Speaking of Conspiracy Theories and Their Consequences

Lying about hurricanes and stoking ridiculous theories about weather control are the latest examples.

photo by SLT

Apropos of both my post earlier today, as well as Kingdaddys’ comes this via Rolling Stone: Meteorologists Get Death Threats as Hurricane Milton Conspiracy Theories Thrive (which links to a post about Helene from late last week).

As Hurricane Milton approaches Florida, meteorologists are staying awake for days at a time trying to get vital, life-saving information out to the folks who will be affected. That’s their job. But this year, several of them tell Rolling Stone, they’re increasingly having to take time out to quell the nonstop flow of misinformationduring a particularly traumatic hurricane season. And some of them are doing it while being personally threatened.

“People are just so far gone, it’s honestly making me lose all faith in humanity,” says Washington D.C.-based meteorologist Matthew Cappucci, in a phone interview conducted while he was traveling down to Florida for the storm. “There’s so much bad information floating around out there that the good information has become obscured.”

Cappucci says that he’s noticed an enormous change on social media in the last three months: “Seemingly overnight, ideas that once would have been ridiculed as very fringe, outlandish viewpoints are suddenly becoming mainstream and it’s making my job much more difficult.” 

[…]

This hurricane season, Cappucci and the other meteorologists I spoke with say, conspiracy theories have been flooding their inboxes. The main one that people have seemed to latch onto is the accusation that the government can control the weather. This theory seems to be amplified with climate change creating worsening storms combined with a tense election year, and the vitriol is being directed at meteorologists. “I’ve been doing this for 46 years and it’s never been like this,” says Alabama meteorologist James Spann. He says he’s been “inundated” with misinformation and threatening messages like “Stop lying about the government controlling the weather or else.”

[…]

“Something has clearly changed within the last year,” says Spann. “We know some of it is bots but I do believe that some of it is coming from people that honestly believe the moon disappeared because the government nuked it to control the hurricanes, or that the government used chemtrails to spray our skies with chemicals to steer Helene into the mountains of North Carolina.”

This is, well, insane. Although, as Kingdaddy notes, people often believe in these nutty theories because they are desperate to understand the world in a way that makes them feel secure. On one level I get it: it is easier to accept that these terrible outcomes are the result of human actions rather than to accept how helpless we are all in the face of the truly terrifying forces of nature. And also better to assume evil politicians are are work than accept that we all helped warm the planet and are living with the consequences.

Leaders of quality should seek to quell conspiracy theories and, moreover, should want to promote truth. However, too many politicians see advantage in stoking fears and spreading lies. It is why Trump is lying about hurricane relief. Worse, Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene is propagating actual conspiracy theories about weather control. This is not a kook in their mom’s basement, but rather an elected kook with a really important position.

Marjorie Taylor Greene has doubled down on claims Democrats control the weather, prompting fellow GOP congressperson Carlos Gimenez to tweet she should “have her head examined.” Meanwhile, the White House is launching a Reddit account to keep the public informed on Helene/Milton response and recovery.

“Science is one of the few things that doesn’t care about politics,” says Cappucci. “If a tornado is coming down the road at you, it doesn’t check your voter registration.”

Again, leaders who care about people shouldn’t behave this way.

Some experts I spoke with think that misinformation is exceptionally bad this year because we are leading up to a presidential election. Some of the conspiracy theories accuse Democrats of intentionally steering hurricanes to red-leaning swing states, in order to hurt Donald Trump’s chances of winning.

“The 2024 misinformation is being fueled to a certain extent by political polarization,” says Sarah DeYoung, a professor at the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware. “I think that’s corresponding with there being a presidential election this year.”

DeYoung says there are certain myths that pop up for every disaster. Some of them are well-intentioned, like telling people that hotels have to accept pets in an emergency event, which is not true. Others are misconceptions, like saying looting goes up after natural disasters when in fact, the crime rate often goes down and people are just trying to locate basic essentials like food and water to survive. But in 2024, they are often politically motivated.

“It becomes particularly dangerous because it starts to rile up additional feelings of division and then the false information about FEMA funneling money towards immigrants, that makes people who are immigrants more vulnerable to potential acts of violence and backlash from those kinds of rumors.”

DeYoung says this harms both the people that need help and the people trying to help, by adding confusion, slowing down the recovery process and fomenting mistrust. 

All persons of good conscience should demand better of our leaders and roundly reject anyone who is clearly lying to us for their own political gain without any concern for the consequences of their actions as long as they get power to sate their own self-important appetites.

Update: A welcome counter-point from another Republican in Congress: North Carolina Republican pushes back on hurricane misinformation: “Nobody can control the weather”.

Rep. Chuck Edwards, a North Carolina Republican, sent a letter to his constituents debunking the misinformation and conspiracy theories that have spread in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, telling them, “Nobody can control the weather.” 

[…]

“Hurricane Helene was NOT geoengineered by the government to seize and access lithium deposits in Chimney Rock,” Edwards said, adding that there is no technology that can geoengineer a hurricane and local officials confirmed the government is not taking control of the town. 

Edwards also reassured his constituents that FEMA would not run out of funds to assist the area with its recovery efforts. He said residents may be eligible for more than the $750 of immediate assistance that FEMA provides to survivors to help cover essential items while the agency determines their eligibility for additional funds. 

Former President Donald Trump is among those who have made misleading claims about federal disaster relief, falsely alleging that the Biden administration distributed most of FEMA’s funds to undocumented migrants. He also falsely claimed that storm victims were only being offered $750 in aid.

I suspect, however, that Edwards is not telling folks who it is spreading the lies about FEMA.

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, 2024 Election, Climate Change, Environment, Media, US Politics, , , , , , , , , ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Jay L Gischer says:

    “Flood the zone with shit”

    3
  2. Jay L Gischer says:

    @Jay L Gischer: Also, flood the zone with, you know, water.

    2
  3. just nutha says:

    Again, leaders who care about people shouldn’t behave this way.

    I think identifying MTG in with “leaders who care about people” is a category error. I doubt that even her constituents believe she “cares” about them. They elected her because she was the most rabid attack dog they could find. The level at which she “cares” is pretty immaterial, even to them.

    This is where I have an advantage over Capucci, I have no faith in humanity. Individual humans, sure, but not often even then. I admire Jay L Gusher for his ability to look for the best in humanity/ humans. I can’t bring myself to suspend disbelief enough to do it.

    ETA: “All persons of good conscience should demand better of our leaders and roundly reject anyone who is clearly lying to us for their own political gain without any concern of the consequences of their actions as long as they get power to sate their own self-important appetites.” I think you already have most of this group. Think of the Alliance Party in the UK. They probably captured more than their natural constituency in many elections during The Troubles.

    2
  4. Kathy says:

    Lincoln warned a house divided against itself cannot stand. He meant the half of the union that was free, and the half that still allowed slavery (and this misses a lot of nuance, I know).

    Today half the country or so is sane, and the rest is batshit crazy. I don’t mean half the country or so is mentally ill*, but that they’ve embraced irrationality in politics, in things big and small.

    Lincoln said he didn’t expect the union to dissolve, but that the division would end. It took a bloody war just to keep the union together, but the divisions never ended. They’ve progressed to what we see today.

    Maybe it’s time to dissolve the union.

    *In a way, that would be better. Some mental diseases respond to treatment.

    4
  5. Fortune says:

    @Kathy: Half the country is sane? The ones who think Trump is a fascist Russian agent?

  6. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Fortune: Not a fascist, Russian agent; a Russian tool who appeals to his audience with fascist rhetoric.

    But I’ll agree with you, the Trump half isn’t insane, they’re just driven by intense hatred of people with whom they disagree. But the hatred makes them say things that seem irrational–i.e. *Democratic party weather control machines targeting red states/counties.*

    9
  7. Jay L Gischer says:

    @Fortune: Let’s not dance about quibbling about what words like ‘facist’ mean. This is very simple:

    Trump tried – Trump “fought like hell” – to overturn a lawfully conducted election.

    That makes him an enemy of America, and an enemy of the Constitution.

    If you think that was fine, that makes *you* an enemy of America, and an enemy of the Constitution.

    18
  8. @just nutha:

    I think identifying MTG in with “leaders who care about people”

    That was not my intention. Indeed, it was to point that her behavior demonstrates that she does not care.

    3
  9. @Fortune: The party you appear to be defending has a presidential candidate who is demonstrably lying about hurricane aid and a member of Congress asserting that the weather is being controlled.

    And yet, you want to throw pot shots.

    Either defend what you really want to defend, or explain what is specifically wrong with the post.

    Stop being a distraction.

    7
  10. Erik says:

    @Fortune: what criteria do you use to determine if this belief is sane or not?

    2
  11. Fortune says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Great article chief. Best ever. Everyone agrees with you. I was commenting at Kathy.

  12. just nutha says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Fair enough. A “what I heard[–or assumed from what I read–]was not what you meant” situation. Thanks for clarifying.

    1
  13. just nutha says:

    @Fortune: One of the hazards of commenting “at” someone in a public forum is that third parties, ignint crackers in some cases, site hosts in others, will insert themselves into the conversation and say things you don’t want to hear that blunt the force of your comment “at” the intended target. Quite often in fact.

    8
  14. @Fortune: I am well aware.

    Stop derailing comment threads or I will start deleting your comments.

    You are adding nothing and being tiresome all at the same time.

    12
  15. Gustopher says:

    All I know is that if the Democrats can control the weather, and the Republicans can’t… why would you want to elect people who can’t even create a hurricane, let alone direct it to hit largely Republican areas of swing states?

    The best Republicans have to offer is adding things to maps with a Sharpie. It’s weak tea. And, if I remember correctly, that Hurricane didn’t go into the Sharpie territory. Because Demoncrats redirected it to make Trump look bad.

    This election season, we should ask ourselves who can get things done? Democrats. Who is better on weather control? Democrats.

    All hail Kamala Harris, the Weather Wizard.

    10
  16. Kathy says:

    @just nutha:

    Not to mention the person one addresses has no duty to reply to inane attempts at trolling 🙂

    2
  17. @just nutha: I think my phrasing was poor.

    1
  18. DK says:

    @Fortune:

    Half the country is sane? The ones who think Trump is a fascist Russian agent?

    Yes, more than half (Epstein-bestie felon Trump has never won a plurality or majority of voters) and yes:

    Exclusive: Paul Manafort admits he passed Trump campaign data to a suspected Russian asset
    (Business Insider)

    Cruz: “Of course” Trump was wrong to call for terminating Constitution (Texas Tribune)

    Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough (CNN)

    Trump calls Putin ‘genius’ and ‘savvy’ for Ukraine invasion (Politico)

    Donald Trump repeats comment he would be a dictator ‘for one day’ if reelected in 2024 (USA Today)

    G.O.P.-Led Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia (NYT)

    Trump asked Russia to find Clinton’s emails. On or around the same day, Russians targeted her accounts
    (PBS News)

    Russia, if you’re listening…

    8
  19. Mu Yixiao says:

    A) For as long as I can remember, radical, right-wing, evangelical Christian leaders have been saying that hurricanes are God’s punishment for “bad behavior” (homosexuality, gay marriage, and… IIFC, women not wearing bras).

    B) Two hurricanes have obliterated states that strongly support Trump.

    Therefore: God really doesn’t want people to vote for Trump.

    If God was pissed about the bras, he’s really pissed about the Trump vote. That’s the way it works, right? Or did God recently abdicate weather control to the Biden administration?

    15
  20. Kathy says:

    @Mu Yixiao:

    Hey, welcome back!

    5
  21. Fortune says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: My comments on the three conspiracy articles are relevant because the conspiracy thinking on the left is as abad as on the right. On Kingdaddy’s first one, Scott implied that Trump was treasonous for giving Russia covid tests. When I said “covid testing machines” which was in the headlines, Kathy and just nutha thought I was pushing a nefarious agenda. They didn’t Google it because it was anti-Trump so who cares if it’s sourced or even true. When I said half the country thinks Trump is a fascist Russian agent Jay L Gischer skipped the “Trump is a fascist Russian agent” part and implied that I’m an enemy of America. No one cares about whether a fact is true if it fits the unproven narrative, and you’re all complaining about other true believers?

  22. Erik says:

    @Fortune: will you be responding to my questions in two of those three comment sections about what criteria you are using to evaluate the positions of republicans and democrats? Because you haven’t yet, which means you either didn’t see the questions or you decided not to respond, for some reason, which would decrease my confidence that your comment is made in furtherance of a good faith conversation (FWIW). If you have an actual argument to make, not just a declaration that “both sides are the same,” let’s hear it

    4
  23. DK says:

    @Fortune:

    No one cares about whether a fact is true if it fits the unproven narrative

    So you first name is No, and your last name is One?

    FACT: Trump publicly called for Russia to meddle in our elections.

    FACT: Trump’s campaign met with Russian operatives in Trump Tower.

    FACT: Trump’s campaign chair Paul Manafort admitted giving data to the Russia.

    FACT: Trump praised Putin as “genius” and “savvy” upon Russia’s offensive on Kyiv.

    FACT: Trump himself said he wanted to be a dictator on day one of a second term.

    FACT: Trump called for the termination of the US Constitution, prompting rebuke from Trump supporting Republicans.

    FACT: Trump’s hand-picked running mate JD Vance once called him America’s Hitler.

    FACT: Trump incited the violent Jan 6 terror attack to abrogate the peaceful transfer of power.

    MAGA doesn’t care about these facts, because they don’t fit your ‘waaaaa boo hoo Daddy Trump is an innocent blameless victim waaaa’ narrative.

    Much like 78-year-old immature loser Trump screamed “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT” on socials, you’re having a triggered tantrum because your attempts to gaslight here with fact-free whining have failed.

    But the facts won’t budge no matter how much crybabies cry. And it’s reasonable to conclude, based on Drama Queen Donnie’s own incontrovertible words and actions, that he’s a neofascist Putin-puppet. Cope.

    9
  24. Eusebio says:

    This nonsense about the government controlling the weather reminds me of conspiracy theories reported in Russia following the Chelyabinsk meteor in 2013. There was a simple natural explanation—a large meteor that created a bright trail and exploded in the atmosphere. But a large segment of the Russian population reportedly believed in alternative theories and a prominent Russian lawmaker pushed the assertion that it was a U.S. weapons test. That conspiracy theory was ridiculous at the time, but it may have been outdone by this weather control one.

    3
  25. Scott F. says:

    @DK:
    Come on, @Fortune, defend your “I’m not a true believer. I deal in facts” bona fides. Step up with a counter to DK’s list – refute these facts with evidence, offer other facts that prove conspiracy thinking is as bad on the left as the right, or at least define what “ fascist“ and “Russian agent” mean to you, so we understand how high you’ve set the bar for behavior unbecoming a Republican POTUS.

    I hope you step up and resist your urge to derail the comment threads. I’d rather Steven not need to delete your posts. I’d much rather see you at least try to match wits so you can see for yourself that you are out of your depths.

    7
  26. @Fortune:

    No one cares about whether a fact is true if it fits the unproven narrative, and you’re all complaining about other true believers?

    This is simply not the case. I would note that you haven’t been providing facts, certainly not in a way that is clear or that makes an argument. And, as noted above, you avoid direct questions.

    6
  27. just nutha says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: No problem. We’re in sync now.

    1
  28. just nutha says:

    Comment removed.

    1
  29. @Mu Yixiao: Good to see you back in the comments.

    2
  30. Fortune says:

    @Erik: I haven’t been talking about the relative merits of the parties’ positions so why ask about my criteria for comparing them?

  31. Fortune says:

    @DK: Russia hacked the DNC in 2016. When the news broke, Trump joked about how he hoped they found the 30,000 emails Clinton had deleted. Is that what you’re talking about?

  32. Erik says:

    @Fortune: Saying that the beliefs of two different groups is equally bad seems like a comparison to me, and I’d be interested to know what criteria you used to come to that conclusion. The fact that you seem more interested in offering excuses for not doing so suggests to me that you have no good basis for making such a conclusion. Again, I invite you to make an argument, not simply a declaration.

    6
  33. @Erik:

    I invite you to make an argument, not simply a declaration.

    This!

    4
  34. Fortune says:

    @Erik: I’m talking about the conspiracy thinking not the principled beliefs.

  35. Erik says:

    @Fortune: ok. Let’s assume that I haven’t understood you, but that I’d like to. What point are you making?

    2
  36. Fortune says:

    @Erik: My point is, conspiracy thinking is bad. It accepts any story if it fits the narrative, and drops any story if it doesn’t. I think everyone would agree with me on it. The second half of my point is, the left does it a lot. Assertion about Trump and Russia or fascism or Project 2025, or vaccine denialism among Democrats during Trump’s term, or everyone who disagrees with me is a Russian bot. The articles keep repeating them. Commenters think democracy is in peril. It’s cult thinking. I’m asking for some self-examination.

  37. Erik says:

    @Fortune: thanks for sticking with me and replying so substantively. I totally agree that conspiracy thinking is both a failure of, well, thinking, as well as bad for the individual and the individual’s community. I also agree that people on the left side of the political spectrum are capable of falling into conspiracy thinking. Since I’ve been mistaken about your meaning already I want to be very careful to make sure that I don’t make incorrect assumptions or put words in your mouth, so I hope you don’t mind if I ask some clarifying questions to make sure that I am not misunderstanding you:
    – when you say “the left does this” do you mean “some people on the left,” “everyone on the left,” or something else?
    – what do you mean by the left doing it “a lot?” I could interpret this as the number of people on the left who exhibit conspiracy thinking being a lot, there being a lot of different topics that people on the left exhibit conspiracy thinking about, that people on the left who do exhibit conspiracy thinking are very vocal about it, some combination of these, or something that I’m missing. Also, would it be unreasonable to ask you to translate “a lot” into a percentage? I can honestly see someone thinking that 10% of people believing a conspiracy narrative is “a lot” or someone meaning “more than 80%” by “a lot”
    -I understand that you primarily intend to push back on people in the comments here that you think are ignoring conspiracy thinking on the left, and I’m not disputing that you are correct in this regard. You might even characterize me as one of these people, and you could be right, which is why I am interested in examining any differences in our positions so that I can try to be less wrong. Granting that there are people on the left who engage in conspiracy thinking, how would you characterize conspiracy thinking on the right relative to the left? Are they both “a lot?” (Full disclosure: I am most interested in understanding and exploring your perspective on this question)

    I almost stopped my comment here, but I want to be respectful of what you want to talk about, not just what interests me, so I’ll also ask some questions about the remainder of your comment. If addressing them seems like a tangent to you and you want to ignore them I am happy to let them go too. You list a number of positions that I think you mean to be examples of conspiracy thinking on the left including
    -Trump and Russia: so many different issues have been brought up about this that it would be helpful to know which specific one you have in mind, but the one that jumps to my mind is that Trump received/is receiving assistance from Russia/Putin
    -Trump and fascism: Meaning, I think, that a Trump administration would likely exhibit fascist behavior. By fascism do you mean specifically nazi/WW2 Italian type fascism, or authoritarianism generally? Some people don’t draw a distinction, but if you do I want to make sure we are on the same page
    -Trump and Project 2025: meaning that Trump was involved with, agrees with, and/or intends to implement the policies outlined in the Project 2025 document
    -people who disagree are Russian bots: Can we just agree that declaring someone a bot isn’t helpful and ignore this, or do you have more to say about it?
    -Democracy is in peril: meaning that if Trump is elected he will alter the government so that the USA will no longer be a democracy

    Is your take on each of these positions that they are totally wrong and 100% conspiracy thinking, that they have some merit but are taken too far and can become conspiring thinking, or something else?

    1
  38. @Fortune:

    or fascism

    But that isn’t a conspiracy theory. It is a question of categorization.

    For example, I have posted several times asserting a specific behavior or statement is fascistic. If you can demonstrate why that is incorrect, please do so.

    Believing that “they” are controlling the weather is a conspiracy theory—if anything because it is an evidence-free assertion that also has the disadvantage of being impossible to disprove.

    Asserting that Trump is using fascistic rhetoric and is threatening to govern in such a fashion can be debated. I have identified examples. If your disagree, tell me why I am wrong.

    3
  39. Fortune says:

    The left – I mean people here – aren’t ignoring conspiracy thinking, they’re participating in it. If you think everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian bot, or the Supreme Court is planning to take away your birth control, or this is the last election if we don’t vote right, you’ve given up on reason. The word “fascist” is in the headlines of three articles currently on the main page. Don’t tell me reasonable people write that way. Reasonable people don’t call voter verification “election interference”. They don’t call Trump an “Epstein bestie”.

  40. @Fortune: Please explain why you think the term fascist is being incorrectly applied.

    3
  41. Erik says:

    @Fortune: I do not want to engage in conspiracy thinking. If you convince me that I am doing so, I will definitely change my mind. Are you interested in helping people (or me) avoid conspiracy thinking?

    1
  42. Fortune says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Trump ran on the same platform in 2016, anti-immigrant, anti-NATO. He served a full term. IT was chaotic but it wasn’t fascist. It’s unreasonable to think he’s a fascist now.

  43. Fortune says:

    @Erik: When I call out people for unsupported positions or hyperbole Steven threatens me. When I give specifics someone complains I’m not stating my overall position, but if I state it they say I’m not giving specifics.

  44. @Fortune: I appreciate your attempt at interaction. But you are just making assertions. I would invite you comment and present arguments in the appropriate posts.

    But I will say that when a politician engages in xenophobic othering and threatens violence as a solution, that fascistic.

    3
  45. @Fortune: I appreciate your attempt at interaction. But you are just making assertions. I would invite you comment and present arguments in the appropriate posts.

    But I will say that when a politician engages in xenophobic othering and threatens violence as a solution, that fascistic.

    @Fortune:

    Steven threatens me.

    I have asked you to stay on topic. And I have asked you direct questions.

  46. @Fortune: BTW: I thought that Trump engaged in fascistic rhetoric in 2016.

    2
  47. Erik says:

    @Fortune: it sounds like you feel attacked. Have you felt like I attacked you? If so I would like to understand how so that I can apologize properly. It is not now and never has been my intent to attack you.

    I do not think that we agree on many of the topics you have brought up. I am not interested in attacking you or your beliefs. I am interested in examining how they are different from mine and how you came to a different perception of reality. It could be that you are more correct than I am. I am interested in my perceptions/beliefs grounding in reality as much as I am able to do so. When I find people that view reality differently that is an opportunity for me to test my own perceptions, and at least better understand another perspective even if I do not change my own. If you are interested in this exploration I’d be grateful for your conversation. If not I’ll stop bugging you

  48. Fortune says:

    @Erik: Don’t worry. I don’t feel attacked by you.

  49. Fortune says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Fascism is a word without meaning outside of Spain for the past 79 years. Even the theorists and historians don’t agree on what it means.On the internet it only means you don’t like someone. So it’s unfalsifiable under normal conditions, and unless you’re admitting you were wrong about Trump in 2016 it’s unfalsifiable on this. Putting new information into an unfalsifiable construct leads to conspiracy thinking.

  50. @Fortune: You are avoiding the subject and refuse to engage on substance. I have posted specific argument and links to past posts, including a list directly to you the other day. So, fair enough, I guess, you don’t want to engage in a substantive conversation.

    And continually saying that I am engaging in conspiracy theories here is a version of “l know you are, but what am I?”

    1
  51. Erik says:

    @Fortune: I am glad you do not feel attacked by me.

    It doesn’t seem like you are too interested in digging into how we’ve come to understand the world differently. Since at least one of us is holding misperceptions I’m sorry that we can’t help each other out, but I know my approach is unconventional. Maybe some other time.

  52. Fortune says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: You asked
    “Please explain why you think the term fascist is being incorrectly applied.”
    I answered
    “Fascism is a word without meaning outside of Spain for the past 79 years. Even the theorists and historians don’t agree on what it means.On the internet it only means you don’t like someone. So it’s unfalsifiable under normal conditions, and unless you’re admitting you were wrong about Trump in 2016 it’s unfalsifiable on this. Putting new information into an unfalsifiable construct leads to conspiracy thinking.”
    You replied ” You are avoiding the subject and refuse to engage on substance.”

    Let’s not pretend you’re trying to engage.

  53. @Fortune:

    Even the theorists and historians don’t agree on what it means.

    While, as with most complex issues, there is discussion of meaning, it is not unknowable. Speaking as a political scientist who taught political theory at the undergraduate and graduate levels, there are working definitions of facsism. I have tried to point you to places that I have discussed it here at OTB.

    So, I find your statement to be a deflection. I shouldn’t have Theo re-write posts in the comment section. If time permits and it still seems worth doing, I may pull some of that stuff together in a post.

    I will give you the following, however.

    Probably the post the provides the most straight-forward definition is here, which includes some stuff from a a book I authored for a general audiences that included a definition of the term: Trump and Fascism.

    This is a good one from co-blogger Kingdaddy: Fascism Is A Nationalist Aesthetic Movement. He also holds a Ph.D. in political science as well.

    On the internet it only means you don’t like someone.

    It certainly can. It is a word that I am not prone to use lightly. The fact that I have been using it so much lately is because I think, as someone who has studied democracy for decades, including its collapse in many countries, I am sincerely concerned and I hope that maybe, just maybe, I can reach some people before voting is done.

    You replied ” You are avoiding the subject and refuse to engage on substance.”

    I say that because you have not taken the opportunity to engage in the the actual content of dozens of posts. Since you dismiss me as simply some lefty who is just your opposite in terms of who we will vote for, you really do not argue in the sense of providing reasons for why you are right and I am wrong. You mostly just make assertions.

    When all you do is say things like “On the internet it only means you don’t like someone” you are being dismissive. You are not actually engaging at all.

    Let’s not pretend you’re trying to engage.

    Sir/madam/however you would like to be addressed: I have given you a substantial amount individual attention and have sincerely been trying to get you to actually engage.

    I did, as you note, threaten to delete your comments if you couldn’t stay on the topic of the post. But you aren’t the first person to whom that warning has ever been issued.

    Kudos for trying to answer and for answering Erik.

    I do sincerely wish you would try to actually provide real critiques, if you have them, to the actual substance of the posts.

    For example (thinking of posts just in the last couple of days):

    1. Why is is ok for members of Congress to try and get military ballots rejected?
    2. Why is it ok for Trump’s rhetoric on the 2020 election to be a source of violence?
    3. Why is it ok for Trump to praise dictators but to talk about “scum” in the US and to decry “enemies within” in ways that very much echo Hitler and other authoritarians?

    Or, take a stab at the next set of posts, as I expect there will be more criticisms of Trump forthcoming.

    Cheers.

  54. Matt says:

    Annd Fortune disappeared like a fart in the wind.

    Too bad I was really hoping for some kind of response 🙁