Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Straussian Memes

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: Straussian Memes

#11

Post by ryandv »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #6

Another phrase that comes to mind is "Plausible Deniability": By uttering ambiguous sentences you can deny all but one possible meanings of what you say. And talking to different audiences at different times you can claim you didn't mean anything like what your citics are claiming you did. But I like the idea there is a term for this, be it Straussian Memes or something else. What I didn't quite get is how "self-stab…

> Another phrase that comes to mind is "Plausible Deniability": By uttering ambiguous sentences you can deny all but one possible meanings of what you say. And talking to different audiences at different times you can claim you didn't mean anything like what your citics are claiming you did.

This is the core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left in a nutshell. Linguistic superposition, equivocation, Schrodinger's definition - whatever you want to call it, it's the ability to have your cake and eat it too by simply changing your definitions, or even someone else's, post hoc.

Let us take a moment to be reminded of the English Socialism of Orwell and doublespeak.

Re: Straussian Memes

#12

Post by PaulHoule »

_yb2s wrote: post #5
PaulHoule wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's classic Bay Area monoculture, like that Paul Graham essay about "things you can't say". People are deferential to it because LessWrong is a hugbox or because Graham is rich but in that monoculture people are used to laughing at jokes that lack a punch line and thinking that makes them "insiders", "cool", or "smart", compared to people in flyover states, the East Coast, and the rest of California who can't see th…

Your rant about Bay Area subcultures is suspiciously written in jargon that only someone deep in these subcultures would recognize- well done, very Straussian.

You know they do have my picture in the dictionary next to "insider-outsider!"

Re: Straussian Memes

#13

Post by lcuff »

ryandv wrote: post #11
galaxyLogic wrote: post #6

Another phrase that comes to mind is "Plausible Deniability": By uttering ambiguous sentences you can deny all but one possible meanings of what you say. And talking to different audiences at different times you can claim you didn't mean anything like what your citics are claiming you did. But I like the idea there is a term for this, be it Straussian Memes or something else. What I didn't quite get is how "self-stab…

> Another phrase that comes to mind is "Plausible Deniability": By uttering ambiguous sentences you can deny all but one possible meanings of what you say. And talking to different audiences at different times you can claim you didn't mean anything like what your citics are claiming you did. This is the core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left in a nutshell. Linguistic superposition, equivocation, Schrodinger's…

"Core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left". Or the conservative right, depending on which side of this divide one happens to stand on. And speaking of Orwell, he was pointing out the doublespeak of the Fascists, not the socialists.

Re: Straussian Memes

#14

Post by ryandv »

lcuff wrote: post #13
ryandv wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another phrase that comes to mind is "Plausible Deniability": By uttering ambiguous sentences you can deny all but one possible meanings of what you say. And talking to different audiences at different times you can claim you didn't mean anything like what your citics are claiming you did. This is the core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left in a nutshell. Linguistic superposition, equivocation, Schrodinger's…

"Core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left". Or the conservative right, depending on which side of this divide one happens to stand on. And speaking of Orwell, he was pointing out the doublespeak of the Fascists, not the socialists.

It's really quite potent in terms such as "racism" or "gender" which have seen unilateral attempts at redefinition.

Re: Straussian Memes

#15

Post by PaulHoule »

ryandv wrote: post #14
lcuff wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left". Or the conservative right, depending on which side of this divide one happens to stand on. And speaking of Orwell, he was pointing out the doublespeak of the Fascists, not the socialists.

It's really quite potent in terms such as "racism" or "gender" which have seen unilateral attempts at redefinition.

"Illegal alien" is one of the greatest accomplishments of language engineering and was unambiguously successful.

When the left tries this today it results in equal and opposite backlash and has no effect in terms of policy, winning elections, and that sort of stuff, but it certainly can be a motor that keeps online bubbles bubbling.

Re: Straussian Memes

#16

Post by ryandv »

PaulHoule wrote: post #15
ryandv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really quite potent in terms such as "racism" or "gender" which have seen unilateral attempts at redefinition.

"Illegal alien" is one of the greatest accomplishments of language engineering and was unambiguously successful. When the left tries this today it results in equal and opposite backlash and has no effect in terms of policy, winning elections, and that sort of stuff, but it certainly can be a motor that keeps online bubbles bubbling.

I think there is no equivocation or ambiguity here, unless you are me at age 5 asking why aliens have landed in Mexico.

I would hazard that you are underestimating the impact of these rhetorical tactics, but I've not the energy to aggressively litigate and cite this point further.

Re: Straussian Memes

#17

Post by lcuff »

PaulHoule wrote: post #3
cathyreisenwitz wrote: post #2

Did I miss something, or are none of the examples both Straussian and memetic/memes? I feel like if this were a real thing, one could imagine one example. Also, that's not how churches generally work.

It's classic Bay Area monoculture, like that Paul Graham essay about "things you can't say". People are deferential to it because LessWrong is a hugbox or because Graham is rich but in that monoculture people are used to laughing at jokes that lack a punch line and thinking that makes them "insiders", "cool", or "smart", compared to people in flyover states, the East Coast, and the rest of California who can't see th…

Everybody's mileage will vary on this ... I spent a lot of time in the year after I read Paul Graham's essay on "things you can't say", searching for things that I thought matched the criteria he set out, and found a few. But it's not that the words may never cross my lips, I can say these things within some small circle of people, but would definitely not be saying them in public without being prepared for an onslaught of negative attention. Some examples of 'cancel culture' are proof of this. Donald G. McNeil comes to mind.

That said, I'm not impressed with the notion of Straussian memes and agree that way better examples are needed to give the idea some validity.

Re: Straussian Memes

#18

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ryandv wrote: post #11
galaxyLogic wrote: post #6

Another phrase that comes to mind is "Plausible Deniability": By uttering ambiguous sentences you can deny all but one possible meanings of what you say. And talking to different audiences at different times you can claim you didn't mean anything like what your citics are claiming you did. But I like the idea there is a term for this, be it Straussian Memes or something else. What I didn't quite get is how "self-stab…

> Another phrase that comes to mind is "Plausible Deniability": By uttering ambiguous sentences you can deny all but one possible meanings of what you say. And talking to different audiences at different times you can claim you didn't mean anything like what your citics are claiming you did. This is the core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left in a nutshell. Linguistic superposition, equivocation, Schrodinger's…

> the core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left in a nutshell

I live in Wyoming and have MAGA and ultra-progressive friends.

Multiple messaging is a hallmark of all elites. Sometimes it’s functional: being able to say something sharp that if repeated is ambiguous is a skill. Anyone who has any power or authority wields it. It is so common to suggest requirement. (Other times, multiple messaging lets one apologise in a public setting without making things awkward.)

In many respects, it’s an essential feature of commanding language. Compressing multiple meanings into fewer words is the essence of poetry and literature.

Re: Straussian Memes

#20

Post by blamestross »

I've called things shaped like this "polyentendre".

In my head I think of it has just really high linguistic compression. Minus intent, it is just superimposing multiple true statements into a small set of glyphs/phonemes.

Its always really context sensitive. Context is the shared dictionary of linguistic compression, and you need to hijack it to get more meanings out of words.

Places to get more compression in:

- Ambiguity of subject/object with vague pronouns (and membership in plural pronouns)

- Ambiguity of English word-meaning collisions

- Lack of specificity in word choice.

- Ambiguity of emphasis in written language or delivery. They can come out a bit flat verbally.

A group people in a situation:

- A is ill

- B poisoned A

- C is horrified about the situation but too afraid to say anything

- D thinks A is faking it.

- E is just really cool

"They really are sick" is uttered by an observer and we don't know how much of the above they have insight into.

I just get a kick out of finding statements like this for fun in my life. Doing it with intent is more complicated.

What the author describes seems more like strategic ambiguity but slightly more specific. I don't think it is a useful label they try to cast here.

Post reply on HN