No Empathy Zones
September 6, 2020 8:00 PM Subscribe
I have just been compelled to ask, why are there people who not only do not believe the tragedies that befall people are real, such as shootings at Sandy Hook, 9-11, etc., but also attack those people who advocate or defend their deceased loved ones? Is there research that explains this? I'm looking for some thread that ties this behavior together.
The viciousness of these attacks is breathtaking. It weakens my faith in people. I can't believe that if these same people suffered the same kind of tragedies, or they knew someone who suffered them, they wouldn't have more empathy. I need to understand why and I'm looking for something that goes beyond people are jerks, or ignorant or whatever. What payoff do such people get from denying such evil?
The viciousness of these attacks is breathtaking. It weakens my faith in people. I can't believe that if these same people suffered the same kind of tragedies, or they knew someone who suffered them, they wouldn't have more empathy. I need to understand why and I'm looking for something that goes beyond people are jerks, or ignorant or whatever. What payoff do such people get from denying such evil?
Years ago I answered a related ask question in terms of the occult, which I think still holds up. It's a search for a meaningful, if malevolent, explanation for events, as solace for a lack of control over life we all experience. And I really do think that occult thinking—in the broad sense, of creating patterns and making links between disparate phenomena, rather than the narrower sense of tarot cards and hexes and the I Ching—is a fundamental part of contemporary culture.
There's also this recent blog entry dealing with the modern turn to the self as the source of all fact, which is relevant:
There's also this recent blog entry dealing with the modern turn to the self as the source of all fact, which is relevant:
Primacy of the self involves more than just scepticism of authority: the sovereign individual is anxious the state is out to get them or curtail their fundamental capacities in some way. In other words, its a sensibility of self that heightens a sense of (narcissistic) paranoia. This is the logical end point of the individuated, isolated neoliberal self: an affirmation of their right to choose as it shrinks in terror from impositions of state authority. Therefore, the lockdowns and the partial closure of public life, the insistence on facemasks and bans on large gatherings, these are straightforward power grabs to force people to wear masks in public forever more (why?) and police the conduct of the citizenry. If that is the first concern, then the rest makes sense: Coronavirus isn't more serious than a case of the sniffles, or Covid-19 is a manufactured disease, or is totally bogus. The reality (or not) of the disease is secondary to people, in the absence of collective sources of symbolic belonging/reassurance, clinging to and fetishising the structural principles of their perceptual universe...posted by Fiasco da Gama at 8:51 PM on September 6, 2020 [17 favorites]
We're dealing with a few interconnected things. "Filter bubbles" occur when tech algorithms start to serve people more and more of what they want to see (or get outraged about) from a certain perspective. That's how the two minutes' hate from 1984 has essentially come to be a real thing, only we're all volunteering for it, in the form of doomscrolling; we're opting in to experiencing all this outrage for our respective enemies, no matter which side of things we're on, all the time. Then the term "data voids" was coined to describe what happens when bad actors exploit search engine algorithms to start talking about things in terminology for which there aren't search results already (an example of this was "crisis actors," a term used to suggest that events like Sandy Hook were false-flag operations or faked). News organizations who aren't savvy about this pick up those terms and start talking about them, and in doing so, even if to "negate the frame" (e.g., "No, crisis actors aren't a real thing" or "This is our Q issue where we explain what that's about"), they fill the data voids with search content.
Then the people who started using those terms in the first place can point to the news search results and say, "See, they don't want you to know about this and believe it's real, but we know otherwise. See our YouTube video," which takes people down a redpill or QAnon rabbit hole, for instance. Then "epistemic closure" takes effect, where eventually, any evidence against someone's beliefs can actually be used as evidence for their beliefs, e.g., "See, we knew they were trying to hide the truth. Why would they specifically call this out unless they were trying to mislead us?" And that helps achieve the actual aim of these folks, which is to cast doubt on things like, for instance, the media in general.
How to combat this sometimes lethal combination? That part I'm not sure about, especially epistemic closure.
I learned about a lot of this from attending danah boyd's talk at ONA18, Media Manipulation, Amplification and Responsibility. I highly recommend reading the transcript and/or watching the video!
posted by limeonaire at 9:04 PM on September 6, 2020 [23 favorites]
Then the people who started using those terms in the first place can point to the news search results and say, "See, they don't want you to know about this and believe it's real, but we know otherwise. See our YouTube video," which takes people down a redpill or QAnon rabbit hole, for instance. Then "epistemic closure" takes effect, where eventually, any evidence against someone's beliefs can actually be used as evidence for their beliefs, e.g., "See, we knew they were trying to hide the truth. Why would they specifically call this out unless they were trying to mislead us?" And that helps achieve the actual aim of these folks, which is to cast doubt on things like, for instance, the media in general.
How to combat this sometimes lethal combination? That part I'm not sure about, especially epistemic closure.
I learned about a lot of this from attending danah boyd's talk at ONA18, Media Manipulation, Amplification and Responsibility. I highly recommend reading the transcript and/or watching the video!
posted by limeonaire at 9:04 PM on September 6, 2020 [23 favorites]
Anna Merlan's 2019 non-fiction book Republic of Lies explores the history of conspiracy theories and how modern technology makes them spread faster. From the NPR article: Merlan's reporting has shown her a "disturbing thirst for vengeance, a willingness to punish enemies and vanquish evildoers that is then twisted by opportunists."
posted by rogerroger at 9:21 PM on September 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by rogerroger at 9:21 PM on September 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
Another angle to explain this has to do with trust of sources. It may seem obvious why we believe that Sandy Hook really happened, but this is not actually obvious because probably none of us have direct knowledge of the situation. The only reason we know that Sandy Hook happened is because we were told by the news media, friends, and other people we trust that it happened. On the other side, people who believe it is a conspiracy were told this by hundreds of people on websites they visit and trust. So the real question is, why should someone trust the news media over hundreds of statements on a conspiracy theory website?
As someone who understands how the news media actually works, my answer is "because the community of journalists is much more devoted to accuracy and cross checking sources than the community of conspiracy theorists". But to be honest the real reason for most people is "because it was on television and seemed important" which is pretty easy to replace with trust of a random website. Most people realistically have NO evidence either for or against conspiracies, and rely entirely on trusting sources to make decisions. And after 20 years of deliberate attempts to discredit the news media by the right wing, many people do not trust the news media.
posted by JZig at 10:42 PM on September 6, 2020 [12 favorites]
As someone who understands how the news media actually works, my answer is "because the community of journalists is much more devoted to accuracy and cross checking sources than the community of conspiracy theorists". But to be honest the real reason for most people is "because it was on television and seemed important" which is pretty easy to replace with trust of a random website. Most people realistically have NO evidence either for or against conspiracies, and rely entirely on trusting sources to make decisions. And after 20 years of deliberate attempts to discredit the news media by the right wing, many people do not trust the news media.
posted by JZig at 10:42 PM on September 6, 2020 [12 favorites]
Thornton Wilder's novella 'The Bridge at San Luis Rey' is straight-up anti-puritan: no, people do not get what they deserve. Wildly random, unfortunate, and cruel things 'just happen'.
Seems like we can believe that, kharma, or go into full-throated denial or just-world bullshit.
Studies show that in crises, it is not simply fight or flight.
It's fight, flight, dissociate, or cooperate (for harm reduction). All equally valid and authentic responses.
My personal belief is, the crisis-actor-weirdos are experiencing a type of dissociation with violent denial.
No thread, but I dropped a novella, so...
posted by j_curiouser at 11:18 PM on September 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Seems like we can believe that, kharma, or go into full-throated denial or just-world bullshit.
Studies show that in crises, it is not simply fight or flight.
It's fight, flight, dissociate, or cooperate (for harm reduction). All equally valid and authentic responses.
My personal belief is, the crisis-actor-weirdos are experiencing a type of dissociation with violent denial.
No thread, but I dropped a novella, so...
posted by j_curiouser at 11:18 PM on September 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
What payoff do such people get from denying such evil?
The payoff of remaining able to deny such evil.
That is, the payoff of remaining able to believe that they live in a world where the most evil thing that exists is the lies that unscrupulous people tell about their children being shot in a blatant attempt to elicit sympathy (and therefore, by implication, money).
Some folks are so committed to the idea of a Just World, where bad things only happen to bad people, they they are simply incapable of accepting that bad things happen to children who have done nothing to "deserve" them - unless those bad things are being perpetrated by literal agents of Satan, i.e. the Clintons.
I'm looking for something that goes beyond people are jerks, or ignorant or whatever.
Do let us know if you find it. I've yet to be convinced that when it comes right down to it there's actually any more to it than that.
Wilful ignorance is the most destructive thing in the world.
posted by flabdablet at 5:38 AM on September 7, 2020 [13 favorites]
The payoff of remaining able to deny such evil.
That is, the payoff of remaining able to believe that they live in a world where the most evil thing that exists is the lies that unscrupulous people tell about their children being shot in a blatant attempt to elicit sympathy (and therefore, by implication, money).
Some folks are so committed to the idea of a Just World, where bad things only happen to bad people, they they are simply incapable of accepting that bad things happen to children who have done nothing to "deserve" them - unless those bad things are being perpetrated by literal agents of Satan, i.e. the Clintons.
I'm looking for something that goes beyond people are jerks, or ignorant or whatever.
Do let us know if you find it. I've yet to be convinced that when it comes right down to it there's actually any more to it than that.
Wilful ignorance is the most destructive thing in the world.
posted by flabdablet at 5:38 AM on September 7, 2020 [13 favorites]
Conspiracy Theories by Quassim Cassam tackles Sandy Hook as one example of motivated conspiracy theories. He classifies it as a type of propaganda. The goal of it is to prevent gun reform. Sandy Hook gets the most obsessive, vicious denial because it was a tipping point for so many other people - a point where people who'd been reluctant to support gun control finally admitted something had to change. To prevent that you have to create a distraction, muddy the waters and put as many road blocks in the way as possible.
If Wikipedia is to be trusted, the first conspiracy theory about it was reported 3 weeks after the shooting and it took the form of saying it was a false flag operation by the US government intended to promote gun control.
I don't think this contradicts the Just World or trusted sources explanations. It just provides an additional aspect to consider, since different people are motivated by different things and usually more than one thing. And it's important to remember that although some people are ignorant tools, others are deliberately looking for ways to put those ignorant tools to work.
posted by harriet vane at 6:40 AM on September 7, 2020 [10 favorites]
If Wikipedia is to be trusted, the first conspiracy theory about it was reported 3 weeks after the shooting and it took the form of saying it was a false flag operation by the US government intended to promote gun control.
I don't think this contradicts the Just World or trusted sources explanations. It just provides an additional aspect to consider, since different people are motivated by different things and usually more than one thing. And it's important to remember that although some people are ignorant tools, others are deliberately looking for ways to put those ignorant tools to work.
posted by harriet vane at 6:40 AM on September 7, 2020 [10 favorites]
Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" essay - written in 1964!!! - traces some of the roots and history of this mindset, especially in the context of right-wing politics.
To quote:
To quote:
"But the modern right wing, as Daniel Bell has put it, feels dispossessed: America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power. Their predecessors had discovered conspiracies; the modern radical right finds conspiracy to be betrayal from on high. [. . .]posted by soundguy99 at 6:48 AM on September 7, 2020 [14 favorites]
The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millennialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date fort the apocalypse. (“Time is running out,” said Welch in 1951. “Evidence is piling up on many sides and from many sources that October 1952 is the fatal month when Stalin will attack.”)
As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention."
Here's an article from The Guardian about this issue, specifically around 'crisis actors' - who conspiracy theorists believe are people paid to participate in events such as mass shootings, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Paris shootings, etc. The conspiracy theorists scour the crowd photos to find people who look similar at each event in support of their belief that it's the same 'crisis actor' - reinforcing their theory that the event is a 'false flag', staged by government to promote an agenda or discredit a movement.
A related article here, where survivors have been targeted as being part of a so-called hoax or false flag atrocity.
posted by essexjan at 6:56 AM on September 7, 2020
A related article here, where survivors have been targeted as being part of a so-called hoax or false flag atrocity.
posted by essexjan at 6:56 AM on September 7, 2020
First off, I really like the question.
(IMHO) This has different factors involved, part coping, part core beliefs concerning the nature of good/evil, and part recent history surrounding society.
The coping and core beliefs are related in a way as individuals who encounter a world full of what seems to be chaos and try to reject the reality of things because it seems to go so wrongly against their core. Whether it be hard work leads a good life, bad things happen to bad people, or simply God's will, things that really rub the wrong way elicit harsh reactions.
Like rogerroger wrote, recent technology makes the modern man's "reach" far more vast than in earlier times and this isn't just a matter of distance traveled (like the change from horse-drawn carriage to automobiles). It is basically exponential and no longer just physical dimensions in limits. We know from recent history and research humans definitely experience a sort of empathy stress, this can show when a series of disasters no longer elicit any typical empathetic response. So capacity fills up way quicker than in any other time in mankind's history.
Lastly, it relates to the erosion of the typical columns of society that people are acquainted with in modern education. It is not just the typical 3 institutions of government, but also the other fourth and fifth estates that exist in society today. When all of these are eroded to the individual (one loses confidence in their integrity) the typical sources that make up our epistemology, our foundations about daily life starts to crumble. When foundations crumble, very little can grow.
The explosion of the arm's reach of modern age knowledge and the corrosion of the modern estates are at the core of this issue.
posted by Bodrik at 7:06 AM on September 7, 2020
(IMHO) This has different factors involved, part coping, part core beliefs concerning the nature of good/evil, and part recent history surrounding society.
The coping and core beliefs are related in a way as individuals who encounter a world full of what seems to be chaos and try to reject the reality of things because it seems to go so wrongly against their core. Whether it be hard work leads a good life, bad things happen to bad people, or simply God's will, things that really rub the wrong way elicit harsh reactions.
Like rogerroger wrote, recent technology makes the modern man's "reach" far more vast than in earlier times and this isn't just a matter of distance traveled (like the change from horse-drawn carriage to automobiles). It is basically exponential and no longer just physical dimensions in limits. We know from recent history and research humans definitely experience a sort of empathy stress, this can show when a series of disasters no longer elicit any typical empathetic response. So capacity fills up way quicker than in any other time in mankind's history.
Lastly, it relates to the erosion of the typical columns of society that people are acquainted with in modern education. It is not just the typical 3 institutions of government, but also the other fourth and fifth estates that exist in society today. When all of these are eroded to the individual (one loses confidence in their integrity) the typical sources that make up our epistemology, our foundations about daily life starts to crumble. When foundations crumble, very little can grow.
The explosion of the arm's reach of modern age knowledge and the corrosion of the modern estates are at the core of this issue.
posted by Bodrik at 7:06 AM on September 7, 2020
This is a bit of a tangent, but with the right wing especially there's an element where every accusation is also a confession, so people are interpreting what they see through a lens of what they would expect from their own leadership in the situation. It's early and I haven't had my tea yet, so the only one I can think of is the constant cry of "paid protesters!" and that Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade fame) confessed on her death bed that she had been paid to protest abortion and did not in fact care about it one way or another. So if your frame is that everything is being faked for political gains, then it's easier to see how people would get mad about others actually believing things.
posted by bile and syntax at 8:05 AM on September 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by bile and syntax at 8:05 AM on September 7, 2020 [2 favorites]
Yes to all of that, and I think there's also a huge piece that stems from partisanship run amok. This piece interacts with a lot of the other reasons given above, but I do think that many people outsource their position-taking. A percentage of these people allow themselves to get whipped into a fury regularly at the other side. And from there, they take a sort of vigilance. Every single story has to be framed to portray the other side as evil or to defend their own side's actions/positions (depending on which side is the protagonist/actor, so to speak). Every such framing is more evidence to these people that they are right. Admitting a conspiracy theory is insane is tantamount, for these people, to admitting they are at least occasionally wrong. And no one in this country is ever wrong.
Maybe it's small sample size, but it's interesting that the two examples you cited aren't obviously partisan in nature. Sandy Hook certainly became partisan, and seems obviously to me to have arisen from an issue that's become partisan, but there's nothing inherently partisan about the events of that day. It would seem to fit well into what I laid out above: In addition to the politics of gun control in this country, I really do think there's a non-trivial number of people conditioned to respond to that or any other tragedy with a '%&!%*@# Obama!' and then figure out how to get there from there (or wait to be told how it all fits together). And again, I'd agree with those above mentioning/alluding to strategists or other party/administration officials fomenting this, and many media outlets reporting it all a little salaciously (as well as Fox News doing both of those things; in fact, any answer that doesn't mention Fox News might by definition be incomplete).
posted by troywestfield at 9:42 AM on September 7, 2020
Maybe it's small sample size, but it's interesting that the two examples you cited aren't obviously partisan in nature. Sandy Hook certainly became partisan, and seems obviously to me to have arisen from an issue that's become partisan, but there's nothing inherently partisan about the events of that day. It would seem to fit well into what I laid out above: In addition to the politics of gun control in this country, I really do think there's a non-trivial number of people conditioned to respond to that or any other tragedy with a '%&!%*@# Obama!' and then figure out how to get there from there (or wait to be told how it all fits together). And again, I'd agree with those above mentioning/alluding to strategists or other party/administration officials fomenting this, and many media outlets reporting it all a little salaciously (as well as Fox News doing both of those things; in fact, any answer that doesn't mention Fox News might by definition be incomplete).
posted by troywestfield at 9:42 AM on September 7, 2020
This thread is closed to new comments.
Why people lash out? Because they truly believe those people are lying or spreading disinformation. If I absolutely knew and convinced myself that Covid was a lie, I'd be pretty pissed if Fauci was on television everyday telling us to stay inside and doing things that directly negatively impact my life. Look at it this way, if Don Jr. was on news everyday telling us to give $10 a day to help fund his project to keep malevolent aliens from attacking earth and everyone agreed with him, you'd probably be a little off your rocker with rage too.
posted by geoff. at 8:42 PM on September 6, 2020 [22 favorites]