Private Mars Rocket II

On the occasion of Trump's takeover of Washington DC policing (which is, like much of what Trump does, over-promised and under-delivered) I have thoughts.

I live in the Chicago suburbs, and during a visit to my parents in downstate and rural Illinois, I was told in all seriousness by a MAGA-ite that I needed a bulletproof vest to go back home. MAGA-ites are scared shitless. To them, every homeless person is waiting to jump up and shiv them, every rowdy teenager walking down the street is a mugger, and anybody just hanging out in public is a gang lookout or worse.

They operate by anecdote not data. If their sister's friend's hairdresser told a story (or posted on Facebook), that's gospel. Facts and statistics are not. (In general, "common sense" trumps fact, where "common sense" is defined as "that which confirms my biases.")

They mostly watch the local TV news, and for every shooting, rather than noting that it's in the same neighborhood as the last five such incidents, they say "those people are just shooting everybody everywhere."

Trump is a very pure incarnation of these traits. He's personally scared, unable to determine between anecdote and data, and an avid consumer of TV news, where "if it bleeds it leads."

Comes today another post by Wiley Coyote, International Super-Genius (Just Ask Him) about how NASA faked the moon landings. This got me thinking about the phenomenon of crank magnetism, or the phenomenon of people believing in multiple conspiracy theories. Herewith, my thoughts on why.

A key element of any conspiracy theory is that “you can’t believe the official story.” If the official story is that the Earth is round, well, that’s automatically suspect. It’s then a not-so-long of a bridge to go from flat Earth to the Moon being made of green cheese. “They” say the Moon isn’t made of green cheese, but you can’t trust “them.”

Another key element of a conspiracy theory is the “do your own research.” Even if your “research” is looking at some cheesy YouTube videos with stock 80’s porn musical soundtracks, the fact that you “did your own research” is a badge of honor. You’re canny! You’re inquisitive! You’re Good Enough, Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like You! (Apologies to Al Franken.) In short, there’s a sense of belonging, and the more theories you subscribe to, the more groups you belong to.

There’s a third element which most but not all conspiracy theories have, which is a strong desire for the conspiracy to be true. Now, most people really don’t care whether the Earth is flat, round or hexagonal, they just need to know what shape it really is so that they can plan their lives. But circling back to Herr Coyote, he really wants to believe that NASA faked the Moon landings. That fits in with his overarching political idea that democracy is bad and Putin-style authoritarianism is good.

When you combine these factors with the amplifying effect of the Internet, it’s no wonder some people collect conspiracy theories like others collect stamps.

I lurk on a few right-wing sites. (A man's got to have a hobby, after all.) On one of them, the proprietor has announced he's "agnostic" on whether or not NASA landed on the moon. He's agnostic not because he has any evidence, mind you, but because he's always suspicious of The Official Story (capitalization his).

This willingness to question things based not on facts but a gut feeling is a major problem with more than a few right-wingers. I think I've addressed that problem before, but if not, I'll get around to it, right after I re-organize my sock drawer. (Actually, can one re-organize that which never was organized? Inquiring minds want to know.)

What I do want to address is the mode in which the topic of moon landings came up. Our right-winger shared a video from one of his fellow travelers. I have come to the opinion that argument via video is a strong warning that the argument is crap and the argue-er is a crank.

Unlike writing, video is a linear format. You can't easily go back to a specific spot on a video and check what was said. Emotions are more easily manipulated in videos via music and lighting. Finally, repetition is much easier in a video. If I write the same statement five times, you'll start skimming. If I say the same thing five times, you won't.

This repetition is key to the "success" of a video. By saying something a lot, some people can be convinced of the validity of the argument. It shouldn't work but it does.

A few lighter thoughts for a snowy "spring" Friday:

A) From Gin and Tacos, the interesting story of Squanto.

B) When Lieutenant Colin Powell met Sergeant Elvis Presley.

C) Ever have somebody ask multiple polite questions in bad faith while demanding that you respond to them in detail? It's called sealioning.

D) In the "water is wet - pictures at 11" news department: police body cameras are only effective when police can't turn them off.

E) From the writer and friend Tim Akers: a bit of business.

F) For those of us who are our family's IT support department:

I got a lot of sleep yesterday, and my head started to dry out, so today I feel almost human. Go me.

In Which I Was A Bit of a Crank

I got a bit pissy on Torgersen's blog regarding free speech. Dave Freer, one of a group of people who consistently push my buttons, dropped on by and did his thing. I think what gets me cranked are in equal parts:
1) "I'm so much smarter than you" (not really)
2) "All you leftists are picking on us!" (no, we're disagreeing)
3) "This person read (or worse, failed to denounce) this obscure thinker, therefore they both stand 100% for the same things." (usually the connection exists only in the button-pusher's mind)
4) "You've been brainwashed, you sheeple!" (maybe, but apparently the washer did a really good job of it.)

More Hugo Thoughts

I was referred to this analysis of popularity and Hugo winning. Basically, the writer finds a reasonable correlation between "popular" books and "books that won a Hugo." Now, since he's working backwards from what won to what was popular, there's a significant risk of bias. There's also a problem in that determining what books are "popular" is hard - the data is not very good.

In any rate, Occam's Razor is your guide. If the simplest explanation is that your taste and that of the median Hugo voter for that year don't align, then your favorites probably won't win the shiny rocket.

Apropos to yesterday's entry on Gamergate, showing up anonymously and saying, "Yeah, what is the world coming to when a girl can't just exchange sex for favorable gaming reviews with five guys and not be outed by her boyfriend for cheating on him?" is not a particularly persuasive message.

To expand in order to make a full post, this fails because:

1) the allegations are coming from an ex-boyfriend. People recently out of a relationship have been known to lie, exaggerate or otherwise say untruthful things about the other party(ies) to the relationship.

2) The poster, by being completely anonymous, has the inherent credibility of the guy who writes "for a good time, call..." on the bathroom wall.

3) So what? These are video games, and even if the allegation is true, nothing about the whole kerfuffle merits even half the vitriol spilled on it. Absolutely none of the death threats are merited.

To my anonymous reader: Please, sir, get a life.

Relax, Mom - last day of work before a vacation. A few thoughts:

1) Today is the 40th anniversary of Nixon's resignation. I have an (minor) personal link to this event. When I was seven, my family and I went to Washington DC on vacation. We were supposed to get a tour of the White House, but when we got there, we were told the tours had been cancelled. In those pre-cell phone and -Internet days, it wasn't until we got to our hotel that night that we learned Nixon had resigned, and that was why there were no tours.

2) I see that Obama has authorized airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and airlifts to aid refugees. I'm frankly not thrilled that we're involved in this mess, but I would be even less thrilled if a genocide occurred. Sometimes the choice isn't between "good" and "bad," it's between "bad" and "worse."

3) Related to this post by my favorite PCotI (Professional Crank on the Internet) - if art is subjective, then my opinion is no better or worse than yours. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then everybody can have an equally-valid definition of "beauty."

So yesterday (or actually over the weekend, but it got promoted to a lead post) I asked my favorite Professional Crank on the Internet (PCotI) "why shouldn't every free adult human be able to vote in the country they are a citizen of?" (The PCotI thinks that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.) Hilarity ensued.

Well, maybe not hilarity. I was told that:
1) Fascists and communists wanted women to vote. (Good think fascists and communists weren't in favor of dental hygiene, I guess.)

2) Women and illegal immigrants won't vote in the long-term interests of the state. (When I suggested that sounded better in the original Italian as delivered from Mussolini's balcony, well that was not well-received.)

3) Since the Founding Fathers only allowed male land-owners to vote, well that was the gold standard of voting. (The reason we got universal male suffrage is that men demanded it and threatened to take the vote by force.)

4) Women are akin to children in that they can't think long-term. (Do I need to comment on that?)

5) Only ex-soldiers should vote, or people not getting a check from the government. This ran downhill into whether or not public schools were good or bad. (PCotI's commenters are against public education. Again, no particular comment.)

6) Tom Kratman showed up, and accused me of "intellectual dishonesty" for refusing to admit that Hitler was freely voted into office. (Hitler came in second in an election marked with considerable physical violence and coercion. In any event, I never claimed voting was perfect.)

7) The evils of the War of Northern Aggression were discussed. (The South Carolina Declaration of Secession was, I was told, not relevant. In any event, the fact that white men voted to fight in defense of enslaving non-voting black men somehow proves that voting is bad. Yet we should let men vote but not women. If you can figure that one out, please let me know.)

8) There were a few commenters who stated the obvious - PCotI wanted to restrict the franchise so that his preferred political views would win at election time. These comments, despite being as obvious as farts in a bathtub, were ignored.

So, maybe not hilarity, but an "interesting" time was had.

John C. Wright asked: If Vox Day were racist, why would he deny it? Fear of your opinion?

My reply:

You invite me to speculate, so I will. First, I note that by denying he's a racist you, Larry Correia and a number of other people are defending him. I suspect if he were a self-proclaimed Grand Poo-bah of the KKK, none of the above would give him the time of day, let alone support.

Second, having watched Vox "reward" John Scalzi's gift of a Big Idea piece with a protracted campaign of slander against Scalzi, I suspect that Vox is playing the role of "professional crank on the Internet." He is, in short, saying outrageous things outrageously in order to drum up web traffic and presumably sell books. Radio "shock jocks" have been doing the same for years. (I think his run for SFWA President was part of this shtick - how he expected to win while alienating over half the members is beyond me.)

Third, thanks to him saying "but I'm not a racist" Larry Correia helped get a very second-rate novelette nominated for a Hugo. From now until the end of time, Vox will be calling himself a "Hugo-nominated author."

In short, there's money to be made and a reputation to be built by acting like a racist and denying it. (It's not a reputation I'd want, but then look at the yahoos on "reality" TV.) The perhaps obvious corollary to that is I think you (in particular) and most of his supporters (in general) are being played for fools.

SFWA member David Truesdale is circulating a petition against the appointment of an advisory board for the SFWA Bulletin. Theodore Beale, Professional Crank At Large, has taken up the cause with his usual tact and courtesy. My questions to Beale are posted below:

So every time the board of a newspaper overrides the editor of that newspaper it's a violation of the First Amendment? Every editor of every publication should have sole discretion as to what they publish?

Isn't, in this case, the Board the duly-appointed representatives of the membership that owns the publication? What recourse, if any, do the members have if their publication prints something they collectively disagree with?

What if the editor of a publication decides not to include something in their publication they have violated the author's First Amendment rights? There's no particular reason to expect say, Jerry Pournelle getting the gig.

More to the point, since when does the First Amendment apply to private organizations? SFWA is not Congress nor otherwise affiliated with government.