TRUTH, CONSPIRACY OR RC's "WOO-WOO"

[rothschild]

In the simplest terms, I interpret the concept as follows:  If opinion favors a course of action, that becomes the impetus and justification for “the powers that be” to pursue and endorse change.  (Reminder . . . that is my synthesized and simplistic interpretation.)

Her reason for forwarding it to me was “this sounds sooo like youu! ".  She closed with a good-natured rib about the size of my walk-in closet, perhaps I’m lost and, therefore, unable to find my way out (as I seem to avoid turning left).

1.)  Do you believe the events and observations follow the Overton Window concept?
2.)  Do you believe this person is credible?
3.)  Do you agree with any of her conclusions or opinions?

Thanks in advance for your consideration of my post.  

If you'd like, we can get into any of . . . how did Duchess describe it . . . the “woo-woo”, later . . . and perhaps across various Mock threads.

I see the "Overton Window" as a PR tool. PR is social psychology/propaganda formalized into a curriculum/industry, largely by Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud. Freud wrote on social psychology and influenced Bernays thoughts on the subject.

Propaganda as defined by a PR encyclopedia is: the manipulation of symbols for the purpose of eliciting a desired response. Obviously, success rests on the ability  to do this without the conscious awareness of those being manipulated. It is the "shaping" of public opinion/perception. Read through a few PR journals and you'll see this plainly articulated, as well as the latest innovations developed to achieve that end. This is where the big money is made in psychology.

There's a large gap between public perception of the Overton Window and what it references in the world of public relations, the latter being the extent to which public opinion can be shifted at a particular point in time. The primary difference between your interpretation and mine is that I see the goal of the powers-that-be  in this regard as aligning public opinion with their desired objectives. Again, propaganda is manipulation for the purpose of eliciting a desired response. So PR is formalized propaganda, with governmental, corporate, and military applicability, and those who pay the piper call the tune. It's the Golden Rule, Tiki: those who have the gold make the rules, and this is no less true today than it was in the past.

Re the article, it references what I began to see about 5 years ago, with movements being taken over by radicalized youth that had objectives completely different from those of the existing membership. Hatch's views on this phenomenon, IMO, are representative of the people who comprised the gay/lesbian/feminst advocacy groups prior to co-optation. What probably sets her apart from others is her willingness to speak out at risk of being attacked, verbally and physically.

The question this raises for me is: who benefits from increased polarization? If your interest lies in "building back better", what would be more desirable than that which facilitates the demolition of existing structures?

Is that woo-woo? It depends on how you perceive your environment, hence the desirability of shaping public perception.