Hyperbole is the coin of the realm these days. Possibly connected to the popular acceptance of Richard Dawkins' "meme" concept, as if "memes" held some profound science-based insight with overarching power over human cognition and critical assessment of verbal language.
"Memes" are adspeak, about selling the sizzle and not the steak (to …
Hyperbole is the coin of the realm these days. Possibly connected to the popular acceptance of Richard Dawkins' "meme" concept, as if "memes" held some profound science-based insight with overarching power over human cognition and critical assessment of verbal language.
"Memes" are adspeak, about selling the sizzle and not the steak (to resort to an archaic but nonetheless appropriate simile.) Memes aren't an insight objectively drawn from principles of Evolutionary Biology; they're superficial linguistic features exploited by those peerless professionals of applied social psychology, the propagandists of advertising. The focus of study of Edward Bernays, Ivan Pavlov, Josef Goebbels, and the crafters of ad campaigns, not R. Dawkins and E. O. Wilson.
As such, Hyperbole is a key tool in the toolbox of language manipulators. As is offering Name-checks of Heroes and Villains, based on public familiarity with them and intended to link that familiarity for propaganda advantage. It has to be admitted that many readers don't read for content or context; they skim. Their thoughts are prompted by the emotional triggering of labels; that isn't about "the power of the meme", it's the result of eliciting a conditioned response.
It's a good idea for anyone in the business of political "messaging" to understand the principles of advertising to aid their appeal to their audience- especially in democracies, which implicitly rely on persuasion rather than badgering or coercion in order to draw allegiance from their voters. But without ethics or concern for integrity in the message content, shit has a way of getting dumb fast. Especially when one side is adept at slick demagoguery, and the other is inept at the keeping the common touch. Or, worse, if both positions in a given issue debate resort to unethical means. When both sides jettison their ethics, that most often indicates that the value of the respective positions of both sides is exhausted, either because they've been asking the wrong questions for too long or seeking private ends at the expense of productive results for the common good. The sort of cynicism that one hears expressed as "fighting fire with fire", etc.
Hyperbole is the coin of the realm these days. Possibly connected to the popular acceptance of Richard Dawkins' "meme" concept, as if "memes" held some profound science-based insight with overarching power over human cognition and critical assessment of verbal language.
"Memes" are adspeak, about selling the sizzle and not the steak (to resort to an archaic but nonetheless appropriate simile.) Memes aren't an insight objectively drawn from principles of Evolutionary Biology; they're superficial linguistic features exploited by those peerless professionals of applied social psychology, the propagandists of advertising. The focus of study of Edward Bernays, Ivan Pavlov, Josef Goebbels, and the crafters of ad campaigns, not R. Dawkins and E. O. Wilson.
As such, Hyperbole is a key tool in the toolbox of language manipulators. As is offering Name-checks of Heroes and Villains, based on public familiarity with them and intended to link that familiarity for propaganda advantage. It has to be admitted that many readers don't read for content or context; they skim. Their thoughts are prompted by the emotional triggering of labels; that isn't about "the power of the meme", it's the result of eliciting a conditioned response.
It's a good idea for anyone in the business of political "messaging" to understand the principles of advertising to aid their appeal to their audience- especially in democracies, which implicitly rely on persuasion rather than badgering or coercion in order to draw allegiance from their voters. But without ethics or concern for integrity in the message content, shit has a way of getting dumb fast. Especially when one side is adept at slick demagoguery, and the other is inept at the keeping the common touch. Or, worse, if both positions in a given issue debate resort to unethical means. When both sides jettison their ethics, that most often indicates that the value of the respective positions of both sides is exhausted, either because they've been asking the wrong questions for too long or seeking private ends at the expense of productive results for the common good. The sort of cynicism that one hears expressed as "fighting fire with fire", etc.