Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I've come to see it as less a constellation of beliefs as conflicting narratives. Take Israel - what is their narrative? A story about a historically oppressed group of people doing the best they can to survive while surrounded by genocidal barbarians intent on murdering them to the last man, woman and child? Or an oppressive regime backed by imperialists that remorselessly kills thousands indiscriminately, preserving awful living conditions for the exiled poor they've made into permanent refugees, while living in relative luxury in their stolen homeland? It's no wonder that topic is totally unsusceptible to reasonable conversation. We're seeing this more and more on more and more issues.
You've actually seen this sort of thinking become explicit lately - we have a particular narrative in which the following people are good and the following are bad, and noticing exceptions or nuance would challenge this narrative. When cast in this way, it becomes a little easier to see how people with different ideological perspectives can look at the same world and see completely different things.
|
It's not conflicting narratives, as the narratives change to fit whatever end goal people want. There's also an extreme amount revisionism. Basically, it's people trying to reach an end goal at any costs. If that means purposely lying, fine. Throwing women's rights under the bus, also fine. As long as the end goal of supporting whatever side of the conflict you arbitrarily define yourself to be on, you've won.
I would agree that the narratives becomes a tool, and people do prefer the black/white illusions over the nuanced realities. I just don't see the narratives themselves as that important, as those are open to change and revision to suit whatever the circumstances are.