3 ms·

This statement is simply false taken by itself, but in context it makes sense: > On the other hand we have schizophrenia, a relationality so unkept than anythi

This statement is simply false taken by itself, but in context it makes sense: > On the other hand we have schizophrenia, a relationality so unkept than anything and everything is packed full of meaning, connections are drawn between everything, and existence is pure pattern and relation. But, if everything means something, nothing means anything. Words have meaning--they're supposed to. But some things aren't intended to bear meaning. Your word choice, for example, is likely not intended to bear any deeper meaning beyond that of the sentence as a whole. But I can read any amount of meaning into your word choice if I want. Maybe you use three words in a row that seem familiar or particularly elegant. So I google them, and they pop up in Das Capital! This would be, of course, entirely meaningless. But if everything has meaning, then your decision to use these words can't be mere coincidence! Suddenly I'm thinking my god, bondarchuk isn't just making an argument about cultural schizophrenia, he's carrying the war against capitalism onto the internet! This is actually surprisingly common in the culture--just think of the prevalence of specious 'dog whistle' accusations, which allow journalists to say, with a straight face, that while politician X might be saying something perfectly harmless, or even something that you agree with, they're secretly signaling terrible things to their terrible supporters! I would love to know the number of people who, when asked why they vote red/blue, give one of these schizo-narratives in their answer. I think the number would be shocking, and far, far higher than is required to determine the outcome of a given election. It has me deeply concerned about the long-term viability of our political process.

msla 3y ago
> This is actually surprisingly common in the culture--just think of the prevalence of specious 'dog whistle' accusations, which allow journalists to say, with a straight face, that while politician X might be saying something perfectly harmless, or even something that you agree with, they're secretly signaling terrible things to their terrible supporters! There's a second side to this, the "STOP NOTICING THINGS" demand, where people use obvious dogwhistles and then act angry and astonished when someone outside their intended group knows what they said. They think they can use sheer outrage to wave off evidence that they just said something horrible, and likely get their followers riled up because an outsider is accusing their hero of doing the thing the followers like that hero for doing. And it is a demand, not an argument, because it's a power struggle: Who has enough power to decide the framing here? This, I'm certain, is one reason some people went absolutely nuts over Postmodernism: Postmodernism, correctly understood, is all about noticing and questioning the various frames that guide interpretation, and it's easier to control a narrative when nobody is allowed to question those frames. (Of course, a larger number of people hate "Postmodernism" because they use it as a snarl term to mean "Absolutely Everything I Hate" and who wouldn't hate that?)
- aaroninsf 3y ago
  And to be blunt, it's a demand coming from white nationalists, fascists, and reactionary Evangelicals. One of the American right's most treasured patterns is precisely this: to engage in relentless obvious dog-whistling and nodding and "plausibly denial" celebration cultivation and signaling around ugly and reprehensible beliefs and intentions, which are not (yet) openly stated, and then to clutch pearls and bluster. And the cowed, coopted, and largely pwned, so-called MSM "meekly" backs away and as desired, forever couches egregious behavior, statements, and dog-whislting in weak tea language such as "allegedly" or convoluted passive language which declines to state the obvious. Me I will always look hard and close at why someone is incensed about this pattern being called out. The most typical answer, unremarkably, is that it's because they are aware they are complicit, yet they are still uncomfortable with that being in the air and light.
  - marcusverus 3y ago
    > the number would be shocking

msla 3y ago

> This is actually surprisingly common in the culture--just think of the prevalence of specious 'dog whistle' accusations, which allow journalists to say, with a straight face, that while politician X might be saying something perfectly harmless, or even something that you agree with, they're secretly signaling terrible things to their terrible supporters! There's a second side to this, the "STOP NOTICING THINGS" demand, where people use obvious dogwhistles and then act angry and astonished when someone outside their intended group knows what they said. They think they can use sheer outrage to wave off evidence that they just said something horrible, and likely get their followers riled up because an outsider is accusing their hero of doing the thing the followers like that hero for doing. And it is a demand, not an argument, because it's a power struggle: Who has enough power to decide the framing here? This, I'm certain, is one reason some people went absolutely nuts over Postmodernism: Postmodernism, correctly understood, is all about noticing and questioning the various frames that guide interpretation, and it's easier to control a narrative when nobody is allowed to question those frames. (Of course, a larger number of people hate "Postmodernism" because they use it as a snarl term to mean "Absolutely Everything I Hate" and who wouldn't hate that?)

aaroninsf 3y ago
And to be blunt, it's a demand coming from white nationalists, fascists, and reactionary Evangelicals. One of the American right's most treasured patterns is precisely this: to engage in relentless obvious dog-whistling and nodding and "plausibly denial" celebration cultivation and signaling around ugly and reprehensible beliefs and intentions, which are not (yet) openly stated, and then to clutch pearls and bluster. And the cowed, coopted, and largely pwned, so-called MSM "meekly" backs away and as desired, forever couches egregious behavior, statements, and dog-whislting in weak tea language such as "allegedly" or convoluted passive language which declines to state the obvious. Me I will always look hard and close at why someone is incensed about this pattern being called out. The most typical answer, unremarkably, is that it's because they are aware they are complicit, yet they are still uncomfortable with that being in the air and light.
- marcusverus 3y ago
  > the number would be shocking