21st century fascism (ok, I’ll call it neofascism to distinguish it from historical fascism) incorporates postmodern elements to distract and divide, it adjusted to new media, internet and social media. TV and radio was one-to-many, so fascists just needed one narrative. Now they want you to get lost in the pretentious instruction book and bickering whether elon’s nazi salute was a nazi salute or not…
Anyway, what I’m saying is I think Habermas’ approach to communication is very useful and Rorty’s pretty useless to making sense of the world. But you can probably combine them both by using different methodologies to try to come to a conclusion about the truth, instead of just saying “the truth does not exist” and agree to disagree.
Which sources do you want, like examples? You know the examples. Something happens that goes against their schizo editorial line: either they find another scandal to distract from it, or they find the one expert that can twist the story to make it look good (e.g. climate deniers, antivaxxers)? They may produce an artificial controversy to pretend that there is disagreement among them. Multiple contradictory narratives aimed at different subaudiences that disagree with each other and plain manufactured stories…but I don’t watch it that much.
And since I don’t know who I’m talking to, there is no point in investing too much time into this. But if you read Habermas and Rorty, you could try to see what I mean…or not… :)
21st century fascism (ok, I’ll call it neofascism to distinguish it from historical fascism) incorporates postmodern elements to distract and divide, it adjusted to new media, internet and social media. TV and radio was one-to-many, so fascists just needed one narrative. Now they want you to get lost in the pretentious instruction book and bickering whether elon’s nazi salute was a nazi salute or not…
Anyway, what I’m saying is I think Habermas’ approach to communication is very useful and Rorty’s pretty useless to making sense of the world. But you can probably combine them both by using different methodologies to try to come to a conclusion about the truth, instead of just saying “the truth does not exist” and agree to disagree.
Can you explain how Fox News is postmodern using sources?
Which sources do you want, like examples? You know the examples. Something happens that goes against their schizo editorial line: either they find another scandal to distract from it, or they find the one expert that can twist the story to make it look good (e.g. climate deniers, antivaxxers)? They may produce an artificial controversy to pretend that there is disagreement among them. Multiple contradictory narratives aimed at different subaudiences that disagree with each other and plain manufactured stories…but I don’t watch it that much.
And since I don’t know who I’m talking to, there is no point in investing too much time into this. But if you read Habermas and Rorty, you could try to see what I mean…or not… :)
Okay, now provide a source that, say, twisting news stories to look good is a part of postmodernist philosophy.