The Autocrat's Language
nybooks.com
nybooks.com
Doubly rewarding was that the writing style, while not pro-Trump, avoids the bile and hysteria that has been common since the last American election. Limiting criticism to unclear language does the author a lot of credit. Limited changes are needed to apply this article to many political statements.
Trumps pronouncements are particularly entertaining examples though. His speech can make it so clear that he isn't using specific facts. Watching his opponents trying to deal with something so audacious can be very entertaining.
It's hard to know how to criticize your comment constructively, though one might say that it's not that "Trump does bullshit a lot", it's that he cannot escape bullshitting in any situation. He exists outside facts.
If you think the author's criticism of Trump is too harsh, then you should read her earlier piece published just after the election: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autoc...
Anyway, it is refreshing to hear a US President reflect on the enormity of the power at their command, and on the risks of using that power. No matter how incoherent they may be.
I don't know whether Trump could escape bullshitting, if he wanted to. It could be entirely an act, designed for his target audience. But either way, what concerns me is that such a persona is so evidently popular.
This is a very good point, but is I think a bit obscured because it seems to mistake the map for the territory. I think what the writer is getting at is that without a shared language it's harder to build up common knowledge. Which means more than just everone knowing something. It also means that they all know everyone knows it, and know that everyone knows everyone knows it, ad infinitum.
Each person can see the Emperor has no clothes, but without sufficient communication they cannot all know that it is safe to laugh at the Emperor.
Well not ad-infinitum. Just 3 levels needed:
1. I know (think of a graph with one node A)
2. I know that the other knows (A -> B)
3. I know that the other knows, that I know (A <-> B).
That's basically how common sense works, and it helps groups of people work as a group (solve problems, achieve a common goal). But first this bootstrapping is necessary.
Anyway, in this particular case it is like political or ideological common sense ("the emperor doesn't have clothes"). That's why large gathering of people were looked at with suspicion or were outright illegal, because it might start this bootstrapping process. Then before you know it, people start to act.
This is probably one reason that gatherings protests are useful to -- achieve this effect. It can be done online, but a lot of communication is non-verbal, it's how people say things, how they act, dress, tone of voice, etc.
Some were good, some were bad, and some were epically bad.
-- George Orwell, letter to Noel Willmett (1944)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/12/george-orwe...
I wonder if "news" may be dead in English in the near future.
Come to think of it, English "news" is more like the German "Neuigkeiten", while "Nachrichten" is more like the English "messages". But German news are as sensationalistic as everywhere else, so that seems to have no effect.
Now I think tacon is wrong to think that "news" will go a similar way, but if it can happen to simple and basic words like "leader", then it's a reasonable thing to speculate about.
In Iran Ayatollah Khamenei has the unofficial title of "Supreme Leader". This is a very specific title within Iran, and has a specific ideological connotation. And yet it is also a perfectly normal and accurate use of the word "Leader".
> that word [Führer] is essentially dead in modern German speech.
This is not at all the case. It's a perfectly ordinary word. It's merely burnt in specific (but not even all) political contexts.
I went in more detail in another reply further down the thread:
Can real German speakers tell me if "Leiter" was always a very common word for this usage or merely a not-unreasonable word that won out post-war because it happens to be a bit like the English word? (In fact I suspect they are cognate, maybe that's why electrical conductors are sometimes called "leads").
Führer and Leiter seem similar in meaning, but are really quite distinct, both in denotation and connotation. And, contrary to what grandparent poster said, Führer is by no means dead.
"Führer" means guide. As in, a mountain guide ("Bergführer"), tourist guide ("Reiseführer" - both guide book and person), or driver of a vehicle: driving license ("Führerschein").
Similarly, "Anführer" is a leader of a like-minded group, often in the sense that he is not a formal leader. To pick an example from current affairs: Carles Puigdemont is (formally) the president of Catalunya, and (informally) the leader ("Anführer") of the independence movement. There is quite a number of words derived from Führer.
The verb "leiten" means to direct. Thus, a "Leiter" is somebody who gives directions: a director. This was, and is, a reasonable word, especially in a professional context.
To explain the Nazi diction a bit. Think of uses like Bergführer ("mountain guide"): somebody who leads his charges skillfully through treacherous terrain. I suppose that was the kind of image the Nazis wanted to project on Adolf Hitler (who you are of course referring to). It's true that Führer may sound politically piquant to German ears, but only in quite specific contexts. It's a pretty normal word.
But I still sense there is a post-war avoidance of the word: to you it might seem very common but I hardly ever heard it except as part of a larger compound. Compound words are so common in German, that the omission might not be obvious to people who are too familiar with it.
A timeless work about language misuse in Politics.
[1]http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...
In school I knew a boy named "Misha" (so assuming I am remembering his nationality correctly) it would seem that "-sha" can go with either sex.
Edit: added -ik
Aaaaay, and now the public conversation has finally advanced.
The contention of the far right is that this statement is exactly right, but not in the way the author means. That is: there is no coherent rightist opposition to the national religion of progressivism, and this can be verified by checking for who is doing the hunting.
From he-who-must-not-be-named:
>Think about it. Obviously, if the witches had any power whatsoever, they wouldn't waste their time gallivanting around on broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour milk. They're getting burned right and left, for Christ's sake! Priorities! No, they'd turn the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters. In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won't see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there's a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.
The issue of course is that if you don't flit in a distant metaphor, you tread disrespectfully upon _sacred ground_.
To toe the line a little for you, the witch-hunters are activists (good, noble ones) looking for sinners (bad, evil ones) and preaching about a world where the sinners have all the power.
In such a world, why would there be so many successful witch-hunters?
Jon Ronson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9G6L4ZNuWk
Evergreen State College: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1RoBi5HKWc
> In such a world, why would there be so many successful witch-hunters?
Because neither group has all the power (and there are many other groups too). The allegory, as someone pointed out, and the reasoning are both stretched past breaking.
About 45 years ago there was a chance that they might, but Nixon saw to that by inventing the War on Drugs.
> About 45 years ago there was a chance that they might
There was no chance. In the 1972 election, Nixon was re-elected winning 49 states (not a typo - he won 49 of 50 states) and won the popular vote by 23%.
And that was while the Watergate scandal was exploding. Per Wikipedia, not long before the November election, "On October 10, the FBI reported the Watergate break-in was part of a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage on behalf of the Nixon re-election committee."[0]
There was no chance that the Democrats or anyone on the left was going to take "all the power".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Cover-up_and...
If that’s not what you’re saying, why is the actual point dressed up in that overwrought allegory?
Pizzagate - demented and wholly made-up
Benghazi - thoroughly debunked in Congressional hearings
emails - no criminality and no exposure of classified information
vs real news:
pissgate - a well-respected expert on Russian dirty tricks claims among other things that Trump hired prostitutes in Moscow to pee on each other. Some of those other claims have been corroborated - and we found out today that the special counsel investigating Trump's Russian connections (a Republican) has met with the author.
Russia - Trump's family, campaign officials, and appointees met with Russian operatives and lied about it repeatedly. His campaign manager offered private briefings to Putin's close ally. His sons bragged about Russian funding that Trump denies.
tax returns - Trump, who has a long well-documented history of shady financing and unsavory deal-making, would have rather lost the election than reveal where his money comes from.
And you are seriously claiming pissgate is real news because "someone said"?
I understand you feel strongly, but if we can't emotionally detach when it comes to determining reality it just keeps going around and around in the same circle. Which is what I think OP was trying to say.
A common tactic of any populist group is to paint itself as a persecuted outsider.
The far right and right have possibly never been stronger in the West, in fact. Throughout Europe, right-wing parties run government and far right parties have never had more power since perhaps WWII (and run government themselves in some countries).
In the U.S., there is a large, coherent rightist power structure that dominates government and politics, not an opposition. The rightists control the White House (and thus all regulatory agencies and the rest of the executive branch), both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, 70% of governorships, and a large majority of state houses. Most police are right-wing (AFAIK). The most popular cable news channel (Fox) and the most popular newspaper among the business elite (WSJ) both serve right-wing propaganda as a modus operendi (the WSJ on its editorial page). There are a vast number of other popular right and far-right publications. There are many major funders (Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc.); there are major think tanks, such as Heritage, dedicated to generating intellectual cover for the right and far-right agenda. And the power structure works together to a surprising degree; you can see read Heritage talking points in many places, often without realizing the source.
Here's an article I just read talking about the coherent rightist power structure, including a chief advisor to the President:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart...
> national religion of progressivism
There is no such thing. Again, see the actual state of affairs, described above (and in this religiously progressive country, Donald Trump won). The far right again tries to portray itself as persecuted and also tries to portray anyone who disagrees as mindless followers of "religion", like the right-wing ideologues, not reasoned supporters of human rights, democracy and freedom.
The Kochs fund far-right publications? Which ones? They seem explicitly not far right, or even really right at all.
I'm going to need you to substantiate your claim that Reason is a far-right publication, because it really seems like a centrist libertarian publication. They predictably project a pro-individual and pro-business (in that order) message, I've seen them argue for NAFTA (not popular with the right these days, which is more protectionist), they consistently argue against restrictions on social taboos (social controls being the primary distinguishing factor of the right).
The main point of this article is that there is no clear correlation between global mean temperature and the severity of hurricanes. If that's a far-right position, then where do the centrist positions start? Licking Al Gore's boot?
http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/13/thr-climate-alarmists-...
Deleted comment
Deleted comment
I was intrigued by a Moldbug comment (i.e., conveyed by MM himself) on a high-quality politics blog about a decade ago, and followed it up with extensive reading of his site.
Contrary to the comment above, I would recommend NOT diving into Moldbug's works. It really is reactionary bullshit, obliquely conveyed, which piques interest ("just what does he mean by this..."). The intrigue is all in the showmanship - which is considerable, I'll admit.
It is simply a waste of time. I say this as someone who reads a lot, a subscriber to NYRB (where OP was published), and has a lot of patience with unraveling complex ideas, blah, blah, blah. It is valuable time that you won't get back.
You struck me as better than buying this shit. You don't have to care, but I am disappointed.
Deleted comment
If you diff Moldbug and a harmless eccentric, which areas are concerning?
If you diff Moldbug and a harmless eccentric, which areas explain his greater audience?
Also in that article: Dan Lyons is a Milo Yiannopoulos pen pal, who seemed to be obsessed with the gender of GamerGate harrasment victims. He just deleted his Twitter account in reaction to the publication of the article.
Just because a bunch of people can do some witch hunting on twitter doesn't make it a lucrative and safe career. Twitter slacktivists aside, who do you think currently has an easier job - people fighting for civil rights, or people who are fighting against them?
One side in this fight uses water cannons in freezing weather on unarmed people. The other gets hit by water cannons in freezing weather. One side is untouchable. The other gets routinely beaten, harassed, and arrested - legally or otherwise. One side has killed ~50 people over this year in a series of hate crimes. The other... Punched a few nazis.
Or hell, if you want to talk about twitter slacktivism, have you seen how much abuse feminist writers, BLM activists, and LGBT people receive? You may claim that some martyr or other of the conservative sphere received similar levels of censure, but I assure you, the people on the other side of this are not having easy, cushy lives.
I get that you feel like you're doing what's right and true by advancing yours, but it's narratives and semiotics all the way down.
That feels like a charitable euphemism but I suppose it is literally true in a way.
My point was simply: "We can tell when you're preaching."
I think HN functions well when it talks about topics where the community is roughly on the same side.
That's an old propaganda standby - both sides are the same, it's all just opinion. Nothing distinguishes U.S. policy from Stalin's, they would say in the Cold War.
But there is good and evil in the world, and if we don't distinguish between them then we are accomplices for the latter. Furthering hate is not the same as opposing it; oppressing people is not the same as fighting for their freedom.
In this case, confusing the meaning of the words that describe hypotheses near a particular target concept can force the use of a language that lacks terms that efficiently represent that concept, which dramatically hinders computations involving that concept.
- it conveys more bits of information
- plausible deniability -> capacity to retroactively compress the word's meaning
- people 'analyze'/recognize simpler words (only one meaning, i.e. GitHub) differently than they do loaded words (multiple meanings, i.e. dream)
- people take their own personal uncertainty (over which meaning is the correct one that they need to interpret the word as) as a sign that if they share their recognition, it's more likely to make them look like a fool in public
Observers realize that the original speaker's (e.g. Trump or Stalin) plausible deniability is a kind of insurance policy against audience members calling them out
Is the author seriously trying to suggest that the likes of Derrida was trying to do that?
http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetole...