16 June 2022
They say that truth is the first victim of war, and nuance the second. So from one or two starting points, we adopt a whole position which can be very black and white - they are the monsters, we are the saviours. A few words can set off many automatic reflexes that might evade our capacity to think rationally from raw facts about a subject and develop a different, even opposite to our feelings, point of view. This would be a good thing because we must see reality if we want to change it or adapt to it. It's no good accepting unthinkingly the narratives of others because if we do we risk being hung out to dry.
Some of those starting points, or triggers, may be untrue, yet if repeated often enough, they become accepted. And behind these leading ideas, each time we hear them we reinforce a whole coherent narrative with "the latest from the battle front". So we are pushed into the short term and into agreeing with ourselves, where we could re-consider in the light of new data (difficult to obtain true, new, data, granted).
For example, "this unprovoked invasion". Or "Russia is a great power", "world's second most powerful army", "atrocities", "genocide", "Russian interests", "recreate its former empire", "Russia must be de-integrated", "plucky little Ukraine"... these are all trigger words that can lead us to misread real-world events, build a tale based on the hopes of others. We become "biaised".
This is how propaganda works. Key words trigger reflexes that inhibit thought and lead us to analyses and positions that may not correspond to reality on the ground. This is how decision-makers who need our cooperation can exert control over us. Oftentimes, these decion-makers are not acting in our interests, or "the national interest, but in their own.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it clean, keep it lean