Reflecting on how much power media organizations hold when it comes to setting out the range of acceptable opinions worthy of debate. Call it the overton window or call it normalization— but think of this: When trying to decide if a stranger is “out of line” how much harder is it if they could easily say the same on the nightly news or in an opinion column?
Even if you ignore pundits they still set the stage. These people will be debated. Their right to basic human respect is a “controversy”
Or those ideas are “impossible” —no one talks of such things therefore those ides are “extreme”
It’s hard to maintain boundaries different from those laid out by the loudest voices in the room.
You have to be brave. Or at least when someone claims there is a debate, at least challenge that, right? Is debating if there ought to be a debate much better?
@futurebird Unless we happen to be a guest on a show, there's not much we can do about the media other than stop giving them our money (which I highly recommend). But out in the real world, there are some things that can help. They like to set the narrative and write the rules of the game, so reject the narrative and don't play by the rules. They are real-life trolls who say certain things to obtain a certain reaction. When we don't react in the predicted way or otherwise go "off script", it throws them off balance. We have the "weapons" to win this so-called "culture war", but most of us don't even know they exist. Weapons like for example, Deep Canvassing to force the change in narrative, Street Epistemology to go on the attack and change the rules of the game, and Attitude Inoculation to vaccinate vulnerable friends and relatives against bad ideas. https://cognitiveimmunology.net/
