Wake up genius.
I never posted that I don't really support the things I say.
Do you not tire of people abandoning critical thought and ceaselessly parroting mindless propaganda?
Or
Are you one of those people who really do not care how stupid the song is as long as everyone is singing the same damned song?
Yet your reason was, "counterpoint", not, "because it is true".
It's one thing to weary of abandonment of critical thought, and all, but what never made any sense to me is what you or anyone else would expect to gain in responding by abandoning critical thought and ceaselessly parroting mindless "counterpoint". I've heard this kind of shit for years, dude; it's the same sort of excrement we get from people like James Lindsay and Jordan Peterson. If we all stop "abandoning critical thought and ceaslessly parroting mindless propaganda" and just go along with what they say, what we end up doing is putting women in their proverbial place, according to ceaseless repetition of mindless propaganda devoid of critical thought.¹ If I recall experience both verité and virtual during the time of the Internet, I have encountered many appeals to stop abandoning critical thought, and the extraordinary propensity of those pathways requiring dereliction of critical thought is sufficient to advise me against such direct appeals about "abandoning critical thought and ceaselessly parroting mindless propaganda". For reasons not entirely mysterious, such potsherd geniuses all too often find themselves leading back toward a greater danger than what they pretend to struggle against.
An obvious point: That the colloquial chatter and buzz is frail, corrupted in its way, and sometimes even dangerous, is no good reason to "counterpoint" with something even more corrupted and dangerous.
From the twitline: The loudest critiques against the mainline narrative condition are even worse than what they complain about. I actually think one former media CEO does it out of pathological petulance, that since he thinks other people are wrong, he's going to reciprocate. There are actually a few of those, and it's one thing if I disdain what goes on in the business of American news media, but there is no gain but loss in following those jokers through their looking glasses. I don't talk about them much at Sciforums because I wouldn't want to give those bastards the airtime, or even effort. It's like, sure, I'm not exactly a fan of that one centrist political hand with a nasty reputation and an NBC News punditry gig, but holy shit he can get that populist expatriate diva Congressional spouse and former media CEO worked up with a tweet, and over at FOX News they make a chyron out of it. The thing about the centrist with the nasty reputation, though, is that he is comprehensible. The other is so deeply entrenched in his counterscreech it's no longer worth trying to figure out what he's on about; he will either come around and start making sense, or not.
More generally: If, for instance, the problem with Democrats is people like Kissinger, hiring a CIA boss, or Dick Cheney, makes no sense.
Remember, the question of the same song is a pop culture appeal. Musicians sometimes point to the difference between music appreciation and musical knowledge or education. The science of pop music falters before the coincidence of the right song at the right moment.
But think of "Guitar Trio"↱. The recording by Band of Susans runs over thirteen minutes, but the thing is the song is built entirely of
one note. That's important to remember about five and a half minutes in. While what available online is compressed and therefore degraded, but it still works well enough to make the point. The question is, why are you listening to thirteen minutes of one note? There are, actually, reasons, and they are, actually, fascinating, but the reality is that's not why most people listen to music.
But if we consider questions of critical thought, propaganda, and the appeal of pied pipers, every once in a while it might be important to to know a little about how the music works. Trading out for an even sketchier piper is not a good argument.
____________________
Notes:
¹ It's like certain critiques of Hillary Clinton, several years ago; it was one thing to turn on the expectations and customs of centrism, but anyone could have told you at the time that the difference between being a good politician and behaving in an ugly, unbecoming way had to do with what we expect of women, and as soon as people accepted that she was out of the way as the potential first female president, all the stuff people didn't like about her political capability would stop being so ugly. The thing is, if it really was time to reject centrism, the perpetual haggling of being a Democratic voter, and ossified channels of compromise that shape institutional politics, that would have been one thing. But that's not what it was, and the critique turned out to be just another go 'round the same old stations of mindless mythopoeia lacking any functional critical thought.