【推文】James Lindsay - "You don't have to care about politics, but politics cares about you."
這是 James Lindsay 最近寫的長推文（但不算很長）
連結
原推文 - x.com/conceptualjame...
Thread Reader App版本（一頁版本） - threadreaderapp.com/...
原文及個人翻譯
You've heard the saying "you don't have to care about politics, but politics cares about you." That's even more true for political warfare. You may not care about political warfare, but these days, political warfare definitely cares about you. There are psyops everywhere.
你聽說過一句話：「你不需要關心政治，但政治關心你。」這在政治戰爭中更加正確。你可能不關心政治戰爭，但如今，政治戰爭確實關心你。到處都有心理戰。
Because of mass media, the internet, and social media, at least for the time being, you live on a political warfare battlefield. You have very little choice in this matter, and whether you're a innocent bystander or an active combatant, you are by default a combatant in it.
I want you to take this description very seriously. You are a combatant in a global political warfare firefight whether you want to be or not, outside of some very difficult and narrow exceptions. That's because political warfare isn't like conventional warfare. It's everywhere.
More than its ubiquity, everyone is a combatant in political warfare environments because the nature of political warfare isn't to shoot your enemy's army so much as it is to influence your enemy's population. Therefore, the whole population is an active target and fighting.
由於大眾媒體、互聯網和社交媒體的存在，至少在當前，你生活在一個政治戰爭的戰場上。你在這個問題上選擇極少，無論你是無辜的旁觀者還是積極的戰鬥者，你在預設情況下是其中的一員。
我希望你非常認真地看待這份描述。你是否願意還是不願意，你都是全球政治戰爭中的一員，除了極少數難以定義的例外情況。這是因為政治戰爭與傳統戰爭不同。它無處不在。
政治戰爭的環境中，每個人都是戰鬥者，這不僅僅是因為它無處不在，更因為政治戰爭的本質是影響敵方的民眾，而非僅僅是射擊敵軍。因此，整個民眾都是積極的目標和戰鬥者。
If you were a Marine storming the beach in Normandy in WWII, you wouldn't run out there with your gear and rifle, and so you don't have the luxury of living your life unaware of propaganda, political warfare, and influence campaigns. You have to know how to protect yourself.
By far the most important "gear" needed in a political warfare environment is understanding enough about political warfare to know it's happening around you and what some of it looks like, how it works, etc. You're less likely to get taken in by operations you recognize as ops.
This means that your "gear" is spending time learning about how propaganda works and what it looks like, but it also means working to develop discernment, not just cruising through life, not just following crowds, not just trusting everything you see, or what you like.
如果你是第二次世界大戰中衝鋒諾曼底海灘的海軍陸戰隊員，你不會帶著（Pika：應該是不會不帶著，我認為原文打錯）裝備和步槍衝上前，因此你不能奢望活在無知中，不了解宣傳、政治戰爭和影響行動。你必須知道如何保護自己。
在政治戰爭環境中，最重要的是具備足夠的知識，認識政治戰爭的發生和一些表現形式，了解其運作方式等。這樣你就不太可能被你認出的行動所欺騙。
這意味著你的「裝備」是花時間學習宣傳的運作方式和表現形式，但同時也意味著培養判斷力，而不是只是過著生活，跟從人群，或完全信任你所看到的或你喜歡的東西。
Many of the influence campaigns we are subjected to are "reflexive" in nature. They're based on highly tuned misleading lies that incorporate some truth and then lead people astray in a way that "goes viral." Everyone's talking about it. Everyone's saying it. It's happening!
Reflexive campaigns work not just by being misleading but through crowd effects. Technically, reflexive campaigns work by getting people to believe other people believe something and getting them to follow in rapidly growing numbers, usually to make some political mistake.
許多我們所面臨的影響行動是「反射性」的。它們基於高度精細的誤導性謊言，融合了一些真相，然後以「病毒式」傳播的方式引導人們偏離正軌。每個人都在談論它，每個人都在說它，它正在發生！
反射性行動不僅僅通過誤導，還通過群眾效應來運作。技術上講，反射性行動通過讓人們相信其他人相信某事，並讓他們迅速增加跟隨者（通常是做出政治錯誤）來實現其目的。
It is very important in a political warfare environment where reflexive weapons are deployed that you don't just blindly follow what everyone is suddenly thinking. You have to slow down and take time and get to the bottom of some things. You cannot just go running along with.
Realize you're in a political warfare environment now all the time you're consuming media, either mass or social media. You have to have your guard up. You need to be skeptical and discerning, especially when everyone starts going a particular direction all at once.
在部署反射性武器的政治戰爭環境中，非常重要的是你不要盲目跟隨每個人突然想到的東西。你必須放慢腳步，花時間深入探討一些事情。你不能只是隨之起舞。
意識到你現在在一個政治戰爭環境中，每當你消費大眾媒體或社交媒體時。你必須保持警惕。你需要保持懷疑和判斷力，尤其是在每個人突然朝一個方向移動時。
額外內容
「反射性」例子（來自下面影片Understanding Reflexive Environments的回應）
Having explained them at length on Twitter, I tend to think of reflexive environments in a slightly different way. In my opinion, it isn’t that “everyone must express an opinion” about it that is central, nor that they are deliberately aimed (there is a more specific term for that: Reflexive Control, more recently also known as Perception Management; These qualify as a war crime, by the way). Rather, it is that only one opinion is stated in the environment. Not all the time, but over time. The key point is not that you hear the message all the time, but that you are never offered another way to hear about that topic, so unless you really think about it (and why would you?) you will just adopt a reflex of thinking about it in the manner of the reflexive environment. Every time it comes up, you will recall the opinion from your environment and amplify it. This is literally self-conditioning hypnosis.
在推特上詳細解釋了它們後，我傾向於以略有不同的方式思考反射性環境。我認為，關鍵不在於「每個人都必須表達自己的觀點」，也不在於它們是故意針對的（有更具體術語來描述：反射性控制，最近也稱為感知管理；這些可以算作戰爭罪行），而是環境中只表達出一種觀點。不是始終如一，而是隨著時間的推移。關鍵點不是你不斷聽到信息，而是你從未被提供過另一個聽取該話題的方式，因此，除非你真的思考過（而你為什麼要這樣做？），你將只會形成一種反射，以反射性環境的方式思考。每次這個話題出現時，你都會回憶起環境中的觀點並放大它。這實際上是自我條件性催眠。
For example, we live in a reflexive environment which never says a good word about climate change. It is all doom and gloom, and people who suggest it might not be all doom and gloom or that we can handle it (especially without “global cooperation”) are very easily labelled as “climate (change) deniers”. This environment conditions people to think about Climate Change and how it is bad if there is a day with nice, hot weather, if there is a fierce storm, or what-have-you (the official prediction is wetter winters and hotter summers). The people who are labelled as deniers will no longer be taken seriously by vast swathes of the population because they don’t conform with the environment. That is how the environment sustains itself (and also why they are not always designed, and not always a war crime, though they are always dangerous).
例如，我們生活在一個反射性環境中，這個環境從不對氣候變化說一句好話。它總是充滿災難和黑暗，而那些建議情況可能並非如此或我們可以應對這情況（特別是在沒有「全球合作」的情況下）的人，很容易被貼上「氣候（變化）否認者」的標籤。這個環境條件人們以這種方式思考氣候變化及其負面影響：如果有一天天氣晴朗炎熱，如果發生猛烈的風暴，或者類似的情況（官方預測是冬季更潮濕，夏季更炎熱），人們就會這樣做。被貼上否認者標籤的人將不再受到廣大群眾的認真對待，因為他們不符合環境的要求。這就是環境如何維持自身（以及為什麼它們不總是設計好的，也不總是戰爭罪行，但總是危險的）的原因。
The postmodernists called these “discourses”. Their goal always was to “seize the means of discourse production”, i.e. to design reflexive environments. The cultural Marxists called it hegemony. Their goal was to replace the people who create the hegemony so they could make the “counter-hegemony” to push their agenda. These are not so different, now, are they? Marxists have theorized about these things for over a century. Reflexive control was popularized as a strategy by the Soviet Union. I wonder where they got the idea from?
後現代主義者稱這些為「敘事」或「話語」。他們的目標始終是「掌握話語生產的手段」，也就是設計反射性環境。文化馬克思主義者則稱其為「霸權」。他們的目標是取代創造霸權的人，以便他們可以推動自己的議程，形成「反霸權」。這些概念並不相差甚遠，是嗎？馬克思主義者已經對這些事物進行了超過一個世紀的理論探討。反射性控制被蘇聯作為策略普及開來。我好奇他們從何得來這個想法？
In any case, Lindsay is basically talking about the weaponized form (Reflexive Control), which is a bit more specific. He is basically right about that one. Should stress again that it is a war crime though. The reason is that it invariably must target civilians in order to be effective. The reason it is a horrible strategy is that there is no controlling a reflexive environment. You can only nudge it, and when it eventually explodes, nobody controls the explosion. Meanwhile, how many horrible mistakes have been made by people based on it who did not realize they were inside of one?
無論如何，Lindsay基本上在談論一種武器化形式（反射性控制），這更具體一些。他在這一點上基本上是對的。儘管如此，我們應該再次強調這是一種戰爭罪行。原因在於，為了有效地發揮作用，它不可避免地必須針對平民。這種策略可怕的原因是，你無法控制反射性環境。你只能輕輕地推動它，當它最終爆發時，沒有人能控制爆炸。同時，有多少可怕的錯誤是由那些沒有意識到自己處於這種環境中的人根據這種策略所做出的？