Great post. i think we could add 'both sides' - frequently deployed to platform racism, sexism, and all manner of misinformation. Your insta-stories regarding desire to interview Jordan Petersen has had me fearing 'both sides' and distraction was encroaching upon the Wild podcast. It's a difficult space to navigate!
I'd love to hear you speak with Anand Giridharadas, Sarah. The space of dialogue and use of energy is fundamental to social movements - a podcast convo on this topic would be 🔥
Thank you for this, Sarah. It helps to know about these crazy tactics. I’ve experienced crazy-makers in my work life and wish I knew back then how to name it and how best to deal with them. I found myself often baffled and lost, like “what just happened?”
I came across similar definitions to the crazy-maker in Bo Seo’s book, “Good Arguments”. He says that both in the world of debating and in life we come across the Dodger, the Twister, the Wrangler and the Liar. He offers advice on how best to deal with each one e.g. stay the course, pin them to a position etc. Well worth a read.
Feb 8, 2023·edited Feb 8, 2023Liked by Sarah Wilson
Hi Sarah. I'm thrilled you've brought this up. I have been thinking the same thing - what a distraction this is and god help me if I have to listen to Dutton say "more detail" one more time. I hope that people don't get caught up on this and understand what the process is. There's no point putting the cart before the horse and banging on about the detail when we haven't even had the vote yet and also - why can't we all just wait until the referendum date is announced and then turn our attention towards it properly. I also look forward to reading your thoughts on your substack in the future about this vote.
PS - to the Chinese balloon category I would also add the radioactive disc thing which fell off the back of a truck in the desert and was being looked for yet it was a Breaking News story which went on and on for days.
I am not an Indigenous Australian but it seems that most often there’s a loud, white voice drowning out and distracting the masses from listening to their voices. We could call it White Noise.
Pat Anderson, Co-Chair Uluṟu Dialogues commented on the noise recently.
“We never wanted this to be a political football & that’s… one of the reasons why the mob at the regional dialogues gifted The Uluru Statement from the Heart to the people of Australia - not to the Prime Minister, not to the politicians.
Referendums are not about detail. The Australian public are not being asked to vote on the model. The Constitution… we’re talking about the principles, the idea of what is being proposed. An enshrined voice gives us the power to be part of the decisions that affect us, in this country, our land.“
I hope it leads to foundational change. Turn the White Noise down so we can hear Indigenous voices.
I like what you shared from Teju Cole inviting white people to catch up.
Just shoosh, take a few, big steps back away from the mic and put in the effort that does justice to the invitation being made… for decades!
Sure, a diverse range of views and critical discussion is a crucial aspect of a thriving democracy, but amplifying bad faith actors and blatant misinfornation only undermines effective communication and participation in democratic processes. Climate change denialism is one such example (you'd think we'd be past 'both sides' on that one).
It's so commonplace nowadays to label some views as misinformation, disinformation or conspiracy theory's, or label people as bigots, or racists etc. and therefore mount a case to censor such views.
As concerning as some views may be, I'm more concerned about jeopardising core principles that make up a healthy, free and democratic society: freedom of speech and diversity of view points.
These principles allow individuals to express their opinions, ideas and beliefs without fear of censorship or reprisal. By having a diverse range of perspectives and ideas (as incorrect as they may or may not be), society is better equipped to address complex challenges. For example, the Civil Rights Movement in the United States was fueled by the exercise of free speech, as activists and supporters spoke out against racial inequality and advocated for change. Similarly, the fall of the Soviet Union can also be attributed to the power of free speech, as individuals and groups openly criticized the government and called for reforms. In both cases, the ability to freely express one's views was a key factor in bringing about positive change.
I don't see Sarah advocating for censorship. Although I do see how these lines of arguments (ie just asking questions, seeking more details etc.) could justify or lead to that. The question i have is, what's more important, combating "misinformation", or ensuring freedom of speech and diversity of view points?
I love this. You’ve given such great language to articulate what my gut feeling is toward the chaos creators. Planning to use “catch up” a whole bunch!
Do we need a voice to parliament or to amend the constitution to declare the indigenous people were here before we invaded and have the same constitutional rights as every Australian?
Admittedly, I’d forgotten that’s how referendums worked (vote on principle) ..or was I distracted?! Surely Dutton can’t have forgotten, and he’s betting that many voters don’t know the process at all.
But I sometimes think we give certain people too much credit for masterminding their distracting/dividing/delaying strategies, when perhaps it’s just hope-for-the-best, prejudice-driven reactive-ness/panic . In contrast, I see Albo as a high-end strategiser, and (putting their obvious differing viewpoints aside) doubt he’d even consider a move like Duttons
Great post. i think we could add 'both sides' - frequently deployed to platform racism, sexism, and all manner of misinformation. Your insta-stories regarding desire to interview Jordan Petersen has had me fearing 'both sides' and distraction was encroaching upon the Wild podcast. It's a difficult space to navigate!
I'd love to hear you speak with Anand Giridharadas, Sarah. The space of dialogue and use of energy is fundamental to social movements - a podcast convo on this topic would be 🔥
Thank you for this, Sarah. It helps to know about these crazy tactics. I’ve experienced crazy-makers in my work life and wish I knew back then how to name it and how best to deal with them. I found myself often baffled and lost, like “what just happened?”
I came across similar definitions to the crazy-maker in Bo Seo’s book, “Good Arguments”. He says that both in the world of debating and in life we come across the Dodger, the Twister, the Wrangler and the Liar. He offers advice on how best to deal with each one e.g. stay the course, pin them to a position etc. Well worth a read.
Hi Sarah. I'm thrilled you've brought this up. I have been thinking the same thing - what a distraction this is and god help me if I have to listen to Dutton say "more detail" one more time. I hope that people don't get caught up on this and understand what the process is. There's no point putting the cart before the horse and banging on about the detail when we haven't even had the vote yet and also - why can't we all just wait until the referendum date is announced and then turn our attention towards it properly. I also look forward to reading your thoughts on your substack in the future about this vote.
PS - to the Chinese balloon category I would also add the radioactive disc thing which fell off the back of a truck in the desert and was being looked for yet it was a Breaking News story which went on and on for days.
I am not an Indigenous Australian but it seems that most often there’s a loud, white voice drowning out and distracting the masses from listening to their voices. We could call it White Noise.
Pat Anderson, Co-Chair Uluṟu Dialogues commented on the noise recently.
“We never wanted this to be a political football & that’s… one of the reasons why the mob at the regional dialogues gifted The Uluru Statement from the Heart to the people of Australia - not to the Prime Minister, not to the politicians.
Referendums are not about detail. The Australian public are not being asked to vote on the model. The Constitution… we’re talking about the principles, the idea of what is being proposed. An enshrined voice gives us the power to be part of the decisions that affect us, in this country, our land.“
I hope it leads to foundational change. Turn the White Noise down so we can hear Indigenous voices.
I like what you shared from Teju Cole inviting white people to catch up.
Just shoosh, take a few, big steps back away from the mic and put in the effort that does justice to the invitation being made… for decades!
You want bad faith arguments and misinformation to occupy billboards and broadcasts, in the interests of democracy?
I'm not getting it, because that is absurd and it couldn't be your argument 😆
See ya Matthew
Sure, a diverse range of views and critical discussion is a crucial aspect of a thriving democracy, but amplifying bad faith actors and blatant misinfornation only undermines effective communication and participation in democratic processes. Climate change denialism is one such example (you'd think we'd be past 'both sides' on that one).
It's so commonplace nowadays to label some views as misinformation, disinformation or conspiracy theory's, or label people as bigots, or racists etc. and therefore mount a case to censor such views.
As concerning as some views may be, I'm more concerned about jeopardising core principles that make up a healthy, free and democratic society: freedom of speech and diversity of view points.
These principles allow individuals to express their opinions, ideas and beliefs without fear of censorship or reprisal. By having a diverse range of perspectives and ideas (as incorrect as they may or may not be), society is better equipped to address complex challenges. For example, the Civil Rights Movement in the United States was fueled by the exercise of free speech, as activists and supporters spoke out against racial inequality and advocated for change. Similarly, the fall of the Soviet Union can also be attributed to the power of free speech, as individuals and groups openly criticized the government and called for reforms. In both cases, the ability to freely express one's views was a key factor in bringing about positive change.
I don't see Sarah advocating for censorship. Although I do see how these lines of arguments (ie just asking questions, seeking more details etc.) could justify or lead to that. The question i have is, what's more important, combating "misinformation", or ensuring freedom of speech and diversity of view points?
I love this. You’ve given such great language to articulate what my gut feeling is toward the chaos creators. Planning to use “catch up” a whole bunch!
Do we need a voice to parliament or to amend the constitution to declare the indigenous people were here before we invaded and have the same constitutional rights as every Australian?
Admittedly, I’d forgotten that’s how referendums worked (vote on principle) ..or was I distracted?! Surely Dutton can’t have forgotten, and he’s betting that many voters don’t know the process at all.
But I sometimes think we give certain people too much credit for masterminding their distracting/dividing/delaying strategies, when perhaps it’s just hope-for-the-best, prejudice-driven reactive-ness/panic . In contrast, I see Albo as a high-end strategiser, and (putting their obvious differing viewpoints aside) doubt he’d even consider a move like Duttons
Sarah, Thank you for sharing this. The tactic of distraction seems to be everywhere. D