It's no secret to the vigilant, that emotional rhetoric is both insufficient and digressive when pertinent facts and necessity of completeness should be the entirety of the depiction utilized to properly address an alarming situation or event. Especially that in which may have interminable consequences if said facts are misinterpreted by the indirect induction of fear or by the present face alluding to skepticism by blanketing statements with such rhetoric - as a firm tone in such situation should be instilled with confidence and stillness - and not the vibe of conjecture.
However, oftentimes these standards are severed when authors or interpreters become either too emotionally invested, or specifically become conflicted with the desire to maintain a motto that is antiquitized by persistently appearing in control, even in the absence of utter confidence. A respectable character may be undermined by subtle opposition - and so ego becomes disguised as humility and sugar coated with the adapted ability to simulate the ideal character for every major situation.
......or Agenda.
This is how effective politicians or other public figures are secured and heroized. If then these same characters can walk away with their stance abbreviated in between significant headlines - then their name becomes more memorable then their position. Until they make the next appearance, then it all rings a bell as the same embraced posture is rigorously striving to attend to, and take control of the next proverbial crusade. Consistency in appeal merely has to look imposable and / or not cluttered - thus this technique effectively masquerades the core picture while substituting the need for a composite narcissism to be produced and applied. If by a shadow of a doubt this character is offset by rough and efficient scrutiny- notated reliability and those even MORE emotionally invested in this character than the typicals are utilized as a viable resource to counter backlash.
In common terms, emotional rhetoric is an effective defense to the presenting character and stability of the audience, when simply the observation of public responses and desires (especially when concerning safety) is recruited as a means of preparing an unequivocal guideline to hide the flaws of the presentation while preventing conformity to opposing ideals or suggestions.
A great example is regarding cell phone tracking, and "spy towers" to where both privacy and security are concerned. If a headline reaches out and is initially implicating the problem of organized crime or say, terrorists - as a means for justifying the then assured "selectivity" of spy technologies (again minimizing or not alluding to the possibilities for abuse) specific to outlined circumstances or situations - then passive-avoidance may succeed under a guise that has not been examined in full color. Simply because a rising concern (such as gangs, mobs or terrorists) may be the implication that first captures the attention of many due to relevance (and presumably past, referenced events or tragedies) - and then the lack of declaration of possibilities for abuse combined with it not being legally feasible (or is through a loophole) may lead some "average" groups of people to dismiss collective concern either because of the uninvestigated illegality, or assumed legality (trustworthy character or police man presents it, so he must know the law etc) - or because they want to feel safe and not be confined by the inconvenience of worry .
Oh but the possibilities are then minimized because the presenting character is "upgraded" and his past now reinforces his respectable stature and thus dually empowers him and the organization who has a reputation to maintain.
If say undesirable (but analytical) questions are presented , a subtle and opaque headline describing the development, advancement , or position relating to the situation could be a defense itself and for itself due to the amazing amount of excuses that can be used to proclaim the innocency of it's generalized paradigm - or that the third parties "didn't submit it properly" and we told them to etc).
It becomes obvious at some point but chances are if people want to believe in or have faith in said character due to again, emotional investment or the pathological need to dismiss inconvenience - then they will remain oblivious to the excuses presented.
Emotional rhetoric where a powerful and yet previously or currently dependable entity is involved, can always be refined to appeal to new standards or to match up to the ratio of people who feel a certain way - thus subtle and opaque headlines can be consistently guarded by not just reputation but by again simulating the ideal character - then specialized to a crowd whom may provide additional response or political leverage by means of being transformed into an active reference.
A simpler way of saying it, is "get people who agree to sign on, whom truly believe in us, and then they can be additional voices who may then invent new ways of supporting us" - pathological narcissism along with an almost inhuman or unprecedented belief in and confidence in the cause and character and / or institution eventually precedes the submissive followers aggregated re-assurance because "the presenting entity has to have some merit - if they believe with such enthusiasm and persistence".
This is a very real concept in both psychology and social history - those who re-assure themselves constantly can persistently display powerfully - the significance of a belief backed by opportunity, and safely coupled with aesthetic presentation.
If you internalize something as gospel - it surely will eventually immerse itself as such in the hearts of others. Simply because people need to believe in something - some people aren't intelligent enough to form their own beliefs - or are crippled by the conformity of related others to an opposite side - and thus look for the closest thing to symbolic achievement in which would pose their significance and "new psychology" further gratified by the legitimacy and popularity of the belief or cause.
"Stand for something or you'll fall for anything"
This should now be the basis for further arguments throughout the rest of this article/write-up - ironically, the stand for something can be just as dangerous as falling for anything - or paradoxically they can both be the SAME DAMN THING. You could fall for anything and then be standing for something - it only takes a few weeks or maybe even hours (if you play your cards right) to find anything to be in conjunction with with your inconclusive conclusions....lol !
Thus what is "something" must be collective and a rejuvenating entity (or at least a reinforcing one) to be defined significant enough to act as the apparel of those "walking a new path"...so many just want to fit in....
No comments:
Post a Comment