Plenty to reflect about re: the Arday affair, but I'm going to repeat this one thing. The playbook the right used here is effective even though it's not especially sophisticated, as it relies on the audience to do the dirty work. I've been calling it "Trojan horse propaganda", let's go with that. 1/ I've watched the right use this communication strategy (and close cousins of it) my entire life - and of course, it is much older. quick examples: "solar panels fail at night", "not all men" etc. In each case a true statement is made, yet each is a case of the bad kind of propaganda. 2/ Carter G. Woodson's famous 1933 work The Mis-Education of the Negro includes a discussion of these kinds of cases. Medical textbooks of the era reminded students of the higher rates of diseases including STIs in Black populations. True, relevant information. But what effects did it have? 3/ Woodson gives this as an example of the way that Black medical students were "convinced of their inferiority in being reminded of their role as germ carriers." Not because the information in the textbook was false, but because of how it interacted with the going stereotypes of the day. 4/ When people were told "syphilis and tuberculosis are more prevalent among Black people", they didn't hear "immunity rates are lower in populations where the diseases are more novel" (what Woodson regards as the correct explanation), they heard confirmation of stereotypes already in circulation 5/ The propaganda was not in the textbook's sentences themselves, so much as in the way they teed up epistemic and political problems in the world outside of the textbook (hence "Trojan horse propaganda"). Woodson's case is sort of best case scenario: we can imagine innocuous textbook authors. 6/ But it is hopefully obvious how malicious actors could purposefully use this kind of setup. If you are a right wing neo-segregationist who finds yourself in a political culture where racism is already in circulation, you do not need to put forward an explicit segregationist agenda. 7/ All you have to do is find things that cue up the bigotry you want to promote, and make them salient - preferably, while avoiding the same for context that would complicate your intended narrative (in a distracted, low-participation political culture, the last bit comes practically for free). 8/ This is what we see. Mugshots don't come with sociology explainers; spread enough images of Black criminals and white victims and a kind of project is off and running. even lies exploit this architecture: JD Vance makes up something about cats and suddenly Haitians have ankle monitors. 9/ The upsides of the strategy are clear: if you use Trojan horses, you not only do not have to defend the ideas you are promoting, but you don't even have to cop to promoting them. Because, in an important sense, you *aren't* - you are relying on history and your audience to do it for you. 10/ Over the last few days I've watched highly politically engaged, educated people who are otherwise clear and careful thinkers attempting to litigate the obvious facts of the matter with respect to the late Arday's obvious layers of misconduct, taking their turn wheeling the horse into the gates. 11/ Philosophers often bring up the "principle of charity": a willingness to assume good faith in an interlocutor and treat them accordingly. It's good to do in many circumstances. But it is worth formulating a principle of not being a fucking mark. If not during the rise of fascism, then when? 12/ "hmm maybe this whole Arday affair shows that we need to have a Serious Conversation about whether Woke 1.0 overreached in manner X, Y, of Z" motherfucker you are generally in Fascism 487.0, as is this particular affair you're talking about. worry about *that*. /Final Actually, one more - I feel like I should say this directly, so here goes. In the 90s and 00s, the groups I remember pursuing this strategy (hyperpublicize mugshots, Black crime statistics, etc) were Stormfront, the Klan, etc. Now it's the New York Times and the Telegraph. That is the story here.