While researching this week’s Addicted To Hate, I found Heather Cox Richardson caught in the same machinery that turns resentment into politics, defamation into content, and memory into a punishable o
I think "addicted to hate" is another name for anything spoken by HCR, one of the fairest historians in the country. Can she help it if Trump is the worst, most authoritarian (and demented) president in history? Are you biased because you bring this into the light? If so, I'll have what you're having.
Exactly Debra. That’s the trick. When a historian names the pattern, the machine calls the naming “hate.” If bias means refusing to let propagandists rewrite the record in real time, then I’ll take the charge. Thank you again, Debra. You understood the assignment.
You can arrive at the same conclusion an easier way. Can you identify a scenario in which HCR is causing an unnecessary harm to the common good to serve a limited interest? No. Conversely, can you identify a scenario in which one of HRC’s accusers is causing an unnecessary harm to the common good to serve a limited interest? Does a bear shit in the woods?
Yes exactly James. That’s the civic test right there man.
Who is harming the common good, and who benefits from that harm?
HCR is doing public memory work. Her accusers are trying to make that work look suspicious because suspicion is useful to them. Once you ask who is serving the public record and who is serving the outrage economy, the answer anin’t exactly hiding in the woods.
Thanks, Xplisset & others! It's those trying to be new enslavers (who follow trump-the-terrible, Dick-tater-wannabe) who are trying to be anti-education/anti-truth, like those inhumane fools of old! GET UP! STAND UP! STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS! PUT THE TRUMPSTER BACK INTO THE DUMPSTER! DON'T GIVE UP THE FIGHT! I'M MAKING ANOTHER CONTRIBUTION TO XVOA & the DEMOCRAT'S FIGHT FUND TODAY!
Thank you for showing the chain of claims, and how these straightforward posts from a carefully researched and written piece can get purposefully mangled (using emotionally charged language and red herrings among other tactics) to elicit a backlash and an excitable mob reaction of hate towards chroniclers (like HCR) who are recording things as truthfully as possible. I do not catch these things, because I take time to read posts of reputable, careful writers like HCR, (and you) and others, but am not on social media, tweets, and no longer partake of mainstream media which has sold out to this sensationalism as well. This does help me understand how people I know can tell me that they do not like (or trust) HCR, which astounds me, since I think she is one of the fairest and most careful historians to record in real time, (and contextualizing) what is happening as we live through these days. What this 'machine' does is amplify hate and twist things around so it is unrecognizable to those who read the original writing, knowing full well that those who read the mangled variants will never go to the source, or think through things for themselves. It would be too painful for them to find out that they are being manipulated into being dim witted enablers of a horrible regime. Those who read HCR will go through the footnotes, do extra homework to find out more, and thoughtfully consider what is being discussed. The difference is that too many folks are addicted to the rush they get from being angry and hateful, rather than finding ways to solve the cause(s) of their (true) grievances. Gosh, they might even find out that they themselves are part of the destructive machinery that is crashing their world around them!
My god. You are So Good at what you do. This was amazing! And your work is astounding imo. It's more than obvious that you've been around the block many times. You easily captured the whole thing here. Thank you for all the great work that you put into this substack. I REALLY appreciate you and how you think. Keep at it! <3
Thank you! Excellent reporting! I’ve read Dr. Richardson’s work for years and it cracks me up when these people claim she’s such a liberal. More like an Eisenhower Republican if you ask me.
Brevity is a challenge for me, but I'll try to keep this brief.
I am convinced, based on the evidence I have read, that there are broadly two ways in which people process information, although there is no hard line separating them and everyone uses both to varying degrees. There is also evidence that individuals can shift over time, either deliberately or through experience and even effort – thinking carefully about their assumptions.
One mode of thinking is logical, analytical, and evidence-based. In simple terms, if a claim is made, it should be supported by evidence. Effects have causes. Conclusions should follow from facts.
The other mode is more intuitive, emotional, and instinctive. It can be extremely useful in daily life, but it is also more vulnerable to accepting beliefs without demanding much evidence. At its extreme, it can lead people to treat all opinions as equally valid, or even to assume that saying something makes it true.
All of this has been explained in several accessible books. The one I most highly recommend is Thinking, Fast and Slow by the late Daniel Kahneman. Dr. Richardson, you, and I suspect most of your readers, tend to rely heavily on what Kahneman called System 2 thinking. But at the other end of the spectrum are people who attack what she says without attempting to do what she did in forming her conclusions: examine the evidence.
Related ideas are explored in the literature on authoritarianism, particularly the work of Bob Altemeyer and others. While the details are complex, one recurring finding is that people who score highly on measures of authoritarianism tend, on average, to place greater weight on loyalty, authority, intuition, and certainty than on analytical reasoning and evidence.
As much as I dislike oversimplifying complex issues, I am tempted to say that a great deal of what we are witnessing today can be understood through that lens.
It is not, in my opinion, that many of the people attacking Heather Cox Richardson are incapable of analytical thinking. Rather, they are often less inclined to engage in it, especially when doing so might challenge beliefs that are important to their identity or worldview. Kahneman's work helps explain why.
That does not excuse it. What it does, I think, is help explain a force that is both dangerous and, at times, almost comical. "Comical" in the sense that it can produce extraordinary contradictions and absurdities in the defence of a predetermined position.
Those who lean toward the analytical end of the spectrum are at a disadvantage in one respect. They are more constrained by evidence. They cannot simply invent a reality that suits their purposes and expect it to hold together indefinitely. There are countless exceptions and variations, of course, but I think the literature does a remarkably good job of explaining what is happening around us, and why it remains so important to defend truth, logic, and, I would add, compassion.
Thanks, Barry Kent MacKay; and a book I love on COMPASSION that's written by the monk who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 is: "TOWARDS THE TRUE KINSHIP OF FAITHS: HOW THE WORLD'S RELIGIONS CAN COME TOGETHER."
The "clipping out" technique is pervasive, and linked to your piece on the attacks against Graham Platner as well as the tactics people use to defend Trump. ("Are you saying he should be impeached over a mere reflecting pool?" / "sex scandal" / "insider trading incident" / etc. etc.) As a result, many people look through a narrow tube that makes them unable to distinguish good argument from fallacy, universal-but-diverse human errors from organized crime.
I “discovered” HCR a number of years ago on a radio show I would listen to while traveling. I love the show content and HCR and her counterpart had great content to share.
I am glad you are pushing back for her and our country. People who vilify others to make a false claim should be prosecuted. The case is stated in such strength that the person who tried to smear her should be prosecuted.
I have learned so much history from HCR. I am still surprised by how much was not taught during my formal education ( through college), She is so unbiased, I stand in awe. Thank you for your staunch support and excellent analysis.
Joseph Goebbels said it first. Dr. HRC is accurate in her assessment. Propaganda in WWII was a large part of by PhD. Before that, I was a Psyops Officer in the US Military. I know my mind manipulation. I concur with her discussion and conclusions
I think "addicted to hate" is another name for anything spoken by HCR, one of the fairest historians in the country. Can she help it if Trump is the worst, most authoritarian (and demented) president in history? Are you biased because you bring this into the light? If so, I'll have what you're having.
Exactly Debra. That’s the trick. When a historian names the pattern, the machine calls the naming “hate.” If bias means refusing to let propagandists rewrite the record in real time, then I’ll take the charge. Thank you again, Debra. You understood the assignment.
RIGHT ON! RESIST! DEFY! & PERSIST! - THAT'S WHAT I & TRUE FRIENDS ARE DOING! JOIN THE EFFORT TO SAVE ALL THAT WE HOLD DEAR...
TRUTH! Well said! I’ll have what you’re both having!
You can arrive at the same conclusion an easier way. Can you identify a scenario in which HCR is causing an unnecessary harm to the common good to serve a limited interest? No. Conversely, can you identify a scenario in which one of HRC’s accusers is causing an unnecessary harm to the common good to serve a limited interest? Does a bear shit in the woods?
Yes exactly James. That’s the civic test right there man.
Who is harming the common good, and who benefits from that harm?
HCR is doing public memory work. Her accusers are trying to make that work look suspicious because suspicion is useful to them. Once you ask who is serving the public record and who is serving the outrage economy, the answer anin’t exactly hiding in the woods.
Thanks, Xplisset & others! It's those trying to be new enslavers (who follow trump-the-terrible, Dick-tater-wannabe) who are trying to be anti-education/anti-truth, like those inhumane fools of old! GET UP! STAND UP! STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS! PUT THE TRUMPSTER BACK INTO THE DUMPSTER! DON'T GIVE UP THE FIGHT! I'M MAKING ANOTHER CONTRIBUTION TO XVOA & the DEMOCRAT'S FIGHT FUND TODAY!
Heather Cox Richardson’s postings should be mandatory reading in every classroom in America.
Yes, absolutely. Educated, knowledgeable. Honest to her core!
Thank you for showing the chain of claims, and how these straightforward posts from a carefully researched and written piece can get purposefully mangled (using emotionally charged language and red herrings among other tactics) to elicit a backlash and an excitable mob reaction of hate towards chroniclers (like HCR) who are recording things as truthfully as possible. I do not catch these things, because I take time to read posts of reputable, careful writers like HCR, (and you) and others, but am not on social media, tweets, and no longer partake of mainstream media which has sold out to this sensationalism as well. This does help me understand how people I know can tell me that they do not like (or trust) HCR, which astounds me, since I think she is one of the fairest and most careful historians to record in real time, (and contextualizing) what is happening as we live through these days. What this 'machine' does is amplify hate and twist things around so it is unrecognizable to those who read the original writing, knowing full well that those who read the mangled variants will never go to the source, or think through things for themselves. It would be too painful for them to find out that they are being manipulated into being dim witted enablers of a horrible regime. Those who read HCR will go through the footnotes, do extra homework to find out more, and thoughtfully consider what is being discussed. The difference is that too many folks are addicted to the rush they get from being angry and hateful, rather than finding ways to solve the cause(s) of their (true) grievances. Gosh, they might even find out that they themselves are part of the destructive machinery that is crashing their world around them!
My god. You are So Good at what you do. This was amazing! And your work is astounding imo. It's more than obvious that you've been around the block many times. You easily captured the whole thing here. Thank you for all the great work that you put into this substack. I REALLY appreciate you and how you think. Keep at it! <3
Thank you! Excellent reporting! I’ve read Dr. Richardson’s work for years and it cracks me up when these people claim she’s such a liberal. More like an Eisenhower Republican if you ask me.
I have followed Dr. Richardson for. She helps me to understand history and truth in journalism. She's the best.
Brevity is a challenge for me, but I'll try to keep this brief.
I am convinced, based on the evidence I have read, that there are broadly two ways in which people process information, although there is no hard line separating them and everyone uses both to varying degrees. There is also evidence that individuals can shift over time, either deliberately or through experience and even effort – thinking carefully about their assumptions.
One mode of thinking is logical, analytical, and evidence-based. In simple terms, if a claim is made, it should be supported by evidence. Effects have causes. Conclusions should follow from facts.
The other mode is more intuitive, emotional, and instinctive. It can be extremely useful in daily life, but it is also more vulnerable to accepting beliefs without demanding much evidence. At its extreme, it can lead people to treat all opinions as equally valid, or even to assume that saying something makes it true.
All of this has been explained in several accessible books. The one I most highly recommend is Thinking, Fast and Slow by the late Daniel Kahneman. Dr. Richardson, you, and I suspect most of your readers, tend to rely heavily on what Kahneman called System 2 thinking. But at the other end of the spectrum are people who attack what she says without attempting to do what she did in forming her conclusions: examine the evidence.
Related ideas are explored in the literature on authoritarianism, particularly the work of Bob Altemeyer and others. While the details are complex, one recurring finding is that people who score highly on measures of authoritarianism tend, on average, to place greater weight on loyalty, authority, intuition, and certainty than on analytical reasoning and evidence.
As much as I dislike oversimplifying complex issues, I am tempted to say that a great deal of what we are witnessing today can be understood through that lens.
It is not, in my opinion, that many of the people attacking Heather Cox Richardson are incapable of analytical thinking. Rather, they are often less inclined to engage in it, especially when doing so might challenge beliefs that are important to their identity or worldview. Kahneman's work helps explain why.
That does not excuse it. What it does, I think, is help explain a force that is both dangerous and, at times, almost comical. "Comical" in the sense that it can produce extraordinary contradictions and absurdities in the defence of a predetermined position.
Those who lean toward the analytical end of the spectrum are at a disadvantage in one respect. They are more constrained by evidence. They cannot simply invent a reality that suits their purposes and expect it to hold together indefinitely. There are countless exceptions and variations, of course, but I think the literature does a remarkably good job of explaining what is happening around us, and why it remains so important to defend truth, logic, and, I would add, compassion.
Thanks, Barry Kent MacKay; and a book I love on COMPASSION that's written by the monk who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 is: "TOWARDS THE TRUE KINSHIP OF FAITHS: HOW THE WORLD'S RELIGIONS CAN COME TOGETHER."
The "clipping out" technique is pervasive, and linked to your piece on the attacks against Graham Platner as well as the tactics people use to defend Trump. ("Are you saying he should be impeached over a mere reflecting pool?" / "sex scandal" / "insider trading incident" / etc. etc.) As a result, many people look through a narrow tube that makes them unable to distinguish good argument from fallacy, universal-but-diverse human errors from organized crime.
Brilliant!
Dr. Richardson keeps me sane. And I'll stop fighting when she says it's ok to stop.
Thanks, Chezzie! May PEACE be with you & all of us SOON...
Exactly
Well stated. I agree 💯
I “discovered” HCR a number of years ago on a radio show I would listen to while traveling. I love the show content and HCR and her counterpart had great content to share.
I am glad you are pushing back for her and our country. People who vilify others to make a false claim should be prosecuted. The case is stated in such strength that the person who tried to smear her should be prosecuted.
Dr. Richardson is FAB
HCR is correct. Blaming others for what they are doing is a classic authoritarian move.
Positively spellbound! I’ll buy you a coffee when I get paid!
I loved your analysis but it was so exquisitely laid out that it became too long for me to finish.
HCR IS SO FAR ABOVE THIS NONSENSE BULLSHIT BUT NICE TRY ASSHOLE!!!
I have learned so much history from HCR. I am still surprised by how much was not taught during my formal education ( through college), She is so unbiased, I stand in awe. Thank you for your staunch support and excellent analysis.
I agree my education failed me. I have learned so much from HCR.
Same here. Learning so much.
Joseph Goebbels said it first. Dr. HRC is accurate in her assessment. Propaganda in WWII was a large part of by PhD. Before that, I was a Psyops Officer in the US Military. I know my mind manipulation. I concur with her discussion and conclusions