vox--2020-09-01--Trump went full authoritarian in his latest Fox News interview

President Donald Trump has been known to dabble in conspiracy theories — be it that Barack Obama was secretly born in Kenya , that global warming is a hoax created by China , or that Bill and/or Hillary Clinton had child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein murdered in prison .
But his latest whopper — that his political opponent , Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , is secretly being controlled by a roving band of black-clad violent extremists who like to fly on commercial airlines — is more than just another conspiracy theory .
It ’ s also disturbingly reminiscent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world to discredit legitimate political opposition .
On Monday , Trump told Fox News ’ s Laura Ingraham a wild story he ’ d heard about a supposed plane full of “ thugs ” who had traveled together on a commercial flight to an unnamed American city to stage protests during the Republican National Convention .
These same thugs , in Trump ’ s telling , are secretly pulling Biden ’ s strings from the “ dark shadows.
” These are “ people that you ’ ve never heard of , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Trump said .
“ They ’ re people that are on the streets .
They ’ re people that are controlling the streets .
We had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend , and in the plane it was almost completely loaded with thugs wearing these dark uniforms , black uniforms with gear and this and that.
” The president wouldn ’ t offer any more specifics because he said the whole incident is under investigation — another claim for which there ’ s no public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people were on the plane to do big damage.
” It ’ s unclear if Trump is referring to an actual story he was told by the unnamed “ somebody ” who was supposedly on this plane , or if he ’ s just repeating old , unproven rumors that have circulated on social media for months about roving gangs of antifa activists flying around the country to terrorize suburban cities .
Either way , the story itself is highly suspect .
Even more suspect , though , is the idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden from the shadows .
That allegation is so far-fetched that it hardly seems worth even addressing as a serious argument .
But while the substance of the claim is patently absurd , Trump ’ s purpose in making such a claim is worth addressing .
Trump is purposely drawing a straight line between the former vice president and violent extremists where one doesn ’ t exist .
His goal , almost certainly , is to stoke fear of a Biden-led America run by lawless radicals , essentially offering the election-friendly message of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe and the country from descending into anarchic chaos.
” This tactic of painting legitimate protesters as terrorists and political opponents as secretly in thrall to extremists is nothing new — in fact , it ’ s one frequently used by authoritarian leaders around the world .
From Turkey ’ s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Syria ’ s Bashar al-Assad to Hungary ’ s Viktor Orbán , strongmen have long used the threat of terrorists at home and abroad — real or imagined — to claim they alone can safeguard their countries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach and strategy , ” said John Carey , an expert on why authoritarian regimes promote conspiracy theories at Dartmouth College .
“ We ’ re seeing a politician who ’ s quick to deploy some of those same rhetorical tools.
” Which , unfortunately , puts Trump in some pretty nasty company — regardless of how slapdash his entree into that community was .
“ Most strongmen come up with more coherent conspiracy theories , ” said Rep. Tom Malinowski ( D-NJ ) , formerly a top State Department official for human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be an insult to strongmen.
” There ’ s a chapter in the Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories , released this year , in which political scientists Julien Giry and Doğan Gürpınar outline exactly why dictators like to promote such obvious and dangerous falsehoods .
“ Conspiracy theories are used as propaganda , allowing regimes to identify and denounce perceived enemies and silence political opponents , ” they write .
“ In authoritarian contexts , conspiratorial rhetoric used by the regimes is expedient for mobilizing masses , reinforcing incumbent structures of power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the people .
Conspiracy theories are used to reaffirm the dominant and established values of an ingroup while identifying and subsequently portraying outsiders in a negative light.
” It ’ s discomforting to acknowledge , but that ’ s precisely what Trump was doing in the Ingraham interview .
By saying there was plane full of thugs willing to unleash violence and secretly control his political opponent , Trump hoped baselessly tarnishing Biden would rally his supporters behind him , the self-proclaimed “ law and order ” candidate .
It might also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , forcing him to respond to the allegations , thereby breathing more life into the conspiracy theory .
Dartmouth ’ s Carey said dictators use this play when they want to shift focus away from problems they can ’ t solve .
For Trump , that would be his inability to stop the coronavirus from raging or protests from continuing .
“ It ’ s a standard approach usually in response to criticisms , ” he told me .
“ In a way , it ’ s an acknowledgment of those criticisms by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be worse if my opponent were in charge ’ narrative.
” It ’ s an authoritarian design by Trump , but one that has ample global precedent .
What Trump did in that Ingraham interview may be quite new for him , but it ’ s old news in some of the world ’ s troubled spots .
In 2016 , a coup led by factions within Turkey ’ s military failed to depose Erdoğan .
Since then he ’ s blamed nearly everyone — from the United States to a longtime political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The dictator has found that language helpful for consolidating power and cracking down on domestic and foreign dissent , going so far as to say the pope was part of an “ evil front ” for recognizing the Armenian genocide Turkey has long denied perpetrating .
“ Some circles , at home and abroad , are at a junction , ” Erdoğan said in 2016 .
“ They will either side with us , or with terrorists .
There is no middle way.
” Throughout the Syrian civil war , Syrian President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remove him from power is a terrorist .
To bolster his point , Assad did the unthinkable : He actually released hundreds of terrorists from prison so he could claim there were terrorists opposing him .
That move , among others , destabilized Syria and the broader region , leading Assad in 2014 to encourage the Obama administration to bomb his opponents harder because they were all terrorists .
And Hungary ’ s Orbán has used the fear of extremists to stifle immigration to his country .
“ Of course it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that all the terrorists are basically migrants , ” he told Politico in 2015 , shortly after a terrorist attack in Paris .
“ The majority of our leaders in the West deny the fact.
” As Vox ’ s Zack Beauchamp reported three years later , Orbán purposely rode a growing sense of unease with migrants in Hungary to power — and has since fomented the public ’ s fear to gain more and more control over the country , decimating its democracy in the process .
“ Orbán saw a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migration .
His rhetoric began to focus almost monomaniacally on migrants and the threat Muslim immigration posed to Europe ’ s Christian identity and culture , ” he wrote .
“ While Hungary no longer faces a large influx of refugees , Orbán hasn ’ t slowed down the anti-migrant rhetoric .
If anything , he ’ s stepped it up .
Billboards around the country hyped up fears of ‘ illegal migration ’ during the 2018 election , ” and state-run media outlets “ relentlessly cover reports of migrant crime and violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The common theme here is authoritarians claiming opponents are violent enemies to gain or consolidate power through fear .
Srdja Popovic , who was a leader of the movement to oust Serbia ’ s Slobodan Milošević in 2000 , was very familiar with this tactic when asked about it in 2011 .
“ Ah yes , the conspiracy theories of dictators .
The language hasn ’ t changed in 20 years — terrorists , junkies , foreign mercenaries , traitors , ” he told the Washington Post .
With Trump ’ s comments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be said the language now hasn ’ t changed for 30 years .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump has been known to dabble in conspiracy theories — be it that Barack Obama was secretly born in Kenya, that global warming is a hoax created by China, or that Bill and/or Hillary Clinton had child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein murdered in prison.
But his latest whopper — that his political opponent, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, is secretly being controlled by a roving band of black-clad violent extremists who like to fly on commercial airlines — is more than just another conspiracy theory. It’s also disturbingly reminiscent of a disinformation tactic commonly deployed by dictators around the world to discredit legitimate political opposition.
On Monday, Trump told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham a wild story he’d heard about a supposed plane full of “thugs” who had traveled together on a commercial flight to an unnamed American city to stage protests during the Republican National Convention. These same thugs, in Trump’s telling, are secretly pulling Biden’s strings from the “dark shadows.”
These are “people that you’ve never heard of, people that are in the dark shadows,” Trump said. “They’re people that are on the streets. They’re people that are controlling the streets. We had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend, and in the plane it was almost completely loaded with thugs wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms with gear and this and that.”
The president wouldn’t offer any more specifics because he said the whole incident is under investigation — another claim for which there’s no public evidence — but added “a lot of people were on the plane to do big damage.”
It’s unclear if Trump is referring to an actual story he was told by the unnamed “somebody” who was supposedly on this plane, or if he’s just repeating old, unproven rumors that have circulated on social media for months about roving gangs of antifa activists flying around the country to terrorize suburban cities.
Either way, the story itself is highly suspect. Even more suspect, though, is the idea that these roving gangs are secretly controlling Joe Biden from the shadows.
That allegation is so far-fetched that it hardly seems worth even addressing as a serious argument. But while the substance of the claim is patently absurd, Trump’s purpose in making such a claim is worth addressing.
Trump is purposely drawing a straight line between the former vice president and violent extremists where one doesn’t exist. His goal, almost certainly, is to stoke fear of a Biden-led America run by lawless radicals, essentially offering the election-friendly message of “vote for me to keep you safe and the country from descending into anarchic chaos.”
This tactic of painting legitimate protesters as terrorists and political opponents as secretly in thrall to extremists is nothing new — in fact, it’s one frequently used by authoritarian leaders around the world.
From Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, strongmen have long used the threat of terrorists at home and abroad — real or imagined — to claim they alone can safeguard their countries.
“It’s an eminently familiar approach and strategy,” said John Carey, an expert on why authoritarian regimes promote conspiracy theories at Dartmouth College. “We’re seeing a politician who’s quick to deploy some of those same rhetorical tools.”
Which, unfortunately, puts Trump in some pretty nasty company — regardless of how slapdash his entree into that community was. “Most strongmen come up with more coherent conspiracy theories,” said Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), formerly a top State Department official for human rights and democracy, “so that would be an insult to strongmen.”
Why authoritarians use conspiracy theories
There’s a chapter in the Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, released this year, in which political scientists Julien Giry and Doğan Gürpınar outline exactly why dictators like to promote such obvious and dangerous falsehoods.
“Conspiracy theories are used as propaganda, allowing regimes to identify and denounce perceived enemies and silence political opponents,” they write. “In authoritarian contexts, conspiratorial rhetoric used by the regimes is expedient for mobilizing masses, reinforcing incumbent structures of power and authority, and assuring the loyalty of the people. Conspiracy theories are used to reaffirm the dominant and established values of an ingroup while identifying and subsequently portraying outsiders in a negative light.”
It’s discomforting to acknowledge, but that’s precisely what Trump was doing in the Ingraham interview. By saying there was plane full of thugs willing to unleash violence and secretly control his political opponent, Trump hoped baselessly tarnishing Biden would rally his supporters behind him, the self-proclaimed “law and order” candidate. It might also put the Democratic candidate on the defensive, forcing him to respond to the allegations, thereby breathing more life into the conspiracy theory.
Dartmouth’s Carey said dictators use this play when they want to shift focus away from problems they can’t solve. For Trump, that would be his inability to stop the coronavirus from raging or protests from continuing. “It’s a standard approach usually in response to criticisms,” he told me. “In a way, it’s an acknowledgment of those criticisms by pushing a ‘well, things could be worse if my opponent were in charge’ narrative.”
It’s an authoritarian design by Trump, but one that has ample global precedent.
Trump is following a horrifying decades-long tradition
What Trump did in that Ingraham interview may be quite new for him, but it’s old news in some of the world’s troubled spots.
In 2016, a coup led by factions within Turkey’s military failed to depose Erdoğan. Since then he’s blamed nearly everyone — from the United States to a longtime political opponent — for plotting to depose him. The dictator has found that language helpful for consolidating power and cracking down on domestic and foreign dissent, going so far as to say the pope was part of an “evil front” for recognizing the Armenian genocide Turkey has long denied perpetrating.
“Some circles, at home and abroad, are at a junction,” Erdoğan said in 2016. “They will either side with us, or with terrorists. There is no middle way.”
Throughout the Syrian civil war, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said anyone fighting to remove him from power is a terrorist. To bolster his point, Assad did the unthinkable: He actually released hundreds of terrorists from prison so he could claim there were terrorists opposing him. That move, among others, destabilized Syria and the broader region, leading Assad in 2014 to encourage the Obama administration to bomb his opponents harder because they were all terrorists.
And Hungary’s Orbán has used the fear of extremists to stifle immigration to his country. “Of course it’s not accepted, but the factual point is that all the terrorists are basically migrants,” he told Politico in 2015, shortly after a terrorist attack in Paris. “The majority of our leaders in the West deny the fact.”
As Vox’s Zack Beauchamp reported three years later, Orbán purposely rode a growing sense of unease with migrants in Hungary to power — and has since fomented the public’s fear to gain more and more control over the country, decimating its democracy in the process.
“Orbán saw a political opportunity in rising public anxiety about migration. His rhetoric began to focus almost monomaniacally on migrants and the threat Muslim immigration posed to Europe’s Christian identity and culture,” he wrote. “While Hungary no longer faces a large influx of refugees, Orbán hasn’t slowed down the anti-migrant rhetoric. If anything, he’s stepped it up. Billboards around the country hyped up fears of ‘illegal migration’ during the 2018 election,” and state-run media outlets “relentlessly cover reports of migrant crime and violence in Hungary and other European countries.”
The common theme here is authoritarians claiming opponents are violent enemies to gain or consolidate power through fear. Srdja Popovic, who was a leader of the movement to oust Serbia’s Slobodan Milošević in 2000, was very familiar with this tactic when asked about it in 2011. “Ah yes, the conspiracy theories of dictators. The language hasn’t changed in 20 years — terrorists, junkies, foreign mercenaries, traitors,” he told the Washington Post.
With Trump’s comments on Monday night, it can safely be said the language now hasn’t changed for 30 years.


vox--2020-09-01--Covid-19 death skepticism, explained by a cognitive scientist

As the US Covid-19 death toll continues to rise ( more than 183,000 as of September 1 ) , so has the number of people who believe that the official death count is vastly inflated .
According to a July Axios-Ipsos poll , almost one in three people surveyed in the US thought the number of Covid-19 deaths was lower than what was being reported .
Some of the high-profile death skeptics , like author Alex Berenson , believe the media is deliberately sensationalizing deaths .
Others note that many of these people were older and might have died during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April argued that many of the dead had preexisting conditions and that these preexisting conditions were the “ true ” causes of their deaths .
Then came a new claim that went viral over the weekend : that only 6 percent of US pandemic deaths have been from Covid-19 itself .
The origin was a statistic from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 94 percent of people killed by the new coronavirus in the US had comorbidities , or other health conditions contributing to their cause of death .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straightforward , disease experts and scientists have quickly taken to Twitter and TikTok to point out that the 6 percent figure has been wildly misinterpreted .
In addition to their efforts to refute attempts to downplay the death numbers , public health experts have consistently noted that official Covid-19 death numbers are likely undercounts of the true toll of the virus .
So why has this misguided perspective about inflated death counts gained traction ?
Aside from the proliferation of misinformation about Covid-19 , one important reason may be that we think we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and effects than we are .
In many cases , we are pretty good at causal reasoning — when a rock flies through a windowpane , even a young child can tell you what caused the window to break .
But when we ’ re faced with the sorts of complex causal relationships found in the economy or the human body , our intuitive causal reasoning tools aren ’ t up to the task .
In these cases , we rely on mental shortcuts that can lead to reasoning biases of the sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s argument about the “ true ” causes of death sound a little reasonable , even if we know it ’ s wrong .
Let ’ s take a closer look at why that is — and what we might be able to do to overcome these biases .
Counterfactual thinking : Would these people still have died soon if they hadn ’ t contracted Covid-19 ?
Imagining that older people or those with preexisting conditions likely would have died in the near future anyway , even if they hadn ’ t contracted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking : imagining an alternate reality in which something happened differently .
Counterfactual thinking is one of our most valuable tools for identifying causal relationships .
It works like this : If an outcome didn ’ t happen in a world where a potential cause didn ’ t happen , then the potential cause must have been responsible for the outcome .
If the rock didn ’ t get thrown , the window wouldn ’ t have broken ; therefore , the rock must have caused the window to break .
In simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and research suggests that it ’ s generally consistent with people ’ s judgments about causes .
But this view quickly runs into problems .
Suppose Veronica and Logan both threw rocks at the same window at the same time .
Did Veronica ’ s rock cause the window to break ?
According to the counterfactual logic , no , because if she hadn ’ t thrown a rock , it still would have broken due to Logan ’ s rock .
But the same reasoning applies to Logan ’ s rock .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ must have caused it .
This rock case is somewhat analogous to the situation surrounding Covid-19 deaths .
In both cases , we have two potential causes — say , heart disease and Covid-19 — each of which might be sufficient to explain the outcome .
In the rock case , you could say that the rocks together caused the window to break , or that each rock is equally a cause .
Why do some people not reach the same conclusion with Covid-19 deaths — that both heart disease and Covid-19 could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 2011 experiment by psychologists Clare Walsh and Steven Sloman .
They had 43 subjects read stories in which something happened that had two potential causes : One cause was like Veronica throwing a rock , and the other was like if a third person , Wallace , stepped out of the rock ’ s path to allow it to hit the window .
Here , following the logic of counterfactual thinking , both Veronica and Wallace were causes .
But only Veronica ’ s action involved a mechanism that you could expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s no mechanism by which simply taking a step would cause a window to break .
When subjects were asked if Veronica-like actions were causes , they said yes 87 percent of the time , but when they were asked if Wallace-like actions were causes , they said yes only 24 percent of the time .
How does this relate to judging causes of death ?
We have lots of familiarity with people dying of heart disease , but we know comparatively little about Covid-19 .
When imagining two potential causes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plausible mechanism to explain how someone died if they had a well-known disease , which could make it seem more causally responsible than Covid-19 .
But just like Veronica ’ s rock wouldn ’ t have broken the window if Wallace hadn ’ t stepped aside , many people with heart disease likely wouldn ’ t have died as soon if they hadn ’ t contracted Covid-19 .
Another bias we hold is a preference for simpler explanations — that is , explanations that invoke fewer causes to explain why an outcome happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiment by psychologist Tania Lombrozo , 48 subjects read about an alien experiencing two different symptoms : sore “ mittels ” and purple spots .
They then learned about three medical conditions : Morad ’ s disease caused sore mittels only , a Humel infection caused purple spots only , and Trichet ’ s syndrome caused both symptoms .
Thus , the alien ’ s symptoms could be explained by Trichet ’ s syndrome , or a combination of Morad ’ s disease and a Humel infection .
Perhaps unsurprisingly , 96 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be the more satisfying explanation for the alien ’ s symptoms .
My collaborators and I found similar results in a study that is currently undergoing peer review .
We found that , in some contexts , subjects preferred simpler explanations — those that invoked fewer reasons — for why other people took certain actions .
Preferring simpler explanations is entirely sensible .
On the surface , “ a woman died of heart disease ” sounds simpler and more satisfying than “ a woman died due to Covid-19 with heart disease as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mean always right .
Sometimes the alien really does have Morad ’ s disease and a Humel infection .
And when we ’ re dealing with different types of causes , like acute causes and contributing causes , we ’ re likely to deceive ourselves about which explanation makes more sense if we weigh two causes of death against one .
We ’ re all susceptible to these biases , but we ’ re not all Covid-19 skeptics .
That ’ s because people with different base beliefs will end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This process is known as motivated reasoning , and it leads people to gather evidence that supports perspectives they already agree with and to more thoroughly scrutinize evidence that challenges those perspectives .
Someone who believes the pandemic is a serious threat will likely accept the official Covid-19 reports at face value .
But someone who is already skeptical about the pandemic for other reasons will be predisposed to look for reasons to question the death counts .
And due to these biases , they ’ ll happily find several seemingly commonsense reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pitfall isn ’ t limited to Covid-19 skeptics .
Even non-skeptics have been guilty of overzealously shaming people for doing things like going to the beach , even though current evidence suggests it ’ s a low-risk activity .
To help avoid these sorts of reasoning errors , remember that the world is complicated , and our intuitions — especially about complex causal relationships — can ’ t always be trusted .
It might seem intuitively wrong that someone ’ s death had multiple causes , or that it ’ s madness for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beach during a pandemic , but it might be your intuition that ’ s wrong .
Alan Jern is a cognitive scientist and associate professor of psychology at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

As the US Covid-19 death toll continues to rise (more than 183,000 as of September 1), so has the number of people who believe that the official death count is vastly inflated.
According to a July Axios-Ipsos poll, almost one in three people surveyed in the US thought the number of Covid-19 deaths was lower than what was being reported.
Some of the high-profile death skeptics, like author Alex Berenson, believe the media is deliberately sensationalizing deaths. Others note that many of these people were older and might have died during the same period anyway.
Serious question. What do you guys think the REAL #coronavirus death toll is? Under 10k?
Please make this video viral:
"It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death." pic.twitter.com/2fiqCX3QAx — Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) May 10, 2020
President Trump in April argued that many of the dead had preexisting conditions and that these preexisting conditions were the “true” causes of their deaths.
Then came a new claim that went viral over the weekend: that only 6 percent of US pandemic deaths have been from Covid-19 itself. The origin was a statistic from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 94 percent of people killed by the new coronavirus in the US had comorbidities, or other health conditions contributing to their cause of death.
Although assigning causes of death isn’t straightforward, disease experts and scientists have quickly taken to Twitter and TikTok to point out that the 6 percent figure has been wildly misinterpreted.
Been seeing folks discuss the "6% only died of COVID-19 alone", and thought I'd have something productive to add since I'm an HIV virologist by training.
After years of virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. (1/4) — Ryan McNamara (@Ryan_Mac_Phd) August 31, 2020
In addition to their efforts to refute attempts to downplay the death numbers, public health experts have consistently noted that official Covid-19 death numbers are likely undercounts of the true toll of the virus.
So why has this misguided perspective about inflated death counts gained traction? Aside from the proliferation of misinformation about Covid-19, one important reason may be that we think we’re better at reasoning about causes and effects than we are.
In many cases, we are pretty good at causal reasoning — when a rock flies through a windowpane, even a young child can tell you what caused the window to break. But when we’re faced with the sorts of complex causal relationships found in the economy or the human body, our intuitive causal reasoning tools aren’t up to the task.
In these cases, we rely on mental shortcuts that can lead to reasoning biases of the sort that might make a Covid-19 skeptic’s argument about the “true” causes of death sound a little reasonable, even if we know it’s wrong.
Let’s take a closer look at why that is — and what we might be able to do to overcome these biases.
Counterfactual thinking: Would these people still have died soon if they hadn’t contracted Covid-19?
Imagining that older people or those with preexisting conditions likely would have died in the near future anyway, even if they hadn’t contracted Covid-19, is an example of counterfactual thinking: imagining an alternate reality in which something happened differently. Counterfactual thinking is one of our most valuable tools for identifying causal relationships.
It works like this: If an outcome didn’t happen in a world where a potential cause didn’t happen, then the potential cause must have been responsible for the outcome. If the rock didn’t get thrown, the window wouldn’t have broken; therefore, the rock must have caused the window to break. In simple situations, this view is sensible, and research suggests that it’s generally consistent with people’s judgments about causes.
But this view quickly runs into problems. Suppose Veronica and Logan both threw rocks at the same window at the same time. Did Veronica’s rock cause the window to break? According to the counterfactual logic, no, because if she hadn’t thrown a rock, it still would have broken due to Logan’s rock. But the same reasoning applies to Logan’s rock. Yet the window did break. Something must have caused it.
This rock case is somewhat analogous to the situation surrounding Covid-19 deaths. In both cases, we have two potential causes — say, heart disease and Covid-19 — each of which might be sufficient to explain the outcome. In the rock case, you could say that the rocks together caused the window to break, or that each rock is equally a cause.
Why do some people not reach the same conclusion with Covid-19 deaths — that both heart disease and Covid-19 could be causes?
One clue comes from a 2011 experiment by psychologists Clare Walsh and Steven Sloman. They had 43 subjects read stories in which something happened that had two potential causes: One cause was like Veronica throwing a rock, and the other was like if a third person, Wallace, stepped out of the rock’s path to allow it to hit the window. Here, following the logic of counterfactual thinking, both Veronica and Wallace were causes. But only Veronica’s action involved a mechanism that you could expect to break a window.
Ordinarily, there’s no mechanism by which simply taking a step would cause a window to break. When subjects were asked if Veronica-like actions were causes, they said yes 87 percent of the time, but when they were asked if Wallace-like actions were causes, they said yes only 24 percent of the time.
How does this relate to judging causes of death? We have lots of familiarity with people dying of heart disease, but we know comparatively little about Covid-19. When imagining two potential causes of death, people already have a plausible mechanism to explain how someone died if they had a well-known disease, which could make it seem more causally responsible than Covid-19.
But just like Veronica’s rock wouldn’t have broken the window if Wallace hadn’t stepped aside, many people with heart disease likely wouldn’t have died as soon if they hadn’t contracted Covid-19.
We prefer simpler explanations
Another bias we hold is a preference for simpler explanations — that is, explanations that invoke fewer causes to explain why an outcome happened.
For example, in a 2007 experiment by psychologist Tania Lombrozo, 48 subjects read about an alien experiencing two different symptoms: sore “mittels” and purple spots. They then learned about three medical conditions: Morad’s disease caused sore mittels only, a Humel infection caused purple spots only, and Trichet’s syndrome caused both symptoms. Thus, the alien’s symptoms could be explained by Trichet’s syndrome, or a combination of Morad’s disease and a Humel infection.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, 96 percent of subjects found Trichet’s disease to be the more satisfying explanation for the alien’s symptoms. My collaborators and I found similar results in a study that is currently undergoing peer review. We found that, in some contexts, subjects preferred simpler explanations — those that invoked fewer reasons — for why other people took certain actions.
Preferring simpler explanations is entirely sensible. On the surface, “a woman died of heart disease” sounds simpler and more satisfying than “a woman died due to Covid-19 with heart disease as a contributing factor.”
But sensible doesn’t mean always right. Sometimes the alien really does have Morad’s disease and a Humel infection. And when we’re dealing with different types of causes, like acute causes and contributing causes, we’re likely to deceive ourselves about which explanation makes more sense if we weigh two causes of death against one.
The role of motivated reasoning
We’re all susceptible to these biases, but we’re not all Covid-19 skeptics. That’s because people with different base beliefs will end up approaching new information with different attitudes.
Related 9 essential lessons from psychology to understand the Trump era
This process is known as motivated reasoning, and it leads people to gather evidence that supports perspectives they already agree with and to more thoroughly scrutinize evidence that challenges those perspectives. Someone who believes the pandemic is a serious threat will likely accept the official Covid-19 reports at face value. But someone who is already skeptical about the pandemic for other reasons will be predisposed to look for reasons to question the death counts. And due to these biases, they’ll happily find several seemingly commonsense reasons quickly at their disposal.
This cognitive pitfall isn’t limited to Covid-19 skeptics. Even non-skeptics have been guilty of overzealously shaming people for doing things like going to the beach, even though current evidence suggests it’s a low-risk activity.
To help avoid these sorts of reasoning errors, remember that the world is complicated, and our intuitions — especially about complex causal relationships — can’t always be trusted. It might seem intuitively wrong that someone’s death had multiple causes, or that it’s madness for hundreds of people to head to the beach during a pandemic, but it might be your intuition that’s wrong.
Alan Jern is a cognitive scientist and associate professor of psychology at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology.


vox--2020-09-01--The new Apple-Google contact tracing tool finally seems useful

The Apple-Google exposure notification tool is getting a major upgrade .
The two companies just announced the debut of Exposure Notifications Express , which will enable their exposure notification tool to work without a public health agency needing to build or maintain an app around it .
Now , states or public health authorities that don ’ t have the resources or desire to build an app , but still want to take advantage of the tool , will be able to do so .
Streamlining the process of getting people to use this tool is a big deal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most promising Big Tech attempts to help stop or contain the Covid-19 pandemic , but it has struggled to win over a lot of users .
Without widespread adoption , contact tracing apps , including the ones that incorporate the Apple-Google technology , are basically useless : Studies have shown that at least 60 percent adoption is needed for a contact tracing app to be effective .
But some experts say far less than that is needed when combined with human contact tracers .
“ We estimate that a well-staffed manual contact tracing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a contact tracing app ] could reduce infections by 15 percent and deaths by 11 percent , ” Professor Cristophe Fraser in the department of health at Oxford University said in a statement .
So far , Maryland , Nevada , Virginia , and Washington , DC , have already signed on to use Exposure Notifications Express , while six states — Alabama , Arizona , North Dakota , Wyoming , Nevada , and Virginia — have apps that use the tool .
While several other countries have apps that use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to individual states to figure out their own contact tracing efforts , which have been less than enthusiastic .
Although Apple and Google announced the exposure notification tool in April and launched it a month later , it wasn ’ t until August that Virginia became the first state to release a contact tracing app that used the tool .
Virginia told Recode that it spent nearly $ 230,000 to develop the app and $ 1.5 million to market it — money that came from the federal CARES Act .
Nearly 500,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is a small portion of the state population of about 8.5 million people .
One huge upside to the new Exposure Notifications Express tool , however , is that states no longer have to spend the time or money developing their own apps .
They may not have to do much marketing , either .
In states or regions that have enabled Exposure Notifications Express , a prompt will pop up on phones with the latest version of Apple ’ s or Android ’ s operating system and alert the user @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The user just taps the screen to enable it .
For Apple users , that ’ s all it takes to turn the tool on .
Android users will then need to download an app that Google automatically generates for public health authorities .
All public health authorities have to do is give Apple and Google some basic information and set up servers to host Bluetooth keys and exposure verification .
“ As the next step in our work with public health authorities on Exposure Notifications , we are making it easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Exposure Notifications System without the need for them to build and maintain an app , ” Apple and Google said in a statement .
“ Exposure Notifications Express provides another option for public health authorities to supplement their existing contact tracing operations with technology without compromising on the project ’ s core tenets of user privacy and security.
” Countries around the world have spent weeks trying various methods of contact tracing .
The basic idea is that public health agencies can use contact tracing to notify people when they ’ ve potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can then quarantine and get tested accordingly .
Contact tracing also helps track the virus ’ s spread , and that part is usually done manually , using human beings .
Digital contact tracing tools , however , are designed to do this by using devices like smartphones to alert users when they ’ ve been close to a device tied to someone who ’ s potentially been exposed to the virus .
The process of notifying people of potential exposure is where the Apple-Google exposure notification tool comes in handy .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anonymous Bluetooth “ keys ” from nearby phones that also have the tool enabled .
If someone tests positive for the coronavirus , they can notify their public health authority , which will then send out alerts to any phones that were in proximity to the infected person ’ s phone .
The system is designed to keep as much information as possible on individual phones and preserve user privacy .
Very little information goes back to the public health authority , and users always have the option to opt in or out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have said that user privacy was a major consideration in their development of the tool , to encourage as many people to use it as possible .
The two companies worked together on the project to allow the tool to work across their iOS and Android operating systems .
Contact tracing apps haven ’ t lived up to their potential so far , but Exposure Notifications Express should make it as easy as possible for public health authorities to implement them and people to enable them .
Now we might get a chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can do — if it isn ’ t too late , six months into the pandemic , for them to make a difference .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Apple-Google exposure notification tool is getting a major upgrade. The two companies just announced the debut of Exposure Notifications Express, which will enable their exposure notification tool to work without a public health agency needing to build or maintain an app around it. Now, states or public health authorities that don’t have the resources or desire to build an app, but still want to take advantage of the tool, will be able to do so.
Streamlining the process of getting people to use this tool is a big deal. The Apple-Google tool is one of the most promising Big Tech attempts to help stop or contain the Covid-19 pandemic, but it has struggled to win over a lot of users. Without widespread adoption, contact tracing apps, including the ones that incorporate the Apple-Google technology, are basically useless: Studies have shown that at least 60 percent adoption is needed for a contact tracing app to be effective. But some experts say far less than that is needed when combined with human contact tracers.
“We estimate that a well-staffed manual contact tracing workforce combined with 15 percent uptake [in a contact tracing app] could reduce infections by 15 percent and deaths by 11 percent,” Professor Cristophe Fraser in the department of health at Oxford University said in a statement.
So far, Maryland, Nevada, Virginia, and Washington, DC, have already signed on to use Exposure Notifications Express, while six states — Alabama, Arizona, North Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada, and Virginia — have apps that use the tool. While several other countries have apps that use the tool, the United States has left it to individual states to figure out their own contact tracing efforts, which have been less than enthusiastic. Although Apple and Google announced the exposure notification tool in April and launched it a month later, it wasn’t until August that Virginia became the first state to release a contact tracing app that used the tool. Virginia told Recode that it spent nearly $230,000 to develop the app and $1.5 million to market it — money that came from the federal CARES Act. Nearly 500,000 Virginians have downloaded the app so far, which is a small portion of the state population of about 8.5 million people.
One huge upside to the new Exposure Notifications Express tool, however, is that states no longer have to spend the time or money developing their own apps. They may not have to do much marketing, either. In states or regions that have enabled Exposure Notifications Express, a prompt will pop up on phones with the latest version of Apple’s or Android’s operating system and alert the user that the tool is available to them. The user just taps the screen to enable it. For Apple users, that’s all it takes to turn the tool on. Android users will then need to download an app that Google automatically generates for public health authorities. All public health authorities have to do is give Apple and Google some basic information and set up servers to host Bluetooth keys and exposure verification.
“As the next step in our work with public health authorities on Exposure Notifications, we are making it easier and faster for them to use the Exposure Notifications System without the need for them to build and maintain an app,” Apple and Google said in a statement. “Exposure Notifications Express provides another option for public health authorities to supplement their existing contact tracing operations with technology without compromising on the project’s core tenets of user privacy and security.”
Countries around the world have spent weeks trying various methods of contact tracing. The basic idea is that public health agencies can use contact tracing to notify people when they’ve potentially been exposed to the coronavirus so they can then quarantine and get tested accordingly. Contact tracing also helps track the virus’s spread, and that part is usually done manually, using human beings. Digital contact tracing tools, however, are designed to do this by using devices like smartphones to alert users when they’ve been close to a device tied to someone who’s potentially been exposed to the virus. The process of notifying people of potential exposure is where the Apple-Google exposure notification tool comes in handy.
The tool works by sending out and receiving anonymous Bluetooth “keys” from nearby phones that also have the tool enabled. If someone tests positive for the coronavirus, they can notify their public health authority, which will then send out alerts to any phones that were in proximity to the infected person’s phone. The system is designed to keep as much information as possible on individual phones and preserve user privacy. Very little information goes back to the public health authority, and users always have the option to opt in or out of the tool. Apple and Google have said that user privacy was a major consideration in their development of the tool, to encourage as many people to use it as possible. The two companies worked together on the project to allow the tool to work across their iOS and Android operating systems.
Contact tracing apps haven’t lived up to their potential so far, but Exposure Notifications Express should make it as easy as possible for public health authorities to implement them and people to enable them. Now we might get a chance to see what digital contact tracing apps can do — if it isn’t too late, six months into the pandemic, for them to make a difference.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-09-01--Mark Zuckerberg’s $300 million donation to protect elections must overcome Facebook’s past

Mark Zuckerberg and his wife , Priscilla Chan , are donating $ 300 million to protect American elections .
It is one of the couple ’ s largest-ever single gifts , meant to bolster democracy during a pandemic .
But it ’ s also one that critics say is brimming with irony given Facebook ’ s past failures in protecting the integrity of elections .
The Facebook chief said on Tuesday that he had sent the money to two civic organizations which in turn will direct it to state and local election officials so they can prepare for an unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused many states to radically shift — on short notice — how they will administer elections to ensure safety .
A majority of Americans say they are anticipating that they will vote early or by mail this year .
The majority of the gift , $ 250 million , will go to the Center for Tech and Civic Life , a nonprofit popular with many tech philanthropists , which will then regrant the money to local election officials so they can recruit poll workers , supply them with personal protective equipment , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 million heads to the Center for Election Innovation & Research to be distributed to Secretaries of State across the country .
The money does not come from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative , their joint philanthropy , but is a personal donation .
“ Election officials across the country are working hard to ensure that everyone can vote and every vote can be counted , ” Zuckerberg said , “ and we want to help make sure they have the resources they need to do this.
” And while the money may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gift on Tuesday emerged as an immediate flashpoint in the simmering debate over billionaire philanthropy and whether donations are the best way to enact change .
That ’ s because , to many on the left and to Facebook critics more broadly , it is Zuckerberg ’ s company that has harmed democracy by tolerating hate speech , failing to curtail disinformation , or allowing Russian operatives to mess with the 2016 election .
The fact that this criticism even exists is revealing .
In an earlier era , a huge donation from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hollers , like his famous $ 100 million gift to Newark schools a decade ago .
Even the creation of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative , just dating back to 2015 , was largely a PR win for the couple .
But in today ’ s America , where Zuckerberg is a pariah to many progressives and where billionaire gifts are scrutinized much more closely , the reaction was more complicated .
Here ’ s Raffi Krikorian , who has long worked at the intersection of tech and politics : And here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Democratic Party ’ s largest outside groups that has raised big money from Silicon Valley donors : Facebook has stressed that it has learned the lessons from 2016 and is arguing that it is much better prepared for this fall .
Alongside the announcement of the gift — and perhaps with an eye to this predictable criticism — Zuckerberg pointed out Facebook ’ s pledge to register 4 million voters and promote information on matters like vote-by-mail to its users .
Election officials were nevertheless ecstatic about the gift .
Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ game changer.
” Ohio ’ s said the money would “ go a long way ” to ensuring the public ’ s confidence in the vote .
But as always , two things can be true at once about billionaire philanthropy : The money may indeed fill an urgent gap that makes our lives better , but giving away these large sums represents a relatively minor component in the total assessment of how each billionaire is shaping our world .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, are donating $300 million to protect American elections. It is one of the couple’s largest-ever single gifts, meant to bolster democracy during a pandemic. But it’s also one that critics say is brimming with irony given Facebook’s past failures in protecting the integrity of elections.
The Facebook chief said on Tuesday that he had sent the money to two civic organizations which in turn will direct it to state and local election officials so they can prepare for an unprecedented Election Day. The coronavirus pandemic has caused many states to radically shift — on short notice — how they will administer elections to ensure safety. A majority of Americans say they are anticipating that they will vote early or by mail this year.
The majority of the gift, $250 million, will go to the Center for Tech and Civic Life, a nonprofit popular with many tech philanthropists, which will then regrant the money to local election officials so they can recruit poll workers, supply them with personal protective equipment, and set up drive-through voting. Another $50 million heads to the Center for Election Innovation & Research to be distributed to Secretaries of State across the country.
The money does not come from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, their joint philanthropy, but is a personal donation.
“Election officials across the country are working hard to ensure that everyone can vote and every vote can be counted,” Zuckerberg said, “and we want to help make sure they have the resources they need to do this.”
And while the money may be sorely needed, the announcement of the gift on Tuesday emerged as an immediate flashpoint in the simmering debate over billionaire philanthropy and whether donations are the best way to enact change. That’s because, to many on the left and to Facebook critics more broadly, it is Zuckerberg’s company that has harmed democracy by tolerating hate speech, failing to curtail disinformation, or allowing Russian operatives to mess with the 2016 election.
The fact that this criticism even exists is revealing. In an earlier era, a huge donation from Zuckerberg might be greeted with whoops and hollers, like his famous $100 million gift to Newark schools a decade ago. Even the creation of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, just dating back to 2015, was largely a PR win for the couple.
But in today’s America, where Zuckerberg is a pariah to many progressives and where billionaire gifts are scrutinized much more closely, the reaction was more complicated.
Here’s Raffi Krikorian, who has long worked at the intersection of tech and politics:
white·wash /ˈ(h)wītˌwäSH,ˈ(h)wītˌwôSH/ - donating 0.31% of net worth, 63 days before election day, when it will be incredibly hard to deploy effectively, when you still make 99.69% of your net worth destroying democracy, and _have zero plans to stop_. https://t.co/wKMRfy3m3h — uɐᴉɹoʞᴉɹʞ ᴉɟɟɐɹ  (@raffi) September 1, 2020
And here’s Tara McGowan, the head of one of the Democratic Party’s largest outside groups that has raised big money from Silicon Valley donors:
Who thinks a $300M gift to election infrastructure offsets the invaluable daily reach + influence @Facebook gives to right-wing media outlets to broadcast their lies + fear-mongering to tens of millions of Americans for FREE every single day? Come ON man.https://t.co/7jRxTzdz0y — Tara McGowan (@taraemcg) September 1, 2020
Facebook has stressed that it has learned the lessons from 2016 and is arguing that it is much better prepared for this fall. Alongside the announcement of the gift — and perhaps with an eye to this predictable criticism — Zuckerberg pointed out Facebook’s pledge to register 4 million voters and promote information on matters like vote-by-mail to its users.
Election officials were nevertheless ecstatic about the gift. Michigan’s secretary of state called it a “game changer.” Ohio’s said the money would “go a long way” to ensuring the public’s confidence in the vote.
But as always, two things can be true at once about billionaire philanthropy: The money may indeed fill an urgent gap that makes our lives better, but giving away these large sums represents a relatively minor component in the total assessment of how each billionaire is shaping our world.


vox--2020-09-01--Donald Trump is inciting violence

Donald Trump is inciting violence

Back in July , I was emailing with Erica Chenoweth — a professor at Harvard and an expert on protest and political violence around the world — about her take on Trump ’ s response to the protests for racial justice .
One thing she warned about was the emergence of “ pro-state/far-right militias who engage in vigilante violence and terrorism , sometimes with coordination or collusion with the state.
” This has happened in other times and places — think the Ku Klux Klan ’ s activities during Reconstruction , or neofascist militias in Italy in the mid-late 20th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alliances between political parties and far-right militants sometimes work through escalation .
Street fighting tends to increase “ the desire for a law-and-order candidate ” among certain segments population — and right-wing political factions reap the benefit .
In the wake of the shooting deaths of two people in Kenosha , Wisconsin , and murder charges against a Trump-supporting , self-described militia member , Chenoweth ’ s warning is chilling — all the more so because of the president ’ s reaction .
Trump has repeatedly refused to condemn the 17-year-old militia member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and one-sided rendering of the violence that cast it as justifiable self-defense in a Monday night press conference .
“ He fell , and then they very violently attacked him , ” the president said .
“ He probably would have been killed.
” Over the weekend , a convoy of Trump supporters in Portland opened fire on counter-protesters with paintball guns and pepper spray .
On Saturday , the president tweeted a video of their behavior with a caption that all-but-openly cheered them on .
At the Monday press conference , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — noting that a pro-Trump demonstrator was killed in Portland and framing paintballs , by contrast , as a form of peaceful protest .
“ Paint is a defensive mechanism ; paint is not bullets , ” he said .
“ These people , they protested peacefully.
” And Tuesday , Trump is visiting Kenosha in person .
We know Trump well enough to know that the odds that he keeps to a responsible message border on nil .
It seems that stoking conflict and raising the salience of street violence has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to experts , the risks of violence with Trump ’ s rhetoric , as he tightens the connection between far-right street thugs and the official Republican Party , could get worse in the coming weeks .
“ His audience is tens of millions of people .
Only a tiny percentage need to act to severely disrupt this country ’ s politics , ” says J.M .
Berger , an expert on violent extremism at the VOX-Pol research network ( no relation to Vox.com ) .
“ We don ’ t seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing or able to put the brakes on his rhetoric , so it ’ s hard to imagine that this won ’ t get much , much worse by Election Day.
” Donald Trump has a very long history of inciting violence .
“ If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato , knock the crap out of them , would you ?
Seriously , OK ?
Just knock the hell ...
I promise you I will pay for the legal fees , ” he told his supporters at a 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through an especially tense period in American politics , with a high-stakes election in two months and bouts of street violence in several cities .
In such an atmosphere , Trump ’ s habit of engaging in violent rhetoric goes well beyond playing with fire .
Why we should take the risk of Trump ’ s rhetoric seriously Judging by his tweets and the programming during the last week ’ s Republican National Convention , the president appears to genuinely believe that the chaos unfolding on American streets is good for him politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more he can fearmonger about “ Democrat-run cities ” and “ Joe Biden ’ s America ” — distracting from America ’ s botched response to the Covid-19 virus .
“ He believes this is his way out , given that economic recovery is slow and Covid-19 is never-ending , ” says Cas Mudde , a professor at the University of Georgia who studies far-right politics .
“ Go to the old hit : racially infused authoritarianism.
” Remarkably , Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway more or less admitted that this is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns , the better it is for the very clear choice on who ’ s best on public safety and law and order , ” she said during a Fox News appearance last week .
The rhetoric from leaders seems to really matter .
An experiment conducted last September by two political scientists , Lilliana Mason and Nathan Kalmoe , asked Democratic and Republican partisans about their views on political violence .
Some were shown quotes from a party leader ( Trump or Biden ) condemning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; others were not .
The results were striking .
When party leaders condemn violence against their opponents , partisans become more likely to oppose it as well .
Absent that , strong partisans were considerably more likely than average Americans to condone it .
And this finding likely understates the risk of non-condemnation .
“ Our survey was among ‘ regular ’ Americans — I doubt we had any militia members in that sample , ” Mason told me .
Biden seems to understand the risks here .
In his speech on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has erupted amid largely peaceful Black Lives Matter protests in places like Kenosha .
“ Rioting is not protesting .
Looting is not protesting .
Setting fires is not protesting .
It ’ s lawlessness — plain and simple , ” he said .
But there ’ s an asymmetry here .
Early data on arrests during this summer ’ s protests suggests that the looters and vandals aren ’ t political activists , as the right suggests , but tend to be people with criminal records exploiting the situation .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in street violence , like antifa , are not supporters of the Democratic Party — in fact , they tend to be anarchists and far-leftists who disdain the liberal establishment .
By contrast , many of the far-right militant groups taking to the streets , including the one that the militia member charged with murder belonged to , tend to either support Trump openly or share some of his ideas .
They don ’ t exactly act on Trump ’ s orders : the president isn ’ t that overt , and these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in such a direct way .
Instead , you have loose coalitions of right-leaning armed groups — like the Oathkeepers — who take Trump ’ s decision to play footsie with violence as a permission structure to keep doing what they ’ re doing , or even to escalate .
Berger , the extremism scholar , calls this “ generalized incitement ” — and worries that it has significant potential to make things worse .
“ It ’ s not necessarily a situation where he has a very cohesive cadre of followers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but his words land in a variety of communities that are primed for violence , ” Berger says .
“ Some who act may not necessarily be supporters of Trump per se , but may be more inclined to act in an atmosphere of chaos .
Some of them will be supporters , though , and that could be very problematic depending on the numbers.
” I ’ ve heard this kind of concern from experts before , when I ’ ve done investigations into violent internet subcultures like incels and neo-Nazi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boards and chatrooms lionize mass killers — often walking right up to the line of actually calling for people to imitate them without crossing the line into outright criminal incitement to violence .
Most of these people are just keyboard warriors , aimlessly venting their bigotry online .
But the concern among experts is that one isolated person will take what they read on these websites too seriously , to see a post about how “ someone should do something ” about feminists or Jews and decide that they are going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great that a lot of these guys aren ’ t violent , ” Stephanie Carvin , a political scientist who studies terrorism at Canada ’ s Carleton University , told me during a conversation about incels .
“ But if they ’ re glorifying someone who was violent ... a very small percentage of these individuals may feel more justified in acting.
” The audiences for these sites are necessarily limited .
But President Trump has the world ’ s biggest bullhorn : his not-so-subtle support for political violence goes out to hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a much smaller percentage of Trump ’ s audience has any inclination to turn to violence , the huge numbers at work here make the risk unacceptably high .
Put differently : The president is acting less like a political leader than like a shitposter-in-chief .
And the consequences could go beyond what any of us are comfortable anticipating .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Back in July, I was emailing with Erica Chenoweth — a professor at Harvard and an expert on protest and political violence around the world — about her take on Trump’s response to the protests for racial justice. One thing she warned about was the emergence of “pro-state/far-right militias who engage in vigilante violence and terrorism, sometimes with coordination or collusion with the state.”
This has happened in other times and places — think the Ku Klux Klan’s activities during Reconstruction, or neofascist militias in Italy in the mid-late 20th century. According to Chenoweth, such alliances between political parties and far-right militants sometimes work through escalation. Street fighting tends to increase “the desire for a law-and-order candidate” among certain segments population — and right-wing political factions reap the benefit.
In the wake of the shooting deaths of two people in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and murder charges against a Trump-supporting, self-described militia member, Chenoweth’s warning is chilling — all the more so because of the president’s reaction.
Trump has repeatedly refused to condemn the 17-year-old militia member’s behavior, giving a partial and one-sided rendering of the violence that cast it as justifiable self-defense in a Monday night press conference. “He fell, and then they very violently attacked him,” the president said. “He probably would have been killed.”
Over the weekend, a convoy of Trump supporters in Portland opened fire on counter-protesters with paintball guns and pepper spray. On Saturday, the president tweeted a video of their behavior with a caption that all-but-openly cheered them on. At the Monday press conference, the president on his defense of this violence — noting that a pro-Trump demonstrator was killed in Portland and framing paintballs, by contrast, as a form of peaceful protest.
“Paint is a defensive mechanism; paint is not bullets,” he said. “These people, they protested peacefully.”
And Tuesday, Trump is visiting Kenosha in person. We know Trump well enough to know that the odds that he keeps to a responsible message border on nil. It seems that stoking conflict and raising the salience of street violence has become a core part of his reelection strategy. According to experts, the risks of violence with Trump’s rhetoric, as he tightens the connection between far-right street thugs and the official Republican Party, could get worse in the coming weeks.
“His audience is tens of millions of people. Only a tiny percentage need to act to severely disrupt this country’s politics,” says J.M. Berger, an expert on violent extremism at the VOX-Pol research network (no relation to Vox.com).
“We don’t seem to have any institutional actors who are willing or able to put the brakes on his rhetoric, so it’s hard to imagine that this won’t get much, much worse by Election Day.”
Donald Trump has a very long history of inciting violence. “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees,” he told his supporters at a 2016 rally.
But we’re going through an especially tense period in American politics, with a high-stakes election in two months and bouts of street violence in several cities. In such an atmosphere, Trump’s habit of engaging in violent rhetoric goes well beyond playing with fire.
Why we should take the risk of Trump’s rhetoric seriously
Judging by his tweets and the programming during the last week’s Republican National Convention, the president appears to genuinely believe that the chaos unfolding on American streets is good for him politically. The more violence there is, the more he can fearmonger about “Democrat-run cities” and “Joe Biden’s America” — distracting from America’s botched response to the Covid-19 virus.
“He believes this is his way out, given that economic recovery is slow and Covid-19 is never-ending,” says Cas Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia who studies far-right politics. “Go to the old hit: racially infused authoritarianism.”
Remarkably, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway more or less admitted that this is the logic at work. “The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order,” she said during a Fox News appearance last week.
The rhetoric from leaders seems to really matter. An experiment conducted last September by two political scientists, Lilliana Mason and Nathan Kalmoe, asked Democratic and Republican partisans about their views on political violence. Some were shown quotes from a party leader (Trump or Biden) condemning such violence before being asked the questions; others were not.
The results were striking. When party leaders condemn violence against their opponents, partisans become more likely to oppose it as well. Absent that, strong partisans were considerably more likely than average Americans to condone it. And this finding likely understates the risk of non-condemnation.
“Our survey was among ‘regular’ Americans — I doubt we had any militia members in that sample,” Mason told me.
Biden seems to understand the risks here. In his speech on Monday, he forcefully condemned the violence that has erupted amid largely peaceful Black Lives Matter protests in places like Kenosha. “Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. It’s lawlessness — plain and simple,” he said.
But there’s an asymmetry here. Early data on arrests during this summer’s protests suggests that the looters and vandals aren’t political activists, as the right suggests, but tend to be people with criminal records exploiting the situation. Even those avowedly left-wing groups that do engage in street violence, like antifa, are not supporters of the Democratic Party — in fact, they tend to be anarchists and far-leftists who disdain the liberal establishment.
By contrast, many of the far-right militant groups taking to the streets, including the one that the militia member charged with murder belonged to, tend to either support Trump openly or share some of his ideas. They don’t exactly act on Trump’s orders: the president isn’t that overt, and these groups don’t report to him in such a direct way.
Instead, you have loose coalitions of right-leaning armed groups — like the Oathkeepers — who take Trump’s decision to play footsie with violence as a permission structure to keep doing what they’re doing, or even to escalate. Berger, the extremism scholar, calls this “generalized incitement” — and worries that it has significant potential to make things worse.
“It’s not necessarily a situation where he has a very cohesive cadre of followers who will be violent in a strategic way, but his words land in a variety of communities that are primed for violence,” Berger says. “Some who act may not necessarily be supporters of Trump per se, but may be more inclined to act in an atmosphere of chaos. Some of them will be supporters, though, and that could be very problematic depending on the numbers.”
I’ve heard this kind of concern from experts before, when I’ve done investigations into violent internet subcultures like incels and neo-Nazi accelerationists. In these communities, message boards and chatrooms lionize mass killers — often walking right up to the line of actually calling for people to imitate them without crossing the line into outright criminal incitement to violence.
Most of these people are just keyboard warriors, aimlessly venting their bigotry online. But the concern among experts is that one isolated person will take what they read on these websites too seriously, to see a post about how “someone should do something” about feminists or Jews and decide that they are going to be that someone.
“It’s great that a lot of these guys aren’t violent,” Stephanie Carvin, a political scientist who studies terrorism at Canada’s Carleton University, told me during a conversation about incels. “But if they’re glorifying someone who was violent ... a very small percentage of these individuals may feel more justified in acting.”
The audiences for these sites are necessarily limited. But President Trump has the world’s biggest bullhorn: his not-so-subtle support for political violence goes out to hundreds of millions rather than thousands. Even if a much smaller percentage of Trump’s audience has any inclination to turn to violence, the huge numbers at work here make the risk unacceptably high.
Put differently: The president is acting less like a political leader than like a shitposter-in-chief. And the consequences could go beyond what any of us are comfortable anticipating.


vox--2020-09-01--What Black Lives Matter means to an 11-year-old

The killings of George Floyd , Breonna Taylor , and hundreds of other Black Americans at the hands of police officers have inspired protests across the country and around the world .
The news coverage has been impossible for most of us to ignore , and it raises the question : How are kids , especially Black kids , processing this reality ?
How do they make sense of these deaths and the systemic factors that made them possible ?
In June 2020 , 11-year-old Californian Jolia Bossette decided to use her fifth-grade graduation speech as an occasion to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In her speech , she reminisced about how she was “ the cutest thing , ” as a toddler , and asked , “ But when did I stop being cute and start being scary ?
” “ Does my dad scare you ?
Does my mom scare you ?
Does my auntie scare you ?
Because let me tell you something : We are not scary.
” Watch a selection of Jolia ’ s speech , with animation from Eido , in the video above .
This piece is part of Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed for kids ages 9 to 13 .
We hope everyone in our audience enjoys them .
If you ’ re a parent , an educator , or a kid at heart , please sign up for our newsletter for updates on all of our upcoming kids ’ programming at Vox , from podcasts to videos to new shows .
To listen to Jolia ’ s interview on Vox ’ s daily podcast Today , Explained , click the player below .
For a comprehensive list of people shot and killed by police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please visit the Washington Post ’ s Fatal Force database .
To learn more about how the Black Lives Matter movement fits into the tradition of American political and cultural movements , check out this interview with historian Michael Kazin .
You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
And if you ’ re interested in supporting our video journalism , you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and hundreds of other Black Americans at the hands of police officers have inspired protests across the country and around the world.
The news coverage has been impossible for most of us to ignore, and it raises the question: How are kids, especially Black kids, processing this reality? How do they make sense of these deaths and the systemic factors that made them possible?
In June 2020, 11-year-old Californian Jolia Bossette decided to use her fifth-grade graduation speech as an occasion to give voice to her thoughts and feelings. In her speech, she reminisced about how she was “the cutest thing,” as a toddler, and asked, “But when did I stop being cute and start being scary?”
“Does my dad scare you? Does my mom scare you? Does my auntie scare you? Because let me tell you something: We are not scary.”
Watch a selection of Jolia’s speech, with animation from Eido, in the video above.
This piece is part of Vox’s first-ever week of video programming designed for kids ages 9 to 13. We hope everyone in our audience enjoys them.
If you’re a parent, an educator, or a kid at heart, please sign up for our newsletter for updates on all of our upcoming kids’ programming at Vox, from podcasts to videos to new shows.
To listen to Jolia’s interview on Vox’s daily podcast Today, Explained, click the player below.
Further reading
For a comprehensive list of people shot and killed by police in the United States since 2015, please visit the Washington Post’s Fatal Force database.
To learn more about how the Black Lives Matter movement fits into the tradition of American political and cultural movements, check out this interview with historian Michael Kazin.
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.


vox--2020-09-01--Protests in Kenosha and nationwide following Jacob Blake’s shooting

The shooting of Jacob Blake intensified demonstrations against police brutality and for civil rights that have been ongoing across the US since the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor .
Jacob Blake , a 29-year-old Black resident of Kenosha , Wisconsin , was shot in the back at point-blank range seven times by white Kenosha Police Department officer Rusten Sheskey on August 23 , according to the Wisconsin Department of Justice .
Sheskey was a member of a team of officers called to Kenosha ’ s Wilson Heights neighborhood to respond to a domestic disturbance .
Two of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subdue Blake in the moments before the shooting , as reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel .
Two videos of the officers ’ interaction with Blake have emerged .
The first , which went viral , depicts Blake ’ s shooting ; the second shows some of what happened in the moments immediately prior as two officers attempted to force Blake to the ground .
After the shooting , Blake was transported to the hospital .
The officers arrested him ; Kenosha ’ s police chief has said he had an outstanding warrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scene , from the floorboard of Blake ’ s vehicle .
Also inside the vehicle at the moment he was shot were his three young sons , according to his family ’ s lawyer , civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump .
The seven bullets left Blake with serious wounds , including spinal damage that may leave him permanently unable to walk , his father — also named Jacob Blake — has said .
Doctors were forced to remove most of Blake ’ s colon and small intestines ; his kidneys , liver , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting immediately sparked protests in Kenosha and intensified demonstrations against police brutality and for civil rights that have been ongoing across the US since the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor .
The Kenosha protests briefly became violent when a 17-year-old Illinois resident armed with an assault rifle shot three protesters , killing two .
Democrats and Republicans have both used this shooting — and another fatal shooting at a Portland , Oregon , protest — as evidence of the other party ’ s shortcomings , with President Donald Trump saying during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the nation — and the violence adjacent to them — show that “ No one will be safe in Biden ’ s America.
” The president has also said “ Radical Left Democrat Mayors , like the dummy running Portland , or the guy right now in his basement unwilling to lead or even speak out against crime ” ( referring to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ) are keeping Americans from enjoying “ Law & Order.
” Biden , however , has pushed back against these claims .
“ These are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America of the future — these are images of Donald Trump ’ s America today , ” Biden said in a Philadelphia speech .
“ He keeps telling you , if he was president , you ’ d feel safe .
Well , he is president — whether he knows it or not.
” Amid this rhetoric , an investigation into Blake ’ s shooting has been launched .
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is conducting an investigation that is meant to compliment the investigation being done by the Wisconsin Department of Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — have been placed on administrative leave .
Please follow this storystream for more on Blake ’ s shooting , protests , and the response to both .

The shooting of Jacob Blake intensified demonstrations against police brutality and for civil rights that have been ongoing across the US since the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.
Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black resident of Kenosha, Wisconsin, was shot in the back at point-blank range seven times by white Kenosha Police Department officer Rusten Sheskey on August 23, according to the Wisconsin Department of Justice.
Sheskey was a member of a team of officers called to Kenosha’s Wilson Heights neighborhood to respond to a domestic disturbance. Two of those officers unsuccessfully attempted to use Tasers to subdue Blake in the moments before the shooting, as reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Two videos of the officers’ interaction with Blake have emerged. The first, which went viral, depicts Blake’s shooting; the second shows some of what happened in the moments immediately prior as two officers attempted to force Blake to the ground.
After the shooting, Blake was transported to the hospital. The officers arrested him; Kenosha’s police chief has said he had an outstanding warrant. A knife was recovered at the scene, from the floorboard of Blake’s vehicle. Also inside the vehicle at the moment he was shot were his three young sons, according to his family’s lawyer, civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump.
The seven bullets left Blake with serious wounds, including spinal damage that may leave him permanently unable to walk, his father — also named Jacob Blake — has said. Doctors were forced to remove most of Blake’s colon and small intestines; his kidneys, liver, and arm were also damaged.
The shooting immediately sparked protests in Kenosha and intensified demonstrations against police brutality and for civil rights that have been ongoing across the US since the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. The Kenosha protests briefly became violent when a 17-year-old Illinois resident armed with an assault rifle shot three protesters, killing two.
Democrats and Republicans have both used this shooting — and another fatal shooting at a Portland, Oregon, protest — as evidence of the other party’s shortcomings, with President Donald Trump saying during his Republican National Convention address that uprisings across the nation — and the violence adjacent to them — show that “No one will be safe in Biden’s America.” The president has also said “Radical Left Democrat Mayors, like the dummy running Portland, or the guy right now in his basement unwilling to lead or even speak out against crime” (referring to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden) are keeping Americans from enjoying “Law & Order.”
Biden, however, has pushed back against these claims.
“These are not images of some imagined Joe Biden America of the future — these are images of Donald Trump’s America today,” Biden said in a Philadelphia speech. “He keeps telling you, if he was president, you’d feel safe. Well, he is president — whether he knows it or not.”
Amid this rhetoric, an investigation into Blake’s shooting has been launched. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is conducting an investigation that is meant to compliment the investigation being done by the Wisconsin Department of Justice. Three officers involved — including Sheskey — have been placed on administrative leave.
Please follow this storystream for more on Blake’s shooting, protests, and the response to both.