Do you ever see the fnords?

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

A fnord is something like a cross between a buzzword and subliminal advertising. It's a hint or an implied invitation to adopt a certain pattern of thinking, that's so well hidden in the context of a news source or other piece of popular writing as to be almost imperceptible. You could even conceive of it as a demand to conform to a certain opinion, camouflaged as an innocuous statement of fact. According to the coiners of the term, fnords are inserted into news sources by the government, in order to plant the seeds of homogeneous public opinion on certain topics, which are in the government's best interest for the people to hold.

Have you ever seen or read something, especially something with wide distribution and ostensibly neutral politically, and gotten a can't-quite-put-my-finger-on-it feeling that you were being manipulated by the clever and selective use of phrasing? Did you later discover that you were very much correct? If so, did your skepticism meter go off the charts every time you read that same word or phrase again, in a similar context?

I find the use of the word 'forces', when used to mean 'military', arouses such a feeling in me when I read it in the news. It's not a euphemism, exactly. But it definitely is a word that's loaded; it's conjures up a sense of mystery and awe on one hand (poweful forces afoot), as well as simple and rational Newtonian mechanics, that "just are", and are indifferent to and independent of human passions. I can't help but wonder if on some level, it's chosen as the preferred word for 'military troops', because these are exactly the things the news sources want the readers to associate with the military troops discussed.

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

A fnord is something like a cross between a buzzword and subliminal advertising. It's a hint or an implied invitation to adopt a certain pattern of thinking, that's so well hidden in the context of a news source or other piece of popular writing as to be almost imperceptible. You could even conceive of it as a demand to conform to a certain opinion, camouflaged as an innocuous statement of fact. According to the coiners of the term, fnords are inserted into news sources by the government, in order to plant the seeds of homogeneous public opinion on certain topics, which are in the government's best interest for the people to hold.

Have you ever seen or read something, especially something with wide distribution and ostensibly neutral politically, and gotten a can't-quite-put-my-finger-on-it feeling that you were being manipulated by the clever and selective use of phrasing? Did you later discover that you were very much correct? If so, did your skepticism meter go off the charts every time you read that same word or phrase again, in a similar context?

I find the use of the word 'forces', when used to mean 'military', arouses such a feeling in me when I read it in the news. It's not a euphemism, exactly. But it definitely is a word that's loaded; it's conjures up a sense of mystery and awe on one hand (poweful forces afoot), as well as simple and rational Newtonian mechanics, that "just are", and are indifferent to and independent of human passions. I can't help but wonder if on some level, it's chosen as the preferred word for 'military troops', because these are exactly the things the news sources want the readers to associate with the military troops discussed.

Subliminal messages, interwoven into the main idea, but as if it is made to transmit the underlying message directly to the unconscious, and bypass the rational mind, while the person is totally unaware of its existence in what he is consciously reading. I guess this is what you mean. There is a whole psychology of it, and it is easy to read it when you have the tools. It works and it sucks the individual in and they don't even know why they were sold into it and how they were convinced; they also use it in a goodpositive way in children's books for personal improvement or fast indocrination or training.
I believe they use Neurolinguistics as an underhanded tool, and mostly used in advertizement, but also military/police interogation etc.

 

[MrM]

Drink diet coke!

If you think consuming vast quantities of a soft drink packed with artificial sweeteners is the same as a diet then you've been fnorded.

Assuming i've got the right idea with this fnord business?

 

[jam uh weezy]

Cool. I'm an avid reader of social psychology, advertisement techniques, and generally the careful use of language/poetry in order to influence or persuade; on a macro or micro scale. I also love me some RAW...

"Insurgents". The words dehumanizes the people it refers too. They are not human, with human emotion, or family. It is a distinct form of othering, and "they" are out only to harm us.

I may get some flack for this, but I regard modern currency as a superbly developed Fnord. It is omnipresent and indirectly domineering. Not only of thought, but of action. It lacks any real value, but is presented as beneficial too all. It is the whip that cracks everbody into capitalistic submission, we both fear (losing)it and love it.


I dunno I'm drawing a blank, I'll add more as they come.

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

Drink diet coke!

If you think consuming vast quantities of a soft drink packed with artificial sweeteners is the same as a diet then you've been fnorded.

Assuming i've got the right idea with this fnord business?

I don't get your point, because if they try to push diet coke, I don't believe that relates to diet, they are suggesting that instead of sugar/carbohydrates, they use artificial sweeteners, so the word they use is relevant!

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

I see these sorts of weird little manipulations all the time. It really bothers me. If I don't directly see them I usually get a feeling that something wasn't right with what I just heard, as you pointed out.

 

[jam uh weezy]

I don't get your point, because if they try to push diet coke, I don't believe that relates to diet, they are suggesting that instead of sugar/carbohydrates, they use artificial sweeteners, so the word they use is relevant!

I think he is referring to the connotations the word 'Diet' implies. It is associated with good health, 'good for you'. What they should use is "sugarless", cause that's what it is.

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

I think he is referring to the connotations the word 'Diet' implies. It is associated with good health, 'good for you'. What they should use is "sugarless", cause that's what it is.

Yap, I understand that part and they propably do use a double meaning, but it is also reality if they have indeed taken care of the sugar buzz is it not? so there is no manipulation as such there, as in regards to that!
Ok, I get it now what you are saying!! It is, though they are making a use of something which is relevant!

 

[MrM]

I think he is referring to the connotations the word 'Diet' implies. It is associated with good health, 'good for you'. What they should use is "sugarless", cause that's what it is.

That's what i was going for (highly sugared drinks should never be a regular part of a healthy 'diet' so simply eliminating this isn't worthy of being seen as healthy in the way that the word diet implies).

I did give the example because i wasn't sure it was right though so feel free to point out if i'm wrong.

Sugarless or low energy would be more accurate, but sugarless sounds funny and low energy wouldn't sell so well i suspect.

 

[Nibiru]

A fnord can be anything from a subliminal message to a simple redundancy. Once you start seeing them, they are impossible to escape, effectively overtaking your life until you are a strange, erratic, comfortably paranoid wierdie.

 

[Jamshyd]

Bumping to avoid prune.