Amused how well low-lying fruit hides.
Gossip is something lots of folk care about, but even the most basic theory is missing. Do they really care about it? Is accounting really a parts-per-billion superpower? Lots of articles and studies talking about how to counter gossip, and yet they're groping in the dark, having forgone even the most basic background or homework.
Proof by example: gossip can be split into two kinds. Event gossip and character gossip. The first is verifiable and the latter is unverifiable. Hardly an irrelevant distinction.
My prototype is therefore: false event gossip should be contradicted head on. Against character gossip, take the high road. Do stuff like agree and amplify. Never even remotely take it seriously. At most point out how they wouldn't know it even if it were true.
It is only a prototype. I don't have a testing environment. With such a crude theory it's almost guaranteed to have serious lacunae.
P.S. this theory is on the level of noticing that plants and rocks are different, yet it appears to be novel. At best anyone else who noticed was anti-boosted. Is admitting to yourself that you need to defend against gossip too humiliating? Is knowing how to deploy defences more painful than failing to deploy defences?
I expect knowledge of this kind was explicitly passed down in aristocratic families. Maybe still passed down. In any case, clearly kept strictly secret to an impressive degree.
P.P.S. journalism seems to be inherently unverifiable gossip. If you can check the facts yourself, it's not a scoop and thus not news. If you can't check yourself, it's isomorphic to untrue and thus not news. An inherently criminal activity. Even science reporters, who should be useful, feel compelled to lie about the new study.
6 comments:
We have such a dearth of information on how to deal with gossip that Vox Day’s “SJWs Always Lie” is considered good writing for having a single page in the book telling you not to talk to journalists and one other mundane piece of advice. Alrenous, you're right here, strategies on dealing with malicious gossip are "clearly kept strictly secret to an impressive degree"
Now to the critique:
So there’s “event-based gossip” and “character-based gossip” and you advise one should roughly directly contradict event-based and ignore/agree and amplify a"character-based gossip"
This distinction seems of little use. First off what use is there to simply contradict gossip? Using what means? Especially when one faces the media and the thumb on the scales social media algorithms, it’s massively asymmetric. Write a press release/blog post? No one will see it.
And the concept of “character-based gossip” needs some elaboration. It seems to me that anything to do with character can only be discerned by how someone demonstrated character through their actions during an event.
I did mention that journalism is almost purely character/unverifiable gossip. If you can't successfully sue them for libel, as far as I'm aware you can't do anything about it short of founding your own country.
Though journalists are dumb and easily avoided. America's top class follows this rule: never show up in the news. Being named is always being outed. They back up stealth with enforcements I don't fully understand, but decent stealth is all you need. Ref: my blog still exists. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Admittedly my names weren't the best. I was thinking of specific local events vs. diffuse alleged habits. "Hey, did you hear Matthew Williams asked that Tabitha girl out?” https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/21322/re-trailer-trash/chapter/408872/17-no-good-deed-goes-unpunished Tabitha's rational response: "No he didn't. Ask him yourself." The more specific it is, the easier it is to refute. Meanwhile the more diffuse it is, the more it sounds like baseless gossip. "Tabitha got liposuction." No way anyone could know that, no specific time, no specific hospital, etc. Make fun of them for trying it. "Oh yeah I donated every fat cell in my body to a charity for homeless pigeons." "Actually I had my entire stomach removed and don't eat anymore."
Character as in, "The kind of person who would get liposuction," badly disguised as an event.
What's the difference between character gossip and ad hominem?
Also, there is also "show, don't tell" in novel writing advice.
> If you can't successfully sue them for libel, as far as I'm aware you can't do anything about it short of founding your own country.
Exactly :/
> America's top class follows this rule: never show up in the news. Being named is always being outed.
Yeah. Too late for some of us.
By the way, is there a way for one to contact you on Telegram Alrenous? I have a small group that has some people who enjoy your writing and are part of our sphere. Let me know if interested.
I don't have a telegram account. If I make one I'll post about it. It will almost certainly be named Alrenous.
Please do. We will welcome you in my group
Post a Comment