You Say You Want a Revolution, Part 2

 

Here’s what this post, and last week’s post are about: The cultural changes in the media that Ricochet readers don’t like didn’t happen by pure accident. They took decades. We propose equally patient, persistent, but ruthlessly effective efforts to push culture in another direction over the next 20-plus years. We are chewing over how to create or capture a big chunk of tomorrow’s media and the arts. It’s a myth that nothing can be done about the entertainment business. Success is Hollywood’s definitive history teacher.

@drewinwisconsin raises a tough point. He said, “So that’s probably why it’s important to try to change or break the current system rather than try to build an equivalent system that will have no users. Consider how much power and scope Google+ had, and it still couldn’t survive against Facebook. And that’s Google — already a malignant influence.”

@sabrdance asks, “What do we mean by a believable path to get there?”

I mean believable in real world terms. A Jonathan Edwards-style Great Awakening would obviously make all of this tactical maneuvering about the mere media moot. Let’s assume that won’t happen and we end up having to do this ourselves.

My distinguished colleague @Barfly asks: “I’m looking for a characterization of the state we’re aiming for. Society is trying to digest a major transformational technology, the educational system has been broken by affluence and tolerance, of all things, and the barbarians are at the gates armed with all of the above. We can’t expect any of these things to work out in our favor unless we know where we want to go. You must have some vision of where those six or sixty things lead – is that coming in the next installment?”

Here we are, now you be the judge. We’re facing a composite force with a dozen power centers. Among many other tasks, we first need to capture one or more of them or build its equal from scratch. We’ll get around to discussing both.

What’s a Long Game to capture a mindshare of Hollywood? Create something like the Sundance Institute and duplicate their success at making it the arbiter of what’s new and valuable. Like Sundance, win the credibility and the authority to hold screenings and festivals, to present awards and honors to praise the good and shame the bad. Hollywood is particularly susceptible to this. Sprinkle our “graduates” and allies widely through the industry, like raisins in raisin bread. Do you want to make heads explode? Let either the First Lady or Ivanka take a leadership role. Hire young women to make programs and announce a continuing scholarship and apprenticeship program, ours.

In the late Eighties and early Nineties, the street locations and bare breasts of underground movies turned into something more respectable called independent cinema, and people criticized Sundance for showing and promoting films that were, they sniffed, insufficiently political. Sundance said, accurately, that they were dedicated to pushing change through the choices of what they decided to show. When that was deemed not enough, Sundance has also bankrolled some independent films that leaned forward—that is, leaned farther Left–becoming in effect a competitor of their own partners. Like Android’s regular endorsement of a Nexus-quality mobile phone, rotated through the major manufacturers, the Sundance label on an “indie” is a trusted mark of quality. They don’t have to make all the radical films, just the key ones. Smart.

How would our first generation of film projects begin? Make an early (but affordable) splash to announce you’ve arrived on the scene. There’s only, oh, about a hundred ways to respond to the bizzaroid cultural atmosphere of our times. One suggestion: we constantly see efforts to honor women in history/herstory. Fine; great idea. Do our version, because nobody thinks we’d be interested in this. Elevate forgotten, politically unconventional female intellectuals like Clare Booth Luce and Dixy Lee Ray, as well as living writers like Liz Trotta and Amity Shlaes, and make an inexpensive bio series for streaming, to inspire girls and give them different role models than today’s dull lineup.

We can and should learn our Machiavellian lessons from how the other guys did it. Face it, they were good at it; look around you. For roughly sixty years, the culture of the media calls itself progressive, however broadly defined. No one central authority set that in motion, but over the decades, time and time again, lots of helpers stepped in to change movies and TV. It didn’t happen overnight. That change ebbed and flowed. Like King Canute, we can’t command tidal forces, but like good civil engineers, we can put them to work. Turn the tide in our direction.

As in politics, the progressive surge of Hollywood’s do-your-own-thing Sixties ran aground in the stagnating, crime-plagued Seventies. A couple of major hits can shape the attitudes and moods of a decade—think of the three years that took us from “The French Connection” to “The Godfather” to “Death Wish”.

Break that down for a moment, because it shows a persistent Hollywood weakness, a tendency towards unanticipated outcomes that resembles Mickey Mouse in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”. “The French Connection” was rare in 1971 for declaring “The time is right for an out-and-out thriller”. It was a trend-setter. Cop movies took the place that westerns once had on the American screen; one bold, unappreciated real man up against smug, lawyer-sanctioned lawlessness. In other words, for all its vague gestures towards the supposed futility of the war against heroin, it had an objectively conservative effect on its audience. The filmmakers didn’t mind, but they were surprised.

“The Godfather” was supposed to be based on one central idea: crime and capitalism are deeply intertwined. Comparisons between the civilian authorities and the mob are always dismissive. Mario Puzo was angry at Francis Coppola for dropping what Puzo considered the single indispensable line in the novel: “A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns”. Actually, this pseudo-Marxist quip has, I have to admit, spread across the aisle. It’s not without a point. But “Godfather’s” unprecedented success wasn’t based on its acute critique of capitalist ethics and the Mafia in Cuba, but in an unexpected emotional reaction: they loved the idea of a Godfather, because in a time when the cities had become dangerous, he was a protector, the dispenser of instant, final street justice. The biggest of criminals was a welcome force against random crime, the most widely despised feature of the era. “Dirty Harry” all but gave up on due process. “Death Wish” took it farther.

Lasting change must be persistent. The Sixties wave stalled and actually reversed by the dawn of the Eighties. What made 1977’s “Star Wars” so different, a turning point for stunned Hollywood, was optimism, faith, and fun. That can and does happen. It can happen again. Think of Pixar’s hits over the past quarter century. Could you imagine, for example, animation and storytelling of Pixar’s quality, but guided by a creative team from the Babylon Bee? I could.

Google wasn’t built in a day. Suppose that when Rupert Murdoch bought Fox, he not only created a different kind of news channel but a different kind of movie studio. Suppose he teamed up with fellow conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz, who created Walden Media to produce the Narnia films. Suppose they realized they needed tech in depth to create and own streaming platforms. The biggest and most durable computer trade show of the era was owned by conservative billionaire Sheldon Adelson. None of these team-ups happened. But none of it was impossible; if they’d done it, none of it could have been blocked by other media players. And if Rupe, Phil, and Shelly had figured out how to make money at it, which those three guys were rather good at doing, everyone else in Hollywood would have been aware of the development potential of all that empty real estate they’ve left fallow in the center and on the right.

That’s one of the self-limiting factors of my suggestions: If we’re right about what the public really wants, everybody will slowly, reluctantly, grudgingly compete with us. I couldn’t be more pleased at that prospect. In a century of fascism and communism, Hollywood stands proud for what the town has always believed in: plagiarism.

Of course, plutocratic bosses willing to take a chance can only carry a social movement so far. Ambitious writers who see daylight between the pillars of today’s deadening culture are obviously crucial. Form some embryonic institutions that will staff and guide the project. We already have a few, so start by supporting and enhancing them. We’ll need a farm team, its talent discovered and promoted by a media-based tribute to the success of The Federalist Society, with an unbending vision. It should be led by younger people because they’re going to have to maintain that focus, energy, and clarity of goals for more than a generation.

When you read the words “international cinema”, many of your eyes glaze over. They shouldn’t. Filmmakers, liberal or conservative, like to see sympathetic new artists, and being the gatekeepers of foreign films and TV can have an influence on tomorrow’s directors and writers greatly in excess of their effect on today’s audiences. Conservatives, and social conservatives especially, should be watching the principled defense of traditional culture in central, southern and eastern Europe. Here’s one unorthodox suggestion of a possible center of cultural resistance to today’s culture: Orthodoxy. Many of the film and TV artists of eastern and southern Europe still act in confidence that they’re part of a valid, powerful way of seeing the world.

Naturally, I’m more familiar with my own guys in places like Ireland, Poland, and Lithuania, and they too bring topics into serious films that you’d never see in American ones. But at this moment Catholic culture is crippled; I wish I could say otherwise. The posts of @skipsul make a superb case that Orthodoxy, however it compares to your denomination or religion, is one of today’s most coherent cultural forces and critics.

We’re working to promote real diversity of ideas, not merely a stale future of subsidized, institutionalized conservatism on screen. Yes, if done right our project would certainly lead to more conservative and centrist projects being considered acceptable. It might very well lead to fewer films being green-lighted purely because of their ability to insult your beliefs. But it’ll also lead to more projects that are interested in American history, pure entertainment, and yet informed by a non-PC point of view. “Back to the Future” was written by a conservative, “Apollo 13” and “Saving Private Ryan” by liberals. In 1985, 1995, and 1997, no one to my knowledge supported or rejected their insights based on those political facts. It was still possible to hold a conversation. It wasn’t yet an abyss. We don’t just need some room carved out for conservative politics in culture; we need some room carved out for no politics in culture.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 193 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Tech changed. Habits changed. People no longer believe what they believed before, i.e. in advertising, which conservatives are so far behind the times that they call indoctrination or propaganda, as if this was still FDR’s time in office!

    But it is indoctrination and propaganda. Models are good when they encompass a truth. Older models do not suffer from being older; if anything it increases their power by making the extent and nature of the manipulation more obvious and more predictable. CBS News can no longer manufacture TANG memos and expect the con to hold. Someone out there is going to notice the Palatino typeface and put two and two together.

    • #151
  2. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Percival (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Tech changed. Habits changed. People no longer believe what they believed before, i.e. in advertising, which conservatives are so far behind the times that they call indoctrination or propaganda, as if this was still FDR’s time in office!

    But it is indoctrination and propaganda. Models are good when they encompass a truth. Older models do not suffer from being older; if anything it increases their power by making the extent and nature of the manipulation more obvious and more predictable. CBS News can no longer manufacture TANG memos and expect the con to hold. Someone out there is going to notice the Palatino typeface and put two and two together.

    I’m pleased to say that by chance I saw it happen almost in real time, because at that time Charles Johnson and his Little Green Footballs website were conservative (weird, huh?) and he didn’t even get aggressive about it. He blogged about it, asked a simple question that gave them every easy out: You mean this is the text of the memo, right? You don’t mean this is an image of the actual memo? Yes, they replied, it’s the actual memo. Seeing Johnson put two and two together online, snarky, witty R> style, was like a dramatic scene in “All the President’s Men”, internet version thirty years later. 

    • #152
  3. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Tech changed. Habits changed. People no longer believe what they believed before, i.e. in advertising, which conservatives are so far behind the times that they call indoctrination or propaganda, as if this was still FDR’s time in office!

    But it is indoctrination and propaganda. Models are good when they encompass a truth. Older models do not suffer from being older; if anything it increases their power by making the extent and nature of the manipulation more obvious and more predictable. CBS News can no longer manufacture TANG memos and expect the con to hold. Someone out there is going to notice the Palatino typeface and put two and two together.

    I’m pleased to say that by chance I saw it happen almost in real time, because at that time Charles Johnson and his Little Green Footballs website were conservative (weird, huh?) and he didn’t even get aggressive about it. He blogged about it, asked a simple question that gave them every easy out: You mean this is the text of the memo, right? You don’t mean this is an image of the actual memo? Yes, they replied, it’s the actual memo. Seeing Johnson put two and two together online, snarky, witty R> style, was like a dramatic scene in “All the President’s Men”, internet version thirty years later.

    I was eyebrow-deep in a database reconfiguration and only managed a glance or two while it was going down. Johnson’s comparison of the typeface evidence was damning.

    If that had been discovered a few months later, would anyone have asked President Kerry about it? Nah …

    • #153
  4. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Anybody see “Shattered Glass”? It wasn’t a “Star Wars” level hit to say the least, but it’s a sharp, dry funny and a little bit creepy story of a fabulist, a lying writer at The New Republic whose frauds went undetected because they so neatly fit his reader’s prejudices and preconceptions about Republicans. It skewers liberal (one upon a time) icons like Martin Peretz, owner of the magazine, and honestly so. Would I call it a conservative film? I’d call it a pretty honest modern morality drama that conservatives might enjoy watching. 

    When I read about the debunking of the Dan Rather documents, I think of “Shattered Glass”, and also of “The Social Network”, a much more commercially successful film that’s posed as a liberal’s (Aaron Sorkin) cautionary note about the moral failings of the new class of gen-x and millennial billionaires. The Little Green Footballs decoding of the truth was a real David vs. Goliath that nobody’s covered or dramatised, but this type of story is relatively cheap to do. 

    • #154
  5. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    Morning Gary and Titus,

    To throw another unsolicited manuscript over the transom for your movie projects, I submit “Fields Without Dreams” by VDH.  An old book, 97, about the end of the raisin farmers, the agrarian culture, and in a similar parallel the end of teaching as a classicist. It is a tragedy, but although the farmers might be considered heroic, it is more about the tragic nature of life than a story with good vs bad or David and Goliath.  It might appeal to the fans of Jordan Peterson.  

    Gary, you note how Charlie Johnson exposed the fake Rather memo, why haven’t earlier journalists exposed earlier fake reporting, or why haven’t they been successful when they have done so?  Is it as Titus noted that the internet became the new source of news? 

    • #155
  6. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Jim Beck (View Comment):

    Morning Gary and Titus,

    To throw another unsolicited manuscript over the transom for your movie projects, I submit “Fields Without Dreams” by VDH. An old book, 97, about the end of the raisin farmers, the agrarian culture, and in a similar parallel the end of teaching as a classicist. It is a tragedy, but although the farmers might be considered heroic, it is more about the tragic nature of life than a story with good vs bad or David and Goliath. It might appeal to the fans of Jordan Peterson.

    Gary, you note how Charlie Johnson exposed the fake Rather memo, why haven’t earlier journalists exposed earlier fake reporting, or why haven’t they been successful when they have done so? Is it as Titus noted that the internet became the new source of news?

    Jim, I don’t know the history of journalism well enough for a good answer. The internet certainly has something to do with it, but not just the possibility of non-mainstream opinions. The speed of being able to exchange information and look things up must have something to do with it. Charles Johnson could have done something like this in the days of print media, but the story would have come together slowly. It wouldn’t have made news all by itself. 

    • #156
  7. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Percival (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Tech changed. Habits changed. People no longer believe what they believed before, i.e. in advertising, which conservatives are so far behind the times that they call indoctrination or propaganda, as if this was still FDR’s time in office!

    But it is indoctrination and propaganda. Models are good when they encompass a truth. Older models do not suffer from being older; if anything it increases their power by making the extent and nature of the manipulation more obvious and more predictable. CBS News can no longer manufacture TANG memos and expect the con to hold. Someone out there is going to notice the Palatino typeface and put two and two together.

    I’m pleased to say that by chance I saw it happen almost in real time, because at that time Charles Johnson and his Little Green Footballs website were conservative (weird, huh?) and he didn’t even get aggressive about it. He blogged about it, asked a simple question that gave them every easy out: You mean this is the text of the memo, right? You don’t mean this is an image of the actual memo? Yes, they replied, it’s the actual memo. Seeing Johnson put two and two together online, snarky, witty R> style, was like a dramatic scene in “All the President’s Men”, internet version thirty years later.

    I was eyebrow-deep in a database reconfiguration and only managed a glance or two while it was going down. Johnson’s comparison of the typeface evidence was damning.

    If that had been discovered a few months later, would anyone have asked President Kerry about it? Nah …

    What made that whole thing kind of delicious was the increasingly absurd work-arounds they frantically devised for every emerging hole in their story. Okay, okay, Microsoft Word didn’t exist back then, but…computers were used for typesetting at newspapers. The Pentagon owned computers. Therefore, the military moved heaven and earth invented processes that wouldn’t exist for another generation solely in order to fake memos for a state Air National Guard unit in order to protect the son of a relatively minor politician. 

    • #157
  8. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    Afternoon Gary,

    As I recall the Powerline guys were on the case and some IBM guys were noting kerning and spacing on the Selectrics of the time, and the one,s which might have been used on the bases did not match the letters. I think one of the first  IBM specialists was named Buckethead.  The play between the folks exposing the fraud and those trying to save the fraud and this story to go to let go would make a super story.

    • #158
  9. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Tech changed. Habits changed. People no longer believe what they believed before, i.e. in advertising, which conservatives are so far behind the times that they call indoctrination or propaganda, as if this was still FDR’s time in office!

    But it is indoctrination and propaganda. Models are good when they encompass a truth. Older models do not suffer from being older; if anything it increases their power by making the extent and nature of the manipulation more obvious and more predictable. CBS News can no longer manufacture TANG memos and expect the con to hold. Someone out there is going to notice the Palatino typeface and put two and two together.

    I’m pleased to say that by chance I saw it happen almost in real time, because at that time Charles Johnson and his Little Green Footballs website were conservative (weird, huh?) and he didn’t even get aggressive about it. He blogged about it, asked a simple question that gave them every easy out: You mean this is the text of the memo, right? You don’t mean this is an image of the actual memo? Yes, they replied, it’s the actual memo. Seeing Johnson put two and two together online, snarky, witty R> style, was like a dramatic scene in “All the President’s Men”, internet version thirty years later.

    I was eyebrow-deep in a database reconfiguration and only managed a glance or two while it was going down. Johnson’s comparison of the typeface evidence was damning.

    If that had been discovered a few months later, would anyone have asked President Kerry about it? Nah …

    What made that whole thing kind of delicious was the increasingly absurd work-arounds they frantically devised for every emerging hole in their story. Okay, okay, Microsoft Word didn’t exist back then, but…computers were used for typesetting at newspapers. The Pentagon owned computers. Therefore, the military moved heaven and earth invented processes that wouldn’t exist for another generation solely in order to fake memos for a state Air National Guard unit in order to protect the son of a relatively minor politician.

    A minor out-of-state politician. And a Yankee one to boot.

    • #159
  10. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    There’s also a lesson for us. Whether it’s Obama’s birth certificate, the Seth Rich killing, or Pizzagate, there’s a point where you have to let go of an investigation and ditch a cherished theory because it’s harder and harder to pass the common sense test. 

    • #160
  11. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    There’s also a lesson for us. Whether it’s Obama’s birth certificate, the Seth Rich killing, or Pizzagate, there’s a point where you have to let go of an investigation and ditch a cherished theory because it’s harder and harder to pass the common sense test.

    I think you’re discounting the power of ‘fake but accurate’, a new standard they discovered at that time.

    • #161
  12. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    There’s also a lesson for us. Whether it’s Obama’s birth certificate, the Seth Rich killing, or Pizzagate, there’s a point where you have to let go of an investigation and ditch a cherished theory because it’s harder and harder to pass the common sense test.

    I think you’re discounting the power of ‘fake but accurate’, a new standard they discovered at that time.

    I don’t know if I’d call it a standard, because almost everyone made fun of Rather for a gaffe that dumb. I use “gaffe” to deliberately drag in Michael Kinsley’s famous definition, that a gaffe is when a politician (in this case, a “journalist”) says what he’s really thinking. But yeah, wishful thinking plays a big role, and so-called “Russiagate” is a great example. 

    • #162
  13. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Messers Rather & even Brian Williams are not just guys who screwed up in the hallowed halls of All The President’s Men–they’re also ahead of their time. They were the last men to become that famous for journalism–the last anchors, let’s say. The whole system was collapsing because the mental childhood of America was over on the subject of news. For a while, Americans were so well disciplined they all tuned in to hear the same news, at the same time, regularly! Now, that seems inconceivable. Not even people who grew up doing it do it anymore.

    24 news also were ahead of their time: They first proved that news & entertainment are the same thing.

    The whole notion that TV is the power through which liberal elite make unpopular things popular–broadcasting to the American audience what the center is, what the must see TV is, what we all should be thinking about–this whole notion was collapsing in the late 90s already.

    By the time social media came around, it became obvious that people wanted to be the celebrities, anchors, important, magical people themselves–not to look up to a moron in a suit like Rather. There’s something to be said for this new America, where we don’t act like obedient children anymore; there’s something to be said against it, since we’re always acting like petulant children now.

    In the age of TV, journalism meant hero antics & prestige. In the digital era, it’s going to be really different. Mr. Jim Acosta is exactly All The President’s Men. Even generations of stupid liberals who worshiped that silly story where the deep state manipulates the press–even they can tell it’s a clown show now & he’s just a clown. Because the thinking has changed to digital. TV is just another show now. It’s no longer the way we see the world. More, because of the change, there’s nothing on earth or in heaven Mr. Acosta could do to have what Cronkite had by way of influence. It wouldn’t make a difference if he were smarter or more learned.

    The clowns at the end of the TV era in some ways were insightful. Open partisanship, turning every hero story into a mere meme–that’s what it’s like. It’s going to become more so. America will go back to natural, to super-partisan presses that often indulge insane reciprocal slanders! It’s ugly & stupid, but not even America can be perfect. But at least the press will no longer believe it has a magic TV machine that can do mind control on the population. Even the notion that boy billionaire Zuckerberg can run social psychology experiments on the nation, children included–that’s over, too.

    The future will be digital. Like when some stupid liberal starts a hoax  & hours later, the evidence shows up that he’s lying. It’s not like in the days of TV anymore. Digital means everything is remembered by machines. The question for the news, for cinema, for music, too, will be: Is that memory compatible with humanity or is it going to be the American corporate HR version of the Chinese social credit system?

    • #163
  14. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    In the age of TV, journalism meant hero antics & prestige. In the digital era, it’s going to be really different. Mr. Jim Acosta is exactly All The President’s Men. Even generations of stupid liberals who worshiped that silly story where the deep state manipulates the press–even they can tell it’s a clown show now & he’s just a clown. Because the thinking has changed to digital. TV is just another show now. It’s no longer the way we see the world. More, because of the change, there’s nothing on earth or in heaven Mr. Acosta could do to have what Cronkite had by way of influence. It wouldn’t make a difference if he were smarter or more learned.

    It would make this bit of difference: he’d be better at coming up with put downs and silly leading questions, and might look like less of an ass.

    • #164
  15. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    Only very old people watch TV news anymore.

    I wasn’t limiting my post to TV news, people are increasingly skeptical of mainstream online sources, as well.  Including supposed platform providers like Facebook and Reddit.  ‘Fake News’ has become what ‘Faux News’ was a decade ago, except with a double meaning to the (mostly accurate) slur; Facebook had to stop trying to label things as fake news because their negative credibility simply led people to assume it was news they wanted to suppress.  That is an example of what I was saying.

    And yes, technological changes have had enabled this, not least through breaking up information monopolies (leading to modern attempts to suppress information on sites that became popular as free speech platforms).  Which has had the perverse effect of making old media more blatantly biased, as they switch from mass appeal to an increasingly niche market.   I certainly wasn’t claiming that this was all due to willful cultural warfare on progressive institutions, I was comparing the record of Trump and his supporters in new media with that of David French and his fellow travelers.  I see in the former success to the point that major tech and online payment monopolies have had to actively collude to suppress information (or infotainment, if you prefer) from the sort of people that French despises for their ‘incivility’ (few of which are actual conservatives, as like you said, we aren’t very good at this-they do provide an opening for gradual ‘conversion’, however, as fellow travelers against Progressivism).  

    • #165
  16. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    We always knew the handle “Lowtech redneck” was an ironic bit of drollery. A power packed comment, but I still disagree with making David French into Goldstein in “1984”. He’s a conservative, so is Ahmari, so are we. I’ll still take French over Ahmari if I have to choose, but other than the Left, who’s anxious to make me choose? Nobody. 

    I’m really not much on over-emphasizing civility or politeness or getting invited to cocktail parties, etc etc. but when I look at Ahmari, I see right wing Pajama Boy claiming he can take down Dwayne Johnson. 

    • #166
  17. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Is that memory compatible with humanity or is it going to be the American corporate HR version of the Chinese social credit system?

    I think it’s not good for us to have too long memories.  Eventually everything will be permanently scored.  That will drive humanity insane(r).

     

    • #167
  18. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    Evening Titus and Gary,

    Looking at how folks have used information from the net to shape their choices on vaccines and how folks in England feel about Brexit, do you think we can imagine what a future network of news info might look like and how folks can sort out what to trust.  I know this is difficult.  I am wondering in our current world where many results posted in scientific papers can not be replicated, how will we be able to get a accurate fix on what is accurate, real.  It seems that we are creating a world where the fog of gossip and rumor have made discernment more difficult, coupled with lives where we are increasingly dependent on outside sources of knowledge because we don’t make things ourselves or even know how to repair the things on which we depend.

    • #168
  19. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jim Beck (View Comment):

    Evening Titus and Gary,

    Looking at how folks have used information from the net to shape their choices on vaccines and how folks in England feel about Brexit, do you think we can imagine what a future network of news info might look like and how folks can sort out what to trust. I know this is difficult. I am wondering in our current world where many results posted in scientific papers can not be replicated, how will we be able to get a accurate fix on what is accurate, real. It seems that we are creating a world where the fog of gossip and rumor have made discernment more difficult, coupled with lives where we are increasingly dependent on outside sources of knowledge because we don’t make things ourselves or even know how to repair the things on which we depend.

    I didn’t trust any of the news back in those days, and I don’t trust any of the news now. I don’t see a big difference in that regard.

    • #169
  20. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Is that memory compatible with humanity or is it going to be the American corporate HR version of the Chinese social credit system?

    I think it’s not good for us to have too long memories. Eventually everything will be permanently scored. That will drive humanity insane(r).

     

    Yes, but institutional memory is what it took to preserve over thousands of years what people had learned before. Whether any institution still functions in that sense is a question-

    • #170
  21. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Is that memory compatible with humanity or is it going to be the American corporate HR version of the Chinese social credit system?

    I think it’s not good for us to have too long memories. Eventually everything will be permanently scored. That will drive humanity insane(r).

     

    Yes, but institutional memory is what it took to preserve over thousands of years what people had learned before. Whether any institution still functions in that sense is a question-

    Institutional memory should be reserved for institutional knowledge.  The dumbass thing you said when you were young and stupid should fade in the traditional manner.

    • #171
  22. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Is that memory compatible with humanity or is it going to be the American corporate HR version of the Chinese social credit system?

    I think it’s not good for us to have too long memories. Eventually everything will be permanently scored. That will drive humanity insane(r).

     

    Yes, but institutional memory is what it took to preserve over thousands of years what people had learned before. Whether any institution still functions in that sense is a question-

    Institutional memory should be reserved for institutional knowledge. The dumbass thing you said when you were young and stupid should fade in the traditional manner.

    Well, yeah, but who’s going to legislate that? Does anyone even care about restoring this form of the public-private distinction? Corporations are desperate to keep people buying stuff, so that’s a big no; the gov’t might feel the same way, since it’s some kind of power over citizens… Who’s for yes & willing to do something about it?

    • #172
  23. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Jim Beck (View Comment):

    Evening Titus and Gary,

    Looking at how folks have used information from the net to shape their choices on vaccines and how folks in England feel about Brexit, do you think we can imagine what a future network of news info might look like and how folks can sort out what to trust. I know this is difficult. I am wondering in our current world where many results posted in scientific papers can not be replicated, how will we be able to get a accurate fix on what is accurate, real. It seems that we are creating a world where the fog of gossip and rumor have made discernment more difficult, coupled with lives where we are increasingly dependent on outside sources of knowledge because we don’t make things ourselves or even know how to repair the things on which we depend.

    It can be done, Jim. People look around at the chaos of our time & are confused because they’re used to the old ways, because they never thought about the technologies of political communications. In short, they’re normal people & these are not normal times.

    The new ways, however, include one massive advantage: Reliance on shared memory stored in any part of the internet. Now, it is possible to turn the news into actual expertise. So, on the production side, since the people you’d be training to do the work have material to work with online & can always prove why they say what they’re saying, they can be trained to not be insane. They can always find other people online to give them the evidence & thus make news gathering far more democratic & in a way more rewarding–anyone can contribute if he has knowledge of some matter that’s being investigated.

    More, on the audience’s side, the internet’s memory includes relationships among people, so it allows a new press to become a new network, connecting to people whose trust it can earn & reward. There’s money in that, although middle class money, so it’s hard to get started; there’s probably also a way to get richer Americans to pay for a press for poor people, too–people who don’t pride themselves on checking many sources or getting many different points of view from intellectuals.

    In the future, there will be expertise of a narrower, but more easily verified kind. Its complement will be open partisanship, of various degrees of respectability. There are at least three distinct audience for political talk, with different ideas, passions, & money.

    • #173
  24. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Is that memory compatible with humanity or is it going to be the American corporate HR version of the Chinese social credit system?

    I think it’s not good for us to have too long memories. Eventually everything will be permanently scored. That will drive humanity insane(r).

     

    Yes, but institutional memory is what it took to preserve over thousands of years what people had learned before. Whether any institution still functions in that sense is a question-

    Institutional memory should be reserved for institutional knowledge. The dumbass thing you said when you were young and stupid should fade in the traditional manner.

    Well, yeah, but who’s going to legislate that? Does anyone even care about restoring this form of the public-private distinction? Corporations are desperate to keep people buying stuff, so that’s a big no; the gov’t might feel the same way, since it’s some kind of power over citizens… Who’s for yes & willing to do something about it?

    Europe is passing right to be forgotten laws.  Don’t be surprised to see the same thing here.

    • #174
  25. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Judge, don’t go soft on me here. What’s happening in the EU is begging to be forgiven the duty of tech innovation. I’m not sure that’s possible, but if it is, it cannot be done the way Europeans think.

    Nobody knows who owns “his” data. It’s just going to get harder from now on.

    In reality, a roomba in London is sending info through the internet to China. Why or wherefore or how come… It would be smart to realize that Internet of Things infrastructures are enacting a digital memory of the world without respect for human beings. The piety of “my data, my privacy” is mindless. There is no reality that corresponds to it that anyone is legislating. Annoying google to delete some things or not transport them to America is not going to do almost anything. They’re anyway moving to doing ever more data processing on phones themselves…  We have to look elsewhere: Questions over 5g & whatever will be next–how the very infrastructure is built–would be smarter…

    Worse, GDPR is again helping these corporate giants, while hurting small websites/companies. The notion that data protection regulations will protect data or at least scare corporate giants is silly.

    Politicians do not know any more than Joe in the street about what the hell digital technology is doing to us. They wouldn’t know to save their lives. If regulations come up, they will be written by regulators, who have little expertise unless corporations give it to them. In short, lobbying. Lobbyists are the least recognized part of the American regime: The gov’t couldn’t survive without them, since they provide the information. It’s fun to imagine they’re greedy sumbitches with suitcases of dough–what they are is, access to the expertise needed to regulate, whether for better or worse.

    • #175
  26. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Everything is remembered. Google storing your purchase history edition.

    • #176
  27. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    Morning Titus,

    I am less optimistic.  Using vaccines as an example, starting with the false linkage of autism to the childhood MMR vaccine, we have many folks believing that the link has merit.  In our new internet world, one can find folks who will tell you about their theory/facts supporting the autism linkage, and saying that the subsequent data disputing the linkage is flawed or has exceptions which fit your child.  Further folks can look up and find that in a small portion of those taking vaccines there is a negative outcome, and they don’t want to risk having their child be in this small group, so they say to themselves that they are safe without vaccinating their child.  In these situations, this source of broad information doesn’t help even if it accurate (a small percentage of people receiving a vaccination do have negative reactions), it makes things worse, because it justifies selfish choices.  In a time where we have and are destroying our inherited norms, this increase in selfish choices corrodes our culture. How do we work the new info systems to go the other direction?  PS I applaud conservative ghettos.

    • #177
  28. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    You just have to accept that there’s a lot of madness in America. Americans are not all that sane or even moderately reasonable. Lots of people, some very poor, some very rich, wish to believe insanities about vaccines. The internet frees them to speak up.

    There’s a price to pay for destroying the authority of a few TV people telling America what to believe. 

    There is a price to pay for destroying liberal authority in the culture. The liberals were not the devil; they were often right, noble, or knowledgeable.

    America cannot turn into perfection; it can only turn into America.

    The thing to do is to worry less about bad things happening & more about what good things can be done. The people who will try to use digital tech to reconstitute communities have a future; people who don’t want to act, to organize with people, or to pay others to do so–well, I dunno what will come of their hopes & dreams.

    Right now, the question is success worship. Lots of people want some easy, quick success, to allow them to ignore the unfolding chaos. It’s too much to bear. One idea, the more obviously crazy the better, can bring together the baffled, the con men, & those ruled too much by fear or hatred. I dunno how this can be prevented…

    Those who build institutions that make sense in America–i.e., not systems of control, but organizations of educating character–have a future. So far as I can tell, lots of conservatives don’t want to be part of this. I guess they prize their private lives more, which is fair enough, since there’s no certainty of success & lots of worries in the real world. But the result is obvious before it happens: Like with the extremely online youth, there will be more & more people who look at conservatives as essentially cowards–a dead option, mere nostalgia. All complaint, no redress. I hope that’s not going to be the case, because the first thing you lose is talent. Talented Americans will go in those directions where they sense hope that they can distinguish themselves. Hopefully, conservatives will learn that & respect the fact-

    • #178
  29. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Is that memory compatible with humanity or is it going to be the American corporate HR version of the Chinese social credit system?

    I think it’s not good for us to have too long memories. Eventually everything will be permanently scored. That will drive humanity insane(r).

     

    Yes, but institutional memory is what it took to preserve over thousands of years what people had learned before. Whether any institution still functions in that sense is a question-

    The problem as things are currently constituted is that we will all be like the Stuarts or Bourbons – forgetting nothing, and learning nothing.  Memories need context and time to make sense and build a framework, but AI patterns and frameworks are only as contextual as their creators want.  They are like my grandmother in her senility – trained to replay ever evil ever done to her in acute detail, while forgetting everything noble or good or even mundane.

    • #179
  30. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Happy life, with the machines scattered around the room
    Look what they made, they made it for me – happy technology
    Outside, the lions run, feeding on remains
    We’ll never leave, look at us now, so in love with the way we are

    Here, the world that the children made
    The world that the children made

    Every night, they rock us to sleep – digital family
    Is it real, or is it a dream? Can you believe the machines?
    Outside, the beating sun, can you hear the screams?
    We’ll never leave, look at us now, so in love with the way we are

    Here, the world that the children made
    The world that the children made, here
    The world that the children made, here
    The world that the children made

    • #180
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.