3 ms·
>Your example is straightforward cocercion Why do you think that? Keep reading the article. The West doesn't really need Fear (except against whistleblowers et
by revolvingocelot 5y ago
>Your example is straightforward cocercion
Why do you think that? Keep reading the article. The West doesn't really need Fear (except against whistleblowers etc), but uses Friction and Flooding extremely effectively. The "mysterious" coordination of the increasingly-consolidated media helps provide Friction against organizing effectively against skub, and a steady insistent Flood of pro-skub messaging ensures those without much investment in skub either way suffer the mere-exposure effect and think skub is normal (those man-on-the-street interviews, skub showing up in movies and TV, ads for skub, weirdly patriotic messaging about skub).
>It seems to suggest, paradoxically, that people can only consent to things that they ought to consent to, according to the beliefs of the person making the judgement (in this case a Marxist intellectual).
I think it suggests that people should make decisions based on unadulterated information, rather than that which is spoon-fed to them by authoritarians. Did you read the rest of the article? "Marxist" is an analytical lens, not indicative of someone who wants to give your toothbrush to the revolution.
- slibhb 5y agoThere's no such thing as unadulterated information. You're making the same mistake as Gramsci. You decide what the correct beliefs are and the fact that other people don't have those beliefs is evidence of their coercion.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago>You decide what the correct beliefs are and the fact that other people don't have those beliefs is evidence of their coercion. No, the subjects of the article decide that. I'm just some asshole commenting on it. Relatedly, it's weird that you're directly asserting that I'm doing something that I'm not doing -- you've decided it, thus it is so. You'd think that you could quote the bit where I'm deciding what the correct beliefs are. I suspect you're inferring it from my suggestion that an increasingly-consolidated mass media decides what's normal and presents it to us. If so, I have a short educational video [0] on the topic. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE
- slibhb 5y agoI don't care whether the argument is yours or the article's, I'm addressing the argument.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago> I don't care whether the argument is yours or the article's, I'm addressing the argument Sure, by baselessly asserting that I, or Gramsci, >>decide what the correct beliefs are and the fact that other people don't have those beliefs is evidence of their coercion. Have I missed something? You wrote that "[i]t's very tricky to tell people that their desires, beliefs, culture, and religion are merely ruses to further domination", which suggests that I, or Gramsci, make that argument. I don't think I did; he doesn't seem to be. Should I infer that the three Fs outlined again and again in the article are in fact the desires, beliefs, culture, and religion of the people being oppressed?
- slibhb 5y agoYou're missing something all right
- revolvingocelot 5y agoI imagine you're still addressing the argument?