Monday, June 29, 2020

ANS -- America Is Facing 5 Epic Crises All at Once

This is the article that everyone has been telling me to read.  It's short.  It's pretty good.  What do you think?
It's about five big problems facing the US, a lack of good ways to deal with it, and the appropriateness of Biden being the next president.  (the author is not a liberal).  
--Kim


America Is Facing 5 Epic Crises All at Once

This is not the time to obsess about symbolism.

David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

  • June 25, 2020
Marchers on the Brooklyn Bridge on Juneteenth.Credit...Demetrius Freeman for The New York Times

There are five gigantic changes happening in America right now. The first is that we are losing the fight against Covid-19. Our behavior doesn't have anything to do with the reality around us. We just got tired so we're giving up.

Second, all Americans, but especially white Americans, are undergoing a rapid education on the burdens African-Americans carry every day. This education is continuing, but already public opinion is shifting with astonishing speed.

Third, we're in the middle of a political realignment. The American public is vehemently rejecting Donald Trump's Republican Party. The most telling sign is that the party has even given up on itself, a personality cult whose cult leader is over.

Fourth, a quasi-religion is seeking control of America's cultural institutions. The acolytes of this quasi-religion, Social Justice, hew to a simplifying ideology: History is essentially a power struggle between groups, some of which are oppressors and others of which are oppressed. Viewpoints are not explorations of truth; they are weapons that dominant groups use to maintain their place in the power structure. Words can thus be a form of violence that has to be regulated.

Fifth, we could be on the verge of a prolonged economic depression. State and household budgets are in meltdown, some businesses are failing and many others are on the brink, the continuing health emergency will mean economic activity cannot fully resume.

These five changes, each reflecting a huge crisis and hitting all at once, have created a moral, spiritual and emotional disaster. Americans are now less happy than at any time since they started measuring happiness nearly 50 years ago. Americans now express less pride in their nation than at any time since Gallup started measuring it 20 years ago.







  • Thanks for reading The Times.
Subscribe to The Times

Americans look around the world and see that other nations are beating Covid-19 and we are failing. Americans look around and see state-sponsored violence — rhetorical and actual — inflicted on their fellow citizens. America doesn't seem very exceptional.

In times like this, you've got to have a theory of change.

The loudest theory of change is coming from the Social Justice movement. This movement emerged from elite universities, and its basic premise is that if you can change the cultural structures you can change society.

Members of this movement pay intense attention to cultural symbols — to language, statues, the names of buildings. They pay enormous attention to repeating certain slogans, such as "defund the police," which may or may not have anything to do with policy, and to lifting up symbolic gestures, like kneeling before a football game. It's a very apt method for change in an age of social media because it's very performative.

The Social Justice activists focus on the cultural levers of power. Their most talked about action is canceling people. Some person, usually mildly progressive, will say something politically "problematic" and his or her job will be terminated. In this way new boundaries are established for what has to be said and what cannot be said.

The Social Justice activists sometimes claim that if you don't like their tactics then you are not fighting for racial equity or economic justice or whatever. But those movements all existed long before Social Justice affixed itself to them and tried to change their methods.

The core problem is that the Social Justice theory of change doesn't produce much actual change. Corporations are happy to adopt some woke symbols and hold a few consciousness-raising seminars and go on their merry way. Worse, this method has no theory of politics.

How exactly is all this cultural agitation going to lead to legislation that will decrease income disparities, create better housing policies or tackle the big challenges that I listed above? That part is never spelled out. In fact, the Sturm und Drang makes political work harder. You can't purify your way to a governing majority.

The Social Justice methodology is ultimately not a solution to our problem, it's a symptom of our problem. Over the last half century, we've turned politics from a practical way to solve common problems into a cultural arena to display resentments. Donald Trump is the ultimate performer in this paralyzed arena.

If you think the interplay of these five gigantic changes is going to fit into some neat ideological narrative, you're probably wrong. If you think we can deal with a racial disparity, reform militaristic police departments and address an existential health crisis and a prolonged economic depression by taking the culture war up another notch, I think you're mistaken.

Dealing with these problems is going to take government. It's going to take actual lawmaking, actual budgeting, complex compromises — all the boring, dogged work of government that is more C-SPAN than Instagram.

I know a lot of people aren't excited about him, but I thank God that Joe Biden is going to be nominated by the Democratic Party. He came to public life when it wasn't about performing your zeal, it was about crafting coalitions and legislating. He exudes a spirit that is about empathy and friendship not animosity and canceling. The pragmatic spirit of the New Deal is a more apt guide for the years ahead than the spirit of critical theory symbology.


Thursday, June 25, 2020

ANS -- Analysis: Why some people are willing to challenge behavior they see as wrong despite personal risk

Here's a fairly short article on the psychology of those who stand up for morals instead of going along.  It suggest it's learnable too.  
--Kim


Analysis: Why some people are willing to challenge behavior they see as wrong despite personal risk

Science Updated on Jun 19, 2020 5:20 PM EDT — Published on Jun 19, 2020 1:22 PM EDT

Utah Sen. Mitt Romney voted in February to convict President Donald Trump on the charge of abuse of power, becoming the first senator ever to vote against his own party's president in an impeachment trial.

Two Theranos employees – Erika Cheung and Tyler Shultz – spoke out about their concerns regarding the company's practices, even though they knew they could face lasting personal and professional repercussions.

Actors Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan came forward to report Harvey Weinstein's sexual harassment and assault, despite his threats to ruin their careers if they did so.

All of these people spoke up to call out arguably bad behavior, even in the face of immense pressure to stay silent. Although the specifics of each of these cases are quite different, what each of these people share is a willingness to take action. Psychologists like me describe those who are willing to defend their principles in the face of potentially negative social consequences such as disapproval, ostracism and career setbacks as "moral rebels."

Moral rebels speak up in all types of situations – to tell a bully to cut it out, to confront a friend who uses a racist slur, to report a colleague who engages in corporate fraud. What enables someone to call out potentially bad behavior, even if doing so may have costs?

The traits of a moral rebel

First, moral rebels generally feel good about themselves. They tend to have high self-esteem and to feel confident about their own judgment, values and ability. They also believe their own views are superior to those of others, and thus that they have a social responsibility to share those beliefs.

Moral rebels are also less socially inhibited than others. They aren't worried about feeling embarrassed or having an awkward interaction. Perhaps most importantly, they are far less concerned about conforming to the crowd. So, when they have to choose between fitting in and doing the right thing, they will probably choose to do what they see as right.

The orbitofrontal cortex (in green on this brain that is facing to the left) looks different in moral rebels. Dorling Kindersley via Getty Images

Research in neuroscience reveals that people's ability to stand up to social influence is reflected in anatomical differences in the brain. People who are more concerned about fitting in show more gray matter volume in one particular part of the brain, the lateral orbitofrontal cortex. This area right behind your eyebrows creates memories of events that led to negative outcomes. It helps guide you away from things you want to avoid the next time around – such as being rejected by your group.

People who are more concerned about conforming to their group also show more activity in two other brain circuits; one that responds to social pain – like when you experience rejection – and another that tries to understand others' thoughts and feelings. In other words, those who feel worst when excluded by their group try the hardest to fit in.

What does this suggest about moral rebels? For some people, feeling like you're different than everyone else feels really bad, even at a neurological level. For other people, it may not matter as much, which makes it easier for them to stand up to social pressure.

These characteristics are totally agnostic as to what the moral rebel is standing up for. You could be the lone anti-abortion voice in your very liberal family or the lone abortion rights advocate in your very conservative family. In either scenario it's about standing up to social pressure to stay silent – and that pressure of course could be applied about anything.

The path of a moral rebel

What does it take to create a moral rebel?

It helps to have seen moral courage in action. Many of the civil rights activists who participated in marches and sit-ins in the southern United States in the 1960s had parents who displayed moral courage and civic engagement, as did many of the Germans who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. Watching people you look up to show moral courage can inspire you to do the same.

A budding moral rebel also needs to feel empathy, imagining the world from someone else's perspective.

A budding moral rebel also needs to feel empathy, imagining the world from someone else's perspective. Spending time with and really getting to know people from different backgrounds helps. White high school students who had more contact with people from different ethnic groups – in their neighborhood, at school and on sports teams – have higher levels of empathy and see people from different minority groups in more positive ways.

These same students are more likely to report taking some action if a classmate uses an ethnic slur, such as by directly challenging that person, supporting the victim or telling a teacher. People who are more empathetic are also more likely to defend someone who is being bullied.

Finally, moral rebels need particular skills and practice using them. One study found that teenagers who held their own in an argument with their mother, using reasoned arguments instead of whining, pressure or insults, were the most resistant to peer pressure to use drugs or drink alcohol later on. Why? People who have practiced making effective arguments and sticking with them under pressure are better able to use these same techniques with their peers.

Moral rebels clearly have particular characteristics that enable them to stand up for what's right. But what about the rest of us? Are we doomed to be the silent bystanders who meekly stand by and don't dare call out bad behavior?

Fortunately, no. It is possible to develop the ability to stand up to social pressure. In other words, anyone can learn to be a moral rebel.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 


Sunday, June 21, 2020

ANS -- Fox News Argues Viewers Don't Assume Tucker Carlson Reports Facts

Here's a little bit of fluff for you.  It's a short article about a lawsuit against Tucker Carlson and Fox.  This was the introduction on Facebook:
This is Fox's *official, legal stance*.
That they lie. They lie all the time. That they do not present the actual news, but a carefully crafted set of lies for their viewers to savor.
And, they affirm (solemnly and with a straight face) that their viewership KNOWS this and UNDERSTANDS this.
And that Fox should therefore not be held accountable or responsible for its broadcasting lies.
...
And <sotto voce> that it's the 'liberal' media that is lying to you.
I'm not entirely sure that introduction aligns perfectly with the article, but it seems basically to be stating the case correctly. What do you think?



--Kim


Fox News Argues Viewers Don't Assume Tucker Carlson Reports Facts

"What we're talking about here, it's not the front page of The New York Times. It's 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' which is a commentary show,
Roy Rochlin/Getty Images
"What we're talking about here, it's not the front page of The New York Times. It's 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' which is a commentary show," a lawyer for Fox News argued while defending a lawsuit from Karen McDougal.

Tucker Carlson doesn't have an obligation to investigate the truth of statements before making them on his show, and his audience doesn't expect him to report facts, a lawyer for Fox News told a New York federal judge on Wednesday. 

The network is facing a slander lawsuit from Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who made headlines over a $150,000 payment she received from the National Enquirer in connection with her alleged affair with Donald Trump.




McDougal claims Carlson defamed her and accused her of a crime in a segment that also discussed Stormy Daniels. Here's what Carlson said that she takes issue with: "Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn't give them money. Now that sounds like a classic case of extortion."

To complicate matters, he also earlier in the broadcast said that he was recapping the "gist" of a New York Times story and assuming "for the sake of argument" that things ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen had said were true while noting it wasn't wise to make such an assumption, but he also stated, "Remember the facts of the story; these are undisputed."

Fox News wants U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil to toss the complaint, arguing both that nothing Carlson said is defamatory because it can't be interpreted as stating actual facts and that McDougal can't prove he acted with actual malice, which she must to succeed on her claims because she's a public figure.

Fox News' attorney Erin Murphy argued that Carlson repeatedly couched his statements as hypotheticals to promote conversation and that a reasonable viewer would know his show offers "provocative things that will help me think harder," as opposed to straight news.

"What we're talking about here, it's not the front page of The New York Times," said Murphy. "It's Tucker Carlson Tonight, which is a commentary show."

While discussing what constitutes reckless disregard for the truth in regard to the actual malice standard, Judge Vyskocil asked Murphy, "Does somebody in Mr. Carlson's position have the duty of inquiry?"

Murphy replied, "Not as to an actual malice standard. The Supreme Court could not be clearer." She argued malice isn't a negligence standard, and "failure to investigate" the truth of a statement doesn't suffice. 

The Fox News lawyer also argued that even if Carlson were aligned with Trump, that's not enough, and you can't reach the actual malice standard "just by saying someone has motive for lying."

McDougal's lawyer Eric Bernstein emphasized the phrase "remember the facts" and claims that moment in his segment signaled a shift from commentary to reporting news. "It's a beat change, if you're an actor," he argued. "You can even see it on his face. He gets serious. He's not being dramatic."

Bernstein's arguments supporting actual malice rely on Fox News' previous coverage of McDougal and a tweet from Trump praising Carlson's book. Vyskocil seemed dubious, asking "Are you sure the president doesn't tweet about anyone with whom he doesn't have a personal relationship?"

She ultimately took the matter under submission.