It’s fairly common for those on the extreme right, and their web sites, to offer “information” that is not only false, but that they must know is false.
This happens too often to be accidental. We know this because sometimes, even others on the right point out the “errors” in those messages, adding their voices to mainstream critics, and of course, they are ignored.
So there has to be some strategy behind this tactic of purveying outright lies.
Can anyone suggest what this strategy might be? And maybe suggest any books, papers, scholars, etc that offer more info on this stuff?
Donald Barton is a classic example.
Another example from just the other day is the infamous Roy Moore, now chief justice of the Alabama Supreme court. Moore said that “because god created human beings, the First Amendment only applies to Christians (that’s just what Moore said!)because “Buddha didn’t create us, Mohammed didn’t create us, it was the God of the Holy Scriptures” who created us."
(link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/02/alabamas-chief-justice-buddha-didnt-create-us-so-first-amendment-only-protects-christians/)
(NOTE: This and other statements he made shows how poorly thought-out his statement was–because even Moore talks about “God” and not, as these krackpots usually do, “Jesus”. But this is an aside, and Moore’s verbal stumbles and/or lack of logic is not the chief thrust of this post.)
So what guesses do folks here have about the strategy and tactics behind these deliberate lies?
I’m not sure if it’s in Mein Kampf, but a statement attributed to Hitler went something like this: When you lie, tell a great many of them because it takes much longer to refute a lie than it does to tell it, and people will believe those not refuted.
There’s been quite a bit of psychological research on the effects of lieing recently. One was that people were told a lie. A few days later, they were shown that it was false. Then, a few weeks later, when given a questionnaire which included judgements of veracity of a fair number of statements, the subjects judged the item they had been shown to be false as being quite true. Apparently, just being familiar with a statement gave it a higher probability of truth. So, the extreme right wing politicians know this and can lie with impunity, even if they are caught, because people will come to believe their falsehood.
Your problem is that you are trying to impose your ethics that value truthfulness on these people. I think it’s been quite clear historically that their ethics are not just lacking, they value negative ethics. 
Occam
A few observations:
- Love the name you used! I shave with Occam’s Razor every day…and then throughout the day…
- The statement you quoted re lies is very interestg, and certainly rings true. I think as well it might have been Goebbels who made some statements about lies.
- I agree that the target(s) of these krackpots value negative ethics–or as I would put it, “have values that I regard as negative, dangerous, evil, and ultimately counterproductive”.
- I’m aware of the research you cite; good to be reminded of it.
- It occurred to me that I might have stated my curiosity as follows:
“I’m pretty sure Moore, Barton, et al, are trying to con someone. But who are they trying to con, why, how does the con work, etc.?”
Along the same lines, bet you’d find this article interesting:
How politics makes us stupid by Ezra Klein on April 6, 2014 http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupidHmmm, and then there's my penny's worth April 27, 2014 Why do Global Warming "Skeptics" Reject Rational Debate? I’ve been reflecting on my past few years worth of futile attempts to engage various “climate science skeptics" in a substantive debate. An exercise that began with Letters to the Editor and that has evolved into my modest blog that has visitors from around the world. Besides learning a great deal more about the substance of the various lines of increasingly solid evidence, I’ve learned about the human ability to hide from the uncomfortable and scary. I’ve also learned that the loudest deniers of anthropogenic global warming consistently turn out to be cowards who will bluster and insult and threaten, but in the end, they always run away from defending their various claims in an objective manner. In a way that’s not surprising since there is no substance to their various claims. But, what’s shocked me is that rather than learning from their failures and mistakes, they erect ever weirder intellectual contortions and blind-spots while becoming increasingly hostile, some bordering on the vicious. … http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/04/agw-skeptics-reject-debate.html ~ ~ ~
It's fairly common for those on the extreme right, and their web sites, to offer "information" that is not only false, but that they must know is false. This happens too often to be accidental. We know this because sometimes, even others on the right point out the "errors" in those messages, adding their voices to mainstream critics, and of course, they are ignored. So there has to be some strategy behind this tactic of purveying outright lies. Can anyone suggest what this strategy might be? And maybe suggest any books, papers, scholars, etc that offer more info on this stuff? Donald Barton is a classic example. Another example from just the other day is the infamous Roy Moore, now chief justice of the Alabama Supreme court. Moore said that "because god created human beings, the First Amendment only applies to Christians (that's just what Moore said!)because “Buddha didn’t create us, Mohammed didn’t create us, it was the God of the Holy Scriptures" who created us." (link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/02/alabamas-chief-justice-buddha-didnt-create-us-so-first-amendment-only-protects-christians/) (NOTE: This and other statements he made shows how poorly thought-out his statement was--because even Moore talks about "God" and not, as these krackpots usually do, "Jesus". But this is an aside, and Moore's verbal stumbles and/or lack of logic is not the chief thrust of this post.) So what guesses do folks here have about the strategy and tactics behind these deliberate lies?Lies have worked so well for religion for millennia, so why not use the tactic for other things? Twisting meanings works even better. People are so gullible. Lois
LOIS:
I must not have made myself clear enough in my 2 posts above.
My post was not about whether lies work or not. For sure lies like this work on SOME people, but even then, my hunch is that most of the “main targets” for these lies understand that they are false information.
The posts were about the assumption that the liars know very well that there lying, and THEREFORE they are doing it for some purpose other than to convince people–most likely, some reason related to raising money or gaining influence or notoriety.
And I want to know what the strategy is, the goals, etc.
EXAMPLE: could it be that Moore is somehow “advertising” (to other right-wing nut outfits) his availability as a “provocative”, “controversial” speaker who “will throw raw meat” to the suckers–err, excuse me, followers?
Clearly, one of Barton’s goals is to sell his nonsense–books, etc-- and I have no doubt that lots of gullible, probably emotionally-damaged folks (e.g. filled with resentment at “those elitists who think they’re better than us”) buy his crap.
TO: citicenschallenge.pm
Excellent info.
See also the books on this subj by Chris Mooney–good stuff, well worth reading.
LOIS: I must not have made myself clear enough in my 2 posts above. My post was not about whether lies work or not. For sure lies like this work on SOME people, but even then, my hunch is that most of the "main targets" for these lies understand that they are false information. The posts were about the assumption that the liars know very well that there lying, and THEREFORE they are doing it for some purpose other than to convince people--most likely, some reason related to raising money or gaining influence or notoriety. And I want to know what the strategy is, the goals, etc. EXAMPLE: could it be that Moore is somehow "advertising" (to other right-wing nut outfits) his availability as a "provocative", "controversial" speaker who "will throw raw meat" to the suckers--err, excuse me, followers? Clearly, one of Barton's goals is to sell his nonsense--books, etc-- and I have no doubt that lots of gullible, probably emotionally-damaged folks (e.g. filled with resentment at "those elitists who think they're better than us") buy his crap.That's probably true. No one goes broke underestimating the intelligence of the masses. (Sorry I missed your point.) Lois
Quoting T.S,:
my hunch is that most of the “main targets" for these lies understand that they are false information.I don't think so. True Believers are just that. I certainly agree that it seems almost inconceivable that so many people could accept statements that are fairly obviously irrational and false. Over many years of discussing political, social and religious topics with people on other sides of them, I've been more than just surprised at how apparently intelligent people can believe such trash. Dumb ones - maybe; but bright ones - weird. Along with my above points is the almost complete lack of training in critical thinking in our school systems. Many people just don't seem to even understand the concept of questioning and challenging statements made and looking for more information to either verify or refute them. Another problem is that most people have a few areas of feelings of inferiority - money, job, appearance, education, etc. As soon as someone offers them a way of blaming others for their problems or shows them a path to show that others are even more inferior than they think they are, they will almost joyfully accept the ideas, no matter how far they are from reality. Occam
OCCAM:
- It seems to me that I’ve seen research, or surveys, in which those folks have admitted that they know that the factual claims are false, but don’t care that they are false–because (iirc) they are glad that someone is “sticking it to” those heathenistic communistic elitist scientists etc.
- I’ve encountered quite a few folks who have good educations, seem bright, yet believe nonsense, e.g. that climate warming is false, nonsense, etc.
- I do not know enough about what is actually going on in school systems, re teaching of critical thinking or anything else, to agree or disagree with you.
However, I do suspect strongly that lots of folks are very ambivalent about the idea of teaching critical thinkg. I know of one (smaller, but well-known) religion in the US, for expl, that says it values education ,and I think does value education of all sorts, incl critical thinkg–but it just does not want people to use that education and abilities, particularly not if they are questioning the teachings of this church or its leaders.
People who use critical thinkg abilities are dangerous–to (almost all) politicians, (most) religious “leaders”, and others holding power. Of course, my saying that does not mean that I am opposed to the teaching or exercise of critical thinkg.
HOWEVER, this is tangential to the main question I posed, and none of this relates to the motivations of folks like Moore, Barton, et al, except insofar as it reinforces those who laugh at their ideas.
We should remember, always, I think, that emotion undercuts accurate thinkg of all kinds.
OCCAM: 1. It seems to me that I've seen research, or surveys, in which those folks have admitted that they know that the factual claims are false, but don't care that they are false--because (iirc) they are glad that someone is "sticking it to" those heathenistic communistic elitist scientists etc. 2. I've encountered quite a few folks who have good educations, seem bright, yet believe nonsense, e.g. that climate warming is false, nonsense, etc. 3. I do not know enough about what is actually going on in school systems, re teaching of critical thinking or anything else, to agree or disagree with you. However, I do suspect strongly that lots of folks are very ambivalent about the idea of teaching critical thinkg. I know of one (smaller, but well-known) religion in the US, for expl, that says it values education ,and I think does value education of all sorts, incl critical thinkg--but it just does not want people to *use* that education and abilities, particularly not if they are questioning the teachings of this church or its leaders. People who use critical thinkg abilities are dangerous--to (almost all) politicians, (most) religious "leaders", and others holding power. Of course, my saying that does not mean that I am opposed to the teaching or exercise of critical thinkg. HOWEVER, this is tangential to the main question I posed, and none of this relates to the motivations of folks like Moore, Barton, et al, except insofar as it reinforces those who laugh at their ideas. We should remember, always, I think, that emotion undercuts accurate thinkg of all kinds.Yes, emotion is the deciding factor in many motivations and decisions. It trumps common sense and education.