Denialism and the dictatorship
“There was never a dictatorship in Brazil.” It was 2018, and elections were a couple of months away. Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro was surging in the polls, fueled by home grown video endorsements, disinformation and scare tactics disseminated on social media. These strategies played well with a broad swath of people with low literacy who had difficulty consuming written content—and besides, in today’s global politics, written content is so last century. But I was stunned to hear these words from the mouth of a highly educated and world traveled Brazilian. At that moment, I knew Bolsonaro would be the winner.
So denialism is not about lack of information. This person had access to all manner of information and was someone who was diligent in studying facts in service of work and career. This person was multilingual and highly successful in their chosen field. I had known them for decades and had enjoyed many lively discussions with them on a broad ranging variety of topics. And here they were, telling me the 1964 to 1985 military-civilian dictatorship never happened.
In a global perspective there are people who sincerely believe vaccines cause autism, that there’s no such thing as global warming, that anti-malarials and worm pills cure COVID, and the Holocaust wasn’t perpetrated by the Nazis. In the United States, a significant number of people believe Joe Biden stole the election and that the January 6th 2021 assault on the American capitol was carried out by patriots defending the republic.
How do people believe things that aren’t true? In 2007, Mark Hoofnagle and Chris Jay Hoofnagle published a paper that created a framework for understanding denialism. They tried to make sense of the way people dig their heels in and refuse to consider evidence that contradicts their pet theories or strongly held beliefs. Unfortunately, explaining the mechanisms hasn’t resulted in much change. If anything, denialism is stronger than ever—in the US, Brazil and elsewhere.
Denialism has five key characteristics. First, conspiratorial groups have banded together to create a false set of evidence, and people have fallen for it. But not the deniers! They know that shadowy forces create narratives that foolish people believe. They are the insiders who know better. “If you had done research on the internet like I have, you would know that the so-called evidence you are telling me is wrong.”
Second, fake experts are touted as superior to established authorities. Judy Mikovits, a discredited virologist, was splashed across the internet in 2020, claiming deaths were being attributed to COVID when they were due to other causes, and that the virus was “activated” by face masks. When another long time friend posted a link to this nonsense on Facebook, I replied that it was not true, that Mikovits was a discredited scientist, even if she was appearing in a popular new “documentary” film. The result? My friend unfriended me.
The third characteristic is selectivity, or what is also called “cherry-picking” of evidence. Ignore the evidence that doesn’t support your beliefs and elevate what does. This is further reinforced as people argue against your chosen evidence, thus proving the shadowy forces are in control and you are right when others are delusional.
Fourth, setting such a high bar for data to support opposing theories that nothing can refute your ideas. Thus, the denialist requires a mountain of scientific evidence to prove the theory or history they dislike, and they can use this “lack of adequate evidence” to show the validity of their beliefs.
Finally, logical fallacies set up the opposing view and knock it down, often in the form of “whataboutism,” where supposedly analogous examples are used to argue in favor of the misinformation. It’s a form of distraction, as in “look—over there!”
As to why people are drawn to and drawn in by denialism, questions abound. In some cases the perpetrators of misinformation are making boatloads of money by selling products designed to offer a remedy for the dangers they warn against. See Jones, Alex, Sandy Hook, defamation judgment. Jones made millions off products he peddled to his many listeners who bought into his claims that mass shootings were “false flag” events staged to promote the removal of gun ownership rights.
Or maybe believing misinformation is a reward in itself, a “dopamine hit” that fires all the pleasure receptors in the brain and creates the need for more. Being part of the select few who are swimming against the tide means fighting the good fight, not falling for the false narratives put out by those elites who are so unlike normal people. Elites like me, a pointy-headed university professor who believes in vaccines and worries about gun violence.
So: there was never a dictatorship in Brazil. It was a revolution in 1964 on behalf of the people, where the military saved Brazil from communist rule. The socialist president João Goulart, nicknamed Jango, was removed from power and he left Brazil to live in exile in Uruguay. There was never any torture or murder of citizens, just necessary tactics used to control the revolutionaries and terrorists plotting to overthrow the stable civilian/military regime. All the evidence about torture and disappearances amassed by the Brasil: Nunca Mais (Brazil: Never Again) commission is to be disregarded. Besides, that was a long, long time ago in a land far away, a place unfamiliar to young people these days. What should Brazilians worry about now? The October, 2022 presidential election. Bolsonaro is running for reelection. Electronic voting machines are dangerous and Bolsonaro has been issuing warnings about them, even calling foreign ambassadors to the presidential palace to alert them to the risks and present the evidence he has collected. The voting machines can’t be trusted; they are prone to fraud and abuse and if Bolsonaro loses the election the machines will be to blame. Maybe the military should count the votes; maybe a hiatus will need to be called after the election while Bolsonaro remains in power. Just until things get sorted out. If you think Bolsonaro could actually lose the election, you haven’t done your research.