It Must Be True Because The Mouse Said It!

The curious world of manufactured narratives, convenient truths and those who would rather manipulate reality than confront it.

There appears to be a rather peculiar phenomenon developing in the world of online commentary. It is a phenomenon in which the truth is no longer determined by evidence, facts or anything remotely resembling reality. Instead, it is determined by who says something, how loudly they say it, and how many people they can persuade to repeat it.

And apparently, if the Mouse said it, then it must be true!

Welcome to the wonderful world of YouTube politics, personality contests and manufactured narratives, where the inconvenient business of establishing the truth has become something of an optional extra.

For some of my detractors, the only way to get one over on me is to abandon the traditional principles of honesty, integrity and fair competition altogether. Rather than engage with an argument, challenge the evidence or demonstrate where I might be wrong, they resort to a familiar collection of tactics: lies, misrepresentation, selective editing, exaggeration and the occasional creative reconstruction of reality.

It's an interesting strategy, if nothing else.

When you cannot defeat the argument, attack the person making it. When you cannot disprove the evidence, question the motives of the person presenting it. And when neither approach works, simply invent an alternative version of events and hope that somebody believes it.

Apparently, that's what passes for winning these days.

The Art of Manipulating Reality.

There is a considerable difference between winning an argument and creating the impression that you have won one.

Winning an argument requires evidence, reason, consistency and an ability to withstand scrutiny. Creating the impression of winning requires considerably less effort. A few carefully chosen words, a misleading suggestion, a conveniently omitted detail and an audience willing to accept something as fact simply because it confirms what they already believe.

And there you have it: an alternative reality, complete with its own collection of alternative facts.

Of course, the problem with building an argument around misinformation is that it requires constant maintenance. One distortion needs another to support it. One questionable claim requires another explanation. Before long, the original point has disappeared beneath an increasingly complicated construction of half-truths, assumptions and outright inventions.

But perhaps that's the intention.

Perhaps the objective was never to establish the truth in the first place. Perhaps it was simply to create enough confusion that nobody could distinguish fact from fiction.

The Mouse said it, so it must be true!

I find it particularly amusing when individuals place so much confidence in the words of others that they never bother to establish whether those words have any foundation whatsoever.

Someone says something about Matt Taylor. Someone else repeats it. A third person adds a little embellishment, and before long, an entirely manufactured narrative begins circulating as though it were an established historical fact, and the next thing Taylor knows, Sussex Police have smashed down his front door, and seized his worldly belongings..

• Evidence? Who needs evidence?

• Verification? Far too much trouble.

• A little critical thinking? Apparently, that's asking too much.

The Mouse said it, after all!

And therein lies the real problem. People become so invested in a particular version of events that they stop asking the most basic questions. Is it true? Can it be demonstrated? Does the evidence actually support the claim?

Instead, the question becomes whether the story is useful to them.

If it helps reinforce an existing prejudice, discredit somebody they dislike or provide a temporary sense of superiority, then apparently that's good enough.

A Hollow Victory is still a Defeat.

Now, here's the thing.

I have absolutely no interest in claiming that I'm always right. I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes, getting things wrong and occasionally misjudging a situation. That's called being human.

But I do believe there is a fundamental distinction between somebody who is prepared to acknowledge a mistake and somebody who would rather construct an elaborate deception than admit they might be wrong.

And that distinction matters.

If you have to lie to win, what exactly have you achieved?

If you have to misrepresent somebody else's words to make your argument credible, what does that say about the strength of your argument?

If you have to manipulate the perception of events because the actual events don't support your position, then perhaps it's time to reconsider the position you're defending.

You might convince a few “Low IQ” people. You might even enjoy a brief moment of applause from an audience that has already decided what it wants to believe.

But none of that changes reality.

A victory obtained through dishonesty is a hollow victory. It might provide temporary satisfaction, but it offers no genuine achievement, no intellectual credibility and certainly no reason for anyone to respect the methods used to obtain it.

You haven't demonstrated that you're better. You've merely demonstrated what you're prepared to do when you cannot win fairly.

My Advice? Drop It.

I suspect that some people will continue doing exactly what they've been doing. They'll continue repeating stories, manufacturing narratives, interpreting everything through the lens of their own prejudices and congratulating themselves whenever somebody accepts their version of events.

That's their choice.

As for me, I'll continue doing what I do: commenting, questioning, investigating, creating, entertaining and occasionally pointing out the extraordinary absurdities of the world around me.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me. I don't even expect everybody to like me. Neither is a prerequisite for having an opinion or participating in public debate.

But I do expect a little honesty.

And if somebody genuinely believes I've got something wrong, they're welcome to demonstrate it. Bring the evidence, make the argument and put it under scrutiny.

That's how grown-ups settle disagreements.

Not by inventing stories, manipulating perceptions or relying on the latest contribution from the internet's unofficial department of alternative reality.

Because ultimately, there is a rather simple principle at play here:

You can manipulate a narrative. You can influence an audience. You can even persuade people to believe something that isn't true. But you cannot change the underlying reality simply by repeating a lie often enough.

And if the only way you can get one over on somebody is by cheating, lying and manipulating the truth, then perhaps you should take a moment to consider who has actually lost.

I'll leave that thought with you.