5 ms·

This is the Overton window at work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window In the US, it goes far beyond broa

This is the Overton window at work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window In the US, it goes far beyond broadcasting. Note how lin manuel miranda's Hamilton has gone from Obama era cultural gold to "cringe-worthy" - https://www.vox.com/22641501/hamilton-parks-rec-harry-potter-cringe-obama-era-pop-culture https://www.vox.com/22641501/hamilton-parks-rec-harry-potter... Or how JKR on Harry Potter went from being vilified by conservative voices to the modern "She who will not be named" of Lefty HBO.

consumer451 5y ago
And a different edge of said window expanded to include actual ethno-fascists. This is not whataboutism, just want to portray the scenario in a more complete light.
- olivermarks 5y ago
  Actual ethno-fascists?
  - boppo1 5y ago
    There is a thread of "legitimate white supremacy" winding its way around the internet at an increasing pace since around 2015. Tiktok memes, 4chan's /pol/, certain facebook groups, etc. It has a weird "shape"; the boundaries are seemingly intentionally indefinite. There were always 'stormfronters' on the internet, like the edgy kid everyone made fun of who carried around Mein Kampf in highschool. But now, all of a sudden, that kid has a bunch of new friends who have left their old cliques to start listening to this asshole. I specify this as "legitimate" because I see the "woke activist" crowd accusing basically everything of being white supremacist.
  - rurban 5y ago
    She was talking about ethno-stalinists, not fascists
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I think that the Overton Window shattered. To explain what I mean, let me start by defining a personal Overton Window. Each individual person has a range of what they, personally consider to be "acceptable ideas". I, personally, have my own politics, but I consider other views to be acceptable, even if I don't agree with them. Both Democrats and Republicans have some views that are within my personal window, but not all ideas of either side. Society has an Overton Window when most people hold views that are within most other peoples' personal Overton Windows. For example, in 1950 there was a society-wide Overton Window on gay marriage - it was outside the personal Overton Window of, say, 98% of the population, so 98% of the people had views that fit within 98% of the peoples' personal Overton Window. That's a society-wide Overton Window. Now it's different. Now, say, 40% of the people still have gay marriage outside their personal Overton Window. (All numbers made up on the spot, but I think they're approximately right.) But 25% of the people think that opposing gay marriage is unacceptable - it's outside their personal Overton Window. The remaining 35% are somewhere in the middle. There is no position that the majority of the people fit in. That's a shattered Overton Window. But the people who are in media have more of a consensus Overton Window. But it doesn't match the peoples' Overton Window (then again, nothing does, because there is no consensus view). This split - the media has a more unified view than the people do - is why so many people feel unrepresented by the media.
olivermarks 5y ago
(response to post that was just deleted) 'critical to note that she is just recounting of her own perception of herself.' Tara is outlining why she quit a job she couldn't do anymore because the CBC were ignoring important local stories to focus on CRT, identity politics and racialization of everything, biased reporting and click bait. 'People want to know why, for example, non-binary Filipinos concerned about a lack of LGBT terms in Tagalog is an editorial priority for the CBC, when local issues of broad concern go unreported. Or why our pop culture radio show’s coverage of the Dave Chappelle Netflix special failed to include any of the legions of fans, or comics, that did not find it offensive. Or why, exactly, taxpayers should be funding articles that scold Canadians for using words such as “brainstorm” and “lame.”' Most journalists know if they get paid they are expected to promote the owner's views - the line between pr and journalism is a fine one - but that they will be promoting wholesome, useful values and information. When the owners lurch too far people leave, both writers and readers/viewers, leaving a weak core. Once you've lied and/or lost your audience's trust it is a very hard road back. It was smart of her to get out while she still had her integrity imo
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  I always considered the idea of CBC to be... extremely weird. Having government approved journalists on government payroll sure sounds like something out of China, Russia or Cuba. Not a western democracy. From the article: > To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others. Here you can see someone "from the top" made that request and that the (taxpayer funded) employees are filling out their request. So much for "journalistic independence". To me that, and that they are using taxpayer money to fund sitcoms and entertainment while it's one of the most profitable businesses on earth, is completely bizarre. I mean Disney and Marvel made billions just last year simply by producing content people want to watch! > Most journalists know if they get paid they are expected to promote the owner's views - the line between pr and journalism is a fine one - but that they will be promoting wholesome, useful values and information. When the owners lurch too far people leave, both writers and readers/viewers, leaving a weak core. At the same time they can push this ultra-liberal agenda because they aren't subjected to market forces. It doesn't matter if more and more people tune out, funding is guaranteed and comes straight from the (captive) taxpayers. Lastly, for an "anti-racist" media, they aired content that was quite racist not that long ago, and refused to edit any of it. [0]. Maybe some races are more equal than other according to these people! [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/cbc-apology-story-of-us-1.4065767 https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/cbc-apology-story-of-u...
mavrc 5y ago
> Or how JKR on Harry Potter went from being vilified by conservative voices to the modern "She who will not be named" of Lefty HBO. well, that's for one very specific and notable reason alone, not because of some shifting moral landscape.
- swearwolf 5y ago
  She got cancelled for an essay that essentially says, “Trans women are fine, and I support them, but they are not the same as people who are born women”, which is a position that went from relatively uncontroversial to transphobic within the last five or so years.
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    What point was she trying to make by highlighting any distinction?
    - kerneloftruth 5y ago
      I think she was countering the assertion that there is no distinction with the fact that the distinction is real, and is important.
    - InTheArena 5y ago
      Intention of the writer is not the point. The fact that she is saying something that would be accepted as "policy" in the overton window previously but is now grounds for a coordinated shunning is a good example of how the window shifts over time.

consumer451 5y ago

And a different edge of said window expanded to include actual ethno-fascists. This is not whataboutism, just want to portray the scenario in a more complete light.

olivermarks 5y ago
Actual ethno-fascists?
- boppo1 5y ago
  There is a thread of "legitimate white supremacy" winding its way around the internet at an increasing pace since around 2015. Tiktok memes, 4chan's /pol/, certain facebook groups, etc. It has a weird "shape"; the boundaries are seemingly intentionally indefinite. There were always 'stormfronters' on the internet, like the edgy kid everyone made fun of who carried around Mein Kampf in highschool. But now, all of a sudden, that kid has a bunch of new friends who have left their old cliques to start listening to this asshole. I specify this as "legitimate" because I see the "woke activist" crowd accusing basically everything of being white supremacist.
- rurban 5y ago
  She was talking about ethno-stalinists, not fascists
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I think that the Overton Window shattered. To explain what I mean, let me start by defining a personal Overton Window. Each individual person has a range of what they, personally consider to be "acceptable ideas". I, personally, have my own politics, but I consider other views to be acceptable, even if I don't agree with them. Both Democrats and Republicans have some views that are within my personal window, but not all ideas of either side. Society has an Overton Window when most people hold views that are within most other peoples' personal Overton Windows. For example, in 1950 there was a society-wide Overton Window on gay marriage - it was outside the personal Overton Window of, say, 98% of the population, so 98% of the people had views that fit within 98% of the peoples' personal Overton Window. That's a society-wide Overton Window. Now it's different. Now, say, 40% of the people still have gay marriage outside their personal Overton Window. (All numbers made up on the spot, but I think they're approximately right.) But 25% of the people think that opposing gay marriage is unacceptable - it's outside their personal Overton Window. The remaining 35% are somewhere in the middle. There is no position that the majority of the people fit in. That's a shattered Overton Window. But the people who are in media have more of a consensus Overton Window. But it doesn't match the peoples' Overton Window (then again, nothing does, because there is no consensus view). This split - the media has a more unified view than the people do - is why so many people feel unrepresented by the media.

olivermarks 5y ago

(response to post that was just deleted) 'critical to note that she is just recounting of her own perception of herself.' Tara is outlining why she quit a job she couldn't do anymore because the CBC were ignoring important local stories to focus on CRT, identity politics and racialization of everything, biased reporting and click bait. 'People want to know why, for example, non-binary Filipinos concerned about a lack of LGBT terms in Tagalog is an editorial priority for the CBC, when local issues of broad concern go unreported. Or why our pop culture radio show’s coverage of the Dave Chappelle Netflix special failed to include any of the legions of fans, or comics, that did not find it offensive. Or why, exactly, taxpayers should be funding articles that scold Canadians for using words such as “brainstorm” and “lame.”' Most journalists know if they get paid they are expected to promote the owner's views - the line between pr and journalism is a fine one - but that they will be promoting wholesome, useful values and information. When the owners lurch too far people leave, both writers and readers/viewers, leaving a weak core. Once you've lied and/or lost your audience's trust it is a very hard road back. It was smart of her to get out while she still had her integrity imo

908B64B197 5y ago
I always considered the idea of CBC to be... extremely weird. Having government approved journalists on government payroll sure sounds like something out of China, Russia or Cuba. Not a western democracy. From the article: > To work at the CBC now is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others. It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others. Here you can see someone "from the top" made that request and that the (taxpayer funded) employees are filling out their request. So much for "journalistic independence". To me that, and that they are using taxpayer money to fund sitcoms and entertainment while it's one of the most profitable businesses on earth, is completely bizarre. I mean Disney and Marvel made billions just last year simply by producing content people want to watch! > Most journalists know if they get paid they are expected to promote the owner's views - the line between pr and journalism is a fine one - but that they will be promoting wholesome, useful values and information. When the owners lurch too far people leave, both writers and readers/viewers, leaving a weak core. At the same time they can push this ultra-liberal agenda because they aren't subjected to market forces. It doesn't matter if more and more people tune out, funding is guaranteed and comes straight from the (captive) taxpayers. Lastly, for an "anti-racist" media, they aired content that was quite racist not that long ago, and refused to edit any of it. [0]. Maybe some races are more equal than other according to these people! [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/cbc-apology-story-of-us-1.4065767 https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/cbc-apology-story-of-u...

mavrc 5y ago

> Or how JKR on Harry Potter went from being vilified by conservative voices to the modern "She who will not be named" of Lefty HBO. well, that's for one very specific and notable reason alone, not because of some shifting moral landscape.

swearwolf 5y ago
She got cancelled for an essay that essentially says, “Trans women are fine, and I support them, but they are not the same as people who are born women”, which is a position that went from relatively uncontroversial to transphobic within the last five or so years.
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  What point was she trying to make by highlighting any distinction?
  - kerneloftruth 5y ago
    I think she was countering the assertion that there is no distinction with the fact that the distinction is real, and is important.
  - InTheArena 5y ago
    Intention of the writer is not the point. The fact that she is saying something that would be accepted as "policy" in the overton window previously but is now grounds for a coordinated shunning is a good example of how the window shifts over time.