Mendacious memes
Meme images seem to add credibility to a statement, in the eyes of many internetters. Slap a sentence across a picture (even one of no obvious relevance), and it takes on an aura of truth which the same sentence would not have if it were simply part of the text of a blog post. It would be interesting to know why people react this way, but it's not my purpose here to delve into that. Rather, it's to point out that memes need to be held to the same standard of scrutiny as anything else does, especially if they claim something outlandish or too well-aligned with one's own political views. Remember, things that seem too good to be true are often not, in fact, true. Here are a few cases I've run across:
I don't know whether or not these headlines are authentic, but even if they are, the intended implication isn't supported by a closer look at what is really happening. Many movies with women or non-white people in prominent roles have been successful -- Sinners, with a mostly-black cast, and Lilo & Stitch, with its ethnic Hawaiian main characters, being recent examples. People don't like race-swapping established characters, but audiences don't object to non-white actors more broadly. The high number of flops lately is just due to bad film-making -- an emphasis on special effects over storytelling, a preference for franchises, remakes, reboots, and sequels over originality.
This does not reflect the real world. During the Cold War, the most ecologically-devastated region in the world was the USSR. Because that country was not a democracy, there was no effective avenue for citizens to oppose pollution. All other things being equal, dictatorships generally have worse environmental conditions than democracies, for the same reason they're riddled with corruption and incompetence -- no mechanism for holding leaders accountable. And today, the worst environmental destruction is happening in the poorest regions, such as Amazonia and sub-Saharan Africa, because poor countries lack the resources to enforce regulations effectively, and their people prioritize economic development over the environment. Capitalism or the lack thereof doesn't have much to do with it.
It's true that in a highly-capitalist society, where corporations are so powerful that they can exert excessive influence over the state that is supposed to regulate them, they will use that influence to expand the range of abuses they can get away with. In cases where two societies are equally democratic and equally developed, the more capitalist of the two generally has worse ecological damage (for example, compare the US and Europe). But the differences between democracies and dictatorships, and between rich and poor countries, have much greater impact.
Since God does not exist, he did not create anything and man is not made in his image. "Attacking" false beliefs is a good thing, not a bad thing. As for the sanctity-of-life complaint, again, this doesn't reflect what we see in the real world. The worst homicide rates are in highly-religious regions like sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. The lowest are found in very secular societies like western Europe and Japan, where acceptance of evolution is nearly universal. The most viciously murderous people in the world today are the jihadists, who are fanatically religious and vehemently reject evolution. The evidence simply doesn't support the idea that evolution undermines our sense of the value of human life.
JFK was a filthy sleazebag who abused women, impregnated a fifteen-year-old, and infected his wife with several venereal diseases he had contracted during his relentless tomcatting. He's also known for the quote "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", probably the most fascistic thing ever said by an American president (the government exists to serve the citizens, not vice versa). Trump is a horrible, slimy character in any number of ways, but if the person who made this image wanted to suggest that politicians in general have gotten worse over time, they could hardly have chosen a less convincing example.
This is just nonsense. People who are unkind to you do not deserve your kindness in return. Treating abusive people well invites more abuse. This item is a reflection of the sick Christian fetish for forgiving wrongdoers, turning the other cheek, and "resist not evil", which in the real world is just a recipe for being a perpetual victim.
Religion is mostly ridiculous, but this is a false line of attack. Most religious people are fully aware that their statues and icons are not the actual deities and saints that they believe in and pray to. People visit the Lincoln Memorial to show respect for Lincoln, but nobody thinks the seated statue there actually is Lincoln. They're not showing respect for a mass of carved stone.
Making an obviously-false argument for a generally valid cause is not harmless. It give the impression that your entire case is probably weak.
Another blogger has done similar dissections here and here. He's not as polite as I am, but his logic on these can't be faulted.
It's true that in a highly-capitalist society, where corporations are so powerful that they can exert excessive influence over the state that is supposed to regulate them, they will use that influence to expand the range of abuses they can get away with. In cases where two societies are equally democratic and equally developed, the more capitalist of the two generally has worse ecological damage (for example, compare the US and Europe). But the differences between democracies and dictatorships, and between rich and poor countries, have much greater impact.
Making an obviously-false argument for a generally valid cause is not harmless. It give the impression that your entire case is probably weak.
Another blogger has done similar dissections here and here. He's not as polite as I am, but his logic on these can't be faulted.
posted by Infidel753 at 3:49 AM
3 comments
