How to Use NoNSense
How to Use NoNSense
Fact checking encourages accountability and accuracy in the political debate - but remember it's more important to win a convert to the truth than win an argument.
Today I’m launching NoNsense a new section of Notes on Nationalism that aims to give you the resources to effectively counter the myths, misinformation, and madcap conspiracy theories circulated by nationalists. Over time this will build into a searchable resource for activists.
Sometimes you find yourself engaging with someone online whose belief in their position is completely at odds with all the evidence. For example, in the debate about Scotland’s finances, many nationalists have created a framework where it is impossible for any evidence that Scotland benefits from being in the union to be admitted. If Scotland is such a drain on UK finances, why would they want to keep us, eh? This resource is not for those people.
This resource is also written with skepticism about the effectiveness of fact-checking.
Repeating the information contained in an inaccurate meme and the framing that contains it, even if you are only repeating it in order to challenge it, can simply amplify and reinforce your opponent’s false beliefs. Moreover, spending too much time talking about our opponent’s view of the world, even when we are pointing out it is based on lies, stops us from talking about our own ideas.
Some argue that the way to move people off of irrational views is to offer them a more compelling alternative story that fits with the values that lead them to hold the mistaken belief in the first place. For example, if you see someone arguing for leaving the UK on the basis that we Scots are a uniquely caring people, rather than pointing out that most people in most nations around the world are kind-hearted too, you might decide instead to argue that yes, we are caring, and caring people don’t walk away from their friends.
Others point out that the experience of online discussion is that nobody ever had their beliefs changed by facts. The idea here is that people simply ignore evidence that doesn’t fit with the conclusion they have already arrived at. Even worse the feeling that their deeply held beliefs are under attack by facts causes them to dig in even deeper. The truth is less important than the feeling of belonging people get from being part of a tribe.
So, why bother offering factual rebuttals of falsehoods?
Firstly, the binary tribes of the Scottish constitutional debate are not the only identities people hold. In fact, those people in the middle who do not take sides in the never-ending argument value other ideas above being seen as nationalists or a unionist. Alternatively, there are characteristics of those two tribes that they find off-putting.
Over the last decade, voters have watched a new breed of politicians emerge who have a new lexicon. These leaders offer “alternative facts”, and deride attempts to correct them as “fake news” or “scaremongering”. Meanwhile, online cults move from conspiracy theories about chemtrails, to 5G mobile masts, to vaccinations preying on the vulnerable and gullible.
The fact that so much of Scottish nationalist argument is based on denying basic facts is deeply unattractive. People do not want to be part of that tribe and so it is important to remind voters that the populist politics we see in Scotland shares characteristics with other movements that are hostile to evidence and expert opinion. Nobody wants to feel they are being manipulated by cynical actors who view them as gullible dupes.
Secondly, false information is often spread by people who don’t know and don’t care whether the idea they share is false. However, it is also spread by politicians who do know what they are saying isn’t true. If they operate in an environment where they are rewarded for such behavior then they will continue to do so.
You might doubt it, but most politicians still have a sense of shame. When they are challenged and held accountable for spreading false information embarrassment, it makes it less likely they will do so in the future. Those demagogues without shame require challenge too, as this is what more clearly defines them as part of unattractive trends. Building such a narrative requires concerted and collective effort.
In this sense the content I’ll provide in this new section isn’t about persuading the unpersuadable, it is to help make the various conspiracy theories of nationalism less socially acceptable in polite company and in doing so making them less powerful.
Those of us who long for informed political debate to replace the populist us-and-them narratives of politics can be smarter in how we challenge falsehoods. Below are four tips for doing this. I offer this advice fully aware that I too often fail to live up to them in my own online interactions. I’ll try to do better too!
1. Don’t start by repeating the misformation
Instead, start with what you want to say. When we start a conversation that seeks to correct a falsehood we need to be careful not to amplify the language used by our opponents or the worldview it seeks to encourage. Instead, we should try to start every interaction with our own values.
So, for example, the first NonSense takes on the myth that England stole Scottish oil wells on the eve of devolution. This nationalist myth frames resources as something Scotland and England are in competition for, rather than the way we see the world which is where resources are something we share for mutual benefit. The factual claim isn’t true, the border for oil wasn’t changed, but we have to be careful that, in refuting that falsehood we don’t encourage the debate that nationalists want: exclusive sovereignty rather than shared decision-making.
So the suggestion is to lead with the alternative worldview before explaining the real situation: We share some things with each other because it makes us all better off, but it is important to understand the border for oil was never changed.
2. Look for shared values.
Within every falsehood spreading across the internet is something positive. If the idea contained within the lie didn’t connect to a deeply felt positive value it would not spread. The most divisive political ideas appeal to a sense of community. Populist movements masquerade as something they are not.
People might be easily-lead if they share lies but they’re not evil. In responding to a mistaken belief look for the common ground between the truth you need to communicate and the positive idea that has become infected with a lie. Nationalism relies on othering and dehumanizing those of us who believe that we should share decision-making with our friends and neighbours. Before you can get them to accept a specific truth you need to look for the connection of the non-specific value behind the issue.
The bigger objective is to prevent these falsehoods from dividing people against each other, so start your conversations with the values that we share. For example, if you find yourself ten tweets into an argument about GERS, ask yourself if you might have been better starting with why that debate really matters: it is about our ability to heal people in the NHS, teach our kids, and look after the most vulnerable in our communities. Lies can hide more easily among abstract ideas.
3. Remember why conspiracy theories are so powerful.
Conspiracy theories make people feel smart. They appear to offer esoteric knowledge that is reassuring to people who were struggling to understand the complexity of a frightening world. In that sense nationalism is a grand conspiracy theory: your life is hard because a foreign elite, with different values to us, is stealing the resources that are our birthright. That narrative offers a one-size-fits-all analysis of any political problem that means those applying it can feel intellectually superior while being utterly ignorant.
Ironically, the best way to defeat a false conspiracy theory is with a true conspiracy theory. We need to talk about the motivations of those who spread these lies. They are spreading us-and-them narratives because they want you to be angry at outsiders rather than angry at the failures of their own government. Once misinformation is in the wild it is spread by unwitting dupes, but almost always they are being manipulated by someone whose narrow political interests the lie serves. Help people see the bigger conspiracy based on the truth behind the conspiracy theory that mixes truth with a big lie. Explain why this falsehood is being spread and who it benefits.
Going back to the example of the oil border myth, we make the suggestion that we say something like: Those who created this myth know it isn’t true but their political cause needs people to think of England as an enemy we are fighting with over resources.
4. Persuade don’t perform.
Care more about persuading people than defeating your opponents. By all means, if you see a politician engaging in nonsense, call them out. However, if you see someone in your own social network of friends and family sharing something that is factually incorrect, it is far better to send them a private friendly message with a link to some corrective information. Engaging in public correction of people with whom you share a common audience of friends is more likely to turn the conversation into a performative defence of opposing beliefs rather than a considered discussion of the facts.
If you are correcting a true believer who you don’t expect to persuade, remember your audience isn’t the person you are debating with but rather the persuadable third parties watching the conversation. Let your opponent engage in abuse or othering of you, but don’t reciprocate. Be the reasonable voice in the face of unreasonable and unattractive views.
If there is a mistruth, meme, or misunderstanding you see repeated again and again online, please get in touch to suggest it as a topic for a future edition of NoNSense.