From Pine View Farm

Political Theatre category archive

Dis Coarse Discourse 0

Two men standing outside of

Click for the original image.

Share

True Believers 0

Frames One and Two:  Tearful Republican Elephant says,

Click to view the original image.

Share

All the News that Fits 0

Trudy Ruben is concerned about the bubbleliciousness. Here’s a bit of her article:

We are not (yet) in a “1984” era, to cite the famous George Orwell novel about a totalitarian society whose members are taught that “freedom is slavery” and “ignorance is strength.” The press is still free to report the facts, but an important segment of the media, especially on TV, radio and the internet, have chosen to use that freedom to promote an endless stream of falsehoods about public health and political issues.

Follow the link for the rest.

Along the same lines, Tony Norman argues that truth has no place in today’s Republican Party. (Again, much more at the link.)

Share

The Divorcee 0

Couple walking by man wearing Q tee-shirt who is yelling,

Via Juanita Jean.

Share

All the News that Fits 0

Man watching TV News.  Audio says,

Click to view the original image.

At Psychology Today Blogs, Sophia Moskalenko identifies four factors which she believes encourage the spread of “fake news” (also known in some circles as “lies”). Here’s her list; follow the link for a detailed discussion of each one.

My research led me to the discovery that, with QAnon’s conspiracy theories, as much as with other fake news, four forces advance it toward becoming viral and radicalizing mass publics. These four horsemen of fake news are:

      1. True lies
      2. Mythmakers
      3. Heralds
      4. Mass emotions

Share

The Abstainer 0

Liz Cheney, speaking to Steve Scalise, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, etc., all of whom are holding glasses filled with a red liquid, says,

Via Job’s Anger.

Share

The Quest 0

Title:  The Search for Voter Fraud Continues.  Image:  A van labeled

Click for the original image.

Share

“Facts Are What People Think” 0

Writing at Psychology Today Blogs, Glenn Geher discusses what happens when politics collides with objective face, that is, with science. A snippet (emphasis added):

At its core, the goal of science is to, blindly and fairly, help us understand the world through carefully implemented data collection and statistical processes.

On the other hand, political behavior is all about how certain narratives and decisions are endorsed because they ultimately advance the goals of some select individual or groups of individuals. The second that politics enters the world of science, we have a problem on our hands.

Share

Dis Coarse Discourse 0

Two Republican Elephants in front of White House.  One says to the other,

Click for the original image.

Aside:

“Social” media isn’t.

Share

A Tune for the Times 0

Share

True Believers 0

Republican Elephant holding a sign reading

Click to view the original image.

Share

Vaccine Nation 0

The person in question has defended himself by claiming that he was trying to educate his constituents. I tend to agree with Emma Vigeland’s point that “some questions are so illegitimate” that they don’t deserve to be asked, let along answered.

We are a society of stupid.

Share

Gutting Out the Vote 0

One person’s story.

Share

Anecdotal 0

PoliticalProf.

Share

Facebook Frolics 0

Frolicking falsehoods.

Share

News You Should Lose 0

At Psychology Today Blogs, Bobby Hoffman offers some techniques for avoiding falling into the sewer of falsehoods that masquerades as news, particularly on “social” media and propaganda websites. In the course of his exposition, he makes this point, which we see played out many times a day:

In other words, implausible theories are those where any opposition to the idea is refuted by the originator, regardless of the rebuttal type. For example, some people contend that moon landings never occurred, but no evidence supports this position, while abundant evidence refutes the idea that moon missions were fabricated.

The refutation problem is typically addressed in two ways by those who harbor irrefutable beliefs. Too much evidence means a conspiracy theory is being advanced. Too little evidence means there is a cover-up. The conspiracy supporter can never be wrong!

I commend his article to your attention.

Share

The Same Thing Harder 0

Two men shoveling

Via Juanita Jean.

Share

Maskless Marauders 0

Suffer the children.

Share

(Yet Another) Wall-Eyed Piker 0

E. J. Montini writes of local Arizona officials who called out Arizona Governor Ducey for grandstanding at the southwestern border. A snippet (emphasis added):

Likewise, sheriffs from two of the border counties said the Guard wasn’t needed and declined Ducey’s offer of troops.

Sheriff David Hathaway of Santa Cruz County and Sheriff Chris Nanos of Pima County told the governor thanks, but no thanks.

Hathaway said, “We both responded saying, ‘We don’t have a migrant crisis on the border. We do not need to militarize our counties and have troops come to the border.’”

Follow the link for the rest.

(Missplet wrod fixked.)

Share

A Tune for the Times 0

(Warning: Language)

Share