Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Narrative" - Please stop using that word!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by CamilleLion View Post
    Okay... so after a good nights sleep, what I see happening here is the following:

    1. Initially, the world evolved around more stoic types of knowledge and truths, i.e...."human nature", "ground truths", "objective reality", etc..

    2. Then some sort of post-modern and post-structural thing hit that seeks to deconstruct #1 above and effective demoralized people.

    In part, these philosophies state that claims to knowledge and truth are products of unique social, historical or political discourses and interpretations, and are therefore contextual and constructed to varying degrees = moral relativism, plurality. It also, argued that human culture may be understood by means of a structure—modeled on language (i.e., structural linguistics)—that differs from concrete reality (#1 above) and from abstract ideas = "their narratives". This is sort of the basis underlying modern feminism and other annoying social justice warrior and politically correct stuff.

    3. I'm hearing from you and indeed if you look over Paul's stuff - it would suggest that AVfM is basically a deconstruction of #2 using their same tactics, and so not surprisingly - you will adopt similar ways of describing it, its the same philosophical approach to doing things. e.g. "counter theory".

    I object to that... or, not so much object (do what you want...) so much as I'd rather restore #1, than deconstruct #2 (itself a deconstruction of #1). I happen to think that the philosophical systems of postmodernism and poststructuralism are responsible for a good deal of personal emotional and mental health issues in people because it's just bizarre "logic" or way of doing things and that there are better approaches that move away from those schools of thought entirely.

    Your milage may vary.
    The trouble is that's not how it ever works out in reality.

    You can have your own set of 'objective facts' all you like and the other side is going to have theirs.

    Narratives work by arranging carefully selected facts in order to steer public opinion and government policy towards specific conclusions.

    Most of the conclusions that feminists and progressives arrive at aren't based on outright falsehoods they are based on facts.

    CAREFULLY SELECTED facts. That's what makes them so seductive and appealing especially to young people.

    Women do earn less than men. That's a fact.

    It's also a fact that women choose to enter into lower paying less competitive fields.

    It's also a fact that women's priorities tend to change when they have children.

    It's also a fact that if you control for various factors the so called 'wage gap' disappears.

    And it's also a fact that if you control for things like age, marital status, children, experience level etc women at lower and middle level positions in various corporate fields actual OUT EARN their male counterparts...until they get married/have children and go part-time work a reduced schedule and/or mentally 'check out' of their careers to focus on other things.

    It's also a fact that women have the legally enforced ability to access male-earned capital and male-earned assets via marriage. Something males cannot do with regards to women.

    These facts can be assembled in different ways to support and advance different agendas.

    As for what you 'want' the MRM to 'do'...men that associate with this movement tend to be individualists so don't tend to regard ourselves as part of any sort of collective you can just uniformly address. And if you sound like you are policing people's language be ready for that to 'trigger' some MRA types

    You can't really escape 'narratives'. A narrative is merely the selection of facts that lead to a set of conclusions.

    'False' narratives are based on objective truths just as much as 'valid' ones.

    And what's valid and what's false is going to depend on who you ask.

    It's an objective fact that women in the west are becoming less happy...

    According to the red pill narrative that's because of the negative influence and impact of feminist and progressive policy and ideology on their lives.

    According to the feminist and progressive narrative it's because there hasn't been ENOUGH feminist and progressive influence and policy impacting on their lives.

    Both narratives are based on same core statement of fact. Yet the conclusions differ.

    There's very few objective and universally agreed upon 'facts' when it comes to culture and gender and perception. Most of it is up for debate. To be eternally contested by rivals with competing agendas.

    And until very very recently 90% of feminist and progressive narratives have gone totally and utterly uncontested and unchallenged.
    Last edited by Maxx; 04-13-2017, 04:46 PM.
    "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

    Comment


    • #47
      Very well put - I'll have to chew on that!

      In my own mind - my eyes gloss over when I hear the words "discourse" or "narrative" since it overwhelmingly signals SJW stuff and weird logic to me. It's also just not something I'm accustomed to since I associated with different folks who don't speak that way in my personal life. It could just be a personal bias (something I did mention as possible early on) of mine.

      #triggered, lol
      "De-polarize women and re-moralize men." - Me

      Comment


      • #48
        @Maxx - What do you think are causes, attributes, etc... that influence which of these conclusion(s) are ultimately accepted by people? Are they the same ones for men that they are for women?

        Originally posted by Maxx View Post

        It's an objective fact that women in the west are becoming less happy...

        According to the red pill narrative that's because of the negative influence and impact of feminist and progressive policy and ideology on their lives.

        According to the feminist and progressive narrative it's because there hasn't been ENOUGH feminist and progressive influence and policy impacting on their lives.

        Both narratives are based on same core statement of fact. Yet the conclusions differ.
        "De-polarize women and re-moralize men." - Me

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by CamilleLion View Post
          we need to divorce ourselves from that ideology and approach and use: facts, reason, logic, etc.. to argue with instead.
          Hi,

          in that spirit, then, some facts on "narratives". Or, at least a narrative of narratives.
          I found it useful to chop up your post and move the bits around, sorry about that, but the narrative structure required it, so ...

          Any time you hear the word 'narrative', it should signal to you that what you are hearing is a work of fiction... some sort of intersectional, social constructivist, nonsense - where things are cherry-picked to support a pre-determined argument, and since ANYTHING can be arranged that way - if you look hard enough it's not sound reasoning.
          - Activists are not interested in truth, but in using language/debate as a tool or weapon.
          It's not like people gather facts, then decide on a plan. People have a plan, and look for supporting facts.
          In this analysis, rhetoric is the top discipline that subsumes all others, including all the sciences, natural or otherwise.

          - Faced with the innumerable facts in and of existence, the human mind is a feeble tool. It must make extensive use of data compression.
          Names - calling a complex process an "it" - and concepts - naming groups of names - are the most ubiquitous tricks, practically the basis of language.
          I propose that a narrative proper is a special kind of name for a special kind of It, viz, that which we call an explanation, or a name for a causal process.
          A narrative always connects two names:
          A happened. B happened.
          A happened before B happened.
          A happening made B happen.
          A caused B, B was caused by A, A was the cause of B.
          A is a thing that causes B.
          To cause B is what A is.
          A is a B-causer.
          All A's are potential B-causers, and that is all they are.

          There are three elements here: Entities, like A and B; agent properties that describe processes, and patiens properties that describe effects of agent properties on entities.
          The nature of an agent property is that it can affect, if not it isn't an agent property. Gravity makes things fall, if it didn't, it wouldn't be a 'force'.
          The nature of a patiens property is to have affectibility, to be receptive to influence. Teacups pulled to the ground by gravity break. Porcelain is fragile to mechanical forces.

          Now, adding preferences - likes and dislikes - to this moves this whole apparatus into a Moral Universe, where every element gets labelled "good" or "bad" according to any given participant's POV.
          Such a "social narrative" is composed of an ordinary narrative, as above, plus somebody's score of good or bad.
          The narrative can be as true or false as our statements about the world usually are. Based in fact, or not, deduced with logic, or not.
          To decide who gets to score good or bad is a question of power: to establish, to take, or retake, the power to do so, over and above others.
          Individuals acan succeed in doing this by aligning themselves with the majority view of good or bad, the like and dislike preferences of the majority.
          Note that the existence and prevalence of preferences can also be accounted for by a causal narrative.
          And note that this causal narrative of the existence and prevalence of preferences can also be scored good or bad according to someone's preferences.
          And so on.
          Of course, the further up one builds these layers, the more remote and irrelevant, and also inaccessible, the underlying facts become.

          I would propose that the gender debate has this structure: narratives, evaluations, and then meta-cycles of meta-narrations and meta-evaluations,
          with "burying the facts" consciously employed as a tactic to obscure bias and make it difficult to question the narrative.

          we don't need "narratives" or counter-anything...
          To the degree that people use narratives to grasp complex processes in order to explain the world, yes, we do need narratives.
          OF course, in order to have a proper grasp of the world, in order to be effective, we need narratives that are true, based on fact, deduced with logic.

          Please, please, please can the MRA's STOP using that word, FFS
          While I think having a narrative is crucial, I agree that talking about it while calling it that is giving the game away ...
          It's the difference between carrying a gun and waving it about.

          M

          Comment


          • #50
            This is a good point and something I keep needing to remind myself of while here.

            I tend to get lost in and prefer discussions and can approach things very academically with zero intent towards activism (though I'm also not exactly inactive), just trying to reach a personal understanding. However, the MRM obviously does not treat this as an academic thing and there is a big component of activism involved.

            Originally posted by Mifune View Post
            - Activists are not interested in truth, but in using language/debate as a tool or weapon.
            "De-polarize women and re-moralize men." - Me

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by CamilleLion View Post
              This is a good point and something I keep needing to remind myself of while here.

              I tend to get lost in and prefer discussions and can approach things very academically with zero intent towards activism (though I'm also not exactly inactive), just trying to reach a personal understanding. However, the MRM obviously does not treat this as an academic thing and there is a big component of activism involved.
              Dunno Camille, I think there is much that lies beneath the surface.
              Like a river looks serene.
              Still waters run deep, said my grandmother

              I reckon not everything needs a surgically sharpened point to be effectively medical

              One problem that perpetually arises is the hijack of intellectual discourse and peer review.
              Somebody can print ...and they wont receive their Masters.
              particularly if their are bollocks between their legs and it isnt what wants (apparently) to be said

              Sometimes what is not being said, speaks volumes.
              And if you listen here, you can hear it rumble.

              ...like that inveterate Manalyst just talking about affectablity while I think he meant Effectability, it reads better as Affectability and provides a more playful place to leap from.

              Lastly, I dont think any people here believe that stream of posts on a hated forum is really going to change anything in the academic world, I do think that there is much that gets taken away from this place and is integrated in other places that do have an Effect.

              anyway, dont listen to me...apparently everybody just reckons I talk in riddles
              "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

              And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

              "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
              "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

              "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by MatrixTransform View Post
                ...like that inveterate Manalyst just talking about affectablity while I think he meant Effectability, it reads better as Affectability and provides a more playful place to leap from.
                Sorry to abuse English. An effect and an affect seem to be very alike, but from what little I know of latin, 'effect' is from ex + facere, out-of + to do, doing,
                such that when bat A does its thing ("hit") to something like fender B, then out of this doing something ("dent") will happen, and this thing which happens, is that which happened out of the doing, ex-facere, the effect, the influence of A.

                "Affect" is from ad + facere, to, towards, against + to do, doing, but more explicitly from the perspective of B such that when A does its thing to something B, then out of this doing, B will be ... well, impacted with the effect of the hitting action.
                AFAIK one can speak of things affecting something, like a disease affecting a person, without knowing the cause.
                A patient may feel unwell, nauseous or dizzy, scil. being affected with illness, nausea or dizzyness without the cause benig known.
                So we use "effect" and "affect" for different functions.

                That's the distinction as I've learned it, but if that is not proper English usage, by all means let me know. Live and learn.

                Anyway, if all this is rubbish, the point was to highlight the agens/patiens distinction, the doer versus the one being done to. Both these require appropriate qualities.

                anyway, dont listen to me...apparently everybody just reckons I talk in riddles
                What do you mean ...?

                M
                Last edited by Manalysis; 04-14-2017, 01:43 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X