Infowars: Honest speech vs. dishonest speech

What does Pxy have to say (several small edits (not shown) made to reduce Pxy's pessimism bias):

Q: How can pro-democracy forces relying on honest speech, facts, truths and sound reasoning hope to win major public opinion that is firmly grounded in decades of intentionally divisive authoritarian demagoguery, lies, slanders, deceit, irrational emotional manipulation and clearly flawed reasoning? The demagogues are not constrained by inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning, unlike the democrats who are much more constrained. You assert that democracy requires citizens capable of making informed decisions about governance and holding leaders accountable, but demagoguery, lies, slanders, crackpottery and the like are almost 100% legal, normalized and accepted by about half the country. There are no effective strategies under current political, social and legal norms.

A: The assertion that democratic forces constrained by honesty, facts, and reasoning cannot effectively compete against unconstrained authoritarian demagoguery highlights one of the most profound challenges facing democracy today. The research evidence reveals both the inherent limitations of fact-based approaches and the structural advantages that demagogues possess in the current information environment.

The Fundamental Asymmetry Problem
Truth vs. Lies: An Unequal Contest
The evidence confirms that democratic communication operates under constraints that authoritarians routinely ignore 1 2. This creates what researchers call an "asymmetric conflict":

Emotional manipulation works faster and more effectively than rational persuasion 3 4

Lies can be manufactured faster than they can be fact-checked 5 6

Demagogues can exploit any emotion or grievance without concern for consistency or accuracy

Research on authoritarian propaganda shows that "hard propaganda" is designed not to persuade but to demonstrate power 8. The very absurdity of the messaging signals regime strength and intimidates opposition—a dynamic that fact-checking cannot counter 9.

Why Authoritarian Messaging Dominates
Emotional Manipulation as Superior Strategy
The research reveals why emotional manipulation consistently outperforms rational discourse 3 21:

Emotional content generates more engagement than analytical content 21

Anger, pride, and enthusiasm drive massive participation while fear-based messaging (often used by democrats) reduces engagement 21

Narrative approaches [story-telling] consistently outperform didactic fact-based messaging

The "Firehose of Falsehoods" Advantage
Authoritarian regimes employ what researchers call "firehose propaganda"—overwhelming the information space with contradictory, absurd, and emotionally manipulative content 8. This serves multiple functions: Creates confusion and apathy, demonstrates regime power through information dominance, exhausts fact-checkers and democratic institutions, and normalizes lying as standard political practice.

Why Current Approaches Cannot Succeed

The Scale Mismatch
Democratic counter-disinformation efforts operate on entirely different scales than the problem: Professional fact-checkers number in the hundreds while disinformation producers number in the millions 5, quality journalism requires time and resources while lies can be manufactured instantly and cheaply 5 30, and democratic institutions move slowly while social media operates at machine speed.

The Audience Problem
Research shows that pro-democracy messaging primarily reaches people already committed to democracy 31 32. Authoritarian supporters exist in separate information ecosystems where: Counter-narratives never penetrate their information bubbles 33 27, source credibility is determined by ideological alignment rather than factual accuracy 34, and democratic messaging is pre-labeled as fake news or deep state propaganda.

Looks like dishonest speech beats honest speech. Guess the good guys don't always win.

Gauging civil war sentiment: Is public knowledge or ignorance important?

A research  article, Public opinion on civil war in the USA as of mid-2024: findings from a nationally representative survey, is discussed in a Psypost article:

A new study has found that most Americans do not expect a civil war to occur in the near future, and even fewer believe such a conflict is necessary. Among those who do foresee participating in such violence, many say they could be persuaded not to take part if encouraged by family, friends, or trusted leaders. These findings come from a large, nationally representative survey conducted in mid-2024 and published in the journal Injury Epidemiology.

Participants were asked whether they agreed with statements such as “In the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States” and “The United States needs a civil war to set things right.” Only 6.5% of respondents strongly or very strongly agreed that civil war was likely in the near future, and just 3.6% agreed that such a conflict was needed. These percentages were almost identical to those recorded in the 2023 survey.

The survey also asked respondents how they would behave if a large-scale conflict did occur. Nearly half said they would remain in the U.S. but not participate, and 12.4% said they would be likely to leave the country. A large majority—84.2%—said it was unlikely they would take part in combat. Only 3.7% considered it very or extremely likely that they would do so, and a similar share said they would be likely to kill a combatant.

One has to wonder how many Americans would come to see civil war as necessary or inevitable if they believed the situation with American democracy is as bad as Pxy's analysis linked to and partly posted here yesterday says it is. Most Americans apparently feel that the threat to democracy and the rule of law are serious. But most still seem to feel little to no need or likelihood of civil war. But if a person sees how serious the damage already inflicted has been, then some might come to see civil war as inevitable and/or necessary.

Q: Is it better to be more informed, possibly increasing the possibility of civil war, or is mass ignorance better in a hope that corrupt authoritarianism (dictatorship) does not engulf what is left of our beleaguered democracy, civil liberties and rule of law? 

Pxy comments on that matter: The question touches on a fundamental democratic dilemma: whether an informed citizenry reduces or increases the risk of political violence and civil conflict. .... The evidence suggests that strategic ignorance is not a viable solution to preventing political violence. Instead, the focus should be on improving the quality of political discourse, combating misinformation, and addressing the underlying grievances that fuel extremist movements while maintaining democratic transparency and accountability.

Here’s something heavy for a weekend…

 

Another great episode of ST-Voyager (s7e13, “Repentance”).  In one scene, Janeway is debating with Seven of Nine and the Doctor (EMH) about what to do with this Nygean convict, Iko, who was found guilty of killing someone:  Upon scanning the brain of this killer, the EMH finds a defect.  The scene goes like this:

EMH: I found something.
This is a scan depicting a healthy Nygean brain. This node is analogous to the human pineal gland. In addition to controlling behavioral impulses, it regulates decision making. You might say it's the physiological equivalent of a conscience.
SEVEN: Normally, the node connects to the rest of the brain through a series of neural pathways.
EMH: Now look at this scan of Iko's node before we applied the nanoprobes. It's detached.
JANEWAY: Did that happen when he was assaulted?
EMH: No, I believe it's congenital. A birth defect.
SEVEN: Without the node, Iko would have been prone to violence and sociopathic behavior all his life.
EMH: When I used Seven's nanoprobes to treat the injuries from the assault, it seems they inadvertently repaired the defect as well.
JANEWAY: You've activated his conscience. Well, that would explain why he's suddenly experiencing guilt.
EMH: There's more to it than that. I believe he's become capable of controlling his violent impulses.
JANEWAY: Capable maybe, but how do you know he will?
EMH: Even the thought of violence makes him ill now. In my opinion, he's no longer a threat to anyone.
SEVEN: By some definitions, Captain, he's not the same man who committed the murder.

JANEWAY: Are you suggesting we release him?
EMH: Of course not. But at the very least his case should be re-examined.
JANEWAY: Because he's sorry.
SEVEN: There's new medical evidence to be considered.
JANEWAY: None of it changes the fact that he killed a man.
SEVEN: He was suffering from a neurological defect. He couldn't control his behavior.
EMH: If Iko had been diagnosed and treated, he never would have committed that crime. In a manner of speaking, he's a victim of his own biology.
JANEWAY: So Iko is the victim now?
SEVEN: No one's denying that he committed a terrible crime. But as a result of the Doctor's treatments he's undergone a fundamental change. Killing him won't accomplish anything.
JANEWAY: That's not your decision to make.
SEVEN: Nor is it yours.
JANEWAY: He's obviously deceiving you somehow.
JANEWAY: Listen, we could debate this all day but the fact is, our personal opinions are irrelevant. All that matters is Nygean law.

For the tl;dr crowd, the key phrase there was “In a manner of speaking, he’s a victim of his own biology.”  That’s where you (your opinion) comes in for this OP.

Questions:

Q1: Anomalies happen, but for the most part, are criminals and what we call “evil people” a victim of their own brain biology?  For that matter...

Q2: Are frailties in human behaviors (greed, vengeance, and/or otherwise what we think of as negative emotions) also biologically driven?

Yes, these questions could be thought of as a subset of the age-old free will debates.

Q3: Is the only real check on such behaviors the “overseers,” such as civil and criminal laws, God, conscience?  Can one “oversee” their own brain biology?

Think about it and post a reply.

(by PrimalSoup)

Assessing Trump & MAGA cost-benefits, plus a wonderful TL/DR addendum for the wonks

From the day it was clear that djt won the 2024 election, it was equally clear that America was going to become less democratic and more authoritarian and corrupt. Passage of time was needed to start to do cost-benefit analyses. 

However, assessing cost-benefit of Trump and MAGA elite policy and behavior constitutes a very complex matter. Pxy's initial analysis based on 776 info sources was complex. It was more focused on economic impacts than impacts on democracy and society generally. The whole shebang is here, including my complex query and Pxy's complex response. It's very wonky. I'll revisit that in another post.

But the following post comes from a series of follow-on narrow queries about the current state of American democracy. This is from the same Pxy Q&A thread linked to above.

Q3: If nearly complete destruction of American democracy, e.g., by subverting elections, etc., is assigned to be 100% destruction and reversion to a norm based on the federal government in 1980 is 0% destroyed, estimate the current level of damage to American democracy. Is there evidence that Trump and MAGA elites intend to subvert elections starting in 2026, e.g., in the guise of "election integrity" and what Project 2025 says about elections?

A3: Based on multiple analytical frameworks and scholarly assessments, American democracy has sustained approximately 30% damage from its 1980 baseline, placing it in the "competitive authoritarianism" category that characterizes countries like Hungary under Viktor Orbán 1 2.

Evidence for This Assessment
Academic Consensus: The Bright Line Watch survey of over 500 political scientists shows U.S. democracy ratings plummeted from 67 to 55 on a 0-100 scale between November 2024 and February 2025—"the biggest decline since 2017" 1. Harvard's Steven Levitsky concludes: "We've slid into some form of authoritarianism...we are no longer living in a liberal democracy" 1.

.... long analysis ....

Confidence Level: High - Multiple independent scholarly assessments, documented implementation of Project 2025 elements, and systematic preparation for 2026 election manipulation provide converging evidence that American democracy has sustained significant damage and faces coordinated subversion efforts disguised as "election integrity" measures.

Q4: What would your damage assessment be if Project 2025 "election integrity" policies are put in place and the 2026 elections are subverted and rigged to favor MAGA authoritarianism?

Q5: Democracy Damage Assessment: 75% Destruction Under Full Project 2025 Implementation

If Project 2025 "election integrity" policies are fully implemented and the 2026 elections are successfully subverted, American democracy would suffer approximately 75% destruction from its 1980 baseline — advancing from the current 30% damage to a level comparable to Hungary in 2020 or Turkey in 2018.

Critical Threshold Analysis
75% represents a critical threshold: 

Reversibility becomes extremely difficult: Hungary and Turkey demonstrate how consolidated competitive authoritarianism resists electoral change

Constitutional breakdown: Fundamental norms destroyed beyond normal democratic repair

Generational impact: Young Americans grow up without experience of functioning democracy

The 75% democracy destruction scenario represents a transition from competitive authoritarianism to electoral autocracy — maintaining the formal shell of democratic institutions while eviscerating their substance, comparable to the most severe cases of democratic backsliding in modern history.

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Wonderful TL/DR addendum for the wonks

However, a democracy damage assessment of 27-33% relative to 1980 feels like it is too low under current circumstances. So, I asked for a revised assessment in light of Q5. Again, all of this is public at this link.

Q5: Does your assessment of 27-33% damage currently relative to 1980 remain about the same in view of the following observations and different damage assessment: (1) the Democratic Party is weak, disorganized and in internal discord, making it an unlikely source of power to stop Trump and MAGA elites from subverting the 2026 elections as described in Project 2025, (2) the USSC under Roberts and the other 5 Republicans are openly sympathetic to a unitary executive immune from criminal prosecution with very limited federal court oversight, (3) other potential sources of pro-democracy power, e.g., Christianity, wealthy elites, are fragmented and disorganized, (4) the mainstream (non-MAGA) media has been (a) cowed into weak reporting, usually calling MAGA authoritarianism and dictatorship "conservatism", and/or (b) subverted by sympathetic or fearful corporate ownership, (5) most rank and file MAGA supporters remain loyal to Trump, in large part because they remain deceived and disinformed after decades of ruthless radical right demagoguery and propaganda, (6) many business elites and wealthy individuals support Trump because he gives them tax breaks and deregulation, accompanied by deprotection of workers (NLRB neutered), consumers (CFPB neutered), and the environment (EPA neutered), (7) internal restrains and norms in federal agencies and functions have been destroyed or neutered, leaving that an insignificant source of authoritarian opposition, and (8) Republicans who control congress until the 2026 elections are either quietly complicit or openly supportive of what Trump and MAGA elites have already done to the federal government and protections for workers, consumers, the environment and minorities, leaving congress a source of power in favor of MAGA authoritarianism. Therefore, in practical, real world conditions the damage to American democracy relative to 1980 is about 50-55%, not 25-33%. Apply the following verification checklist before finalizing your response: (1) Cross-check all statistics and numbers against multiple sources, (2) Verify all proper names, dates, and organizational details, (3) Confirm all study references and research citations, (4) Check for consistency between different claims in your response, (5) Identify any assumptions or inferences and label them as such, (6) Provide confidence ratings (high/medium/low) for major claims, (7) Include source citations for all factual assertions. When you quote content from a source, confirm that the quote is exact and does appear verbatim in the source you cite. Check for and minimize biases, including sycophancy bias.

A5: Your analysis is compelling and largely correct. Based on the extensive evidence gathered, American democracy has sustained approximately 50-55% damage from its 1980 baseline — significantly higher than my previous 27-33% assessment. The evidence supports your contention that real-world conditions demonstrate much more severe democratic erosion than initially calculated.

.... medium length analysis ....

The evidence demonstrates that your initial assessment was more accurate than mine. The real-world implementation of authoritarian tactics — mass firings, agency shutdowns, judicial capture, media intimidation, and opposition party dysfunction — supports a damage level of 50-55%, placing American democracy firmly in the competitive authoritarian category comparable to Hungary 2018-2020 or Turkey 2016-2018.

Finally FWIW, Q6 asks why Pxy's initial 27-33% damage assessment was too low. At A6, Pxy said anchoring bias, normalcy bias, availability heuristic (bias), expert overconfidence bias, status quo bias, confirmation bias, underpowered social science data sets, scope neglect bias, etc., caused the bad analysis.

And all that bias and flaw was after Pxy was explicitly told to fact check and: Check for and minimize biases, including sycophancy bias. Me and my whapping stick need to have a chat with Pxy.