those solutions are beginning to happen already. The social media outlets limiting conspiratorial and mis-or disinformation is a part of it. The House investigations, the testimony from those, the documents, that’s all a part of it. The judicial proceedings for the participants in Jan. 6, that’s a part of it. The media (and all of us) not drawing false equivalencies or doing the both-sides thing, and calling it out when it is happening, that’s a part of it. (For the record: I acknowledge that the Democratic Party and the left have definite things to work on–but I in no way see their “sins” (original meaning: to miss the mark) as equal to those of the majority of the Republican Party–and more and more Republicans are in agreement with that, as some of them leave the party and/or speak up, speak out). The medical establishment needs to do a better job in messaging (some of it is confusing, and while the knowledge grows/evolves resulting in new recommendations, I do think they could do a better job of explaining that to the public). In other words, lots of LR quadrant solutions, all involving speech (and actions).

I think the goal now is to simply continue to refute the conspiracies and Big Lie, whittling them down with sharpened pencils and tongues, while remaining conscious of our own use of words. Perseverance. I have no unrealistic expectations that individuals who are given to a basic mistrust or peculiar, outrageous beliefs or who are socially disconnected are going to en masse be suddenly “healed.” And I have no expectations these particular conspiracies will change as long as Trump is still stirring the pot. He simply fulfills too many needs for a particular group of people. A charismatic “never-trumper” type of Republican leader, who is courageous and ethical and clearly values democracy and country over the “cult” of personality would be a real boon right about now.

1 Like
114

You @corey-devos walk and talk the Left and @FermentedAgave walks and talks the right. Neither of you seem credible with integral kudos when entrenched in defending your own point of view. That’s real easy for you intellectuals to do, try flipping polarities as the ancient wisdom of the Kybalion teaches.

I suggested to showcase your integral life skills by flipping sides. Rather than your personal default perspectives why not try strong manning each other instead? You will both carry greater influence with credibility and you’ll both grow through the experience.

It’s about the connection with these concepts that matter not the politics. By pointing the finger at yourself and critiquing your own side; this discussion would flourish with integral perceptions for everyone.

115

Using the terms “Left” and “Right” necessarily polarises the discussion. They are a 1st Tier tool that works well with identity politics. 2nd Tier discussions are too nuanced for “Left” and “Right” to have any value, save by way of referencing 1st Tier approaches.
It may be helpful to describe our understanding of the issues we wish to discuss in 2nd Tier terms so as to set up a 2nd Tier discussion.
I freely admit it is hard for me to access 2nd Tier thinking. It is even harder for me to then to convert those thoughts into posts onto this forum. It is much easier to post my ingrained 1st tier default position.
The political system is manifestly failing in the UK. Identify politics since 2016 has given us a string of incompetent, lying, self-serving politicians. A direct consequence of that is that we have failing energy, health and transport infrastructure with a govt. flapping around like headless chickens.
I value Corey’s contributions as being of significant value to me as to contributing to my creating my own understanding of how to have a 2nd Tier political system.

116

At some point we have our ideologies or philosophies or noospheres, and then how they manifest or not in the real world with real people. Is Integral Theory 2nd Tier an agreed upon construct being adopted in sufficient numbers by non-intellectuals to impact significantly the world? How do we take the concept/philosophy into the real world if not down into the structures and hierarchies of the real world? Or is Integral Theory more a mapping to describe the world, but perhaps not influence or guide?
Engaging with the world is a scary thing. It’s a really messy affair with Millions or Billions of agendas, desires, needs, wants. Has IT captured accurately in it’s 2nd Tier noosphere definition the desires of enough of the population to create the adoption, influence, health, happiness Integral Theorist idealize?

If the engagement not through the worlds legislative, administrative, religious, media, academic, community structures, how will the 2nd Tier Noosphere instantiate?

117

I agree and I would suggest 2nd tier views will assimilate both to incorporate these into a higher understanding. Since the majority of us here default to one side or the other we miss the integral connections that tier two rationality reveals. That’s why this string has become boring and non productive.

118

I feel that the entire Occidental system is unravelling, and there won’t be any putting it back together. It was destined to go this way, given its foundations in its anthropocentric, humans-r-speshul, God vs not-God duality. The question is, what’s going to replace it? The eastern religions (Hinduism and Buddhism) more accurately reflect how life works… but do they have the mindset to resist authoritarian totalitarianism (India’s cast system and China’s filial piety come to mind)?

119

I think IT provides a map that covers as much of reality as it is possible to do at our current level of evolution. It then goes a little further to set out the structures we can expect to see in that reality. We can then look at all the research that falls within that structure, so the structure has content.
The way I see it, is that IT helps us see that there is a richness in reality which excludes us from being restricted to “one truth” or indeed two truths from which to choose as the “one truth”.
There are many ways for individuals, groups, societies to live out there realities. IT helps us have an awareness of where we are as a person, a group, a society. It is up to us then to live our lives as we see fit. One part of that life may be to help/guide others to live their lives as they would like them to be lived. IT can help us on a day to day basis when we ask ourselves: how do I deal with this issue that has come up in my life? And the decision I make will be my creative act. And in making that creative act I will have left IT behind personally yet created another piece of reality that IT can map and model.

120

Hey Excecutive, I am trying to internalize your criticism here, but I find myself getting stuck on this part, because I feel like I have done exactly this. Even just in this thread, I have criticized things like wokism, antifa, and violent protest. I have stated that my own worldcentric conservative views have no representation in our current political maelstrom. I have come out as strongly pro-2A, and have mentioned my belief that all Americans should be trained to use firearms, and how much we need to restore healthy amber nationalism and national identity in this country. I have even shared my own “three point plan to save democracy”, which itself bypasses many/most of the left vs. right frameworks your are criticizing here, and which was created in order to generate more buy-in from either affiliation, as well as independents and the politically non-affiliated.

There is an odd dynamic I’ve noticed in integral circles over the years, where people have full permission to openly criticize the left, liberalism, progressivism, wokism, etc. In fact, I think this has become a bit of a rite of passage for up and coming integralists :wink: So people feel free to criticize the various social holons associated with the left, without ever mentioning those that are associated with the right. As it should be! As I said, there are some issues that uniquely affect the left, and others that uniquely affect the right, and we should be able to talk about one without constantly referencing the other.

However, the minute someone wants to criticize the right, the GOP, conservatism, etc., there is the expectation that they also spend an equivalent amount of time criticizing the left, in order to maintain an appearance of “integral balance”.

Why is that? My sense is that, because integral is in many ways “pushing off” from green, some folks are still trying to transcend it while others are trying to transclude it. And I think this creates its own Zone 4 pressure, which exerts itself on our Zone 3 relating: there is more of a common allergy when it comes to how we relate with that particular stage (green), especially when that stage expresses itself politically. So there is a subtle internal pressure to find a way to “prove our integral bonafides” by showing everyone just how critical we are of the green stage (particularly the forms of leftism that have emerged at that stage, because there simply have not been very many forms of the right that have constellated at green, due to a number of selection pressures that I have discussed above).

So again, if we are talking about abstract political philosophy, yes it’s a good idea to make sure we are integrating the right polarities, and keeping a careful eye on any imbalances or biases we may have toward one pole or another. Having a political philosophy that tries to find a 50/50 integration of these ideas and polarities is an honorable goal, even if our execution of this philosophy depends on the needs, conditions, and inertias of the time.

However, when it comes to social holons, this sort of “50/50” mentality simply does not work. An integral politics is not definitionally obligated to be “50% GOP, 50% Democratic” at all times. This is the Golden Mean fallacy, which assumes the truth is always exactly halfway between any two parties, regardless of who those parties are.

Which is why for me, the real litmus test is not one’s political alignment, but one’s development. We need more worldcentric leadership, and that worldcentrism can be expressed through either “left” or “right” typologies. In theory, we can have pre-conventional expressions of left and right, conventional expressions of left and right, and post-conventional expressions of left and right. But in practice, reality rarely presents itself in this way. Which means that more integrated minds often need to be “deliberately partial” when it comes to engaging with and enacting our current political machine, and finding ways to take incremental steps that take us closer to whatever holistic vision of political idealism we may be carrying around in our heads and hearts.

All of which is to say, we should be able to say things like:

“We are witnessing severe regression in both of our major political social holons. For the left, it looks like ‘wokism’. For the right, it looks like ‘Qanon’.”

And we should then be able to talk about either one of these, without feeling a need to constantly reference the other. And from where I am sitting, it feels like there is far more Zone 4 permission within integral circles to criticize the left without constant equivocations, than there is to criticize the right. If you do the former, you are rewarded for your capacity to transcend. If you do the latter, you are penalized for your failure to include.

And of course, we can also talk about the common factors and qualities that its giving rise to this regression (namely social media platforms in Zone 8 and how information moves in Zone 7 [both LR quadrant], as well asa delegitimization of our institutions in Zone 3 and the common belief in Zone 4 that “someone somewhere is oppressing me” [both LL quadrant].) But we can’t actually have that wider conversation until we do some basic table setting, so we can recognize how these problems are expressing themselves developmentally, the different sorts of influence they are having on our political social holons, and different interventions that may be more effective in some contexts than others (developmental, right/left typologies, etc.)

All of which is to say, the rise of “conspiracy culture” on the political right is something that we should be able to talk about in this space, ESPECIALLY on a thread like this, without feeling the need to constantly reference equivalent pathologies on the left. And vice versa, we should be able to talk about the many dysfunctions of the left without constantly referencing the dysfunctions on the right. Otherwise, I fear that we are committing some fairly severe moral, cognitive, and spiritual bypassing in the name of “integral balance”, and that bypassing tastes all the sweeter because it confirms our own superior political stances that would keep us “above the fray” :slight_smile:

My sense is that we can no longer stay above the fray. We have to get down into the fray, meet reality where it is, and make a series of deliberately-partial decisions in order to nudge this thing in the direction we want to see it move. If we see a mass regression to red power-myths in one party, we should feel free to call that out. If we see another regression to amber totalitarianism in another party, we should feel free to call that out as well. And we should be able to discuss either in their own unique terms and contexts, while also trying to identify the various top-down and bottom-up currents that are producing so much regression in the first place.

2 Likes
121

I think youve just said, “No, there would be nothing for me to learn from the exercise. Not going to happen.”

122

No, I’m pretty sure I said “I’ve attempted to do so throughout this discussion in the following ways, and I also believe that just like folks have permission to openly criticize the political left without having to simultaneously criticize the right, so too should we have permission to openly criticize the political right without having to simultaneously criticize the left.”

123

Thats not what @excecutive requested. Frankly I didnt want to do it either but since I initially was resistant so figured there was probably value in it.

Lets just let the Left / Right, Liberal Democrcy / Marxist Revolution play out.

1 Like
124

I certainly agree … :slight_smile: Now as the guru John Lennon might weigh in; imagine if you both gave 100% effort into completely understanding the others view? Certainly attaining a complete understanding and accepting it as believable to others will gain you a more integral understanding.

As long as one side challenges the other as “one is right and the other is wrong” you’re missing the wholeness and the completeness in understanding our world. Arguing about it is counter-productive to integral. It’s in understanding all of it that gives us the whole complete picture, which is integral.

Everyone needs to be heard and understood. Regardless of who is perceived as winning, accepting that “we’re all in this together” is the only winning integral view. If you two can’t reach this level of understanding together then perhaps a civil is war is imminent?

I shared this before … "Successful relationships among people requires a 100% committed effort … Equal 50% – 50% contributions will never lead to long-term success. Rather a 100% commitment to the success of the relationship by each individual involved is the formula for success.

https://the-spiritual-quest.com/2015/10/02/equality-not-the-answer/

125

Not a big Russell Brand fan, but did find this cast interesting around Facebook, factcheckers, industry funding of “unbiased” orgs, …

Or should we scratch him off as Qanon hack?

126

It’s a beautiful aspiration, and I think it’s incredibly important to try to understand each other’s view. Which is why it’s important that we do our very best to make our own views clearly known, in order to prevent other people from creating faulty reconstructions of each other’s interiors. Which is why, when I respond, I do so with multiple careful paragraphs that not only try to reveal my own view, but also lifts the hood so you can see the reasoning that brought me there. And if I ever do make any assumptions about someone else’s beliefs or interiors, I try to phrase it as a question, rather than as a totalizing assumption.

Which is why it’s frustrating when, after spending an hour crafting a response, I receive a short one-or-two sentence reply that dismisses everything I just spent time trying to communicate :slight_smile: Oh well, c’est la vie.

Again, I think this is a beautiful sentiment, and I think it has limited utility in the real world. If one person says “the world is flat” and the other says “no, the world is an ellipsoid”, only one of those statements is right. Which means the other is wrong. And I don’t think an integral epistemology says that we need to include both of those views.

Now, we can then get beneath the argument, and try to understand how, in the year 2021, someone could believe the earth is flat. And we can do so by asking questions like “how is it that so many people have come to believe this in the first place? How much mistrust do they have in our institutions to reject all the scientific proof that our world is not flat? What sort of cognitive development would enact the world in this way? What does this say about our education system, our scientific institutions, our media, etc.?”

And those are all worthwhile questions to explore, and well suited for an integral epistemology. But none of them changes the fact that, at the end of the day, only one of these things can be true – the world is either flat, or it isn’t, regardless of how we came to one conclusion or another.

I see something similar happening in this thread. One person says “Qanon is a real thing that is exerting real influence on our politics.” Another person says “Qanon is a figment of the left’s imagination.” Well, only one of those statements can be true. Which means that, in order to move the conversation forward, we have to have a somewhat more conventional conversation first, one that tries to ascertain whether or not the problem objectively exists. I think I’ve made a fairly convincing case that it does.

The problem is, there are some unexamined shared biases in Zone 4 that make certain critiques a somewhat uphill battle – there is a trap that says “if you are saying that Qanon exists and that the proliferation of conspiracy theories is a problem that is particularly affecting the political right wing, that must mean you are just as tribalized/polarized/partisan as the people you are criticizing!”

I think this is essentially the accusation that you essentially leveled against me, and I am inviting you to notice the many other statements I’ve made throughout this discussion that hopefully differentiate my own political views from stereotypical “leftist” associations. And notice the multiple efforts that I’ve made to reconcile and/or move beyond the difference of views, and toward the shared values that animate them.

Abortion, for example – whether or not we disagree about appropriate limits, whether 1st-trimester abortions should be considered “genocide”, etc., we can hopefully agree that the overarching goal should be to make abortions as rare as possible. At which point, we cannot ignore the need for things like access to contraception, sex education, family values, personal responsibility, and a more sex-positive culture, which comes from a blend of progressive and conservative principles, enacted at a minimally worldcentric stage.

Same with this discussion. Several comments back I tried to take a step back, offer an objective summary of the discussion points, identify where exactly our views were diverging, try to find a deeper/wider point of agreement, and then find ways to move the conversation forward from there. Further back I shared some reflections about where and why I think the disagreements are emerging, at one point using a Ken quote that I felt was speaking to the underlying disconnect.

All of which is to say, I am doing my very best to approach conversations like these in good faith, to carefully demonstrate the reasoning behind my views, to remain respectful of whomever I am talking to, and to communicate my views and values in a way that hopefully transcends whatever stereotypes of “left” and “right” we may be walking around with. Which makes it a little bit frustrating when my efforts are then generalized as “you are walking and talking the Left”, but again, c’est la vie :slight_smile:

1 Like
127

Of course not. No one ever said that Qanon means “being critical of big tech” :slight_smile:

It would be like saying, “Liz Cheney is critical of Trump, should we call her a member of antifa?”

128

I’d like to point out that the farthest Left media trumpets everything you’ve mentioned more than any other segment of the media, giving a “voice to” the “enemy” that most readily befuddles, creates division, and high jacks their audience’s Amygdalas - those on the Left. Those that use these terms are those looking for something to do “existential battle” with.

Hmmm - Have you replayed the long litany of clips with Democratic leaders, including Candidate Biden, recommending to NOT take a vaccine not fully vetted and approved by the FDA? Is Joe Biden part of the Qanon conspiracy?

Election fraud conspiracists - Performing audits, either periodically or when concerns are triggered, is extremely common place. The IRS audits people and business both randomly and based on information. The SEC requires corporations to hire 3rd party (attempting to remove bias) firms to perform “integrity check” audits. Are these “conspiracies”? Why would we tolerate anything less in selection of our “elected” officials?
I’m really disappointed that here on Integral Life there is much Maddow/Lemmon level discussion that is nothing but evocative hearsay and speculation being promulgated in an attempt to stop very basic integrity checks around elections.
This would seem to be another example of “given an inch take a mile” attempt at complete domination through destruction of integrity required to have a functioning legitimate nation of laws. Call that Orange or whatever you want but without basic rule of law, things devolve very quickly.

129

Did you follow the video? Key points are related more to the original thread topic:

  • Facebook uses factcheck.org to determine Vaccine related information they ban, demote.
  • factcheck.org is funded by Johnson and Johnson
  • Johnson and Johnson will generate upwards of $10B in revenue from vaccine sales

So… Yes, there are quite a few people in the US that are “skeptical” of Facebook, their chosen fact checker du jour. @LaWanna might postulate these skeptics have a deep seated Zone 4 psychological issue around “mistrust authoritative sources of information.” One man’s paranoia is another woman’s multi-systemic assessment of the information and sources.

130

Hello @FermentedAgave,

I will respond directly to your comments in a moment, but first, I am going to “sidetrack” the conversation, and I am letting you know I am intentionally doing that. Starting with the definition of:

SIDETRACKING: to bend the other’s topic of conversation toward our own topic. (That is what I am going to do, as I would like to go a bit meta-rhetoric and post a few other definitions.)

BOTH-SIDERISM: From Urban Dictionary: “A noun for when a person tries to assert that both sides of a debate are equally X (reprehensible, reasonable, etc.)” From Merriam-Webster: “A rising term about the tendency to equate two sides in a display of fairness…Both-siderism relies on false equivalencies; or tries to establish moral equivalence that allows a (condemnable) action or idea to be weighed seriously.” Example (according to Merriam-Webster): Donald Trump’s statement about Charlottesville: ‘very fine people on both sides.’ From thenewsfeed: “Both-siderism denies the consequences of political ideology.”

DEFLECTION: Method of diverting attention, turning aside, distracting, taking a conversation off-track, shifting the focus. Related to WHATABOUTISM: the rhetorical tactic of defending against (something) by alerting others to a different (something) against an opponent.

I ask you sincerely, Fermented Agave, do you recognize yourself using these rhetorical tactics that are said to hamper if not kill communication? Do you think maybe in responding to what you first quoted from my post about Qanon that you were doing a little deflecting? Do you think that in responding to what you quoted secondly from my post that you might be doing a little both-siderism? I am a bit confused, frankly, because I’m not sure if you are intentionally so frequently engaging in this stuff, or if you’re unaware of doing so. Wanna share about that?

As to the content of your posts, I am aware that both Biden and Harris (in September 2020 and October 2020, respectively) both made anti-vaccine comments. Said Biden: (paraphrasing) “it may be unsafe to get the shot because Trump continues to mislead and lie.” Said Harris: “He wants us to inject bleach…no, I will not take his word” (on safety) Three months later, Biden had the Pfizer vaccine in December 2020 and January 2021. Harris had the Moderna vaccine a week later in those same months.

Was there maybe a political motivation or a partial political motivation in their statements? Perhaps, maybe even probably; I wouldn’t doubt it. But it was three months after those comments that they did get vaxxed; much had changed in those 3 months–a fall/winter “surge” in Covid, and more information about the safety of the vaccine, and yes of course, now they were about-to-be Potus and VPotus, and needed to set an example; plus Biden’s pretty old.

But if you remember, Trump was a totally unreliable source of information about Covid; most of the nation witnessed that, and books subsequently published quote him verbatim saying he knew about the seriousness of the pandemic very early on, but actually chose to deny to the public that there was any such thing. In context of all of that, for Biden and Harris to say what they did doesn’t seem that outrageous to me; I too was a little suspicious, and would have liked it to be fully vetted and approved by the FDA before I took it, but that didn’t happen.

To try to draw a false equivalency between Biden and Harris’ initial reluctance to be vaxxed and conspiracists that think Bill Gates is implanting chips in us through the vaccine or that someone is putting the vaccine in salad dressing is just not–well–reasonable.

As for election fraud conspiracists–all I can say is audits are necessary and not a bad thing. However, I live in the state of Arizona. We have had 4, that’s FOUR, audits now, the 4th one conducted in Maricopa County by an inexperienced group bought and paid for by the Republicans, and that audit has just recently revealed, as did the other three, that Biden was legitimately elected. In fact, the “Cyber Ninjas” audit just completed found 99 votes MORE for Biden than previously counted. Still, the Chair of the Republican Party in the state is calling for a fifth audit, following the loud demands of Donald Trump. Fortunately, the Republican governor, also a Trump supporter, has said NO–the election is over. So audits, I have no problem with. But this sort of extreme behavior is indeed a part of the election fraud conspiracy, and it is pushing the election fraud envelope (no pun intended) too far.

And it is not any Maddow/Lemon followers or leftists or Integral Life leftists that are yelling the loudest about it. It is the Republican party itself in Maricopa County saying enough is enough, and in fact, calling on the state Republican chair to resign.

131

@LaWanna
You can slice and dice what I say and how I say it, just as I could do same with your writing. What’s the point in that?
I fundamentally disagree with you many of your assertions and think you base much of your “knowing” on inaccurate information media information, not necessarily looking too much “under the covers” at the information, and then (as is the common modus operandi of the day) to continue piling on additional assertions.
Case in point around Qanon and vaccines. Perhaps if you stated that Biden and Harris had both made very similar statements for political gain that you identify as damning for 10M’s of the population (Qanon’ers) might have given more credibility to the damnation.

So this is mighty rich apologetics for a Leftist political stance. Are you actually referring to President Trump that was accused by the entirety of the Democratic party and almost the entire main stream media for being a xenophobic racist for blocking much international air travel as soon as he had information on Covid? Same President Trump that accelerated vaccine development with every major possible phara company with expertise in vaccines? You clearly get your information from a Leftist echo chamber or you would have a bit more balanced viewpoint on the efficacy of the previous President’s Administration.
I would ask, did you have discussions and personally make statements that President Trump was a racist and xenophobe when he closed all travel with China at the early knowledge of the pandemic? Can we separate opinions from actions?

Frankly I don’t hear much about Bill Gates and implanting chips. Perhaps Alex Jones made the statement?

We can gyrate around between political, public perception, legal/legislative frames all day. That’s extremely juicy and exciting. But let’s take a look at the legal process of the Arizona Audit and set aside some Trump led Qanon Conspiracy Theory for just a minute.

  • Each state is responsible for managing and executing it’s elections - not the federal government.

  • The Arizona Senate which is has a Republican majority contracted at Audit of the Maricopa County election. That is well within the Senate’s jurisdiction. Any disagreements within the legal frame so far?
    The Auditors completed a public report out to the Arizona Senate just last Friday. I listened to the entirety of the actual readout, minus the broken streaming restarts and stutters. I’m not going off what Tucker or Hannity or Rachel or Don had to say about any of it.

  • Maricopa County failed to provide significant amounts of information that was subpoenaed by the Arizona Senate. Failing to comply with a Senate subpoena is a serious issue.

  • I’ll not bore with details on the report out, but suffice to say the auditors found significant security issues and records show that the entirety of the election results were deleted the day before the audit started, thus hampering the audit. There were other significant irregularities as well. And you are correct that there was no statement by the auditors that Democrats “stole the election”.

  • The entire findings and recommendations have been provided to the Arizona State Attorney General (Republican) and the Arizona Senate.

So what’s next?

  • My assumption is that Fox and Friends will honk that it was a “stolen” election. Meanwhile CNN, MSNBC, Arizona Democrats, national Democrats, local media will continue a full force “Big Lie” spin-o-rama narrative creation campaign, just as they have been. All of which is irrelevant in the legal and legislative domains.

Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General will likely pull together a Grand Jury and follow every thread possible into any irregularities to determine if indictments are appropriate (he is a Republican running for US Senate so assume he is motivated). And the Arizona Senate (Rep majority) will likely write and pass legislation to reduce future irregularities.

Additionally I would assume multiple Red states will either invalidate the Federal Voter Registration form (which oddly does not require verification of being a legitimate voter) or have it modified to include verification that any and all registered voters have a legal right to vote in their states elections. Democrats in Arizona always use the Federal voter registration form, not the Arizona form.

As far as what happens in the local political parties, I assume they’ll continue politics as usual.

It’s interesting that Senator Sinema is becoming an “issue” for Schumer’s DNC plans, right along with Manchin. That’s a gutsy move for a Senator in a Blue state. I’ll speculate that perhaps she doesn’t think a Blue Dog Democrat would get reelected next term in Arizona.

I would expect Arizona’s election in 2022 to have much fewer “irregularities” than the 2020 election.

So back to the “tactics” discussion. I think many conflate wants, desires, and perceptions with legal and legislative domains. The overlap or influencing comes when you can in fact shape perceptions enough to influence the political domain, and hence the legislative policy makers.

132

Can we think bigger on this Cory? Both of these are absolutely true to those who only argue one side. This is the same with immigration or abortion or war or left and right politics. To the simple minds, which are probably the majority of any population, these do boil down to moral right and wrongs.

These are highly complex issues that can be immediately knee-jerked into “my-side” … MAGA or BLM acronyms define their worlds and they line up to support their side in unconscious parroting of their preferred narratives.

Integral perspectives on the other hand see all sides of these issues. The communication of ideas and explanations need to be curtailed to reach the person we’re communicating with. Where are they in their understanding?

Integral means we listen and learn first. We need to reach the person and stand with them in solidarity of understanding their view. We are NOT endorsing a view by understanding it … nor by credibly explaining it. When we actually take the time to understand and assimilate other’s thinking into our own we are much better able to dialog with reason; especially when we are reasonable and kind.

We are best able to reach people by strong manning their thinking. In so doing we establish a foundation of trust to build upon. Then we are able to probe their thoughts with integral questions from a place of sincerity and honesty connecting with integrity to the individual person. That’s being integral.

When we see arrogance and belittling of others in defense of some inner thinking; attacking, arguing and name-calling these tactics show weakness. Since most people are in the middle we need to reach them where they are on the spectrum. Integral is not either-side it’s always and/both. It’s very complex to explain especially to those unfamiliar with integral thinking.