Fascism

September 30, 2025

28 Cognitive Distortions

Sometimes our minds play tricks on us. They can convince us that untrue things are true, or vice versa.

Cognitive distortions are bad mental habits. They’re patterns of thinking that tend to be negatively slanted, inaccurate, and often repetitive — the very opposite of healthy, critical thinking.

These unhelpful ways of thinking can limit one’s ability to function and excel in the world. Cognitive distortions are linked to anxiety, depression, addiction, and eating disorders. They reinforce negative thinking loops, which tend to compound and worsen over time.

Irrational thinking: And how to counter it

Every day, our minds take shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information we encounter. These shortcuts—cognitive distortions—helped our ancestors survive in environments where quick judgments meant the difference between life and death. But in today’s complex world, where we’re making decisions about careers, relationships, investments, and strategy, these same mental patterns can systematically lead us astray.

Cognitive distortions are systematic patterns of thought that can lead to inaccurate or irrational conclusions. These distortions often serve as mental traps, skewing our perception of reality and affecting our emotional well-being.

The good news? Simply knowing these distortions (as well as other common psychological biases) exist makes you a better thinker. Research in metacognition shows that awareness is the first step toward correction. You can’t debug code you don’t know is buggy, and you can’t fix thinking patterns you can’t see.

Here’s the hard truth: everyone experiences these distortions. The difference between mediocre and exceptional decision-makers isn’t that one group never falls into these traps—it’s that they’ve trained themselves to spot the patterns, pause, and course-correct. They’ve built systems to counteract their brain’s default programming.

Types of cognitive distortion

What types of cognitive distortion should we be aware of? Let’s delve into three common types: emotional reasoning, counterfactual thinking, and catastrophizing.

Emotional Reasoning: This distortion involves using one’s emotions as a barometer for truth. For example, if you feel anxious, you might conclude that something bad is going to happen, even if there’s no objective evidence to support that belief. Emotional reasoning can create a self-perpetuating cycle: your emotions validate your distorted thoughts, which in turn intensify your emotions.
Counterfactual Thinking: This involves imagining alternative scenarios that could have occurred but didn’t. While this can be useful for problem-solving and learning, it becomes a cognitive distortion when it leads to excessive rumination and regret. For instance, thinking “If only I had done X, then Y wouldn’t have happened” can make you stuck in a loop of what-ifs, preventing you from moving forward.
Catastrophizing: This is the tendency to imagine the worst possible outcome in any given situation. It’s like always expecting a minor stumble to turn into a catastrophic fall. This distortion can lead to heightened stress and anxiety, as you’re constantly bracing for disaster.

But there are many more mental pitfalls to watch out for besides just these 3. The table below catalogues some of the most common cognitive distortions that shape (and warp) human thinking. As you read through them, you’ll likely recognize patterns from your own mental habits. That moment of recognition isn’t a weakness—it’s the beginning of cognitive sovereignty. The path to better decisions starts with knowing when your brain is trying to take shortcuts, and choosing to think deliberately instead.

Consider this your debugging toolkit for the most important software you’ll ever run: your own mind.

Cognitive distortions list

Cognitive distortion	Explanation	Example
all-or-nothing thinking	viewing everything in absolute and extremely polarized terms	“nothing good ever happens” or “I’m always behind”
blaming	focusing on other people as source of your negative feelings, & refusing to take responsibility for changing yourself; or conversely, blaming yourself harshly for things that were out of your control	“It’s my boss’s fault I’m always stressed at work, or conversely, “It’s all my fault that the project failed, even though I had no control over the budget cuts.”
catastrophizing	belief that disaster will strike no matter what, and that what will happen will be too awful to bear	If I don’t get this promotion, my life will be ruined and I’ll end up homeless.
counterfactual thinking	A kind of mental bargaining or longing to live in the alternate timeline where one had made a different decision	If only I had studied harder for that exam, I wouldn’t be in this situation now.
dichotomous thinking	viewing events or people in all-or-nothing terms	“If I don’t get a perfect score on this test, then I’m a complete failure.”
discounting positives	claiming that positive things you or others do are trivial, or ignoring good things that have happened to you	“I got a promotion, but it’s not a big deal; anyone could have done it.”
emotional reasoning	letting feelings guide interpretation of reality; a way of judging yourself or your circumstances based on your emotions	“I feel like a failure, so I must be one.”
filtering	mentally “filters out” the positive aspects of a situation while magnifying the negative aspects	Even though I got a promotion and a raise, I can’t stop thinking about the one negative comment my boss made during my performance review.
fortune-telling	predicting the future negatively	I just know I’m going to fail this test, even though I’ve studied for weeks.
framing effects	tendency for decisions to be shaped by inconsequential features of choice problems	Choosing the “90% fat-free” yogurt over the “10% fat” yogurt, even though they are nutritionally identical, because the positive framing sounds healthier.
halo effect	belief that one’s success in a domain automagically qualifies them to have skills and expertise in other areas	Because someone is a successful actor, I assume they must also be a brilliant political commentator.
illusory correlation	tendency to perceive a relationship between two variables when no relation exists	Every time I wash my car, it rains, so I must be causing the rain.
inability to disconfirm	reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict negative thoughts	Despite being shown evidence of her good work, she clung to the belief that she was incompetent.
intuitive heuristics	tendency when faced with a difficult question of answering an easier question instead, typically without noticing the substitution	When asked if they are a happy person, someone might answer if they are happy right now, instead of considering their overall happiness.
just-world hypothesis	belief that good things tend to happen to good people, while bad things tend to happen to bad people	She believes that because she works hard and is a good person, she is guaranteed to win the lottery, while bad things only happen to those who deserve it.
labeling	assigning global negative traits to self & others; making a judgment about yourself or someone else as a person, versus seeing the behavior as something they did that doesn’t define them as an individual	“I’m a complete idiot for making that mistake,” instead of “I made a mistake.”
ludic fallacy	in assessing the potential amount of risk in a system or decision, mistaking the real randomness of life for the well-defined risk of casinos	A gambler believes that since a roulette wheel has landed on red five times in a row, it’s more likely to land on black next, mistaking the independent probability of each spin for a predictable pattern.
magical thinking	a way of imagining you can wish reality into existence through the sheer force of your mind. Part of a child developmental phase that not everyone grows out of.	If I just wish hard enough, I can make my dream job appear without applying for it.
magnification	exaggerating the importance of flaws and problems while minimizing the impact of desirable qualities and achievements	Even though I successfully completed the complex project, I can’t stop focusing on the minor typo I made in one email.
mind reading	assuming what someone is thinking w/o sufficient evidence; jumping to conclusions	My boss didn’t say good morning, so she must be angry with me.
negative filtering	focusing exclusively on negatives & ignoring positives	Even after receiving a glowing performance review, she could only dwell on the one minor suggestion for improvement.
nominal realism	child development phase where names of objects aren’t just symbols but intrinsic parts of the objects. Sometimes called word realism, and related to magical thinking	A child believing that if you call a dog a “cat,” it will actually become a cat, demonstrates nominal realism.
overgeneralizing	making a rule or predicting globally negative patterns on the basis of single incident	Because I tripped on the sidewalk today, I know it’s going to be a terrible week.
projection	attributing qualities to external actors or forces that one feels within and either a) wishes to promote and have echoed back to onself, or b) eradicate or squelch from oneself by believing that the quality exists elsewhere, in others, but not in oneself	He accused his coworker of being lazy, when in reality, he was struggling with his own motivation.
provincialism	the tendency to see things only from the point of view of those in charge of our immediate in-groups	She couldn’t understand why anyone would disagree with her team’s strategy, assuming their way was the only correct approach because it’s what her superiors believed.
shoulds	a list of ironclad rules one lives and punishes oneself by	“I should always be perfect, and if I’m not, I’m a complete failure.”
teleological fallacy	illusion that you know exactly where you’re going, knew exactly where you were going in the past, & that others have succeeded in the past by knowing where they were going	I always knew I would become a successful entrepreneur because every step I took, even the detours, perfectly led me to this point.
what if?	keep asking series of ?s on prospective events & being unsatisfied with any answers	What if I fail the exam, and what if that means I’ll never get into college, and what if my whole future is ruined because of this one test?

More related to cognitive distortions:

30 Common psychological biases ↗

These systematic errors in our thinking and logic affect our everyday choices, behaviors, and evaluations of others.

Top Mental Models for Thinkers ↗

Model thinking is an excellent way of improving our cognition and decision making abilities.

24 Logical fallacies list ↗

Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.

September 28, 2025

Black and White Thinking

Black and white thinking is the tendency to see things in extremes, viewing the world through a very polarized lens. Even complex moral issues are seen as clearcut, with simple right and wrong answers and no gray areas in between.

Also referred to as all-or-nothing thinking or dichotomous thinking, black and white thinking is a very rigid and binary way of looking at the world. Black and white thinkers tend to categorize things, events, people, and experiences as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuance or shades of gray. This can manifest in various aspects of their lives including relationships, decision-making, and self-evaluation. Black and white thinking can be a defense mechanism, as it provides a sense of certainty and control in situations that are complex, uncertain, or anxiety-provoking.

For example, a person who engages in black and white thinking may view their work performance as either completely successful or a complete failure, without considering any middle ground. They may view themselves as either a “good” or “bad” person, based on a single action or mistake. This type of extreme thinking can lead to feelings of extreme anxiety, depression, and self-doubt, as well as difficulties in personal and professional relationships.

Black and white thinking in political psychology

Black and white thinking can also be seen in political or social contexts, where individuals categorize people or groups as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuances or complexities. This type of thinking can lead to polarizing beliefs, rigid ideologies, and an unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue or compromise.

The origins of black and white thinking are complex and multifaceted, but it can stem from a variety of factors, including childhood experiences, cultural and societal influences, and psychological disorders including personality disorder. For example, individuals who have experienced trauma or abuse may engage in black and white thinking as a way to cope with the complexity and ambiguity of their experiences. Similarly, cultural or societal influences that promote a strict adherence to binary categories can also contribute to black and white thinking.

Psychological disorders such as borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders are also associated with black and white thinking. For example, individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) may see themselves or others as either completely good or completely bad, without any middle ground. This type of thinking can lead to unstable relationships, impulsive behavior, and emotional dysregulation.

Narcissists too, especially malignant narcissists, tend to exhibit black and white thinking, with the frequent framing of any narrative as being primarily about themselves (good/The Hero) and everyone else (bad/The Other).

Black and White Thinking: Understanding binary cognition in the modern era

The Digital Amplification of Binary Thinking

The modern information ecosystem has created unprecedented conditions for black and white thinking to flourish. Social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, systematically promote content that evokes strong emotional responses—often content that presents complex issues in oversimplified, polarizing terms.

Algorithmic Reinforcement Mechanisms

Contemporary digital platforms operate on engagement metrics that inadvertently reward binary thinking:

Filter Bubble Formation: Recommendation algorithms create echo chambers where users primarily encounter information that confirms their existing beliefs
Engagement Optimization: Content that provokes outrage or strong agreement receives higher distribution (and ultimately, revenue), marginalizing nuanced perspectives
Attention Economy Dynamics: The competition for limited attention spans incentivizes simplified, emotionally charged messaging over complex analysis — going straight for the jugular of common mental heuristics works

Information Processing Under Cognitive Load

Research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that when individuals experience high cognitive load—a common state in our information-saturated environment—they default to simplified decision-making heuristics. This neurological tendency combines with digital information delivery systems to create systematic biases toward binary categorization.

Contemporary Political Manifestations

Black and white thinking has become increasingly prominent in political discourse, with profound implications for democratic institutions and social cohesion.

Institutional Polarization Patterns

Recent decades have witnessed unprecedented levels of political polarization across multiple institutional domains:

Legislative Dynamics: Congressional voting patterns show dramatic increases in party-line voting, with bipartisan legislation becoming increasingly rare. This reflects not just strategic positioning but fundamental shifts in how political actors conceptualize policy problems and solutions.

Media Ecosystem Fragmentation: The proliferation of ideologically aligned media sources enables individuals to construct information diets that reinforce binary worldviews. Traditional journalistic ethics of objectivity and balance in a fundamentally evidentiary role have been challenged by partisan media models that explicitly advocate for particular political perspectives.

Electoral Coalition Building: Political campaigns increasingly rely on mobilizing base supporters through appeals to fundamental differences with opponents, rather than building broad coalitions through compromise and incremental policy development.

Identity-Based Political Cognition

Modern political psychology research reveals how black and white thinking intersects with identity formation:

Social Identity Theory: Individuals derive significant psychological satisfaction from in-group membership and out-group differentiation
Motivated Reasoning: People process political information in ways that protect their group identities and existing belief systems
Moral Foundations: Different political coalitions emphasize different moral frameworks, creating seemingly irreconcilable worldview differences

Systemic Analysis: Institutional Impacts

Black and white thinking creates cascade effects across multiple institutional systems:

Democratic Governance Challenges

Compromise Mechanisms: Effective democratic governance requires negotiation and compromise between competing interests. Binary thinking undermines these processes by framing compromise as betrayal of fundamental principles.

Policy Implementation: Complex policy challenges—from healthcare to climate change to economic inequality—require nuanced, multifaceted solutions. Binary thinking promotes oversimplified policy approaches that often fail to address underlying systemic issues.

Constitutional Design: Democratic institutions assume citizens capable of evaluating competing claims and making informed choices. Black and white thinking can undermine these foundational assumptions necessary to making democracy work.

Economic System Implications

Market Dynamics: Binary thinking in economic contexts can create boom-bust cycles, as investors and consumers oscillate between extreme optimism and pessimism without recognizing gradual trends and mixed signals.

Innovation Ecosystems: Complex technological and business model innovation requires tolerance for ambiguity and iterative development. Binary thinking can stifle innovation by demanding immediate, clear success metrics. It turns out that diversity is good to the bottom line, actually.

Labor Relations: Effective workplace dynamics require ongoing negotiation between competing interests. Binary thinking can transform routine workplace disagreements into fundamental conflicts.

Mental Model Frameworks for Analysis

Understanding black and white thinking requires sophisticated analytical frameworks:

The Cognitive Bias Cascade Model

Black and white thinking rarely operates in isolation but typically forms part of broader cognitive bias patterns:

Confirmation Bias: Seeking information that confirms existing beliefs
Availability Heuristic: Overweighting easily recalled examples
Fundamental Attribution Error: Attributing others’ behavior to character rather than circumstances
Group Attribution Error: Assuming individual group members represent entire groups

Systems Thinking Applications

Effective analysis of black and white thinking requires systems-level perspective:

Feedback Loops: How binary thinking creates self-reinforcing cycles that become increasingly difficult to break

Emergence Properties: How individual cognitive patterns create collective social and political dynamics

Leverage Points: Identifying where interventions might most effectively disrupt binary thinking patterns

Historical Pattern Recognition

Historical analysis reveals recurring patterns in how societies navigate between binary and nuanced thinking:

Crisis Periods: Times of social stress typically increase binary thinking as individuals seek certainty and clear action frameworks

Institutional Adaptation: How democratic institutions evolve mechanisms to manage polarization and maintain governance capacity

Cultural Evolution: How societies develop norms and practices that promote or discourage binary thinking

Contemporary Case Studies

Social Media Discourse Patterns

Analysis of millions of social media posts reveals systematic patterns in how binary thinking spreads:

Viral Content Characteristics: Posts that go viral disproportionately feature binary framing of complex issues
Engagement Metrics: Binary content generates higher levels of shares, comments, and emotional reactions
Network Effects: Binary thinking spreads through social networks more rapidly than nuanced analysis

Political Movement Dynamics

Examination of contemporary political movements reveals how binary thinking shapes organizational development:

Movement Mobilization: Binary framing helps movements build initial coalition support by clarifying friend-enemy distinctions

Strategic Communication: Binary messaging dominates political advertising and fundraising appeals

Coalition Maintenance: Binary thinking can help maintain group cohesion but may limit strategic flexibility

black and white thinking as a tool of dictators around the world

Crisis Response Patterns

Analysis of responses to major crises—from pandemics to economic disruptions to international conflicts—demonstrates how binary thinking affects collective decision-making:

Policy Development: Crisis conditions often promote binary policy choices that may not address underlying complexity

Public Communication: Crisis communication frequently relies on binary framing to motivate public compliance with policy measures

International Relations: Crisis situations can push diplomatic relations toward binary alliance structures

Neurological and Psychological Foundations

Understanding black and white thinking requires examining its neurological and psychological foundations:

Cognitive Processing Systems

System 1 vs System 2 Thinking: Daniel Kahneman’s research demonstrates how automatic, intuitive thinking (System 1) tends toward binary categorization, while deliberative thinking (System 2) enables more nuanced analysis.

Threat Detection Mechanisms: Evolutionary psychology suggests that binary thinking may have adaptive advantages in environments requiring quick threat assessment, but becomes maladaptive in complex modern contexts.

Cognitive Load Theory: When individuals experience high cognitive load, they default to simplified decision-making processes that favor binary categorization.

Developmental Psychology Perspectives

Moral Development Stages: Lawrence Kohlberg’s research on moral development shows how individuals progress from binary moral thinking toward more sophisticated ethical reasoning frameworks.

Identity Formation: Erik Erikson’s work on identity development demonstrates how binary thinking can serve important functions during identity formation periods but may become problematic if it persists into adulthood.

Attachment Theory: Insecure attachment patterns can promote binary thinking about relationships and social situations as defensive mechanisms.

Organizational and Institutional Responses

Educational System Adaptations

Educational institutions increasingly recognize the need to develop students’ capacity for nuanced thinking:

Critical Thinking Curricula: Programs specifically designed to help students recognize and resist binary thinking patterns

Media Literacy: Training students to recognize how information systems promote simplified thinking

Interdisciplinary Approaches: Educational approaches that demonstrate how complex problems require multiple perspectives and methodological approaches

Democratic Institution Reforms

Various proposals aim to reduce the institutional incentives for binary thinking:

Electoral System Design: Ranked-choice voting and other electoral innovations that reward coalition-building over polarization

Deliberative Democracy: Institutional mechanisms that bring citizens together for structured discussion of complex policy issues

Legislative Process Reform: Procedural changes that incentivize negotiation and compromise over partisan positioning

Technology Platform Governance

Growing recognition of how digital platforms shape thinking patterns has led to various reform proposals:

Algorithm Transparency: Requiring platforms to disclose how their algorithms prioritize content

Engagement Metric Alternatives: Developing metrics beyond simple engagement that reward constructive discourse

Digital Literacy: Public education initiatives to help users recognize and resist algorithmic manipulation

Constructive Frameworks for Addressing Binary Thinking

Individual-Level Interventions

Mindfulness Practices: Regular mindfulness meditation has been shown to increase tolerance for ambiguity and reduce automatic binary categorization.

Cognitive Behavioral Techniques: Specific therapeutic approaches for identifying and challenging binary thought patterns.

Exposure to Complexity: Deliberately seeking out information sources and experiences that present complex, nuanced perspectives on important issues.

Perspective-Taking Exercises: Structured practices for understanding how situations appear from multiple viewpoints.

Community-Level Initiatives

Dialogue and Deliberation Programs: Community-based initiatives that bring together people with different perspectives for structured conversation about local issues.

Collaborative Problem-Solving: Community projects that require cooperation across different groups and perspectives.

Civic Education: Educational programs that help citizens understand how democratic institutions work and why compromise is essential for effective governance.

Cross-Cutting Social Connections: Initiatives that help people form relationships across traditional dividing lines.

Institutional Design Principles

Procedural Safeguards: Institutional mechanisms that slow down decision-making processes to allow for more deliberative consideration of complex issues.

Stakeholder Inclusion: Decision-making processes that systematically include multiple perspectives and interests.

Transparency and Accountability: Mechanisms that make decision-making processes visible and subject to public scrutiny.

Adaptive Management: Institutional frameworks that allow for policy adjustment based on evidence and changing circumstances.

Implications for Democratic Resilience

The prevalence of black and white thinking poses significant challenges for democratic governance:

Representation and Legitimacy

Electoral Representation: Binary thinking can undermine representative democracy by making it difficult for elected officials to represent diverse constituencies with complex, sometimes conflicting interests.

Institutional Legitimacy: When citizens view political institutions through binary lenses, it becomes difficult to maintain the shared commitment to democratic norms necessary for effective governance.

Minority Rights: Binary thinking can threaten minority rights by reducing complex questions of individual liberty and collective welfare to simple majority-minority power dynamics.

Policy Development and Implementation

Evidence-Based Policy: Effective policy development requires careful consideration of evidence, trade-offs, and unintended consequences—all of which are undermined by binary thinking.

Policy Adaptation: Democratic institutions must be able to adapt policies based on new evidence and changing circumstances, which requires tolerance for complexity and ambiguity.

Cross-Sector Coordination: Modern policy challenges often require coordination across different levels of government and between public and private sectors, which is complicated by binary thinking.

Future Research Directions

Understanding and addressing black and white thinking requires ongoing research across multiple disciplines:

Technology and Cognition

AI and Decision-Making: How artificial intelligence systems might be designed to promote nuanced rather than binary thinking.

Digital Environment Design: Research on how different digital interface designs affect cognitive processing and decision-making.

Virtual Reality and Perspective-Taking: How immersive technologies might be used to help individuals understand complex situations from multiple perspectives.

Political Psychology and Behavior

Motivation and Binary Thinking: Research on what motivates individuals to adopt or resist binary thinking patterns in political contexts.

Group Dynamics: How binary thinking spreads through social networks and political organizations.

Leadership and Framing: How political leaders can effectively communicate about complex issues without resorting to binary framing.

Institutional Design and Reform

Comparative Democratic Systems: Analysis of how different democratic institutions manage polarization and promote constructive political discourse.

Experimental Governance: Small-scale experiments with different institutional designs that might reduce incentives for binary thinking.

Technology Governance: Research on how to regulate digital platforms in ways that promote constructive rather than polarizing discourse.

Toward cognitive complexity

Black and white thinking represents a fundamental challenge to effective individual decision-making, social cooperation, and democratic governance. While binary thinking may have served adaptive functions in simpler environments, the complexity of modern challenges requires more sophisticated cognitive frameworks.

Addressing this challenge requires coordinated efforts across multiple levels—from individual practices that promote cognitive flexibility to institutional reforms that reduce incentives for polarization. The stakes are particularly high for democratic societies, which depend on citizens’ capacity to engage constructively with complexity and difference.

The path forward requires neither naive optimism nor cynical resignation, but rather sustained commitment to developing our collective capacity for nuanced thinking about complex problems. This involves both protecting democratic institutions from the corrosive effects of extreme polarization and actively building new capabilities for constructive engagement across difference — knowing that some will disagree and continuously fight us on reforms.

Understanding black and white thinking is not merely an academic exercise but an urgent practical necessity for navigating the challenges of the 21st century. By developing more sophisticated analytical frameworks and practical interventions, we can work toward societies that are both more thoughtful and more effective at solving complex collective problems.

Getting “separation of state” backwards

Prominent Christian nationalist David Barton re-interprets the famous 1802 Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists to allege support for a “one-way wall” between church and state. Barton contends that Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall of separation” was intended to protect religious institutions from government interference rather than ensuring the government’s secular nature. By advocating for this one-directional barrier, Barton seeks to justify the integration of religious principles into public policy and government actions — improbably, given the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Barton and his fellow Christian nationalists are either intentionally or unfathomably not taking the logical next step in the chain of power and authority: if the government is informed, infused, or even consumed by religious dogma and doctrine, then is that government not by definition infringing on the rights of any citizens that happens not to believe in that code or creed?

The answer, as we well know from the colonization of America itself, is YES. We left the Church of England in large part to worship of our own accord — and to make money, of course. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Washington were especially concerned about religious liberty and the neutrality of government in religious matters.

Thus, in large part, the ideas of the Christian nationalists are misinterpretations at best, and willful invention at worst. In some it is clearly a naked power grab and not much more — think of Trump holding an upside-down Bible in Lafayette Square. In general, Christian nationalism doesn’t actually seem very Christian at all.

Whether they are True Believers or Opportunistic Cynics, the Christian nationalist organizations and right wing groups on this list — as well as a number of prominent individuals within these organizations — represent a threat to democracy as we know it — especially with Project 2025 so close to coming to fruition in a second Trump administration. Best we get a look at who they are.

April 22, 2025

Twitter Timeline: From Public Square to X, a Right-Wing Cesspool

Elon Musk wearing a t-shirt that says "Occupy Your Data"

Twitter Timeline (aka ‘X’): From Founding to Present

Few platforms have so profoundly shaped the 21st-century media and political landscape as Twitter. Launched in 2006 as a quirky microblogging experiment in Silicon Valley, Twitter rapidly evolved into a global public square — a real-time newswire, activism megaphone, cultural barometer, and political battleground all in one. From the Arab Spring to #BlackLivesMatter, celebrity feuds to presidential declarations, Twitter didn’t just reflect the world — it influenced it.

But in 2022, everything changed.

The takeover by Elon Musk, the billionaire tech entrepreneur and self-styled “free speech absolutist,” marked a sharp and chaotic break from Twitter’s legacy. In short order, Musk dismantled key moderation teams, reinstated accounts once banned for extremism or disinformation, and transformed the platform into a private entity under his X Corp umbrella. The iconic blue bird gave way to a stark new identity: X — signaling not just a rebrand, but a fundamental shift in mission, culture, and political alignment.

This timeline chronicles Twitter’s full arc from inception to its present incarnation as X: a detailed account of its business milestones, technological evolution, political influence, and growing alignment with right-wing ideology under Musk’s ownership. Drawing on a wide range of journalistic and academic sources, this narrative highlights how a once-fractious but largely liberal-leaning tech company became a controversial hub for “anti-woke” politics, misinformation, and culture war skirmishes — with global implications.

2006 – Birth of a New Platform

March 2006: In a brainstorming at Odeo (a San Francisco podcast startup founded by Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams — the latter of whom would go on to later found the longform writing platform Medium), Jack Dorsey and colleagues conceive a text-message status sharing service. By March 21, Dorsey sends the first-ever tweet – “just setting up my twttr”, marking Twitter’s official creation.
July 2006: Twitter (then styled “twttr” as was the vowel-less fashion at the time) launches to the public as a microblogging platform allowing 140-character posts. It initially operates under Odeo, but in October the founders form the Obvious Corporation and buy out Odeo’s investors, acquiring Twitter’s intellectual property.
August – September 2006: Early users begin to see Twitter’s potential. In August, tweets about a California earthquake demonstrate Twitter’s value for real-time news by eyewitnesses. In September, twttr is rebranded as Twitter after acquiring the domain, finally graduating into the land of vowels.

2007 – Rapid Growth and Social Buzz

March 2007: Twitter gains international buzz at the SXSW conference Interactive track. Usage explodes when attendees use it for real-time updates, a tipping point that greatly expands Twitter’s userbase.
April 2007: Spun off as its own company, Twitter, Inc. begins to operate independently from Obvious Corp, the parent company of Odeo. Twitter also closes its first venture funding round in April, raising $5 million led by Union Square Ventures and venture capitalist Fred Wilson, who would become one of Twitter’s most influential backers, at a ~$20 million valuation. Other early investors included Ron Conway, Marc Andreessen, Chris Sacca, Joi Ito, and Dick Costolo (who would later become its CEO).
August 2007: User-driven innovation gives rise to the hashtag. Invented by user Chris Messina to group topics, the “#” hashtag debuts and later becomes an official Twitter feature for trend tracking. This year, Twitter’s growth is so rapid that frequent server crashes occur, introducing the world to the iconic “Fail Whale” error image created by artist Yiying Lu (a symbol of its early growing pains).

Yiying Lu, artist who created Twitter's iconic Fail Whale

March 27, 2025

About me

I was lucky enough to be one of the first professional tech bloggers, still work in digital media, and avidly keep up with the technology sector. Back in the proverbial day I covered the rise of social media from the launches and earliest days of Facebook (aka Meta), Twitter (aka X), YouTube, and a host of graveyard denizens from Friendster to MySpace (anyone remember tribe.net?!). I lived and worked in Silicon Valley for a time and became disillusioned with much of the ideology while remaining avidly interested in the pockets still driven by the idea of democratizing access to information.

Now I love tinkering with tools (especially AI, automation, and data analysis) as well as writing personal and experimental stuff on my blog(s). I’m also excited about the rise of decentralized social media projects like Bluesky, Mastodon, and other platforms meant to challenge surveillance capitalism and corporate dominance of the public square.

a mythical "corporate greed" supervillain as imagined by Midjourney AI

I’ve also been a political activist since my college years, and especially since 2015 have been pretty intensely into politics — which, among many other things, has led to an ongoing protracted “re-factoring” of what I thought I knew about American history.

An academic by temperament, I research various topics at depth as a “serious amateur.” For the past 9+ years I’ve been studying fascism, authoritarianism, narcissism, cults, disinformation, conspiracy theories, dark money, and Christian nationalism and their tributaries — many of which share intersection points. My love of information management keeps me juggling multiple projects and exploring the connections between topics worth taking a closer look at; I’m an incorrigible generalist in a specialists’ world, while craving meaningful depth into each subject.

Inspiration

I am motivated by some of the old school values of the internet — towards openness, democratization of information, shining light into dark spaces, giving a voice to the people beyond the gatekeepers of major media, and more. It’s lost a fair amount of that spirit now in the corporate scrum to own its vast landscapes, but it can still be found here and there — and I hope to offer another little output on the stormy seas for those who wander and wish to not feel lost.

I like to experiment and make new things as constantly as I can, which right now involves a lot of AI tools, including ChatGPT, Midjourney, Perplexity, NotebookLM, Leonardo.ai, Opus Clip, Descript, Replicate, Flux, Ideogram, RunwayML, Sora, minimax, Napkin AI, Suno V4, and others. It feels like the most exciting thing since the dawning of the internet age itself.

Ethics

I don’t take any sponsorship money for this site, because I’m not interested in tailoring my point of view towards whatever maximizes profit. In part because commerce content is my day job, I do monetize (for a pittance) through affiliate links to books — the kind of product I can get behind recommending strongly to people. It also helps me understand what my audience is most interested in, and allows me to track what people find compelling enough to take action on. If you click on my book links and end up ordering something from Amazon or bookshop, it helps me understand how better to interest and serve this audience. So please feel free to do so, but not obligated.

March 27, 2025

24 Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur when arguments are constructed or evaluated. They are deceptive and misleading, often leading to false or weak conclusions. Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.

These flaws in rhetorical logic can be observed aplenty in modern political and civil discourse. They are among the easiest types of argument to dispel, because their basic type has been discredited and compiled together with other discarded forms of rational persuasion, to make sure that ensuing generations don’t fall for the same tired old unethical ideas.

By understanding and identifying these common logical fallacies, individuals can sharpen their critical thinking skills and engage in more productive, rational discussions. Recognizing fallacies also helps avoid being swayed by deceptive or unsound arguments — which abound in increasing volume thanks to the prevalence of misinformation, disinformation, and disingenuous forms of motivated reasoning.

In an age of information overload, critical thinking has never been more essential. Whether you’re analyzing a news story, debating with friends, or writing a persuasive essay, your ability to recognize and avoid faulty reasoning can be the difference between clarity and confusion, persuasion and propaganda. At the heart of this effort lies this powerful concept of logical fallacies.

Types of logical fallacies

Logical fallacies fall into one of two main clusters:

Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies occur when there’s a flaw in the logical structure of an argument, rendering the conclusion invalid—even if the premises are true. Think of formal fallacies as broken logic circuits: they don’t connect, even if the parts look sound.

Example:

If it’s raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet, therefore it must be raining.
(This is a classic fallacy known as affirming the consequent.)

Informal Fallacies

Informal fallacies, on the other hand, relate to the content of the argument rather than its structure. These occur when the premises don’t adequately support the conclusion, even if the structure appears valid.

These informal logical fallacies are more common in everyday conversation and rhetoric. Informal fallacies usually stem from misused language, assumptions, or appeals to emotion rather than flawed logic alone. They’re trickier to spot because they often feel intuitive or persuasive.

Example:

Everyone’s doing it, so it must be right.
(This is the bandwagon fallacy—popular doesn’t mean correct.)

Within each of these two clusters is a number of different logical fallacies, each with its own pitfalls. Here are a few examples:

Ad Hominem: This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For instance, dismissing someone’s opinion on climate change because they’re not a scientist is an ad hominem fallacy.
Straw Man: This involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. If someone argues for better healthcare and is accused of wanting “socialized medicine,” that’s a straw man.
Appeal to Authority: This fallacy relies on the opinion of an “expert” who may not actually be qualified in the relevant field. Just because a celebrity endorses a product doesn’t mean it’s effective.
False Dichotomy: This fallacy presents only two options when, in fact, more exist. For example, stating that “you’re either with us or against us” oversimplifies complex issues.
Slippery Slope: This fallacy argues that a single action will inevitably lead to a series of negative events, without providing evidence for such a chain reaction.
Circular Reasoning: In this fallacy, the conclusion is used as a premise, creating a loop that lacks substantive proof. Saying “I’m trustworthy because I say I am” is an example.
Hasty Generalization: This involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. For instance, meeting two rude people from a city and concluding that everyone from that city is rude is a hasty generalization.

Understanding logical fallacies equips you to dissect arguments critically, making you a more informed participant in discussions. It’s a skill that’s invaluable in both professional and personal settings. Arm yourself with knowledge about this list of logical fallacies:

Fallacy	Definition	Example
Ad Hominem	Attacking the person instead of addressing their argument	“You can’t trust his economic policy ideas. He’s been divorced three times!”
Appeal to Authority	Using an authority’s opinion as definitive proof without addressing the argument itself	“Dr. Smith has a PhD, so her view on climate change must be correct.”
Appeal to Emotion	Manipulating emotions instead of using valid reasoning	“Think of the children who will suffer if you don’t support this policy!”
Appeal to Nature	Arguing that because something is natural, it is good, valid, or justified	“Herbal supplements are better than medication because they’re natural.”
Appeal to Tradition	Arguing that something is right because it’s been done that way for a long time	“We’ve always had this company policy, so we shouldn’t change it.”
Bandwagon Fallacy	Appealing to popularity as evidence of truth	“Everyone is buying this product, so it must be good.”
Begging the Question	Circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise	“The Bible is true because it’s the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so.”
Black-and-White Fallacy	Presenting only two options when more exist	“Either we cut the entire program, or we’ll go bankrupt.”
Cherry Picking	Selectively using data that supports your position while ignoring contradictory evidence	“Global warming can’t be real because it snowed last winter.”
Correlation vs. Causation	Assuming that because two events occur together, one caused the other	“Ice cream sales and drowning deaths both increase in summer, so ice cream causes drowning.”
Equivocation	Using a word with more than one meaning in a misleading way	“Evolution is just a theory, so it shouldn’t be taught as fact.” (Equivocating between scientific theory and casual speculation)
Fallacy of Composition	Inferring that something is true of the whole because it’s true of a part	“This cell is invisible to the naked eye, so the whole animal must be invisible too.”
Fallacy of Division	Inferring that something is true of the parts because it’s true of the whole	“The university has an excellent reputation, so every professor there must be excellent.”
Genetic Fallacy	Evaluating an argument based on its origins rather than its merits	“That idea came from a socialist country, so it must be bad.”
Hasty Generalization	Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is too small or biased	“I had two bad meals at restaurants in Italy, so Italian cuisine is terrible.”
Middle Ground Fallacy	Assuming that a compromise between two extremes must be correct	“Some people say the Earth is flat, others say it’s round. The truth must be that it’s somewhat flat and somewhat round.”
No True Scotsman	Redefining terms to exclude counterexamples	“No true environmentalist would drive an SUV.” When shown an environmentalist who drives an SUV: “Well, they’re not a true environmentalist then.”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc	Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B	“I wore my lucky socks and we won the game, so my socks caused our victory.”
Red Herring	Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue	“Why worry about environmental problems when there are so many people who can’t find jobs?”
Slippery Slope	Arguing that a small first step will inevitably lead to extreme consequences	“If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will want to marry their pets!”
Straw Man	Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack	“Vegetarians say we should eat no meat at all and let farmers go out of business.” (When they actually argue for reduced meat consumption)
Texas Sharpshooter	Cherry-picking data clusters to fit a pattern	“Look at these cancer cases clustered in this neighborhood – it must be caused by the power lines!” (While ignoring similar neighborhoods with power lines but no cancer clusters)
Tu Quoque	Avoiding criticism by turning it back on the accuser	“You say I should quit smoking, but you used to smoke too!”
Burden of Proof	Claiming something is true while putting the burden to disprove it on others	“I believe in ghosts. Prove to me that they don’t exist.”

How to identify logical fallacies

Spotting fallacies takes practice, but these tips can help sharpen your skills:

Slow down and dissect the argument. Look at the premises and conclusion—do they logically connect?
Watch for emotional appeals. If an argument relies more on stirring feelings than presenting evidence, be cautious.
Ask: what’s being left out? Many fallacies omit key context or alternate explanations.
Compare to real-world examples. Would the logic hold up elsewhere?

Everyday example:
“If we allow students to redo assignments, next they’ll expect to retake tests, and eventually no deadlines will matter at all.”
— This is a slippery slope fallacy. One action doesn’t necessarily lead to an extreme outcome.

Why avoiding logical fallacies matters

Logical fallacies don’t just weaken arguments—they erode trust, obscure truth, and inflame discourse. Here’s why learning to avoid them is critical:

In personal arguments: Fallacies can escalate tension and derail meaningful conversation.
In academic writing: Sound reasoning is the backbone of scholarship; fallacies undermine credibility.
In public discourse and media: Propaganda and misinformation often rely on fallacious reasoning to manipulate opinion. Recognizing these tactics is key to resisting them.

In a world where bad actors exploit fallacies for influence and profit, being fallacy-literate is a form of intellectual self-defense.

Logical fallacies quiz

Want to see if you know your logical fallacies? Just take our handy quiz and get them on lock as part of your foundational knowledge and model thinking library.

Logical Fallacies Quiz

Score: 0/0

Definitions Mode

Definition:

Which logical fallacy is this?

(Currently showing: Definition)

Example:

Which logical fallacy is demonstrated in this example?

(Currently showing: Example)

Meme Wars: How Digital Culture Became a Weapon Against Democracy

In their groundbreaking book “Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America,” researchers Joan Donovan, Emily Dreyfuss, and Brian Friedberg offer a chilling examination of how internet culture has been weaponized to undermine democratic institutions. Far from being a distant academic analysis, this book serves as an urgent warning about the very real dangers facing our democracy in the digital age.

When Internet Jokes Become Political Weapons

Remember when memes were just harmless internet jokes? Those days are long gone. “Meme Wars” meticulously documents how these seemingly innocent cultural artifacts have evolved into powerful weapons in a coordinated assault on American democracy — a form of information warfare that tears at our very ability to detect fantasy from reality at all, something that Hannah Arendt once warned of as a key tool of authoritarian regimes.

What makes this transformation particularly insidious is how easy it is to dismiss. After all, how could crudely drawn frogs and joke images possibly be a threat to democracy? Yet the authors convincingly demonstrate that this dismissive attitude is precisely what has allowed far-right operatives to wield memes so effectively.

The book reveals how figures like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Nick Fuentes, and Roger Stone have mastered the art of meme warfare. These digital provocateurs understand something that traditional political institutions have been slow to grasp: in today’s media environment, viral content can bypass established gatekeepers and directly shape public opinion at scale.

The Digital Radicalization Pipeline

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of “Meme Wars” is its detailed examination of what the authors call the “redpill right” and their techniques for radicalizing ordinary Americans. The process begins innocuously enough—a provocative meme shared by a friend, a YouTube video recommended by an algorithm—but can quickly lead vulnerable individuals down increasingly extreme ideological paths.

This digital radicalization operates through sophisticated emotional manipulation. Content is carefully crafted to trigger outrage, fear, or a sense of belonging to an in-group that possesses hidden truths. Over time, these digital breadcrumbs lead users into alternative information ecosystems that gradually reshape their perception of political reality.

From Online Conspiracy to Capitol Insurrection

“Meme Wars” provides what may be the most comprehensive account to date of how online conspiracy theories materialized into physical violence on January 6th, 2021. The authors trace the evolution of the “Stop the Steal” movement from fringe online forums to mainstream platforms, showing how digital organizing translated into real-world action.

The book presents the Capitol insurrection as the logical culmination of years of digital warfare. Participants like “Elizabeth from Knoxville” exemplify this new reality—simultaneously acting as insurrectionists and content creators, live-streaming their participation for online audiences even as they engaged in an attempt to overthrow democratic processes.

This fusion of digital performance and physical violence represents something genuinely new and dangerous in American politics. The insurrectionists weren’t just attacking the Capitol; they were creating content designed to inspire others to join their cause.

Inside the Digital War Rooms

What sets “Meme Wars” apart from other analyses of digital extremism is the unprecedented access the authors gained to the online spaces where anti-establishment actors develop their strategies. These digital war rooms function as laboratories where messaging is crafted, tested, and refined before being deployed more broadly.

The authors document how these spaces identify potential recruits, gradually expose them to increasingly extreme content, and eventually mobilize them toward political action. This sophisticated recruitment pipeline has proven remarkably effective at growing extremist movements and providing them with dedicated foot soldiers.

The Existential Threat to Democracy

At its core, “Meme Wars” is a book about the fundamental challenge digital manipulation poses to democratic governance. By deliberately stirring strong emotions and deepening partisan divides, meme warfare undermines the rational discourse and shared reality necessary for democratic deliberation.

The authors make a compelling case that these tactics represent an existential threat to American democracy. What’s more, the digital warfare techniques developed in American contexts are already being exported globally, representing a worldwide challenge to democratic institutions.

Confronting the Challenge

Perhaps the most important contribution of “Meme Wars” is its insistence that we recognize digital threats as real-world dangers. For too long, online extremism has been dismissed as merely virtual—something separate from “real” politics. The events of January 6th definitively shattered that illusion.

While the book doesn’t offer easy solutions, it makes clear that protecting democracy in the digital age will require new approaches from institutions, platforms, and citizens alike. We need digital literacy that goes beyond spotting fake news to understanding how emotional manipulation operates online. We need platforms that prioritize democratic values over engagement metrics. And we need institutions that can effectively counter extremist narratives without amplifying them.

A Must-Read for Democracy’s Defenders

“Meme Wars” is not just a political thriller, though it certainly reads like one at times. It is a rigorously researched warning about how extremist movements are reshaping American culture and politics through digital means. For anyone concerned with the preservation of democratic institutions, it should be considered essential reading.

The authors — including Joan Donovan, widely known and respected as a foremost scholar on disinformation — have performed a valuable service by illuminating the hidden mechanics of digital manipulation. Now it’s up to all of us to heed their warning and work to build democratic resilience in the digital age. The future of our democracy may depend on it.

March 2, 2025

The German Foreign Minister doesn’t mince words following Zelensky-Trump row in the Oval Office

Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelensky is dejected in his Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump

A Diplomatic Travesty in the Oval Office: Zelensky, Trump, and JD Vance’s Foreign Policy Ambush

The Oval Office has seen its share of tense diplomatic moments, but the recent clash between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former U.S. President Donald Trump—joined by Ohio Senator JD Vance—marks a new low in international decorum. What was expected to be a high-stakes discussion on Ukraine’s future and continued U.S. support instead devolved into a heated, profanity-laced exchange, described by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as ushering in a “new era of profanity.”

In a tense and extraordinary meeting in front of the cameras, President Trump and Vice President Vance confronted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated diplomatic ambush. With Russian state media present while major American outlets were excluded, Trump and Vance pressured Zelensky to accept terms highly favorable to Russia – including a ceasefire that would effectively cede Ukrainian territory and sign over rights to valuable rare-earth minerals without firm security guarantees in return. Zelensky pointed out that Putin had broken ceasefire agreements 25 times already — so what was his incentive to find this one credible, particularly without any concrete guarantees?

In response to a reporter’s question about the US’s sudden shift away from its staunch Cold War stance to embracing Russia, Trump complained that Zelensky showed “such hate” towards Putin, who — he alleged — has suffered very badly (hatred being more impactful than military invasion, I guess?). When Zelensky remained composed and warned that the United States might “feel problems” due to its shifting alliance toward Russia, Trump grew visibly agitated, repeatedly insisting Americans would “feel very good and very strong” instead, while Vance accused the Ukrainian leader of being ungrateful for American support — as someone insecure and in need of praise would do.

Ukraine PResident Volodomyr Zelensky is skeptical of Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office with Trump

The situation escalated when Zelensky calmly but firmly stated that Trump and Vance would “feel influenced” by Russia, triggering an extended, angry tirade from Trump that veered into his grievances about Russian election interference investigations, criticisms of former Presidents Biden and Obama, and rhetoric that closely mirrored Putin’s talking points and invented conspiracy theories on Ukraine.

February 26, 2025

What is totalitarianism?

totalitarianism as a mindless form of hero worship

What Is Totalitarianism? A Comprehensive Guide

In today’s complex geopolitical landscape, understanding different systems of governance is crucial for making sense of world events. Among these systems, totalitarianism stands out as one of the most extreme forms of government control. What exactly is totalitarianism, how does it function, and what can history teach us about its impacts — and how to fight back against its oppressive aims?

Defining Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is a form of government and political system that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It shares similarities with both fascism and authoritarianism, but unlike other authoritarian regimes, totalitarian states seek to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state. The term itself suggests the extreme “total” nature of this control—extending beyond purely political spheres into social, economic, cultural, and even private dimensions of human existence.

What distinguishes totalitarianism from other forms of authoritarianism is its ambition to erase the line between government and society entirely. Under totalitarianism, there is no concept of a private life outside the reach of state authority.

Key Characteristics of Totalitarian Regimes

1. Complete State Control of Society

Totalitarian states attempt to control virtually every aspect of social life:

Business and Economy: State-directed economic policies, often involving nationalization or collectivization of industries and resources
Labor: Control over labor unions, work assignments, and employment opportunities
Housing: Allocation and control of housing and living arrangements
Education: Strict control of curriculum and educational institutions to indoctrinate youth
Religion: Suppression or co-option of religious institutions
The Arts: Censorship and direction of artistic expression to serve state purposes
Personal Life: Intrusion into family relationships, leisure activities, and personal decisions
Youth Organizations: Creation of state-sponsored youth groups to foster loyalty from an early age

2. Dynamic Leader

Totalitarian systems typically center around a charismatic, authoritarian leader who:

Serves as the unifying symbol of the government
Builds a personality cult around themselves
Claims to embody the will of the people or nation
Encourages popular support through a combination of charisma and coercion
Is often portrayed as infallible or possessing extraordinary abilities

February 23, 2025

On Lying and Politics — Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt, author of "On Lying and Politics"

Hannah Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” is a collection of two seminal essays that explore the complex relationship between truth, lies, and political power. The book, published in 2022, includes “Truth and Politics” (1967) and “Lying in Politics” (1971), along with a new introduction by David Bromwich.

Key Themes of “On Lying and Politics”

The nature of political lies

Arendt argues that the phenomenon of lying in politics is not new, and that truthfulness has never been considered a political virtue. She posits that lies have long been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings, reflecting a deep-seated tension between truth and politics. However, Arendt also warns that excessive lying by political classes can lead to totalitarianism, where reality becomes entirely fictional.

Types of truth

Arendt distinguishes between two types of truth: factual and rational. She argues that factual truth is more vulnerable to political manipulation, as it is not self-evident and can be challenged like opinions. Rational truth, on the other hand, is more resilient as it can be reproduced through logical reasoning. Others can more easily verify on their own whether a rational truth checks out, whereas they cannot as easily go fact-finding — particularly about far-flung things that happen well outside their ken.

The impact of lies on democracy

Arendt explores how organized lying can tear apart our shared sense of reality, replacing it with a fantasy world of manipulated evidence and doctored documents. She argues that in a democracy, honest disclosure is crucial as it is the self-understanding of the people that sustains the government. This aligns with the idea that totalitarian governments can warp even the language itself, a la George Orwell’s Newspeak language in the classic novel 1984.

a scary world of disinformation, analyzed by the great Hannah Arendt

A Tale of Two Essays

“Truth and Politics” (1967)

In this essay, Arendt examines the affinity between lying and politics. She emphasizes that the survival of factual truth depends on credible witnesses and an informed citizenry. The essay explores how organized lying can degrade facts into mere opinions, potentially leading liars to believe their own fabrications in a self-deluding system of circular logic.

“Lying in Politics” (1971)

Written in response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, this essay applies Arendt’s insights to American policy in Southeast Asia. She argues that the Vietnam War and the official lies used to justify it were primarily exercises in image-making, more concerned with displaying American power than achieving strategic objectives.

Arendt’s perspective on political lying

Arendt views lying as a deliberate denial of factual truth, interconnected with the ability to act and rooted in imagination. She argues that while individual lies might succeed, lying on principle ultimately becomes counterproductive as it forces the audience to disregard the distinction between truth and falsehood.

Contemporary relevance

Arendt’s work remains highly relevant today, perhaps even more so than when it was written. Her analysis of how lies can undermine the public’s sense of reality and the dangers of political self-deception resonates strongly in our current political climate of disinformation, manipulation, and radicalization.

Today, even natural disasters are politicized — spawning dangerous conspiracy theories that do actual harm by discouraging people from getting help, among other tragedies of ignorance. And the right-wing is almost zealous about retconning the history trail and shoving things down the memory hole, including “rebranding” the J6 insurrection as a “day of love” and imagining away Donald Trump’s 34 felony counts.

Not to mention, the incredible contribution from Big Tech — whose tech bros have seen to it that political technology, and the study of professional manipulation, is alive and well. It’s been in the zeitgeist for a couple of decades now, and is now being accelerated — by the ascendancy of AI, Elon Musk, and the Silicon Valley branch of the right-wing wealth cult (Biden called it the tech-industrial complex).

“On Lying and Politics” feels fresh today

Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” provides a nuanced exploration — and a long-term view — of the role of truth and lies in political life. While acknowledging that lying has always been part of politics, Arendt warns of the dangers of excessive and systematic lying, particularly in democratic societies.

Her work continues to offer valuable insights into the nature of political deception and its impact on public life and democratic institutions. We would be wise to hear her warnings and reflect deeply on her insights, as someone who lived through the Nazi regime and devoted the remainder of her life’s work to analyzing what had happened and warning others. The similarities to our current times are disturbing and alarming — arm yourself with as much information as you can.

February 18, 2025

Accelerationism Dictionary

Accelerationism Dictionary: A Complete Terminology and Lexicon

AI accelerationism, or “e/acc,” is one of the most radical and controversial ideologies emerging from Silicon Valley today. At its core, it champions the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence, rejecting calls for regulation and safety measures in favor of unchecked innovation. Proponents argue that AI holds the key to solving humanity’s greatest challenges—climate change, poverty, disease—and even envision a post-human future where intelligence transcends biological limits.

With strong libertarian leanings, the movement prioritizes market-driven progress, believing that government intervention would stifle AI’s transformative potential. Tech billionaires like legendary venture capitalist Marc Andreessen have embraced these ideas, elevating what was once a fringe philosophy into a driving force in the AI industry.

However, AI accelerationism faces fierce criticism for its disregard of ethical considerations, social consequences, and potential existential risks. Detractors warn that unregulated AI development could exacerbate inequality, destabilize economies, and lead to dangerous technological outcomes without proper safeguards.

The movement stands in stark opposition to cautious, ethical AI development advocated by groups like the effective altruism community, setting up a high-stakes ideological battle over the future of artificial intelligence. Whether one sees AI accelerationism as a path to utopia or a reckless gamble, its growing influence makes it a defining force in the ongoing debate over technology’s role in shaping humanity’s future.

This accelerationism dictionary should help get anyone up to speed on this emerging and dangerous ideology. We’ll keep adding to it over time as the field continues to evolve at breakneck pace.

A dystopian AI hellscape -- one of many potential outcomes of AI accelerationism ideology

Accelerationism Dictionary

A

Accelerate or die: A common slogan in the e/acc movement expressing the belief that technological acceleration is necessary for survival.

Accelerationism: A philosophical and political movement advocating for the acceleration of technological, social, and economic progress. Can exist in left-wing, right-wing, and politically neutral forms.

AGI (Artificial General Intelligence): An artificial intelligence system capable of performing any intellectual task that a human can do.

AI supremacy: The belief or fear that artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence and capabilities, potentially dominating society, economies, and geopolitical power structures. It is often discussed in the context of global competition for technological dominance.

February 16, 2025

The tech bros have no clothes

Dave Karpf absolutely shreds Balaji Srinivasan’s book “The Network State” as the ravings of a rich delusional megalomaniac preening to his Silicon Valley peers who fancy themselves in Galt’s Gulch. These guys appear almost completely ignorant about the actual functions of a nation-state. If they want to declare themselves sovereign and secede from the United States, we ought to cut their sewage, water, and electric supply to give them a dose of the factual reality they so disdain.

What happens to these guys’ nerdy little crypto-enclaves when a much larger power (say, Russia…) decides to invade them and take their enormous stores of value they’ve bragged about removing from state protection? Especially after they’ve just ushered in the destruction of the post-WWII global order in which it was generally frowned upon for giant nations to gobble up their neighbors just because they could? 🤔

Moreover, what if that invader nation is simply the United States itself, once an administration comes to power that decides it is tired of dealing with its collection of ornery Confederate enclaves? Some might knuckle under peacefully, but there might also be some Waco events — except this time, with a lethal military strike justified by a president completely immune from prosecution and beyond the power of legislative or judicial oversight.

Please go away

What is stopping these guys from starting their start-up utopias right now? They are squintillionaires and could certainly buy land and start a community organized around whatever value system they want to run up the flagpole (arguably that seems to be the idea behind California Forever). Why isn’t Peter Thiel seasteading already and leaving us the fuck alone? Why does California Forever take Forever to operationalize when the entire premise of these techbro elites for decades has been that government (and specifically democracy) is too slow and they could totally build everything much faster and better if only given the chance?

February 5, 2025

Do Not Comply In Advance: What can we do?

The situation is, as they say in the military, FUBAR’d. We are under a full-on authoritarian attack to democracy in progress in broad daylight, being carried out by the (unfortunately) legitimate president and his illegitimate best buddy Elon Musk. What can we do — the situation seems so bleak, you say. I hear you and I feel you. But AOC and HCR (two of my favorite acronyms) are here to break it down about how we should not go quietly — and how to do it.

First up: what are we facing? Among other things, what is most probably the biggest data breach of all time — perpetrated by Elon’s Musk’s fake department DOGE. Former Republican strategist Stuart Stevens called Musk’s land grab of the federal till and all its payment information about citizens “the most significant data leak in cyber history.” On top of that, the conflicts of interest inherent in this unlawful caper are so staggering they’re well out of scope of this single blog post.

Elon Musk's head (poorly) stitched on to Miley Cyrus's body in the Wrecking Ball music video

Beyond that, Trump waited for Congress to go out of session before beginning the blitzkrieg of illegal Executive Orders and maneuvers designed to attack America and throw its citizens off balance. Here’s a list of the main actions we need to be pressing our Congresspeople to get answers for:

Events of the authoritarian push

Impoundment Attempt and Judicial Reversal:

Early in the Trump administration, an Office of Management and Budget memo attempted to freeze federal spending pending a review for alleged “DEI contamination”. A federal judge quickly ruled this action “blatantly unconstitutional,” forcing the administration to backtrack. However, related Executive Orders freezing some payments are said to “still be in order” which is (intentionally) causing confusion around the status of almost everything.

Elon Musk’s Intervention in the Treasury Payment System:

On Friday, Musk’s team pressured a long-serving Treasury official—the individual responsible for managing the government’s payment system—to resign. Following his departure, Musk’s team was granted limited (and highly questionable) access to this system, which processes all federal transactions.

Breach of USAID’s Secure Systems:

Musk’s people, reportedly a group of young men between 19 and 24 according to Wired, attempted to access a “secret area” within USAID (the agency responsible for U.S. foreign aid). In the process, two top officials were sidelined (put on administrative leave), and Musk’s team gained access, potentially compromising sensitive U.S. intelligence data.

Announced Cuts to Federal Programs:

Following these breaches, Musk (acting as a Trump ally) has claimed on social media that he is “cutting” certain federally funded programs, including a human services organization linked to the Lutheran Church. This move threatens funding for critical services such as migrant support, nursing homes, and possibly even affects Social Security and Medicare (though Trump has stated these will not be touched).

Tariffs and International Implications:

Additionally, Trump’s administration is imposing tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, which could inflict economic pain, especially in regions that predominantly support the Republican agenda.

These recent events (the inimitable Heather Cox Richardson covers them in-depth in her Letters from an American column) highlight an aggressive attack on constitutional governance marked by executive overreach and the manipulation of public funds. Actions such as unilateral spending freezes—disguised (thinly) as efforts to address DEI concerns—and the controversial transfer of control over federal financial systems to private interests like world’s richest man Elon Musk (who apparently still doesn’t have enough money) reveal a dangerous shift in power.

This reckless endangerment jeopardizes not only the integrity of critical public services and security measures but also the core democratic principle of accountability, underscoring an urgent need for citizens to remain vigilant and demand that elected officials uphold the constitutional order. We The People still wield the ultimate power — as AOC is about to so eloquently tell you more about.

AOC on what we can do: Do not comply in advance.

January 30, 2025

January 6 Pardons: Trump unleashes convicted violent criminals onto the streets

Of all the flurry of Trumpian executive orders in week 1 — many of them blatantly unconstitutional, like attempting to end birthright citizenship established in 1868 — one of the more controversial has been the issue of blanket pardons for about 1600 convicted January 6 offenders. The January 6 pardons have raised the ire of federal j udges, the Fraternal Order of Police, the DC Police Union, right-wing paper The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, numerous officials, and the public at large — to name a few.

Apparently a spur of the moment decision without much thought behind it, Trump hoped to get the specter of the January 6 coup behind him — only to Streisand Effect himself into a wave of negative attention. Meanwhile, after months (and years) of slander against immigrants and supposedly violent criminal immigrants rampaging across the country, it is in fact Donald Trump himself who unleashed hundreds of convicted violent offenders back onto the streets — where they are already actively plotting revenge.

I’m old enough to remember when the GOP was supposedly the “party of law and order,” and now they are a brazenly and recklessly lawless bunch. One of few upsides is that a wave of discontent is brewing.

Federal judges slam January 6 pardons

Several federal judges who presided over multiple criminal trials of the January 6 rioters weighed in on the official record about the judiciary’s outrage over the January 6 pardons, including Tanya Chutkan, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Amy Berman Jackson, and Beryl Howell.

US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had scathing words about the pardons:

“Dismissal of charges, pardons after convictions, and commutations of sentences will not change the truth of what happened on January 6, 2021. What occurred that day is preserved for the future through thousands of contemporaneous videos, transcripts of trials, jury verdicts, and judicial opinions analyzing and recounting the evidence through a neutral lens. Those records are immutable and represent the truth, no matter how the events of January 6 are described by those charged or their allies.”

Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed that nothing could wipe away the truth about the events of that terrible day:

“No stroke of a pen and no proclamation can alter the facts of what took place on January 6, 2021.”

Judge Tanya Chutkan had strong words as well, as she dismissed without prejudice a pending case still before her:

“The dismissal of this case cannot undo the ‘rampage [that] left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage.”

Original Sources: Judges clap back to January 6 pardons

I’ve been wanting to do more of a consistent focus on going back to the original sources of the news beyond just the media coverage or commentary about them. This experiment with NotebookLM‘s curiously compelling audio generation feature provides the best of both worlds: audio commentary on the original court filings referenced by the PBS story about strident judicial warnings attached to the January 6 pardons. Let me know what you think in the YouTube comments — I’m really still just experimenting with the channel.

Fascism

Irrational thinking: And how to counter it

Types of cognitive distortion

Cognitive distortions list

More related to cognitive distortions:

Black and white thinking in political psychology

Black and White Thinking: Understanding binary cognition in the modern era

The Digital Amplification of Binary Thinking

Algorithmic Reinforcement Mechanisms

Information Processing Under Cognitive Load

Contemporary Political Manifestations

Institutional Polarization Patterns

Identity-Based Political Cognition

Systemic Analysis: Institutional Impacts

Democratic Governance Challenges

Economic System Implications

Mental Model Frameworks for Analysis

The Cognitive Bias Cascade Model

Systems Thinking Applications

Historical Pattern Recognition

Contemporary Case Studies

Social Media Discourse Patterns

Political Movement Dynamics

Crisis Response Patterns

Neurological and Psychological Foundations

Cognitive Processing Systems

Developmental Psychology Perspectives

Organizational and Institutional Responses

Educational System Adaptations

Democratic Institution Reforms

Technology Platform Governance

Constructive Frameworks for Addressing Binary Thinking

Individual-Level Interventions

Community-Level Initiatives

Institutional Design Principles

Implications for Democratic Resilience

Representation and Legitimacy

Policy Development and Implementation

Future Research Directions

Technology and Cognition

Political Psychology and Behavior

Institutional Design and Reform

Toward cognitive complexity

Related concepts and further reading

More topics related to black and white thinking:

Getting “separation of state” backwards

Twitter Timeline (aka ‘X’): From Founding to Present

2006 – Birth of a New Platform

2007 – Rapid Growth and Social Buzz

Inspiration

Ethics

Types of logical fallacies

Formal Fallacies

Informal Fallacies

How to identify logical fallacies

Why avoiding logical fallacies matters

Logical fallacies quiz

Read more related to logical fallacies:

Meme Wars: How Digital Culture Became a Weapon Against Democracy

When Internet Jokes Become Political Weapons

The Digital Radicalization Pipeline

From Online Conspiracy to Capitol Insurrection

Inside the Digital War Rooms

The Existential Threat to Democracy

Confronting the Challenge

A Must-Read for Democracy’s Defenders

A Diplomatic Travesty in the Oval Office: Zelensky, Trump, and JD Vance’s Foreign Policy Ambush

What Is Totalitarianism? A Comprehensive Guide

Defining Totalitarianism

Key Characteristics of Totalitarian Regimes

1. Complete State Control of Society

2. Dynamic Leader

Key Themes of “On Lying and Politics”

The nature of political lies

Types of truth

The impact of lies on democracy

A Tale of Two Essays

“Truth and Politics” (1967)

“Lying in Politics” (1971)

Arendt’s perspective on political lying