> Everyday political talk rejects the language of universality in favor of the idioms of affinity. To call a candidate or policy based or cringe, pilled or normie—terms without a fixed meaning even for those who invoke them—is to situate oneself in a particular group against an ill-defined mainstream.
so too does this apply to “elite”, but the essay uses it liberally and a fun exercise is to try and replace each occurrence with its “plain” equivalent.
> Obscurity impedes solidarity.
don’t reveal your answer to the above exercise. if we do, we’ll discover that we’re all reading slightly different details into the text, and that may put us in conflict. you and i can be in solidarity against the “elites” only because of our differences which this term serves to obscure.
> To write plainly (and read texts with the expectation of plainness) was to make information meaningful and persuasion possible.
persuasion is about selling an image. information serves only to constrain the image. rarely do they work hand-in-hand.
so too does this apply to “elite”, but the essay uses it liberally and a fun exercise is to try and replace each occurrence with its “plain” equivalent.
> Obscurity impedes solidarity.
don’t reveal your answer to the above exercise. if we do, we’ll discover that we’re all reading slightly different details into the text, and that may put us in conflict. you and i can be in solidarity against the “elites” only because of our differences which this term serves to obscure.
> To write plainly (and read texts with the expectation of plainness) was to make information meaningful and persuasion possible.
persuasion is about selling an image. information serves only to constrain the image. rarely do they work hand-in-hand.