Everyday Erinyes #252

 Posted by at 10:28 am  Politics
Feb 062021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

As I said lst week, I have a number of articles saved regarding how white supremacy thinks, when it increases, how it expresses itself, and so on. I hope to get to all of them eventually. This one is specifically about how violence is incite, which, in a word, is “indirectly.” A number of Republicans are “defending” Donald Trump** with the claim that he didn’t specifically tell his supporters to go kill people (they’re not using those words, but that’s the general idea.) Well, duh. Of course he didn’t. that’s not how it’s done. Here’s how it actually is done:
================================================================

Incitement to violence is rarely explicit – here are some techniques people use to breed hate

Dangerous speech is a toxic brew of emotion and age-old tropes.
Mihajlo Maricic / iStock via Getty Images Plus

H. Colleen Sinclair, Mississippi State University

As senators plan for an impeachment trial in which former President Donald Trump is accused of inciting his supporters to mount a deadly insurrection at the Capitol, global concern is growing about threats of violent unrest in multiple countries, including the U.S. The United Nations reports the proliferation of dangerous speech online represents a “new era” in conflict.

Dangerous speech is defined as communication encouraging an audience to condone or inflict harm. Usually this harm is directed by an “ingroup” (us) against an “outgroup” (them) – though it can also provoke self-harm in suicide cults.

U.S. law reflects the assumption that dangerous speech must contain explicit calls to criminal action. But scholars who study speeches and propaganda that precede acts of violence find direct commands to violence are rare.

Other elements are more common. Here are some of the red flags.

Firing up emotions

Adolf Hitler, dressed in a business suit, giving a speech.
Adolf Hitler addresses the crowd, September 1930.
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Psychologists have analyzed the speeches of rousing leaders like Hitler and Gandhi for their emotional content, assessing how much fear, joy, sadness and so on were present. They then tested whether the levels of emotion could predict whether a certain speech preceded violence or nonviolence.

They discovered the following emotions, particularly combined, could ignite violence:

  • Anger: The speaker gives the audience reasons to be angry, often pointing out who should be held responsible for that anger.
  • Contempt: The outgroup is deemed inferior to the ingroup, and thus unworthy of respect.
  • Disgust: The outgroup is described as so revolting they are undeserving of even basic humane treatment.

Constructing the threat

By studying political speeches and propaganda that have inspired violence, researchers have identified themes that can stir these powerful emotions.

Targets of dangerous speech are often dehumanized, depicted as fundamentally lacking qualities – empathy, intelligence, values, abilities, self-control – at the core of being human. Commonly, outgroups are depicted as evil, due to their alleged lack of morality. Alternatively, they may be portrayed as animalistic or worse. During the Rwandan genocide, Tutsis were referred to as cockroaches in Hutu propaganda.

To build a “story of hate,” a good guy is needed to counter the villain. So whatever dehumanizing quality is present in the outgroup, the opposite is present in the ingroup. If “they” are the Antichrist, “we” are the children of God.

Alleged past wrongdoings of the outgroup against the ingroup are used to position the outgroup as a threat. In cases of ongoing conflict between groups, such as between Israelis and Palestinians, there may well be examples of past wrongs on both sides. Effective dangerous speech omits, minimizes or justifies past wrongs by the ingroup members, while exacerbating past wrongs of the outgroup.

Competitive victimhood” is used to portray the ingroup as the “real” victim – especially if ingroup “innocents” like women and children have been harmed by the outgroup. Sometimes past acts of the outgroups are fabricated and used as scapegoats for the ingroup’s past misfortunes. For instance, Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany losing World War I.

A man with four huge machete scars across his face. Part of his ear is missing.
A survivor of the Rwandan genocide, 1994.
Scott Peterson/Hulton Archive via Getty Images

A particularly dangerous fabrication is when outgroups are accused of plotting against the ingroup the very deeds the ingroup is planning, if not actually committing, against the outgroup. Researchers coined the term “accusations in a mirror” after this strategy was explicitly described in a Hutu propaganda handbook following the Rwandan genocide.

Disengaging one’s moral compass

Effective dangerous speech gets people to overcome internal resistance to inflicting harm.

This can be accomplished by making it seem like no other options remain to defend the ingroup from the threat presented by the outgroup. Less extreme options are dismissed as exhausted or ineffective. The outgroup can’t be “saved.”

Simultaneously, speakers deploy “euphemistic labeling” to provide more palatable terms for violence, like “cleansing” or “defense” instead of “murder.” Or they may use “virtue-talk” to play up honor in fighting – and dishonor in not. After directing his followers to kill their children and themselves, cult leader Jim Jones called it “an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world.”

Sometimes, the ingroup suffers from an illusion of invulnerability and does not even consider the possibility of negative consequences from their actions, because they are so confident in the righteousness of their group and cause. If thought is given to life post-violence, it is portrayed as only good for the ingroup.

By contrast, if the outgroup is allowed to remain, obtain control or enact their alleged devious plans, the future looks grim; it will mean the destruction of everything the ingroup holds dear, if not the end of the ingroup itself.

These are just some of the hallmarks of dangerous speech identified through decades of research by historians and social scientists studying genocide, cults, intergroup conflict and propaganda. It is not an exhaustive list. Nor do all these elements need to be present for a speech to promote harm. There is also no guarantee the presence of these factors definitely leads to harm – just as there is no guarantee that smoking leads to cancer, though it certainly increases the risk.

The persuasiveness of a speech also depends on other variables, like the charisma of the speaker, the receptivity of the audience, the medium by which the message is delivered and the context in which the message is being received.

However, the elements described above are warning signs a speech is intended to promote and justify inflicting harm. People can resist calls to violence by recognizing these themes. Prevention is possible.

[Get our most insightful politics and election stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s Politics Weekly.]The Conversation

H. Colleen Sinclair, Associate Professor of Social Psychology, Mississippi State University

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

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, those of us (like everyone here) who already know this through our reading, our knowledge of history, our observation in our own lives, can be at a disadvantage when it turns out we need to explain it to people who think that, if you want someone to kill someone else, you just tell him (or her, but usually a him) so. I’m not really thinking of you are me trying to explain this to a friend or colleague or neighbor, but of the fact that our impeachment managers may very well – probably will – have to explain how this works to Republican Senators who are not just dense but wilfully dense. Our managers are all highly intelligent – I just hope intelligence doesn’t get too much in the way of understanding how those think who aren’t – and communicating with them.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share
Feb 042021
 

The Lincoln Project – “The Squalid” – GOP answer to “The Squad” They play quotes in their own words, but they are all the same really – it’s the titles they give them which are the hoot.

Also The Lincoln Project – “Ouch” (I am NOT going to put Marjorie Taylor Greene into tags.)

Meidas touch Parody with Bette Midler

Really American

Robert Reich – Greed Is Not Good

Another video of something one doesn’t see every day (all my cats have hated snow)

Thank God for Randy Rainbow:

John Pavlocitz – Perhaps no one here needs to see this. But I’m afraid I know some peolw who do.

Keith from Yesterday

Share
Feb 032021
 

Really American

Now This News – I don’t know why people can’t grasped that he WAS IMPEACHED WHILE IN OFFICE and the a TRIAL NEEDS TO FOLLOW and that has nothing to do with whether he is still in office.

The Damage Report – The headline is an oversell, but there is good info.

A tweet just for fun

Puppet Regime

Rocky Mountain Mike (be nice if he’d do Boebert also)

Beau – I’ve been sitting on this one for a while, to give us some breathing time – but it needs to be seen sooner or later. Especially by younger people.

Share
Jan 312021
 

The Lincoln Project

Robert Reich – Corporations as guardians of democracy?

Corey from WellRed, playing a press secretary, with Brent Terhune asking questions (Brent did those MAGAt parodies that were so real many people thought he was a MAGAt.)

SNL – Blue Georgia

And you thought you’d seen every possible take on Bernie’s mittens.

Beau – This could be funny if weren’t so true. “Travesty” is the word, all right.

Share
Jan 282021
 

Meidas Touch

Really American – The one I posted yesterday had no CC when I posted it. I went back later in the evening to get a transcript, and then it did have CC. So my advice on this one is to wait 6 or so hours and then view it on YouTube.

Now This News – the GameStop affair – explained simply

Robert Reich – very short and very accurate.

Mrs. Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian

A Philip Markle parody

Beau on how the impeachment trial “should” go. He makes excellent points. ACCOUNTABILITY

Keith from Tuesday

Share
Jan 262021
 

Meidas Touch – (Debra Messing also wants Trump** in prison, BTW)

Now This news – All is not well even though Trump** is out of office.

Really American – Marjorie Taylor Greene

The Alt-Right Playbook – Control the Conversation

Drew from WellRED

Beau on Bernie and the budget.

Beau on impeachment procedures (ACCOUNTABILITY)

Share
Jan 232021
 

It’s a tired day here in the CatBox, but my pain level is better than it was yesterday.  I think the Republicitis was exacerbating the pain.  Tomorrow is a High Holy Day in the Church of the Ellipsoid Orb.  I will spend the late afternoon booing Josh Hawley and watching my Portland Chiefs play the Buffalo Bills for the NFC title.  Tomorrow please expect no more than a Personal Update.  I have a video meeting with prison volunteer coworkers and former prisoners.  Have a fine weekend.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 3:06 (average 5:09).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Cartoon:

Short Takes:

From Daily Kos: Seven Senate Democrats are demanding that the Senate Committee on Ethics open an investigation in the actions of Republican Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz for their actions related to the Jan. 6 violent insurrection against Congress.

The two “amplified claims of election fraud that had resulted in threats of violence against state and local officials around the country,” the Democrats write. The group—Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tina Smith (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH)—notes that the Senate has the exclusive power to determine whether the members’ actions violated Senate ethics rules. They are asking the Ethics Committee to carry out a “thorough and fair investigation and consider any appropriate consequences based on the Committee’s findings.”

“When Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley announced they would object to the counting of state-certified electors on January 6, 2021, they amplified claims of election fraud that had resulted in threats of violence against state and local officials around the country,” the senators write. “While Congress was debating Senator Cruz’s objection, a violent mob stormed the Capitol. These insurrectionists ransacked the building, stole property, and openly threatened Members of Congress and the Vice President.” The two didn’t just help incite the riot, the Democrats wrote, but “[b]y proceeding with their objections to the electors after the violent attack, Senators Cruz and Hawley lent legitimacy to the mob’s cause and made future violence more likely.”

The senators write of their concern that members of Congress could have been involved in the coordination not just of the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol, but the attack itself. They provide a detailed and well-researched account of the events of the day as well as the background to it, including the threats of violence that were leveled against officials prior to Jan. 6, threats incited by Trump’s fraud claims and reinforced by Hawley and Cruz, who “lent legitimacy to President Trump’s false statements about election fraud by announcing that they would object to the certification of electors on January 6.”

I fully support this move. If these RNP (Republican Nazi Party) traitors are allowed to get away with it, they and others will surely do it again.  RESIST the Republican Reich!!

From YouTube (CNN Channel): Complete bunk’: Erin Burnett calls out Sen. Hawley’s explanation

 

As long as Biden agrees to the delay, it works for me. It also gives more time to gather evidence sufficiently obvious that it forces Republicans to either proclaim their own treason, like Cruz and Hawley, or to vote to convict.  RESIST the Republican Reich!!

From YouTube (Bernie Sanders Channel): We Cannot Reach Out To Republicans Indefinitely.

 

I fully agree. Republicans are most adept at holding out a fair negotiated agreement as a promise to Democrats in order to gain an advantage, only to act like Lucy with a football. Give them a chance, but one only.  RESIST the Republican Reich!!

From YouTube (a blast from the past): Fleetwood Mac – Landslide (Official Music Video)

 

Ah… the memories. We needed a landslide. We got one!  RESIST the Republican Reich!!

Build the Future. It Belongs to YOU!

Share

Everyday Erinyes #249

 Posted by at 10:37 am  Politics
Jan 162021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

Now that a teacher has been caught on video telling students last week’s rioters were Antifa (I keep wanting to say “I am not making this up”), it might be a good time to start thinking about how this history should be taught in schools, now and in the future. Well, we do have some expert guidance with suggestions.
================================================================

How should schools teach kids about what happened at the US Capitol on Jan. 6? We asked 6 education experts

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they storm the U.S. Capitol.
Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images

David Schonfeld, University of Southern California; Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, Tufts University; Kyle Greenwalt, Michigan State University; Paula McAvoy, North Carolina State University; Sarah Stitzlein, University of Cincinnati , and Tiffany Mitchell Patterson, West Virginia University

Teachers scrambled to create lesson plans to help students make sense of the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol right after it happened.

It’s a fraught task. Even the news media wasn’t sure what to call this unprecedented attack on U.S. democracy. Was it a coup? A riot? An act of domestic terrorism?

Likewise, it’s not clear where lessons should begin.

The Conversation U.S. asked six education experts how teachers – and parents – can help young people comprehend, analyze and process what happened.

Don’t avoid the topic

Dr. David Schonfeld, director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and professor of clinical pediatrics, University of Southern California

Educators may worry they don’t know the right thing to say and will unnecessarily upset students. But saying nothing can say a lot to children – that adults are unaware, unconcerned, unable or unwilling to provide support in difficult times.

Teachers and parents can begin by asking students what they have heard and understand about the event. As kids explain it, it’s important to look for misunderstandings and ask about worries and concerns.

Children often have very different fears than adults. Some may be based on limited information or misunderstandings. For example, children might fear that it’s unsafe to go into any government building and worry about a parent who works in a post office. The goal of these conversations is to help children understand what happened in order to address their worries and concerns.

Especially in the midst of a pandemic, when children and adults are worried about illness and death and many families are dealing with financial concerns and other sources of stress, it’s not a time for teachers to introduce their personal take on what elected officials did right or wrong or to speculate about potential future dangers.

The events of Jan. 6 are a harsh reminder that even in the U.S. people are never completely safe from violence. But adults can use this opportunity to express a hopeful perspective for the future and reassure children that what happened at the Capitol should not make them feel unsafe in their home, at school or in their community.

No business as usual

Paula McAvoy, assistant professor of social studies education, North Carolina State University

I believe that social studies teachers should not return to business as usual in early 2021. Instead, they should spend ample time helping students understand what happened on Jan. 6, what precipitated the mayhem and what should happen going forward.

Once students have had space to process, the priority is to help them become more informed. When engaging in this work, teachers must not treat the question, “Did Joe Biden legitimately win the 2020 election?” as open to interpretation. He most definitely did. Likewise, teachers should not give any credence to the idea that the election was stolen, as the angry mob that wreaked havoc in the Capitol alleged. Instead, teachers should affirm each state’s certification. They should be clear that over 80 judges – including some appointed by Trump – rejected the baseless claim that fraud affected the outcome. They should do this because it is true.

The question, “Should President Trump be impeached again?” is, however, open for interpretation. Engaging students in an extended inquiry into this question as members of Congress grapple with it in real time creates an opportunity to closely read parts of the Constitution, including the 25th Amendment, parse out the difference between a violent insurrection and a protest, and evaluate Trump’s words and actions.

This moment is an opportunity for everyone to deepen their understanding about democracy. And social studies teachers should not let it slip away.

Focus on white supremacy

Tiffany Mitchell Patterson, assistant professor of secondary social studies, West Virginia University

White supremacy has always been violent, protected and upheld in America’s institutions. This is well documented and we must teach it. The world witnessed yet another example on Jan. 6, 2021.

I believe it’s a good idea for teachers to devote some class time to allow students to share their thoughts, feelings and questions on what they have seen and heard about the insurrection in a way that does not harm students of color. This is also an opportunity to engage students in spotting many racial double standards by having students analyze the media coverage, political rhetoric and law enforcement responses to the Black Lives Matter protests across the nation in 2020, and this unprecedented attack that followed smaller-scale operations at some state capitols.

I do understand that some teachers may be reluctant to address what happened. Those educators need to be honest with themselves about why that is and do the necessary self-reflective work needed to overcome their hesitation.

Teachers also must resist the urge to view what I consider a coup attempt as an isolated incident. Instead, they should place it in a historical context.

Many resources are available. The Zinn Education Project and the Southern Policy Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance initiative, among others, provide lesson plans and resources to learn and teach about racism and white supremacy. For some teachers this is ongoing work, and for others this siege is sure to be a catalyst for change. But progress toward the goal of dismantling white supremacy can happen in K-12 classrooms – if teachers choose to do the critical work that it requires.

Kids are, sadly, familiar with violence

Kyle Greenwalt, associate director of teacher preparation and associate professor of education, Michigan State University

School curriculum and children’s own life experiences both oblige teachers to discuss with their students events like those that happened at the U.S. Capitol.

In Michigan, for example, state standards for kindergarteners require them to consider several important civic ideals. These include the notion that “people do not have the right to do whatever they want” and that democracy requires cooperation as well as “individual responsibility.”

But it’s not only educational standards that make it necessary to teach kids about such events and engage them in related discussions. The reality children face in their daily lives also demands it.

Children and teens are no strangers to disagreement, questions of fairness and, unfortunately, scenes of violence like those we saw in the Capitol. For example, schools commonly have active-shooter drills that can leave children feeling confused, scared or angry. I believe that teachers have a moral responsibility to help students process these experiences.

In a truly democratic society, students are not only taught about democracy but are encouraged to practice it. That is, students are empowered to use what they have learned to engage in civic life outside of the classroom walls.

That’s what happened when students led the March for Our Lives after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. A youthful passion for engagement is also what inspired the Swedish teen Greta Thunberg and a wave of climate strikes.

Young people are capable of showing their elders what it means to live democratically and take care of the common good.

Connect events to the past and the future

Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, director of the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University

Most students today have never seen our elected leaders and political systems work well, let alone live up to America’s constitutional ideals. Many are confused by what they’ve seen, if not angry and traumatized. It’s important for teachers to communicate that all kinds of emotional reactions are valid.

Let students express and process what they feel safely. Do not dehumanize any student because of their opinion – but teach them to always consider the intent and impact of their response. If appropriate, encourage methods like journaling that allow for reflection without sharing.

This is also an opportunity to connect current events with other moments in American history when the nation’s institutions were tested or our leaders fell short in their commitment to core American values.

[Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

Even with younger students, I don’t believe educators should shy away from the fact that some people violated not just social norms but their professional, political and moral duties – and why their actions threaten the health of our republic.

These conversations can enhance students’ understanding of the past and present and inspire a passion to build a better future for all Americans.

Explain what ‘dissent’ is

Sarah Stitzlein, professor of education and affiliate professor of philosophy at University of Cincinnati

I believe teachers should teach students what political dissent is, why it matters to a healthy democracy and how to engage in it.

Ideally with the support of their school administrators and local community, teachers should help students distinguish justified protest from the violent siege that occurred at the Capitol. They should explain how good dissent seeks to understand problems, critiques injustice, sparks discussion between people with different views, bases claims on evidence and employs democratic processes.

Teachers should empower students with the skills of dissent. These include raising awareness, forming persuasive arguments, building coalitions and using critical thinking to challenge misinformation. Students should practice putting forward solutions that can be discussed and tested. Young people should be encouraged to imagine how life can be better in America as a way to build hope with their peers.

It’s important that they realize how dissent and hope together can help strengthen U.S. democracy.The Conversation

David Schonfeld, Director, National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement, University of Southern California; Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, Director, Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement in the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University; Kyle Greenwalt, Associate Professor of Education, Michigan State University; Paula McAvoy, Assistant Professor of Social Studies Education, North Carolina State University; Sarah Stitzlein, Professor of Education and Affiliate Faculty in Philosophy, University of Cincinnati , and Tiffany Mitchell Patterson, Assistant Professor of Secondary Social Studies, West Virginia University

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

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, there’s a Tweet quoting Speaker Pelosi in today’s Video Thread which refers to the fact that kids are familiar with violence – a lot more familiar than we give them credit for, and a lot more familiar than is best for them. And that is only one way in which kids are well equipped to handle the truth – and in fact, likely better equipped than many teachers. Any assistance we can get in bringing the truth to our children would be greatly appreciated.

The Furies and I will be back

Share