5 ms·

'narrative' is a fancy word that sounds important. It seems a pretty good rule of thumb that the more someone uses it, the less they have to actually say. You'v

'narrative' is a fancy word that sounds important. It seems a pretty good rule of thumb that the more someone uses it, the less they have to actually say. You've used it 11 times. Also it comes with a package of other nebulous abstract words and phrases, as you've exemplified "the domain of the elite", "that spread mimetically", "the alchemy of mind control", "entrenched ruling classes reinforces the need to gatekeep". This is just bad writing. If you have said anything it's embedded in so much verbal dross I can't be bothered to extract it. I suspect it could have been said in a few sentences.

krona 4y ago
OP is probably explaining that the UK, like the US and most western democracies/republics are actually oligarchies, and have been for some time. It's hard to state simply since 'oligarchy' conjures images of super-yachts and old men, but that's not what is meant by the term in a classical sense, and no sensible oligarchy would ever speak its name.
refurb 4y ago
No “narrative” is not a fancy word, it’s a word that has a definition and meaning. Maybe you don’t come across it in your day to day, but anyone who makes public statements knows exactly what it means. It’s basically the story being told. The way to understand it is that politicians and the media have a millions things they could discuss that are relevant to the voters. What’s interesting is NOT what they talk about. It’s what’s they don’t talk about. And if you actually follow what they say over time it’s starts to become clear pretty quickly. And it’s not a conspiracy or some secret - I’ve been in the room of a Fortune 50 PR meeting where they discuss the “narrative”. It’s usually “we only want to talk about X which makes us look good. We don’t want to talk about Y. Y makes us look bad, so if someone mentions Y, use this response to steer it back to X”. A good narrative example was the Hunter Biden laptop. The narrative was "this is suspected Russian disinformation". Absolutely zero proof it was, but that didn't matter, just keep dropping phrases like "this has all the signs of a Russian operation". Instead of the content in the laptop or hell, even the story about the laptop, the news covers the Russian conspiracy side. That entire narrative was spun out of thin air, the laptop was Hunter Biden's. There are often good example of narratives being broken, and what you see is suddenly a narrative is dropped entirely and another takes it's place. If you're paying attention you'll suddenly notice some news story has completely disappeared from public discussion almost as if it never happened. The one big benefit of the internet is how easy it is to follow public statements now. It's much harder to say something at a press conference, have it on Twitter, then deny it the next week. Doesn't stop politicians from trying though.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  I get exactly what you're saying but that misses the point which is it was just a load of tosh. If one[1] have something to say but can't say it clearly, one is wasting everyone's time at best and at worst become part of the problem. [1] It's a shame that 'one' has dropped out of use in this context, it does sound so absurd and archaic, but 'you' can be mistaken for 'specifically you' so I hope one will forgive me here.
  - KineticLensman 4y ago
    I, for one, forgive you.
  - Biologist123 4y ago
    I’m a scientist with an increasing interest in how ideas form and which ideas establish dominance over others. The writer of the parent comment generally has rather interesting points to make on this topic, and I don’t recognise your vehement criticisms of either the language used or the points made.
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      Well, it's not ideas, it's language abuse I'm griping over. Is "the alchemy of mind control" a helpful term in any way? Wouldn't "as long as the techniques of narrative control remain the domain of the elite..." be better expressed as "while the elite use misinformation..." and perhaps ask what it is about the plebs that they'll accept being played? (if they are, which is semi-contentious). Curious, on which specific interesting points are you referring to.
      - Biologist123 4y ago
        > Is "the alchemy of mind control" a helpful term in any way? Maybe your criticism is less about this writer than about the imprecision of written language as a communication tool generally. In which case, bear in mind firstly that the writer is writing a quick post on a forum, not for a scientific journal. Also that imprecise language may seem imprecise to you, but may encapsulate broader meaning for others. Alternatively, a particular piece of writing might just poorly transmit meaning which itself is valuable. For example, I find Slavoj Zizek to be incomprehensible. But when he is well edited or I have read secondary texts, I have found his insights to be revelatory. > Curious, on which specific interesting points are you referring to. He introduced me to Baudrillard, around whom my early explorations are proving to be well worthwhile. See this for an intro: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yxg2_6_YLs&feature=youtu.be https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yxg2_6_YLs&feature=youtu.be

krona 4y ago

OP is probably explaining that the UK, like the US and most western democracies/republics are actually oligarchies, and have been for some time. It's hard to state simply since 'oligarchy' conjures images of super-yachts and old men, but that's not what is meant by the term in a classical sense, and no sensible oligarchy would ever speak its name.

refurb 4y ago

No “narrative” is not a fancy word, it’s a word that has a definition and meaning. Maybe you don’t come across it in your day to day, but anyone who makes public statements knows exactly what it means. It’s basically the story being told. The way to understand it is that politicians and the media have a millions things they could discuss that are relevant to the voters. What’s interesting is NOT what they talk about. It’s what’s they don’t talk about. And if you actually follow what they say over time it’s starts to become clear pretty quickly. And it’s not a conspiracy or some secret - I’ve been in the room of a Fortune 50 PR meeting where they discuss the “narrative”. It’s usually “we only want to talk about X which makes us look good. We don’t want to talk about Y. Y makes us look bad, so if someone mentions Y, use this response to steer it back to X”. A good narrative example was the Hunter Biden laptop. The narrative was "this is suspected Russian disinformation". Absolutely zero proof it was, but that didn't matter, just keep dropping phrases like "this has all the signs of a Russian operation". Instead of the content in the laptop or hell, even the story about the laptop, the news covers the Russian conspiracy side. That entire narrative was spun out of thin air, the laptop was Hunter Biden's. There are often good example of narratives being broken, and what you see is suddenly a narrative is dropped entirely and another takes it's place. If you're paying attention you'll suddenly notice some news story has completely disappeared from public discussion almost as if it never happened. The one big benefit of the internet is how easy it is to follow public statements now. It's much harder to say something at a press conference, have it on Twitter, then deny it the next week. Doesn't stop politicians from trying though.

zasdffaa 4y ago
I get exactly what you're saying but that misses the point which is it was just a load of tosh. If one[1] have something to say but can't say it clearly, one is wasting everyone's time at best and at worst become part of the problem. [1] It's a shame that 'one' has dropped out of use in this context, it does sound so absurd and archaic, but 'you' can be mistaken for 'specifically you' so I hope one will forgive me here.
- KineticLensman 4y ago
  I, for one, forgive you.
- Biologist123 4y ago
  I’m a scientist with an increasing interest in how ideas form and which ideas establish dominance over others. The writer of the parent comment generally has rather interesting points to make on this topic, and I don’t recognise your vehement criticisms of either the language used or the points made.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    Well, it's not ideas, it's language abuse I'm griping over. Is "the alchemy of mind control" a helpful term in any way? Wouldn't "as long as the techniques of narrative control remain the domain of the elite..." be better expressed as "while the elite use misinformation..." and perhaps ask what it is about the plebs that they'll accept being played? (if they are, which is semi-contentious). Curious, on which specific interesting points are you referring to.
    - Biologist123 4y ago
      > Is "the alchemy of mind control" a helpful term in any way? Maybe your criticism is less about this writer than about the imprecision of written language as a communication tool generally. In which case, bear in mind firstly that the writer is writing a quick post on a forum, not for a scientific journal. Also that imprecise language may seem imprecise to you, but may encapsulate broader meaning for others. Alternatively, a particular piece of writing might just poorly transmit meaning which itself is valuable. For example, I find Slavoj Zizek to be incomprehensible. But when he is well edited or I have read secondary texts, I have found his insights to be revelatory. > Curious, on which specific interesting points are you referring to. He introduced me to Baudrillard, around whom my early explorations are proving to be well worthwhile. See this for an intro: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yxg2_6_YLs&feature=youtu.be https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yxg2_6_YLs&feature=youtu.be