Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Oxymoron entertainment: Rethug birther rapper Hi-Caliber entertains teabagger set in DC Previous entry: Noooooo! A preview of Tom DeLay on Dancing With the Stars

Injecting some truth into the right wing grapevine

Prior to this health care reform insanity, the netroots has been really good about pushing back against the way that right wing lies and bullshit are promoted through channels such as right wing media, think tanks, and mainstream media promotion of both.  But what’s harder to do is deal with is the grapevine.  As I’m sure you’re aware, I tend to think the grapevine is the most important part of wingnuttery, and I have formed this opinion by growing up surrounded by it, but in my years of mucking around reading anti-choicers, I really have come around to see how important the grapevine is. Seriously, it’s interesting how little liberals communicate political ideas through conversation than conservatives, though part of the reason is that liberal values—-mainly, freedom and equality—-are the assumed ones of our culture that even conservatives have to pay tribute to as they undermine them. 

The grapevine is important to wingnuts because their mainstay ideas are unspeakable in polite company, for the reason that they’re opposed to these basic American values.  That sounds like an extreme position, but the wingnuts going nuts in Matt’s thread here provide a good example.  The sight of their beloved Confederate flag proved too much for them, and they started to spout a cavalcade of often conflicting defenses of the treason in the defense of slavery.  Sadly, if you’ve grown up in a red state, you’ve heard a lot of these ideas before, inevitably on the grapevine: mainly that the war had nothing to do with slavery (one wingnut whipped out a new one that I haven’t heard—-that it was because of taxes!).  But you also hear that being enslaved was better for black Americans, that the Confederacy had plans to get rid of slavery within a generation, that the North started it, etc.  All lies, all popular with wingnuts, and few of them will actually show up—-except through insinuation—-in right wing and mainstream media.  Pat Buchanan saying that white people built this country was exciting because it was a slip.  They do that sometimes, when they’re in polite company—-get excited, slip up, and say something they’re only supposed to say to each other.  But mostly, it’s fascinating how well wingnuts have embraced the idea that you have one face for your fellows and one for everyone else.  To me, that sort of basic dishonesty about what you believe should tell you that you’re in the wrong, but to them it just shows they’re victims of oppressive liberals with all their yammering about equality and compassion.

Keeping track of code words, slip-ups, line-pushing, and garbled arguments in the mainstream and right wing media is important, but we need to know and refute what they’re saying to each other in church, social occasions, family dinners, and email.  That helps decipher what code words mean, or ask relevant questions of disingenuous wingnuts playing non-crazy to get a public airing.  (Like my standard favorite of dogging anti-choice activists with questions about contraception, which is not something they like to talk too much about outside of their inner circles, where strident arguments about the evils of contraception are not uncommon.)  To that end, I have to praise the hell out of Media Matters for starting a section of their website called Email Checker.  Email forwards are an easy way for the netroots to start shining sunlight into the dark recesses of the wingnut mind.  Many of us have old friends or relatives that automatically put us on their email listservs for hysterical tirades about progressive legislation, conspiracy theories about prominent Democrats, and emails promoting racist/sexist nonsense through “jokes”.  The amount of right wing email purporting to reference experts and historians that is accurate seems to be, at the time of this writing, none. 

Some of us try to respond to these emails, but it’s hard not to get upset, and worse, you probably opened it up at work and you don’t have time to conduct the necessary research to disprove the email.  But Media Matters not only does it for you, they’ve written some calm responses to present the refutations for you.  They make an effort to assume that the person forwarding it to you is acting in good faith, and is completely unaware that whoever wrote the original email is lying through their teeth.  For instance, here’s part of their response to an email sent around trying to scare people about “death panels”:

Hey, thanks for forwarding along that email.

It’s nuts how many rumors are swirling around out there about the health bills.  It’s hard to know which ones are true and which ones are just crazy internet rumors.

If this one were true, I’d be pretty upset - so I decided to see if I could find out for myself.

It turns out Tom Daschle never even said that about “seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age.” Apparently that quote actually comes from a woman who is adamantly against any health care improvements named Betsy McCaughey. When a reporter confronted her about the chain email, even she admitted it wasn’t true, saying “I regret any misrepresentations made by others of my work or Mr. Daschle’s views.

When I see things like this—-emails flying around that take things wingnuts said and put them in the mouths of Democrats—-I’m often inclined to think that professionals are writing and forwarding these emails.  Your irritating right wing relatives are both perpetrators and victims of the right wing misinformation campaign.

This isn’t the first attempt to catalog these sorts of email forwards.  I’m fond of My Right Wing Dad, but they just catalog it, and don’t give you any tools to push back. 

What you can do to help is twofold.  When you get one of these emails, search Email Checker to see if they’ve cataloged it.  (The best way to search is copy/paste a sentence into the search engine, though keywords also work.)  If so, copy/paste the reply—-tweak it, if need be—-into a reply email, and make sure to hit “Reply All”.  Sure, it’s a little rude, but no more so than sending email forwards in the first place.  If they don’t have it up yet, send them a copy to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

What this course of action will likely do is get you taken off email forward lists.  That will be a relief for you, though obviously, the better solution would be to get people to stop sending and believing them.  But people are mostly going to believe what they want, and there’s not much you can do.  But by hitting “Reply All” before you get taken off the list, you might get to a few people who are also receiving the forwards that aren’t true believers, and who will be emboldened by your example to think critically.  One thing I’m pretty certain of is that starting a rumble, albeit a very polite one, with the people who send the email forwards in front of a group will get some eyeballs.  People will probably be more interested in reading your response than the original email because responding is uncommon behavior, and therefore gets attention. 

I’m guessing this might also be a good reference to refute right wing misinformation being spouted in comments sections at blogs.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:00 AM • (80) Comments

I loved this when I saw it too.  Using this for right-wing rants and Snopes.com for fake scares about gang initiations or kidney thieves will in fact dramatically cut down on email forwards from Aunt Betty and Uncle Jake.

Comment #1: emjaybee  on  09/15  at  11:18 AM

“Reply All” all the time, it’s the only way to force the wingnuts back into their box. I am tired of their “slip-ups” in polite society and don’t want to hear it anymore. Maybe once they realize that only a few select people are even listening to them (and that those few are bat shit crazy) they will stop filling up people’s inboxes with garbage.

And let me add my thanks to everyone who employs this strategy. I may never get to use it because as an African American, I get precious few of these crazy emails because the wingnuts aren’t completely stupid.

Comment #2: DC Fem  on  09/15  at  11:24 AM

Snopes.com does some political checking as well, but not as much.  Love that Media Matters has gotten involved.

For year, I’ve been replying to my mother’s emails with the link to Snopes refuting whatever she’s sending me (although to be fair, sometimes she does get it right).  But I now have a standard cut-and-paste reply to her right-wing insanity:

“Mom, I love you, but when you pave your own road, refine your own gas, generate your own electricity, dig your own sewer, put out your own house fire, and GIVE UP YOUR MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY, then come to talk to me about taxes.”

As you can guess, we never really have a conversation.  She sends her chain anti-tax (or medicine, or Obama) email, I send my standard reply, I don’t hear from her again for a while.

Comment #3: NobleExperiments  on  09/15  at  11:28 AM

This sounds like a wonderful idea! Thanks Amanda!

Unfortunately, Grandma stopped sending me those chain forwards a while back. I don’t know why, maybe because I replied sometimes?

Comment #4: atheist  on  09/15  at  11:31 AM

I like how a lot of the suggested replies end with “Hope this puts your mind at ease!” or similar. It’s a polite, subtle way of pointing out that the sender doesn’t WANT to be put at ease but is either deliberately or sorta-deliberately stirring up baseless fear and hatred.

I’m reminded of Slacktivist’s posts about the Anti-Kitten-Burning Coalition and email forwards denouncing nonexistent Satanism.

Comment #5: MissPrism  on  09/15  at  11:44 AM

I used to get those emails all the time from my dad’s wingnutty cousin, mostly the anti-choice ones.  I got sick of trying to argue back, so a few years ago every time she sent one to me, I would reply all back that I sent a donation to NARAL or Planned Parenthood in her name and isn’t it wonderful that she’s supporting such wonderful causes.  I did it twice and I haven’t had any email from her at all in over 4 years now.  She also doesn’t speak to me very much more than is necessary at holidays.  And her brother, who is pretty conservative, but relatively sane, even if he does believe a lot of ridiculous shit because he doesn’t bother to think about it, thought it was hilarious how pissed off she was at me.

Comment #6: ks  on  09/15  at  11:51 AM

The last time I ever got one of these (Zombie Madalyn Murray O’Hair is campaigning to get God banned from tv!) was when I finally did the reply-all with a Snopes link and an explanation that it was bogus and Touched by an Angel fans had nothing but programming execs to worry about.  Glorious radio-silence did indeed follow.

Comment #7: preying mantis  on  09/15  at  11:53 AM

So where is the injection of TRUTH??  For a minute, I thought you were going to say the right opposes the plan because the President is BLACK.  That’s the excuse you left wing fucknuts use for anyone that opposes the President. Racism, Racism, what a load of SHIT! I hope he enjoys his 3.5 years left in office, it won’t be a second term.

Comment #8: cookie  on  09/15  at  11:53 AM

I appreciate your efforts to continue to bring light to darkened minds, and MM’s just might help any who are still susceptible to truth.  But you’re facing a nearly impossible task.

The email “grapevine” is really an infectious disease, but only for those not smart enough to suspect it in the first place.  Healthy minds have learned to ALWAYS fact check. Realize the grapevine does not operate in “good faith.”  As soon as a system of propaganda is organized around false claims, which is what the progenitors of the emails are doing— good faith disappears.

And by then, it’s usually already too late. The lies MUST continue. Once someone chooses the path of error, one’s own mind tends to justify continuing down the path.  Having started out wrong, it requires a great and noble character to turn around and go right.  How many do you think have the chops for that?

See more here. http://bit.ly/1z4RvY

Comment #9: Michael Hart  on  09/15  at  11:57 AM

Holy crap, who let cookie off her meds?

Comment #10: redwards  on  09/15  at  12:01 PM

”...but we need to know and refute what they’re saying to each other in church, social occasions, family dinners, and email.”

Agree wholeheartedly.  But the problem is so much worse than that. 

“Social occasions” aren’t just a party or going out to dinner or a movie.  There are other social interactions occurring constantly: people who work together talking in the break room, somebody goes to the auto parts store and talks to the person behind the counter, talks to a waiter at the diner, talks to their barber/hairdresser and the other people waiting, bartender or other bar patrons, neighbors, people at the PTA, people watching the local high school football game, and so on.  In the age of the Internet, blogs and forums, even non-political ones devoted to hobbies, etc., are important places where people talk and share good stuff as well as bullshit.

It’s the pervasive, casual, and slippery nature of these interactions that is the fertile breeding ground for memes, many of them outright bullshit and many having just enough of a tinge of truth to stay alive and propagate.  And given the general distrust of the media (the exceptions being Faux, Limbaugh, Beck, and wingnut talk shows in general), the most gullible will readily believe what somebody they know tells them, and readily ignore contrary information regardless of the source.

This is a monumental problem.  As long as there are no “official” sources of valid information that are generally trusted, it’s hard to see how to combat the grapevine…

Comment #11: MikeEss  on  09/15  at  12:03 PM

“Unfortunately, Grandma stopped sending me those chain forwards a while back. I don’t know why, maybe because I replied sometimes?”

I used to reply all on every stupid forward that I could find on Snopes and I haven’t gotten one in a while. MissPrism points to Slacktivists’ posts on the subject and what I took from that is that by having any response to the chain emails other than accepting their premises and agreeing, you’re pretty much shitting in people’s cereal. I’m enough of an asshole to not care, but people who value their wingnut relatives more than I should just be aware that calmly correcting these things in a polite way won’t generally be taken well.

Comment #12: witless chum  on  09/15  at  12:04 PM

Agreed, witless chum.  My father forwards to me some of this crap that he receives via his sister.  If I have the time, I refute it point by point, citing sources, and then send it back.  What I usually hear from him then is “That was a joke! Why do you take everything so seriously? Get over it”  Apparently his brother is doing the same thing (my uncle is the token lib in their family) and it’s annoying my dad that we don’t get the “joke”.  My dad is just plain ignorant, though.  He’s clueless about anything more subtle than an actual lynching.  His sister?  Not so sure about her.

Comment #13: BadKitty  on  09/15  at  12:16 PM

Witless- I had a couple friends of the “I used to be a Democrat, but 9/11 made me hate welfare” types who kept me on their e-mail lists.  I got taken off by always, always replying and hitting reply all.

It’s true that they got pissed off.  But considering they didn’t much care about pissing me off by sending it to me in the first place, I don’t much care about offending their delicate sensibilities.  I take a similar view towards relatives I don’t get a long with.

Comment #14: acallidryas  on  09/15  at  12:18 PM

So, for those of you whose older relatives have been forwarding crap: When did it start?

I realized my dad was getting emails from the ill-informed, and had no idea what Snopes was, after he sent me some crap about “Alaska National Guard Commander in Chief” (sic) Sarah Palin, and a bunch of editorial cartoons about Palin being a “game-changer” in the campaign. (Okay, she was, but not like they thought.)

(Disclaimer: Lifelong Nutmegger. What passes for “redneck” around here is a pale imitation.)

Comment #15: ThresherK  on  09/15  at  12:20 PM

Agreed, witless chum.

That so totally has to be said with your best Adam West impersonation.

Comment #16: Sarcastro  on  09/15  at  12:24 PM

It’s interesting.  The whole email-forward situation exists in a nether-space in which both sides - the right-wing sender and the left-wing receiver - know that they don’t agree, and yet the sending continues.  However, the fact that it’s an email forward means that the sender can disavow the contents - “I was just passig it along!  Why are you so mad?” while still endorsing them.  It’s the perfect game of telephone for everyone’s right wing relatives, allowing them to both broadcast their beliefs while knowning that you disagree, but also to act the wounded party when you protest.

I view it as an example of the worst sort of passive-aggressiveness from right-wing relatives.  They get to poke their electronic fingers in your eye without accountability.  For the most part confronting the emails on the points of fact is conveniently ignored, as these people are so fixed in their ideologies that reason will not penetrate.  Inevitably confronting on the emotional level - i.e. “please don’t send me this sort of thing because you know I don’t share your beliefs and it hurts me” produces one of two reactions - “oh, we can disagree, can’t we, I love you” or the inevitable variations of “lighten up.”

But, since I suspect that the right-wing relatives know that these emails cause anger or hurt and send them anyway I believe it’s, again, a passive-aggressive infliction of deliberate pain (remember how much the right wing likes “scolding through punishment.”) 

So how does one fight passive agressiveness? Well, with passive agressiveness, of course.  I suggest putting the offending relative in your spam filter and then if some non-political message gets lost just innocently claiming that the “ISP” blocked his or her email because of the inclusion of obscene keywords.

Comment #17: tannenburg  on  09/15  at  12:52 PM

It all comes down to the underlying fact that for most of these people the number one attraction for spouting conservative nonsense is that it pisses off liberals. They just love to picture you reading and fuming over their takedowns. If you respond by pointing out that they are full of crap, it ruins all the fun for them.

That said, I have to admit I’m losing the ability to deal with this stuff. I took the time to refute a bunch of talk-radio nonsense about the health care proposals people were repeating at the dog park a few weeks ago, and now a couple of them have made it their life’s mission to bait me endlessly with anti-Obama garbage while I’m there. I just want to exercise my dog in fucking peace. Why do they have to be such assholes?

Comment #18: sophronia  on  09/15  at  12:56 PM

Wait - is cookie complaining that we always blame racism towards Obama, or that we aren’t doing so here? Zie seems to be complaining about both at once, but that would be irrational and we know cookie is always…oh, wait. Nevermind.

Comment #19: Tapetum  on  09/15  at  12:57 PM

“However, the fact that it’s an email forward means that the sender can disavow the contents - “I was just passig it along!  Why are you so mad?” while still endorsing them.  It’s the perfect game of telephone for everyone’s right wing relatives, allowing them to both broadcast their beliefs while knowning that you disagree, but also to act the wounded party when you protest.”

It works both ways.  If you can maintain the fiction that you really believe they forwarded whatever they forwarded in good faith and will be relieved—nay, overjoyed!—to find out that the horrible things they fear are all smoke and mirrors, and that you don’t understand why they’re so upset that Obama’s not going to kill old people or that nobody’s burning kittens, they wind up the protester to the wounded party.  There really isn’t a good answer to the innocently-asked question “Why are you so upset that nobody’s setting kittens on fire?”.

Comment #20: preying mantis  on  09/15  at  01:02 PM

This is so accurate. My family’s main method of communication is right wing and religious email forwards. Many, many years ago I nearly caused a huge inter-family meltdown when I replied to all with a hearty “What the Fuck?” and lengthy diatribe after my soon-to-be brother-in-law sent some insane email accusing Christiane Amanpour of being a liberal shill, traitor and slut. Of course, what I learned that day was not that anyone would get upset over calling someone a slut, but over the fact that I said “fuck”. These people and their priorities.

That kept me off their listservs for a while, but they seem determined to send me every wingnut talking point/urban legend in existence these days. I’ve spent entire afternoons refuting the crap they send me, and the only reply I’ve ever gotten is “Well, I guess we know who’s been watching Maddow and Olberman.” These people don’t care what the truth of any matter is. All that matters is that <shrill righteous anger> THIS ISN’T AMERICA ANYMORE! </shrill righteous anger>.

Comment #21: Egnu Cledge  on  09/15  at  01:03 PM

I also notice that I have never once received or even seen any type of insane left-wing political chain email, even when Bush was in office.

Comment #22: Egnu Cledge  on  09/15  at  01:05 PM

Include me as a recipient receiving nonsense from friends and family. One was the ACLU banning prayer and how Marines bravely ignored the order. The other was how a WW2 memorial in D.C. omitted “so help us God” from FDR’s speech. The second viral email made it to the Moonie Times.

This is concentrate wingnuttia designed to feed their persecution complex and move them to self-righteous proclamations about taking their country back from godless heathens. I still like to think these emails are written by college drop outs in their parent’s basements. Needless to say, my response to these emails weren’t as friendly as Media Matters’ and I almost lost a friend.

If you look closely at the picture above, you will note that all the Marines pictured are bowing their heads. That’s because they’re praying. The incident took place at a recent ceremony honoring the birthday of the corps, and it has the ACLU up in arms.

“These are federal employees,” says Lucius Traveler, a spokesman for the ACLU, “on federal property and on federal time. For them to pray is clearly an establishment of religion, and we must nip this in the bud immediately.”

When asked about the ACLU’s charges, Colonel Jack Fessender, speaking for the Commandant of the Corps said (cleaned up a bit), “Screw the ACLU.”

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/memorial.asp

Comment #23: Lesly  on  09/15  at  01:08 PM

The best thing about the MM replies is that they’re extremely *friendly*. I’ve previously avoided replying to some of the things my aunt sends me because I know I’d get mad, come across as terribly rude and harsh, and end up alienating my aunt and her family. The MM letters are pleasant and conversational and informative, and they can’t be construed as hostile by any non-kook.

“Well, Lulu, Scott just replied to your e-mail, and he had a little more info. What’s there to be angry about?”
“He disagreed with me! Don’t you see?”
“Now, Lulu, there you go again…”

Comment #24: Scott  on  09/15  at  01:11 PM

It’s interesting.  The whole email-forward situation exists in a nether-space in which both sides - the right-wing sender and the left-wing receiver - know that they don’t agree, and yet the sending continues.  However, the fact that it’s an email forward means that the sender can disavow the contents - “I was just passig it along!  Why are you so mad?” while still endorsing them.  It’s the perfect game of telephone for everyone’s right wing relatives, allowing them to both broadcast their beliefs while knowning that you disagree, but also to act the wounded party when you protest.

I view it as an example of the worst sort of passive-aggressiveness from right-wing relatives.  They get to poke their electronic fingers in your eye without accountability.  For the most part confronting the emails on the points of fact is conveniently ignored, as these people are so fixed in their ideologies that reason will not penetrate.  Inevitably confronting on the emotional level - i.e. “please don’t send me this sort of thing because you know I don’t share your beliefs and it hurts me” produces one of two reactions - “oh, we can disagree, can’t we, I love you” or the inevitable variations of “lighten up.”

You have this so incredibly right. That’s why they do not care if you point out everything that’s wrong. The emails aren’t meant to inform anyone in the first place. I’ve never seen any of the recipient wingers on the list respond with any commentary about being informed by these emails. It’s just another in-group insanity signifier to make them feel special to be “in on” something, the real truth, and as a bonus, it pisses off liberal relatives. Why they feel the need to piss me off, I don’t know. I half expect that if they didn’t have a token liberal on their email list, they wouldn’t bother sending it.

Comment #25: Egnu Cledge  on  09/15  at  01:12 PM

I appreciate that Media Matters has taken the time to create this section of their website, but it usually only takes me about 2 seconds on Google to call out the bullshit on my aunt’s emails!

Comment #26: khoward  on  09/15  at  01:14 PM

That’s what I want to know: why is it so meaningful to them to piss off their liberal relatives? Why is it so important in general for conservatives to piss liberals off—to say the most obviously false and idiotic things just in order to raise our blood pressure? What’s the benefit in that for them: what are their psyches like in order to make that seem beneficial?

Comment #27: felagund  on  09/15  at  01:26 PM

*******When I see things like this—-emails flying around that take things wingnuts said and put them in the mouths of Democrats—-I’m often inclined to think that professionals are writing and forwarding these emails.  Your irritating right wing relatives are both perpetrators and victims of the right wing misinformation campaign.*****

I’ve believed for years that the Republicans have people on the payroll who’s only job is to write these e-mails and get them into circulation.  It’s nice to see Media Matters trying to do something about it.

Comment #28: Bruce from Missouri  on  09/15  at  01:30 PM

felagund - I have a suspicion it’s punishment.  As I hinted above, a cornerstone of some Conservative thinking is that wrong actions and wrong thoughts should be punished - you know, spare the rod, spoil the child, etc.  Therefore since they can’t punish physically, they must punish emotionally…

Comment #29: tannenburg  on  09/15  at  01:31 PM

“That’s what I want to know: why is it so meaningful to them to piss off their liberal relatives?”

They never grew out of the “nyah—I’m not touching you” phase?

Comment #30: preying mantis  on  09/15  at  01:31 PM

Huh, you’re absolutely right on the piss off liberals passive-aggressiveness. Back when I was in high school, my wingnut neighbor, unable to use email or the computer to any degree, would do the live version of the mass email by inviting my then liberal-leaning parents (now radical neo-hippies) over specifically for the purpose of bringing up some wingnut myth or deliberatively provocative or racist statement that was only mentioned to put my parents in the spot of politely ignoring it or angrily “replying” with a full refutation of why that was bullshit at which point my parents were then “being rude”.

My parents stopped getting angry once they realized that the neighbor was essentially just trying to focus his identity politics and get that rush of belonging by “showing up some liberal traitor monkey” and just began denying them something else they wanted, any remaining humans who would put up with their shit including their children.

But yeah, it’s part of the anti-kitten-burning coalition, and sending it to libs is their way of sticking it to the kitten-burner-sympathizers with full deniability if they get called out, same way my neighbor would object to “rudeness” if called out on deliberately being a hateful ignorant moron.

Comment #31: Cerberus  on  09/15  at  01:31 PM

That’s what I want to know: why is it so meaningful to them to piss off their liberal relatives?

I actually assume that my aunt has no idea what my political leanings are—most of my relatives are rural West Texas conservatives, so I avoid discussing politics with most of them, for the sake of family harmony. My aunt sends her forwards to a **ton** of people, and I’m sure she just assumes I’m a Repub. I don’t think she’s being malicious.

There are people who’ll forward those things maliciously, though, and I don’t know why. Maybe just plain authoritarian assholatry.

Comment #32: Scott  on  09/15  at  01:32 PM

Cerberus, how did they end up responding to your neighbor? Did they just start turning down his invitations, or did they have some other way of refusing him the rush?

Comment #33: Scott  on  09/15  at  01:36 PM

So some poor unfortunate wingnut lady actually wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper, furious about the ACLU prayer thing.  They published it—probably for the page hits, as a number of sane people also wrote in, correcting her and sending her to Snopes.  The wingnut lady felt compelled to write again, apologizing for her idiocy.  It was almost beautiful.  Well, except that you know she still *believes* that stuff about the ACLU.  She just knows better now than to say that shit in public.

I don’t know.  How do you get the discourse back from people like that—the insane people who *believe* the urban legends and right-wing forwards—when we’re faced with a media that doesn’t give two shits about facts, just the circus?

Comment #34: Karinna A.  on  09/15  at  01:48 PM

Honestly, I still can’t get over how rude these people are. The few liberals in my family are always careful not to talk about politics at family gatherings, but our conservative relatives have no such qualms. At Christmas dinner they’ll talk about abortion and how global warming is a hoax and how black people are the real racists, while the rest of us keep mum because we don’t want to turn a mostly peaceful gathering into a shouting match. Predictably, these conservatives are also very quick to anger when you challenge them. Gently suggest to my dad that he might want to check out a different source for more accurate info, and he’ll fly off the handle. It’s so frustrating to be unable to defend yourself because you’re unwilling to make a scene or burn bridges with family members over something like politics.

Comment #35: Jenny Dreadful  on  09/15  at  02:01 PM

They published it—probably for the page hits, as a number of sane people also wrote in, correcting her and sending her to Snopes.  The wingnut lady felt compelled to write again, apologizing for her idiocy.  It was almost beautiful.  Well, except that you know she still *believes* that stuff about the ACLU.

Eh, who knows? Perhaps she’s not a wingnut really did just fall for that in earnest - such people do exist, you know, which is why political groups inject these “grass-roots” email forwards into the populace like a cancer. A true wingnut wouldn’t have it in them to acknowledge the error and apologize - largely because, for them, the correctness or truth of it wasn’t the real point anyway.

Comment #36: ballast  on  09/15  at  02:27 PM

Jenny Dreadful,

Indeed. I’m not supposed to talk about politics at home because it will send my dad into a fit. Of course, what that means is that I’m not supposed to respond when my dad brings up politics.

I’ve noticed, working a number of jobs over the years where I was a face behind a public desk (libraries and bookstores), that people will say the most unbelievable things, and they automatically assume that you agree with them. Actually, racists/right-wingers/conspiracy-theorists/religionists will say the most unbelievable things and assume you agree with them. And when you’re sitting there representing a company, you can’t say otherwise. I’ve never had a crazy liberal person start spouting off and expect me to go along.

Comment #37: Egnu Cledge  on  09/15  at  02:27 PM

Hit blaspheme too soon.

Which is to say, I think that’s part of the root of so much right-wing anger…the belief that you are the voice of authority and everyone will agree with you, or is already just like you. They can’t handle someone being different from them.

In my own family, I’ve seen how they iterpret anything I do or believe as a specific rejection of them and their beliefs. Atheist? That’s just so I can tell my Mom she’s stupid for believing in God. Democrat? Just another way to show them how I hate everything they raised me to be. Like I don’t really beleieve any of these things, it’s just teenage rebellion.

Liberals don’t seem to have this mindset.

Comment #38: Egnu Cledge  on  09/15  at  02:34 PM

felagund@27:

That’s what I want to know: why is it so meaningful to them to piss off their liberal relatives? Why is it so important in general for conservatives to piss liberals off—to say the most obviously false and idiotic things just in order to raise our blood pressure? What’s the benefit in that for them: what are their psyches like in order to make that seem beneficial?

Because the conservative worldview is based on might makes right, and by bullying, intimidating, and shouting down their family and friends, they will have won their own small victory in the larger culture war.

Comment #39: jamie d  on  09/15  at  02:34 PM

Hm, I live in sort of the opposite end of the spectrum. Since leaving home to go to college, I’ve lived in areas where it’s assumed you’re a Democrat/liberal. It’s a little weird when you drop a little Bush Hate in the middle of mixed company and someone turns out to be a Repub. Awkward!

Comment #40: Mighty Ponygirl  on  09/15  at  02:38 PM

You must be my brother or something, Egnu. Our families sound very similar. When I used to work retail, this annoying dude used to come in and try to talk to me about god and how I should attend his church and so on. I finally told him that I didn’t believe in god, and he gave this ridiculous speech about how could I not believe, when I had the capacity to grow a human life in my womb? I told him that I was infertile, which isn’t true, at least I don’t think so, but it shut him up nicely. The problem is that he probably thinks that all atheist women are just angry at god for making them infertile, but it’s not like that brand of crazy can be reasoned with anyway.

Comment #41: Jenny Dreadful  on  09/15  at  02:41 PM

What’s beautiful about the Media Matters form letters is that they address all the concerns expressed here.  Basically, I see two groups of forwarders being defined: those forwarding in good faith (genuinely worried about what they see) and those forwarding it in bad faith (to define their tribal loyalties/piss you the liberal off—-the people who will get angry if corrected).  This is how I see it working:

Good faith  By addressing their fears/concerns, and giving them helpful information, you may actually get through to them.  Witness the ACLU example above. 

Bad faith They’re trying to piss off the liberal/assert tribal loyalties.  This is an act of dominance.  It’s very self-reinforcing for conservatives for the reasons people assert above: liberals tend to cower.  But if you get angry, they also “win”, because they made you lose your cool.  It’s like someone who talks shit in order to get someone to say something to them, so they can start a fist fight.  As tanneburg said, you are the one being deemed naughty, and they’re trying to put you in your place. 

What’s brilliant about the MM reaction is that you don’t get angry or cower—-then they win!  The response, if issued to someone acting in bad faith, comes across as patronizing.  Which is an act of social dominance.  They are the scared child, and you the reassuring adult. 

If they try to shrug off what they sent you as a joke, I would say, very sweetly, “Goodness, that’s not like the jokes I know!  Jokes I know are about being funny.  This seemed very angry/scared to me.  Why do you think that’s funny?  I’m really curious, because I just didn’t get it.”

Comment #42: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/15  at  02:47 PM

Jenny, he literally came out and said he saw you as a walking womb?  Talk about your oops!

Comment #43: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/15  at  02:49 PM

*anecdote alert*
I have a large family that used to send lots of really cute e-mails with pictures from when grandma was a baby, and old anecdotes and clippings, it was really very nice.  Then as more extended family started to be included, this embarrassingly dumb third cousin started sending us all religious forwards.  Of course, nobody wanted to be impolite, but I know my family doesn’t give two shits about religion. 

Then, one day, he forwards along a sexist joke, something about why women only have four neurons or something.  Now, in our family, women have been getting doctorates and supporting themselves and driving since the 1940’s, so someone hit “reply all” and asked him to explain why he thought this kind of e-mail was acceptable, and if he really thought his daughters, cousins, sisters and wife were dumb.  The dumbass, of course, now encouraged by the attention, hit “reply all”, saying that he knew some women were very smart, but clearly not smart enough, since all the famous scientists are men and big discoveries are made by women.  Could you believe?

Then something really remarkable happened.  The whole family started e-mailing with cases of genius women and important discoveries made by them, women in politics, in history, in math and science, war heroes, and of course, anecdotes of sexist oppression suffered by women in our family.  It was beautiful.  I never knew my family cared so much.  One of my most polite relatives sent the best e-mail of all, describing the deaths of most of these famous genius women.  I never knew he could be so intense.  Basically made the point that extraordinary men get honored while extraordinary women get shamed, imprisoned, killed.

Now of course, the dumbass hits reply all again, and says it was only a joke, lighten up.  And BOY this really got my people going.  I this hadn’t happened, I would’ve never known how strongly my family felt about this issue.

Comment #44: raspberryjamba  on  09/15  at  02:57 PM

It’s interesting.  The whole email-forward situation exists in a nether-space in which both sides - the right-wing sender and the left-wing receiver - know that they don’t agree, and yet the sending continues.  However, the fact that it’s an email forward means that the sender can disavow the contents - “I was just passig it along!  Why are you so mad?” while still endorsing them.  It’s the perfect game of telephone for everyone’s right wing relatives, allowing them to both broadcast their beliefs while knowning that you disagree, but also to act the wounded party when you protest.

That’s true of those received from relatives, but I also get those from people I do business with.  As I make it a point not to discuss politics with either my customers or vendors, they don’t know my views, hence I get some of those forwards from the business contacts.  This media matters sounds like a great way to respond, and since they (and others on their list) don’t know my views,  one can look like a true moderate or even sane type conservative factually correcting the extremist.

Comment #45: phylosopher  on  09/15  at  02:58 PM

When I was working my last job, my coworker and office-mate was experiencing the joy of pregnancy and of course because I shared space with her, it was assumed that *I* was going to become the next fertile myrtle. I dunno, I guess pregnancy was like the flu.

One incredibly well-meaning but PUSHY woman kept egging on me about when I was going to have one, and I was really close to whipping up some fake tears and telling her that I was barren and could never have kids and it was hurting so much to have this issue constantly re-opened. But then I thought about it and I figured that wouldn’t really close the door, it would just put me on her list of magical prayer email forwards and she’d make it her mission to make sure I was able to adopt or some shit.

Comment #46: Mighty Ponygirl  on  09/15  at  02:59 PM

Another thing that I cannot recommend enough is showing one’s less-internet-inclined elders how to check Snopes and Media Matters and write their own responses.  My mom is getting to be a champ ever since one of her Episcopalian friends (she’s an atheist but she goes to church, um, socially) sent her a message saying that In God We Trust wasn’t on the new dollar coins.  She was so happy it wasn’t there, so I helped her do the research.  When she found out it was actually on the coins, she was so pissed that she was being lied to.  Now she replies to all of them.

Bonus: She has not sent me an e-mail forward in a month.

Comment #47: birdonabeam  on  09/15  at  02:59 PM

how could I not believe, when I had the capacity to grow a human life in my womb?

If anything, that makes women gods.

Evidence of a god creating life => zilch. Evidence of women creating life => you and everyone you know.

Comment #48: Egnu Cledge  on  09/15  at  02:59 PM

Sorry, meant “made by men”. 
And also sorry for the anecdote.

Comment #49: raspberryjamba  on  09/15  at  03:02 PM

I’ve sent hundreds od Snopes links and no one ever bothers to check the next thing they send out. Basically, people need to learn: never believe anything forwarded to you in an email.

Comment #50: Egnu Cledge  on  09/15  at  03:04 PM

Reading all of ya’lls problems, I’m thanking gawd I’m estranged from my whole family.  They’re not conservatives, but they are the privileged middle class, and they can be rather uncritical about what they take from the media. (Ok, my dad is conservative, but I don’t give a shit.)

I had close friends who would forward me emails for all kinds of things, liberal, conservative, and all those little poems and things people think are cute.  I kindly but firmly asked them to never send me forwards and that any email they did send me be of their own composition, as I hated digging through the spam filter to find out they’ve been talking to me.  Sure enough, my conservative friends took the time to actually engage with me, my liberal friends got more interesting, and I got to know the people who had been sending me “cute” stuff better.  It’s almost as if, by treating the medium as a form of communication, we actually communicated.

A few people who didn’t play along, I now mark as “send to trash & delete” so I don’t know what happened to them.

Comment #51: Godless Heathen  on  09/15  at  03:04 PM

The best thing about the MM replies is that they’re extremely *friendly*. I’ve previously avoided replying to some of the things my aunt sends me because I know I’d get mad, come across as terribly rude and harsh, and end up alienating my aunt and her family. The MM letters are pleasant and conversational and informative, and they can’t be construed as hostile by any non-kook.

It’s a tough jiujitsu to pull off, but when it works, it’s beautiful.  I actually got my right-wing dad to admit once that maybe people live in higher-tax areas because they like having more services like public transportation by playing the, “Really?  Why would you say that?” game.

If you really want to learn the perfect tone to take when you’re passive-aggressive right back at them, pick up some of Judith Martin’s Miss Manners books.  Her philosophy is basically that you don’t have to take any shit from anyone out of politeness, and there are tons of polite ways to make it clear to someone that you think they’re an idiot.

Comment #52: Mnemosyne  on  09/15  at  03:06 PM

I stopped getting the chain forwards full of American flag gifs, giant type and nonsense arguments once I started sending my aunt back links to snopes.com. I thin everyone else just ignored her. Can’t claim to have changed her mind any, but at least i don’t get the painful emails anymore.

Comment #53: Keith  on  09/15  at  03:06 PM

raspberryjamba, your family is Made of Awesome.

Comment #54: Scott  on  09/15  at  03:06 PM

I’d show my dad Snopes to help defuse some of the Faux/Beck/Limbaugh crap, but at this point he believes the Internet is just there for him to check his bank balance and watch TV on Hulu.

Those of use who’ve grown up in “The Information Age” have had to learn to be selective about which sources we will believe and which to ignore, to cross-check things, and remain skeptical.  I don’t think this reality has fully filtered down to the less experienced Internet users…

Comment #55: MikeEss  on  09/15  at  03:14 PM

I don’t even read the shit. I just reply all: “Thanks for your e-mail. This is discredited right-wing extremist propaganda believed only by credulous fools.”

Comment #56: PhysioProf  on  09/15  at  03:15 PM

I like to point out my ACLU membership to my wingnut relatives to piss them off.

I’m just evil (and atheist) like that.

Comment #57: cynickal  on  09/15  at  03:27 PM

‘What I usually hear from him then is “That was a joke! Why do you take everything so seriously? Get over it” Apparently his brother is doing the same thing (my uncle is the token lib in their family) and it’s annoying my dad that we don’t get the “joke”.  My dad is just plain ignorant, though.’

There are two kinds of jokes, “BadKitty”: those that you enjoy only if you have some knowledge, and those that you enjoy only if you’re ignorant.

It’s easy to distinguish the two kinds of jokes.  When a joke of the first kind is told, every ignorant person fails to laugh until you explain it, and then it becomes funny.  When a joke of the second kind is told, every ignorant person laughs until you explain why the joke is hurtful and really isn’t funny.

Of course, some ignorant people prefer to respond by accusing knowledgeable people of “humorlessness.”

Comment #58: JakobFabian01  on  09/15  at  03:38 PM

Email forwards are an easy way for the netroots to start shining sunlight into the dark recesses of the wingnut mind.  Many of us have old friends or relatives that automatically put us on their email listservs for hysterical tirades about progressive legislation, conspiracy theories about prominent Democrats, and emails promoting racist/sexist nonsense through “jokes”.  The amount of right wing email purporting to reference experts and historians that is accurate seems to be, at the time of this writing, none.

You know, I’ve been thinking a lot about just how crazy the paranoid e-mails are among the rightwingers, and how a good chunk of the stuff they claim is stuff that many of those folks would hesitate to say in mixed company.  It isn’t just e-mails anymore, either… this stuff is showing up more and more on Facebook pages.

Anyway, it made me think of the website snopes.com… here’s a website that was ostensibly started by a woman to debunk a lot of cultural urban legends.  At first most of the stories that she was debunking weren’t overtly political in nature, and so no one really had an issue with her website.

But as the rightwing paranoia ramped up in email forwards, she started debunking more and more of the cultural myths being spread by the Right, and it’s gotten to the point where many rightwingers have ridiculously targetted her website as being a tool of the Left and having a “liberal bias”.  I’ve actually heard wingnuts claim that the website snopes.com is part of the evil liberal media now - and the site is being smeared simply because they dare to factcheck many of the ridiculous claims by the Right and debunk them.  As if there’s some evil leftwing agenda in examining whether or not something is factually true.  And while the vast majority of political lies debunked by snopes.com are coming from the Right, there have been myths spread by some on the Left as well which she has also debunked, which seems to evidence the fact that the woman doesn’t have a political agenda with her website, just an agenda for discovering the truth.

We’re seeing it again with this past weekends’ teabigot rally in Washington.  The 2 Million figure that has been tossed around by the Right has been thoroughly debunked, it’s not merely a matter of opinion that there were nowhere near 2 Million people at the rally, and yet… telling a teabigot that their numbers are way off amounts to having an evil liberal agenda to stifle their voice.

Here’s where the paranoia gets ridiculous.  They’ve honed in on ABC News and the Washington Post as the objects of their scorn when making the silly argument that the accurate estimate of 60,000-70,000 people is just a liberal lie.  Any other media outlet that reports the accurate 60K-70K count is also just part of the “evil liberal media”.  And that’s an easy one for them to sell amongst themselves… anything even slightly to the left of Fox News or the National Review is the equivalent of Pravda in these lunatics’ minds.

They’ve somehow or other managed to sell the idea amongst each other that MSNBC is a wholly owned propaganda arm of President Obama, because 3 hours of their daily programming is hosted by progressive-leaning voices (Schultz, Olbermann, and Maddow).  They completely dismiss the amount of facetime that Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan get during the day, and they consider Chris Matthews to be some sort of hero to the Left (yes, he’s technically a Democrat, but no, he’s not a progressive).  And the idea that General Electric, the parent company of NBC Universal (and thus, MSNBC) is an evil socialist corporation hell bent on destroying capitalism forever, is totally laughable.

But anyway, back to the crowd size estimates, these wingers have conveniently made the supposedly liberal MSM the object of their derision in questioning these figures… that 60,000-70,000 is a wholly manufactured lie of the MSM to try to suppress their voices.

The only problem with targetting ABC News and other MSM news media is that they aren’t the source of the claim that only 60,000-70,000 people were present… it’s the flipping Washington D.C. Fire Department that made that estimate.  Are they really going to try to insinuate that an organization as non-partisan, innocuous, and truthfully benevolent as the D.C. Fire Department has a liberal agenda that prevents them from telling the truth?  I mean, I get that fire departments are run by governments and paid for by tax dollars, but I’ve always had the impression that rightwingers viewed firefighters in a fairly heroic light, especially after they disgustingly co-opted the tragic deaths of 343 NY firefighters on September 11th, 2001.

What gives?  Are they really prepared to accuse the Washington, D.C. Fire Department of harboring a deep-seeded hatred of conservative mythology?

It boggles the mind.

Comment #59: DTG in STL  on  09/15  at  03:40 PM

Scott @33: They eventually started turning him down and finding excuses not to visit. A bit passive-aggressive, I’ll admit, but they didn’t want to directly rude. Eventually, when I was in my bachelor’s program, a bunch of younger more liberal people moved into the street and they responded the way all conservative whites have for decades now by fleeing to an even whiter and more republican district where they were surrounded by people who practiced their values.

Last I had heard, they were begging my mom to help them out some since they were old and their new neighbors were similarly old distrustful republicans and she went over one more time before I assume they died out.

I do give them credit though for getting my dad through his exceedingly brief flirtation with conservatism after 2001. A few conversations with the neighbor and he was halfway to the DFH he is today.

Comment #60: Cerberus  on  09/15  at  03:41 PM

I wonder if it would make sense to start forwarding the MM letters to relatives pre-emptively. (You’ve still got one of those mass mails with the headers to reply to, don’t you?)

Or maybe we should all start forwarding articles from Alternet and Counterpunch to them…

Comment #61: paul  on  09/15  at  03:46 PM

I like it when you provide them with some information that discredits the email, and they suggest that they’re too skeptical to believe it, as if they don’t just believe any old thing, no sir, they believe in facts!

Comment #62: Jenny Dreadful  on  09/15  at  03:46 PM

people need to learn: never believe anything forwarded to you in an email.

This is what kills me.  I think there’s a critical mass of middle-aged people who associate The Computer with trust, so if they read something on The Computer, by golly, it must be true!  The TV, well, that’s all lies, except for Fox News.  But The Computer tells you everything The TV tries to keep hidden!  I think one generation older than them treats The Telephone the same way.  This mindset is not exclusive to the middle-aged and up, but I have to think it’s disproportionately represented among them.

Comment #63: FlipYrWhig  on  09/15  at  03:47 PM

FlipYrWhig—they don’t believe liberal things when they read them on the computer.

There is no access into the conservative mind through email.  They are just so afraid.  That’s the fundamental issue, and when you communicate with them, if you can phrase everything in terms of reducing their fears, you can begin to perhaps deactivate them a little.

Comment #64: Punditus Maximus  on  09/15  at  03:56 PM

This is a monumental problem.  As long as there are no “official” sources of valid information that are generally trusted, it’s hard to see how to combat the grapevine.

In the case of debunking the myth that there were 2 Million teabigots at the creepy 9/12 Rally, there is a fairly strong and unassailable source, a source that has no connections to any media outlet whatsoever - the Washington, D.C. Fire Department.  They, not ABC News, are the original source of the accurate claim that the protest only had 70,000 people present.

When a wingnut tells you that there were millions present, and that the 70,000 figure is just a lie being spread by the evil liberal media, respond by citing the DC Fire Department.

You’ll find that they are a lot more hesitant to go after firefighters than they are willing to go after that raving Marxist Charlie Gibson.

Comment #65: DTG in STL  on  09/15  at  04:01 PM

I thought I’d heard it all until yesterday when I listened to a RW man who called into a local progressive radio station here in Phoenix.  He sounded like one of those old cranks who spews the latest Rush Limbaugh talking points at the backyard barbecue.  He was complaining about Pres. Obama’s executive order of tariffs on Chinese made tires because they are dumping them on our market in blatant violation of trade agreements.  The RW caller recited a litany of corporatist buzzwords like “protectionism” “trade war” and claimed that poor people wouldn’t be able to afford tires for their cars.  I shook my head in amazement.  He was actually opposing something that would keep an industry and jobs in America.  Aren’t these the people who like to blather on and on about how patriotic they are?

Comment #66: DonnaDiva  on  09/15  at  04:06 PM

FlipYrWing-

There’s definitely a split between those who came of age pre-Nixon versus those after. I don’t know if that’s the exact split, but there seems to be a definite division between those who openly trust media sources (as long as they are the right kind of sources) and those who tend to assume that it’s bullshit first and foremost.

There is of course a second split between those who know those rules and who fully grew up in the age of computers and thus have strong experience growing up on the same forum boards and email streams as the complete nutters and trolls who thus have better troll fu, but there’s that set who were already in jobs by computers being around, but were quickly able to adapt to being inundated by Bircher emails and porn spam.

Comment #67: Cerberus  on  09/15  at  04:14 PM

I rarely get these weird forwarded e-mails.  I guess I’m lucky that my family and friends aren’t into that stuff, and my distant relatives simply don’t have my e-mail address.  However, if I did get some weird rant of an e-mail, I’d be very tempted to just reply all and say something like “And you read it on the internet, so you know it must be true”, and just let everyone take that however they want to.

Comment #68: bananacat  on  09/15  at  04:14 PM

DonnaDiva:

cars and tires and such things are made by lazy unionized scum who aren’t real americans. Only white people working at walmart are real americans. And stockbrokers.

Comment #69: paul  on  09/15  at  04:15 PM

Shoot, building off my last point, it will be interesting to see the growth of the troll-knowing gen Y, because I imagine they’ll be able to recognize many of the debate stopping techniques that play themselves publicly with the wingnut conservatives. Already most of my set seems to have the ignore button or piefilter response to them in life which will only make them crazier with age.

Comment #70: Cerberus  on  09/15  at  04:15 PM

I’ve only had to correct one relative about some incorrect political fact last year, as she was under the impression that it was Obama who took his oath on a Koran, told her the true story behind the myth, and excused her credulity on her youth.  It also helps that Dad and I are considered the brains in the family, which gives an aura of credibility whenever we talk about political matters.

Dad is a bit computer-literate, but he’s learned how to use the filters in his e-mail in order to spare himself from this stuff which comes from people mainly his age these days.  :-0

Comment #71: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  09/15  at  05:03 PM

In the case of debunking the myth that there were 2 Million teabigots at the creepy 9/12 Rally, there is a fairly strong and unassailable source, a source that has no connections to any media outlet whatsoever - the Washington, D.C. Fire Department.  They, not ABC News, are the original source of the accurate claim that the protest only had 70,000 people present.

That was an unofficial estimate by one firefighter, though.  Let’s not pass it off as the position of the department lest it bite us in the ass.

If anything, that makes women gods.

Well, obviously.  Note the number of liberals willing to go to their knees to worship…

Comment #72: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/15  at  07:18 PM

That was an unofficial estimate by one firefighter, though.  Let’s not pass it off as the position of the department lest it bite us in the ass.

Not quite accurate.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Pete Piringer, a <u>spokesman</u> for the District of Columbia Fire Department, said he made an unofficial estimate of 60,000 to 70,000 at the beginning of the event.

It wasn’t just a random firefighter who came up with that figure, it was an actual spokesman for the D.C. Fire Department.  And though the figure was given as an “unofficial” estimate, it was given on the record by a representative of the Fire Dept. whose job description includes making statements to the media.  That the D.C. Fire Department is not retracting the estimated figure being given by their own spokesman gives it more weight.

While we will not ever know the precise number of teabigot attendees, I think it’s fair to say that the figure was probably much, much closer to 70,000 or so than it was to 1-2 Million.

I think the estimate given by a D.C. Fire Dept. spokesman, even if “unofficial”, still bears a lot more credibility than random numbers that Glenn Beck pulls out of his ass.

Comment #73: DTG in STL  on  09/15  at  09:10 PM

It’s the same stretegy used by fundamentalist and evangelical churches when they send your family religious literature indefinitely, even though your father gave up being a Seventh-Day Adventist forty years ago. Who knows what the Mormons, Neo-Traditionalist Catholics, or Scientologists keep sending. A box with 100 pounds of L. Ron Hubbard novels, pay on delivery?

Comment #74: sara  on  09/15  at  09:13 PM

“I think the estimate given by a D.C. Fire Dept. spokesman, even if “unofficial”, still bears a lot more credibility than random numbers that Glenn Beck pulls out of his ass.”

I don’t know, Beck seems to have a very talented ass…

...or at least a very prolific one anyway…

Comment #75: MikeEss  on  09/15  at  09:26 PM

When I see things like this—-emails flying around that take things wingnuts said and put them in the mouths of Democrats—-I’m often inclined to think that professionals are writing and forwarding these emails.

There is a certain style.  I wonder if the writers for the radio and TV wingers do some of this on their own, or as a paid service of their employers. 

phylosopher:

This media matters sounds like a great way to respond, and since they (and others on their list) don’t know my views, one can look like a true moderate or even sane type conservative factually correcting the extremist.

Except for the fact that the wingers already assume everything from Media Matters is radical lies.  Really.  Search on “media matters lies” if you don’t believe me.  Michael Savage calls them Stalinists and vermin.  Limbaugh called them “little pimple-faced kids that are working at wannabe websites.”  Glenn Beck thinks it was created by Hillary Clinton.

Crap emails like this at work are especially annoying.  I used to get lots from a co-worker and basically blew up at him when he sent me an anti-Arab one.  Because it wasn’t just that it was stupid and wrong, it was that *we both worked with an Arab at the time*, who frankly was worth two or three of this buttload.

Egnu Cledge:

I’ve sent hundreds od Snopes links and no one ever bothers to check the next thing they send out. Basically, people need to learn: never believe anything forwarded to you in an email.

But of course that would go just as much for these reply emails as it does for the original scaremail.

Lots of the email forwards these days actually have “Verified by Snopes!” as the first line.  Then it turns out it isn’t on Snopes at all, or the “verified” means “yes, this crazy person said this” rather than “what this crazy person said is true.”  But lazy of lazies, a lot of people can’t even bother hitting Google, or if they do, just click on the most frenzied-sounding site.

Comment #76: oldfeminist  on  09/15  at  09:27 PM

I’m especially fond that most of them close with a passive-aggressive, slightly condescending “We should talk soon.” 

I have a crusty conservative uncle who was sending a variety of e-mails from the Swift Boaters in 2004 and finally my hippie leftist uncle replied “CCU, you should update your virus software as your e-mail account appears to be acting as a spambot, sending out messages in your name that are full of gibberish or offensive material.  You should really do something about it before someone thinks you did this on purpose.”

Family is fun.

Comment #77: pennylane  on  09/15  at  09:53 PM

they don’t believe liberal things when they read them on the computer.

They don’t believe liberal things they’re _asked_ to read, true.  Unsolicited-ness is crucial.

They basically have no skepticism (and very, very bad senses of humor), and the genius bit is that the unprompted, unsought email _feels more true_ for its randomness and lack of polish.  They believe stories about gang members driving with their headlights out and about dirty needles booby-trapping gas pumps, and those aren’t ideological, except insofar as they presume the existence of a world of unpredictable evil, which is pretty key to conservative opinion, IMHO.  I think stupid people read this crap and get a rare thrill of feeling themselves to be better-informed and smarter than the people who don’t yet know it.  But I still think the fact that it transpires via computer plays a role.  Stupidity, age, and computers are a very toxic mix.  Any tech support person can tell you that.

Comment #78: FlipYrWhig  on  09/15  at  10:46 PM

Extra credit: Don’t just hit “Reply All.”  By check the email headers and the bracketed stuff at the bottom, you can sometimes get the “upline” of people who sent the email to the people who sent it to you.

...granted, this can lead to them cutting off your supplier.  I don’t know whether that’s good or bad.

Comment #79: HonoreDB  on  09/16  at  02:17 AM

So where is the injection of TRUTH?? 

You asked to receive yours in another way and just wiped it off your face with a towel ... no chance of truth taking root that way I guess.

Comment #80: Ms Kate  on  09/16  at  11:55 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.