,亚洲欧美日韩国产成人精品影院,亚洲国产欧美日韩精品一区二区三区,久久亚洲国产成人影院,久久国产成人亚洲精品影院老金,九九精品成人免费国产片,国产精品成人综合网,国产成人一区二区三区,国产成...

首頁 500強 活動 榜單 商業 科技 領導力 專題 品牌中心
雜志訂閱

美國“陰謀論者”將為幻想付出代價?

Ryan Young
2021-01-22

在不違反美國憲法第一修正案的范圍內,在符合常理的前提下,讓陰謀論者為自己的幻想付出更高“代價”,將有助于控制他們帶給別人的損失。

文本設置
小號
默認
大號
Plus(0條)

1月6日,特朗普的支持者在美國國會大廈外舉行抗議活動,高舉“匿名者Q” 組織(QAnon)的旗幟。圖片來源:Robert Nickelsberg—Getty Images

陰謀論是引發1月6日美國國會大廈暴亂的主要原因之一。而且,至少從2008年開始,陰謀論在右派內部斗爭中占的比重也越來越大。但是,人們為什么會相信“匿名者Q”(QAnon)、披薩門(Pizzagate)之類讓人難以置信的陰謀論,相信2020年美國大選舞弊的說法呢?他們為什么會因為陰謀論而采取行動、甚至是暴力行動呢?

如果你把非理性看成像汽車或電視一樣的消費品,就能夠更好地理解人們為什么有時會說一些瘋話,做一些瘋事。想想看:如果汽車和電視機價格便宜,人們就會多買,貴的話則相反。

這一邏輯也同樣適用于陰謀論。

在這里,代價不一定要用金錢來衡量。紙上談道的“代價”通常很低。在網上發布瘋狂的內容幾乎不需要付出任何代價,最多會帶來一點社會污名。但對許多人來說,這點代價早就被其他利益抵消了。對于許多邊緣人物而言,如反疫苗者、地平論者和“匿名者Q”陰謀論者,擁護一種極端信仰并不一定是在維護真相。他們是在維護一種獨特又令人難忘的身份,保護它免受外部威脅。

如果你是個體育迷或者是某個政治派別的擁躉,一定明白陰謀論者說些離譜的事情時感受到的高昂情緒。給自己的球隊歡呼、給對方球隊喝倒彩的感覺爽極了。對一些人來說,這種情緒上的快感甚至可以抵消失去朋友或工作付出的代價,所以他們會繼續下去。

但如果非理性的代價突然飆升,會發生什么呢?Dominion是一家銷售電子投票機和制表機等電子投票軟硬件設備的公司,該公司最近宣布起訴“海妖”律師西德尼?鮑威爾誹謗,索賠13億美元,因為她屢次在公共場合稱Dominion的軟件是“按照委內瑞拉前領導人雨果?查韋斯(2013年去世)的指令”開發的。她還說,Dominion使用了秘密算法來操縱2020年的美國總統大選。她提出的和Dominion有關的訴訟因為缺乏證據而被駁回。

截至目前,鮑威爾為其散播陰謀論的行為僅僅付出了很低的代價。事實上,這種做法可能還給她帶來了經濟利益:Dominion在訴訟中稱,鮑威爾利用她新得到的名氣賣書,收獲了新的客戶。

Dominion此前曾經威脅要對福克斯新聞(Fox News)、Newsmax和One America News等幾家媒體采取法律行動,因為它們傳播可以被證偽的虛假新聞。一旦“非理性”的代價上升,這些媒體對非理性的“消費”立刻變少了。Newsmax甚至播出了一段近兩分鐘的“澄清”,駁回了之前幾乎所有關于選舉結果被竊取的論斷。很值得一看。

現在,鮑威爾正在左右權衡,一邊是可能輸掉案子的金錢代價,一邊是丟臉、認錯、向對手屈服的非金錢代價。但眼看現在成本已經提高了,我們幾乎能夠肯定,她會減少對陰謀論的消費。

參與煽動這次未遂政變的政府官員,如前總統特朗普、參議員喬希?霍利和參議員特德?克魯茲,也在為不理性付出更高的代價。這三個人都面臨要求他們辭職的呼聲,政治前途都受到了長遠的影響。付出的代價高了,他們有可能因此改善今后的行為。前總統特朗普甚至首次不甘不愿地承諾會進行和平的權力交接。即使這三個人不會付出更多代價,權力被削弱至少可以限制他們可能造成的危害。

許多暴徒將為他們的行為承擔法律后果,他們不理性的代價因此提高了。最起碼,暴徒和他們的支持者可能會因為成本的變化而減少暴力、緩和言辭。

當然,我們共同見證的這段丑陋歷史可能還涉及很多其他因素。1月6日之所以會出現暴亂,原因可能還包括更宏觀的社會經濟因素、新冠疫情造成的幽居病、個人的不滿,以及某些人可能患有精神疾病等。

把陰謀論看作消費品并不能夠完美解釋一切,但可以幫助我們理解。在不違反憲法第一修正案的范圍內,在符合常理的前提下,讓陰謀論者為自己的幻想付出更高“代價”,將有助于控制他們帶給別人的損失。這既能夠優化美國的政治對話環境,也有助于防止暴力。(財富中文網)

本文作者瑞安?楊是美國競爭企業協會(Competitive Enterprise Institute)的高級研究員。

譯者:Agatha

陰謀論是引發1月6日美國國會大廈暴亂的主要原因之一。而且,至少從2008年開始,陰謀論在右派內部斗爭中占的比重也越來越大。但是,人們為什么會相信“匿名者Q”(QAnon)、披薩門(Pizzagate)之類讓人難以置信的陰謀論,相信2020年美國大選舞弊的說法呢?他們為什么會因為陰謀論而采取行動、甚至是暴力行動呢?

如果你把非理性看成像汽車或電視一樣的消費品,就能夠更好地理解人們為什么有時會說一些瘋話,做一些瘋事。想想看:如果汽車和電視機價格便宜,人們就會多買,貴的話則相反。

這一邏輯也同樣適用于陰謀論。

在這里,代價不一定要用金錢來衡量。紙上談道的“代價”通常很低。在網上發布瘋狂的內容幾乎不需要付出任何代價,最多會帶來一點社會污名。但對許多人來說,這點代價早就被其他利益抵消了。對于許多邊緣人物而言,如反疫苗者、地平論者和“匿名者Q”陰謀論者,擁護一種極端信仰并不一定是在維護真相。他們是在維護一種獨特又令人難忘的身份,保護它免受外部威脅。

如果你是個體育迷或者是某個政治派別的擁躉,一定明白陰謀論者說些離譜的事情時感受到的高昂情緒。給自己的球隊歡呼、給對方球隊喝倒彩的感覺爽極了。對一些人來說,這種情緒上的快感甚至可以抵消失去朋友或工作付出的代價,所以他們會繼續下去。

但如果非理性的代價突然飆升,會發生什么呢?Dominion是一家銷售電子投票機和制表機等電子投票軟硬件設備的公司,該公司最近宣布起訴“海妖”律師西德尼?鮑威爾誹謗,索賠13億美元,因為她屢次在公共場合稱Dominion的軟件是“按照委內瑞拉前領導人雨果?查韋斯(2013年去世)的指令”開發的。她還說,Dominion使用了秘密算法來操縱2020年的美國總統大選。她提出的和Dominion有關的訴訟因為缺乏證據而被駁回。

截至目前,鮑威爾為其散播陰謀論的行為僅僅付出了很低的代價。事實上,這種做法可能還給她帶來了經濟利益:Dominion在訴訟中稱,鮑威爾利用她新得到的名氣賣書,收獲了新的客戶。

Dominion此前曾經威脅要對福克斯新聞(Fox News)、Newsmax和One America News等幾家媒體采取法律行動,因為它們傳播可以被證偽的虛假新聞。一旦“非理性”的代價上升,這些媒體對非理性的“消費”立刻變少了。Newsmax甚至播出了一段近兩分鐘的“澄清”,駁回了之前幾乎所有關于選舉結果被竊取的論斷。很值得一看。

現在,鮑威爾正在左右權衡,一邊是可能輸掉案子的金錢代價,一邊是丟臉、認錯、向對手屈服的非金錢代價。但眼看現在成本已經提高了,我們幾乎能夠肯定,她會減少對陰謀論的消費。

參與煽動這次未遂政變的政府官員,如前總統特朗普、參議員喬希?霍利和參議員特德?克魯茲,也在為不理性付出更高的代價。這三個人都面臨要求他們辭職的呼聲,政治前途都受到了長遠的影響。付出的代價高了,他們有可能因此改善今后的行為。前總統特朗普甚至首次不甘不愿地承諾會進行和平的權力交接。即使這三個人不會付出更多代價,權力被削弱至少可以限制他們可能造成的危害。

許多暴徒將為他們的行為承擔法律后果,他們不理性的代價因此提高了。最起碼,暴徒和他們的支持者可能會因為成本的變化而減少暴力、緩和言辭。

當然,我們共同見證的這段丑陋歷史可能還涉及很多其他因素。1月6日之所以會出現暴亂,原因可能還包括更宏觀的社會經濟因素、新冠疫情造成的幽居病、個人的不滿,以及某些人可能患有精神疾病等。

把陰謀論看作消費品并不能夠完美解釋一切,但可以幫助我們理解。在不違反憲法第一修正案的范圍內,在符合常理的前提下,讓陰謀論者為自己的幻想付出更高“代價”,將有助于控制他們帶給別人的損失。這既能夠優化美國的政治對話環境,也有助于防止暴力。(財富中文網)

本文作者瑞安?楊是美國競爭企業協會(Competitive Enterprise Institute)的高級研究員。

譯者:Agatha

Conspiracy theories were a major driver behind the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol building. They have also been a growing part of the political right’s internal struggles since at least 2008. But why do people believe in crackpot conspiracy theories like QAnon, Pizzagate, or the narrative that the 2020 election was stolen? Why do they act on them, sometimes violently?

If you think of irrationality as a consumer good, much like a car or a television, you can better understand why people sometimes say and do crazy things. Think of it like this: People buy more cars and televisions when they are cheap, and fewer when they are expensive.

This logic applies to conspiracy theories.

Here, price is not necessarily measured in money. The “price” of armchair theorizing is low, usually. It costs almost nothing to post crazy things online, aside from mild social stigma. But this cost is more than offset by other benefits for many. For a lot of fringe figures like anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, and QAnon conspiracy theorists, espousing an extreme belief is not necessarily about the truth. It’s about asserting a unique, memorable identity and defending it against outside threats.

Any sports fan or political partisan will be familiar with the emotional rush that conspiracy theorists feel when saying outlandish things. It feels good to cheer for your team and boo the other team. For some, these emotional benefits may even be worth the cost of losing friends or a job, so they keep at it.

But what happens when the price of irrationality suddenly spikes? Dominion Voting Systems, a company that sells electronic voting hardware and software like voting machines and tabulators, recently announced that it is suing “Kraken” lawyer Sidney Powell for defamation, seeking damages of $1.3 billion, because she repeatedly argued in public that Dominion software was created “at the direction of Hugo Chávez,” the Venezuelan dictator who died in 2013. She has also said that Dominion used a secret algorithm to rig the 2020 election. Her lawsuits regarding Dominion were dismissed because of lack of evidence.

Until now, Powell paid a low price for public conspiracy-mongering. In fact, it may have been financially profitable: Dominion argues in its lawsuit that Powell used her newfound fame to sell books and gain clients.

Dominion had previously threatened legal action against several media outlets that were peddling provably false claims, such as Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News. Once their price of being irrational went up, the outlets immediately started “consuming” less irrationality. Newsmax even aired a nearly two-minute “clarification” retracting nearly all of its stolen-election claims. It is worth watching.

Powell is currently weighing the likely monetary cost of a case she will likely lose against the nonmonetary costs of losing face, admitting error, and caving in to her opponents. But now that the price of her conspiracy theorizing has gone up, we can almost certainly expect her to consume less of it.

Public officials who played a role in inciting the coup attempt, such as President Trump, Sen. Josh Hawley, and Sen. Ted Cruz, are also seeing a price increase for their irrationality. All three are facing calls for their resignation, and their political prospects are suffering long-term damage. The price change they face will hopefully improve their behavior going forward. President Trump even grudgingly committed to a peaceful change of power for the first time. Even without further consequences, the three men’s diminished power should at least limit the amount of damage they can cause.

Many of the rioters will face legal consequences for their actions, raising the price of their irrationality. At the very least, the rioters and their sympathizers will likely tone down their violence and rhetoric in response to the price change.

There are a lot of other factors involved in the ugly history we all witnessed on Jan. 6. Larger socioeconomic conditions, COVID-related cabin fever, personal grievances, and in some cases mental illness may also have been factors in the coup attempt.

Thinking about conspiracy theories as a consumer good does not explain everything. But it can help us understand. Raising the “prices” conspiracy theorists pay for their fantasies, within the bounds of First Amendment protections and consistent with common decency, will help rein in the costs they impose on others. That can improve the national political conversation and help prevent more violence.

Ryan Young is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

0條Plus
精彩評論
評論

撰寫或查看更多評論

請打開財富Plus APP

前往打開