An NYPD spokesperson waved a scholarly book about terrorism around on TV in an attempt to associate Columbia University protesters with terrorists. Well, we actually read it. The claim is as absurd as you might guess.
It is not a statement designed to convince. It is designed as supporting evidence for a certain mental model, yes, but to a degree that’s pretty hard to appreciate unless you’ve spent some time with this mindset, they are not operating in a world where one person says an argument, and the other person evaluates it critically and decides whether to accept or reject it.
Their model is that if a person in authority says an argument, people “under” that person’s authority are obligated to accept it. To evaluate for yourself whether the thing the big NYPD sergeant is firmly telling you is terrorist propaganda, is actually terrorist propaganda or not, is already a subversive act that may be punished by harsh criticism and humiliation at least, and possibly a total expulsion from the social circle or threats to your physical safety.
It’s not a good model, but it’s the one they operate under, and it works for them as individuals for the most part. So that’s what they run with.
People really should get used to keeping an eye out for this idea. It’s the root of so much pettiness and bad faith, and so much good faith effort is put into trying to engage with it.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
It is not a statement designed to convince. It is designed as supporting evidence for a certain mental model, yes, but to a degree that’s pretty hard to appreciate unless you’ve spent some time with this mindset, they are not operating in a world where one person says an argument, and the other person evaluates it critically and decides whether to accept or reject it.
Their model is that if a person in authority says an argument, people “under” that person’s authority are obligated to accept it. To evaluate for yourself whether the thing the big NYPD sergeant is firmly telling you is terrorist propaganda, is actually terrorist propaganda or not, is already a subversive act that may be punished by harsh criticism and humiliation at least, and possibly a total expulsion from the social circle or threats to your physical safety.
It’s not a good model, but it’s the one they operate under, and it works for them as individuals for the most part. So that’s what they run with.
People really should get used to keeping an eye out for this idea. It’s the root of so much pettiness and bad faith, and so much good faith effort is put into trying to engage with it.