3 ms·

It's jargon-y because I'm using terminology you don't regularly use. I talk like this all the time, not to try to sound smart or academic (I really value clear

It's jargon-y because I'm using terminology you don't regularly use. I talk like this all the time, not to try to sound smart or academic (I really value clear communication, some ideas are just hard to communicate clearly) but because these are the terms I think in. I am trying to translate from my terms into what I assume are yours though (leaning on some cultural assumptions here), so please bear with me. > (Sorry if this comment is a waste of time.) I find these exercises inherently valuable because I need to learn to make these ideas understandable if I am to try to help popularise them, which I would like to. > How would you go about finding out if something actually "exists to prop up the status quo" or not? So I'm using a concept called teleology here. It's a way of thinking about the purpose of a system in terms of its outcome. The media "props up the status quo" in the same way that Darwinian evolution "adapts species to their environment". There's no conscious agency there; no one is at the helm of evolution, making it do so (with apologies to biblical literalists). So how do you find out if the media props up the status quo? The same way you find out if Darwinian evolution adapts species to their environment: you observe it and see if your hypothesis holds up over time. If the media's reporting lines up with assumptions you would make from your deepest beliefs, then either both the media and you are perfect truth-uncoverers (which would be impressive given epistemology, ie the study of how we can know things, is still a hotly-debated topic 2000 years after its creation), or the media is blowing smoke up your ass.

michaelt 6y ago
When I have to explain something to people who don't know all the specialist terms, I like to state things in terms of concrete real-world examples. After all, I can think of several concrete interpretations of "propping up the status quo" that are pretty different. For example, perhaps you think the media's gossip coverage props up the status quo by making already-famous people more famous. On the other hand, maybe you're arguing that media brands are all owned by Jeff Bezos types, and they prop up the status quo by denying airtime to eating the rich and overthrowing capitalism. Or you could argue that Fox News tells its viewers what they want to hear and every other media outlet does the same; and what all readers want is the status quo reinforced. Or perhaps you see propping up the status quo in the media's attempts to be 'unbiased' in political reporting, like when one party says X should be higher and they find someone from the other party to say X should be lower. Perhaps you're thinking of newspapers' comment sections, where newspapers hire pundits with political opinions that their readers will find right on. Maybe you see the latest twitter storm is the current status quo, and reporters who follow such things as helpless to do anything but chase the latest trends to get clicks. Perhaps you see 'propping up the status quo' in the area of broad, unquestioned ideas like love of country, the flag, mom and apple pie. Maybe you feel reporters are too credulous when listening to politicians, and they're propping up the status quo every time they take someone in government at their word, or fail to point out when someone contradicts themselves. Perhaps you see the media as a smokescreen, distracting people with low-impact high-emotion issues like who can use which toilet to distract people from The Real Issues. It's hard for people to know if they agree with you, as some of those interpretations are a lot more radical than others.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  > When I have to explain something to people who don't know all the specialist terms, I like to state things in terms of concrete real-world examples. Yeah I do tend to do that too, but I'm also wary that concrete examples in this case tend to make people switch off their minds and think with their ideologies. It's a hard balance to strike - I usually try to concretise the example with an analogy if the topic is messy. But the failure to communicate successfully here is mine, so I'll try to clarify. What I mean is that the media props up the narrative of its audience. A concrete example is the idea of cultural norms. So to concretise the parent I was originally replying to: > And it's not just a question of generalization, but a question of whose stories get told through the media. Whose lifestyles make it into the "lifestyle" section. becomes: > the media promotes WASPy values, lifestyle sections promote very "white" lifestyles So my point was that yes, they do, because it sells, because most of their audience is white and share those cultural values - and that is because that is the biggest audience segment available. Hence large WASP-cultural population => media wants large audience => media targets WASP-cultural audience => everywhere you look, WASP cultural standards are promoted. The norm is reflected and promoted by the media. Role models are mostly white and represent WASP values. But where in a modernist setting, these values are treated as ideals to live up to (and thus that if you have different norms, you'd better shape up), in a postmodern context the idea of "objectively best" cultural norms breaks down because people simply disperse into their own groups with their own media that reflect their own norms. Every groups creates an echo chamber where there is no competing narrative because they shut it out. My criticism of progressivism is that it hasn't abandoned the idea of a central narrative, and instead of creating parallel media is mostly concerned with reforming the old media to represent every cultural bloc, ie tokenism. Also for confusing race with culture.

michaelt 6y ago

When I have to explain something to people who don't know all the specialist terms, I like to state things in terms of concrete real-world examples. After all, I can think of several concrete interpretations of "propping up the status quo" that are pretty different. For example, perhaps you think the media's gossip coverage props up the status quo by making already-famous people more famous. On the other hand, maybe you're arguing that media brands are all owned by Jeff Bezos types, and they prop up the status quo by denying airtime to eating the rich and overthrowing capitalism. Or you could argue that Fox News tells its viewers what they want to hear and every other media outlet does the same; and what all readers want is the status quo reinforced. Or perhaps you see propping up the status quo in the media's attempts to be 'unbiased' in political reporting, like when one party says X should be higher and they find someone from the other party to say X should be lower. Perhaps you're thinking of newspapers' comment sections, where newspapers hire pundits with political opinions that their readers will find right on. Maybe you see the latest twitter storm is the current status quo, and reporters who follow such things as helpless to do anything but chase the latest trends to get clicks. Perhaps you see 'propping up the status quo' in the area of broad, unquestioned ideas like love of country, the flag, mom and apple pie. Maybe you feel reporters are too credulous when listening to politicians, and they're propping up the status quo every time they take someone in government at their word, or fail to point out when someone contradicts themselves. Perhaps you see the media as a smokescreen, distracting people with low-impact high-emotion issues like who can use which toilet to distract people from The Real Issues. It's hard for people to know if they agree with you, as some of those interpretations are a lot more radical than others.

beaconstudios 6y ago
> When I have to explain something to people who don't know all the specialist terms, I like to state things in terms of concrete real-world examples. Yeah I do tend to do that too, but I'm also wary that concrete examples in this case tend to make people switch off their minds and think with their ideologies. It's a hard balance to strike - I usually try to concretise the example with an analogy if the topic is messy. But the failure to communicate successfully here is mine, so I'll try to clarify. What I mean is that the media props up the narrative of its audience. A concrete example is the idea of cultural norms. So to concretise the parent I was originally replying to: > And it's not just a question of generalization, but a question of whose stories get told through the media. Whose lifestyles make it into the "lifestyle" section. becomes: > the media promotes WASPy values, lifestyle sections promote very "white" lifestyles So my point was that yes, they do, because it sells, because most of their audience is white and share those cultural values - and that is because that is the biggest audience segment available. Hence large WASP-cultural population => media wants large audience => media targets WASP-cultural audience => everywhere you look, WASP cultural standards are promoted. The norm is reflected and promoted by the media. Role models are mostly white and represent WASP values. But where in a modernist setting, these values are treated as ideals to live up to (and thus that if you have different norms, you'd better shape up), in a postmodern context the idea of "objectively best" cultural norms breaks down because people simply disperse into their own groups with their own media that reflect their own norms. Every groups creates an echo chamber where there is no competing narrative because they shut it out. My criticism of progressivism is that it hasn't abandoned the idea of a central narrative, and instead of creating parallel media is mostly concerned with reforming the old media to represent every cultural bloc, ie tokenism. Also for confusing race with culture.