Latest news with #ManufacturingConsent
Time of India
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Like, share, collapse: The curious case of manufactured modern consent
Excerpt: We agreed to everything. Even the crash. Especially the crash. That's the magic of consent in the age of capital: you won't even notice when you're nodding your way into ruin—with a selfie filter and a 'Let's Go Brandon' mug in hand. There's something perversely elegant about a society that can manufacture both iPhones and ideologies with the same ruthless efficiency. Yanis Varoufakis [a Greek politician and economist], riffing off Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, tosses us a neat little paradox wrapped in economic angst: that the more financialized our lives become, the more agreeable we get—and the more spectacular our breakdowns. Consent, it seems, isn't what it used to be. Once upon a time, it had to be extracted—with religion, kings, or gulags. These days, it's delivered via push notification and monetized outrage. Capitalism doesn't just want your labour; it wants your belief system bundled in prime-time infotainment and Facebook Lives. All dynamic societies, Varoufakis says, thrive on two processes: the making of surplus and the making of consent. The former fills your wallet (or used to). The latter convinces you that it's okay the neighbour got a fatter wallet for doing the same job. But somewhere along the way, as finance ballooned and factories vanished, this little duet hit a remix. Consent stopped being coerced and became curated. The age of propaganda gave way to the era of the podcast. Enter Trump, stage right—red tie flapping, indictment count rising. A real-estate mogul-turned-cable news messiah who understood early on that if you can't manufacture consent, just manufacture chaos and sell it in trucker hats. His genius wasn't policy; it was narrative ownership. He turned politics into pro wrestling and got half the country to cheer the heel turn. The other half? They rage-tweeted, which was basically a form of engagement. The algorithm doesn't care why you're angry, only that you are. And it's not just America. From Modi's WhatsApp bhakts to Europe's Hungary Games, the playbook is being photocopied at scale. Financial precarity? Blame the migrants. Sky-high inequality? Distract with culture wars. It's cheaper than redistributing wealth, and it polls better in the suburbs. So we scroll. We shop. We 'stand with' whatever the feed suggests today. We nod along to leaders who promise to make things great again—no one quite asks for whom. And then, once every few years, the scaffolding collapses and we wonder how no one saw it coming. Maybe we didn't need to. Maybe deep down, we agreed to the fall too. Late capitalism doesn't knock. It slides into your DMs with a 20% coupon, a righteous cause, and a man in a suit yelling on TikTok or those Meta platforms. All it asks for is your consent—and your complicity when the crash comes dressed as patriotism.
Time of India
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Pahalgam Terror Attack: Why Western media loves to call terrorists 'gunmen'
A famous anecdote about Mahatma Gandhi claims he was once asked by a reporter what he thought of Western civilisation. He ostensibly replied: 'It sounds like a good idea,' a tongue-in-cheek remark critiquing the moral decay that surrounds any society built on the edifice of slavery and the opium trade. The same could be said about the Western media 's propensity for 'neutral coverage' when reporting events outside Europe and the Anglosphere. Hanlon's Razor states: 'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.' Ignorance or stupidity is the most benign explanation for the Western media's habit of finding whitewashed euphemisms for terrorists, as evidenced by their recent coverage of the Pahalgam terror attack , where terrorists brutally killed 26 people. Alternatively, perhaps they are haunted by the patron saint of typos, Titivillus — the demon from medieval Christian folklore who would whisper distractions into the ears of monks copying manuscripts — preventing modern journalists from using the word 'terrorist' and instead pushing them to reach for vague, anaemic euphemisms like gunmen, militants, or rebels to describe radical fanatics who checked people's religion before executing them. Levity aside, Noam Chomsky , the Devil's Accountant , argued in Manufacturing Consent that language is a powerful tool of propaganda: a mechanism of power, control, and ideology designed to manipulate meaning, shape perceptions, and quietly tilt the moral compass without anyone noticing. He wrote: 'The way the world is structured, the way it's talked about, the way it's perceived — all of that is shaped in a very large measure by the structure of language and by the use of language." Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo Perhaps that explains why, when 26 people were executed in cold blood — not caught in crossfire, not victims of a riot, but deliberately and methodically hunted down — in the hills of Pahalgam, it took mere hours for the world's most 'respected' news organisations to do what they do best: sanitise the truth, neutralise the outrage, and euphemise the crime into something palatable enough. It's almost a redux of Arundhati Roy's infamous Gandhians with guns remark to describe Maoists. It is a predictable pattern, and that predictability is not a flaw but a feature. When Hindus are killed, the story must always be reframed — not as religious persecution or ideological terror, but as part of some nebulous, ongoing 'tension,' a word so vague it could mean anything, and therefore means nothing. The victims are quietly transformed into faceless statistics, stripped of religion, identity, and dignity; the perpetrators are softly described as 'unknown assailants' or 'radicals with grievances,' and terrorism itself is neutered into a regrettable but unavoidable 'incident.' This is not a matter of laziness, nor is it an excess of journalistic caution; it is bias — deliberate and sustained — the kind that recasts murderers into misunderstood actors in a conflict too complex for moral clarity, and victims into inconvenient footnotes. In the global newsroom's carefully maintained hierarchy of grief, Hindu lives occupy a peculiar space: simultaneously too privileged to be mourned and too politically awkward to be acknowledged. As a result, even when Hindus are targeted — not randomly, but systematically and ideologically — the coverage edges delicately around the truth, lest the narrative fracture under the weight of inconvenient facts. One only needs to contrast this with the media coverage after September 11. The towers had not even stopped burning before every major outlet called the event what it was: a terrorist attack, an assault on civilisation itself. There was no hesitation, no forensic caution, no whispered euphemisms. It was not described as an 'incident.' It was not softened into a 'militant strike.' It was not obfuscated as a 'gunman-led explosion.' The perpetrators were named: Islamic terrorists, jihadists, al-Qaeda operatives. The victims were named: Americans. The moral lines were drawn in thick, black ink, and nobody seemed concerned about nuance or complexity. In fact, even when a country was decimated based on fabricated intelligence — when Iraq was bombed into the Stone Age without a single WMD in sight — the media couldn't find its spine. Yet when 26 Hindus are lined up, interrogated about their religion, and shot for not being Muslim, the global media suddenly discovers the need for verification, for context, for delicate vocabulary. Because to call it terrorism would be to assign ideology; and to assign ideology would be to shatter the comforting mythologies that surround Islamist violence when its victims do not fit the West's preferred archetypes. Thus, the editorial policy becomes one of quiet erasure. The language is flattened; the ideology blurred; the blood, metaphorically speaking, scrubbed from the frame until the memory of the victims fades into a haze of 'tensions' and 'militants' and 'gunmen' whose motivations must, somehow, remain forever mysterious. It is important to understand exactly what these euphemisms achieve. A gunman suggests randomness. A militant implies a political grievance. A rebel hints at a noble cause. Every word strips away the ideological core of the act, recasting a deliberate, religiously motivated massacre into something almost accidental, almost forgivable, almost understandable. By refusing to call it terrorism, the media does not merely absolve the killers; it prevents any serious reckoning with the broader forces — cross-border jihad, radicalisation, Pakistan's proxy wars — that enabled such brutality in the first place. Perhaps most insidiously, this linguistic laundering dehumanises the victims. If 26 Jews had been murdered in Paris, or 26 Christians had been slaughtered on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, or 26 LGBTQ club-goers had been gunned down in Orlando, there would have been no hesitation in calling it terrorism; the candles would have been lit, the headlines would have screamed, and the op-eds would have poured in, demanding justice, vengeance, and global soul-searching. The same West that bans Russian athletes from every tournament for invading Ukraine somehow finds it outrageous that Pakistani cricketers don't get to play in the IPL — as though cross-border terrorism deserves a sporting exemption. But then again, for those of us who have followed the Western media for a long time, it's evident that legacy media seldom departs from the party line. There are several petards that can be hoisted to expose the Western media's explicit complicity in silencing voices that are different. Like the time they labelled everyone who suggested Covid was a lab leak a 'racist' . Or when they all followed a Chinese Omertà on Joe Biden's diminishing mental acuity. Or how they eschewed any pretence of sticking to Merton's principles when discussing gender ideology or trans people in women's sports. It's as if they have a set of guidelines they must follow, irrespective of what happens, or where. But when Hindus are massacred, they are quietly demoted to statistics; they are flattened into 'tensions,' buried under euphemisms, and met with the kind of silence that speaks louder than any headline. It is not that the Western media does not know better; it is that they choose not to do better — because doing better would require confronting the uncomfortable truth that victims do not always conform to the neat narratives carved out for them, and that not all ideologies are equally safe, or politically convenient, to expose. And so the cycle continues, with gunmen and militants and rebels and incidents and tensions — but never terror, never jihad, and certainly never Hindus. Society is built on the mendacious edifice that all lives matter; the Western media's coverage is a reminder that only some do — based on their religion, nationality, and ideology. From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, the West once taught the world to value truth, reason, and human dignity. Today, in the quiet erasure of inconvenient victims, it betrays the very civilisation it once proudly built.
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘My Entire Life Is Political': Trans Fencer Attacked by Conservative Outrage Machine Speaks Out
For more than a week, conservative news outlets and right-wing corners of social media have championed Stephanie Turner, 31, a fencer who took a knee and removed her mask to forfeit a tournament duel against Red Sullivan, 19, a transgender woman. But most discourse around the incident — in which Turner was disqualified by a USA Fencing referee with a 'black card' for refusing to compete against an eligible opponent — has obscured important context. Sullivan was reluctant to speak to journalists amid the concocted uproar, she tells Rolling Stone, as she was disheartened by inaccurate, unscientific, and hostile press. 'My entire life is political,' she says, mentioning just how many articles Fox News has written about her and Turner — at least a dozen to date — and that she is currently reading Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, which famously argues that American mass media serves to disseminate propaganda. 'There are a million things more important than to talk about a silly little fencing tournament in Maryland,' she says, let alone a specific bout between 'two people, neither of whom were going to win the event.' More from Rolling Stone How to Watch UFC 314: Volkanovski vs. Lopes The Masters Livestream: How to Watch the Golf Tournament Without Cable Here's Why Streaming DIRECTV via Internet Is One of the Best Ways to Watch MLB Games This Season Days after Turner's performative exit on March 30 from the annual Cherry Blossom Open tournament at the University of Maryland, footage of the display went viral on social media. In the clip, Sullivan approaches Turner, thinking that she might be hurt, before her opponent says that she won't fence. In an interview with Fox News, Turner explained her actions while misgendering Sullivan, saying, 'I looked at the ref and I said, 'I'm sorry, I cannot do this. I am a woman, and this is a man, and this is a women's tournament. And I will not fence this individual.'' By that point, video of her protest had been shared by groups such as the Independent Council on Women's Sports, which advocates against trans women in sports, and author J.K. Rowling, who is known for her staunchly transphobic views. 'What a heroine looks like,' Rowling wrote of Turner. Turner said on Fox that she had for a while known that she would forfeit a duel if up against a transgender woman, and made a habit of avoiding tournaments where a trans athlete might be registered, claiming that Sullivan had signed up for the Cherry Blossom after her. Turner further predicted that backing out of the duel with Sullivan 'will probably, at least for the moment, destroy my life.' It did not. In addition to her accolades from the many journalists, celebrities, and influencers behind today's moral panic over trans inclusion in sports, Turner received a $5,000 prize and was named a 'Courage Wins Champion' by XX-XY Athletics, a sportswear brand that also opposes transgender athletes competing in women's sports. The company said it was inducting her into a leadership program as well. However, unlike many sports, it's not uncommon for fencers to train or compete in co-ed settings. In fact, just a week prior to the Maryland tournament, Turner had entered a 'mixed' event at the Swarthmore College Phoenix Cup — and defeated four different cisgender male opponents, ultimately placing 8th out of 32 fencers. As for the Cherry Blossom, Sullivan remained in the contest and won two out of six bouts, placing 24th out of 39 fencers. A sophomore at Wagner College in New York, Sullivan tells Rolling Stone that 'fencing is an esoteric sport' that is difficult to understand from outside the community. In fencing clubs, she says, it's understood that 'you can get something from practicing with anyone and everyone,' mostly regardless of gender or age, and that 'the goal is to fence most people there.' She adds: '12-year-olds come up and ask to fence me regularly, and I will regularly lose to certain 12-year-olds' who are especially well-trained or talented. 'Fencing is not a measure of pure strength,' she notes, nor is body size an obvious advantage: U.S. Olympic champion fencer Lee Kiefer, she says, is only five-foot-four-inches tall, but routinely defeats significantly taller rivals due to her timing and accuracy. Sullivan, who has been fencing for six years and calls herself a 'mid' competitor, entered men's and mixed events from 2021 through mid-2023. She first became medically eligible for women's tournaments in the fall of 2024. Since President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning trans women in women's sports, with the NCAA accordingly changing their rules to permit only those assigned female at birth in women's college athletics, she has not fenced for her former women's college team, which she joined and was active in last semester. 'I was bewildered — flabbergasted, even,' Sullivan says of the moment when Turner refused to duel her, in what she describes as a staged and unnecessary stunt recorded by at least two people present. She recalls saying, 'Bro, what,' when she heard Turner's remarks. 'Nothing close to this has ever happened. No one has ever had a problem with me fencing in a women's event,' Sullivan says. 'She could have withdrawn herself from the tournament, or talked to the organizers and said, 'Hey, I do not want to fence this person,' and seen if they could have reshuffled the pools. She actively chose to have this interaction and film it and then send it to people to post it.' The original viral posts about the clip on social platform X, she observes, included Sullivan's full name, but avoided naming Turner, whose identity was not public until she began talking to Fox News. As such, Sullivan was far more exposed to the public. 'On any day of the week, no one would care about the outcome of a fencing tournament,' Sullivan says. 'The only reason people care about this is because the adjective 'trans' has been attached.' She laughs off a Fox anchor's incorrect suggestion that the tournament was an Olympic qualifying event. 'It was nowhere near that,' she says. 'It's a regional event, which basically matters for only regional points, and for most people, they're for funsies.' She also contests Turner's claim that she had seen their pool matchup scheduled the night before the tournament. 'The pools weren't posted until 10 minutes before we started fencing on the day of the event,' she says. Attempts to reach Turner's rep for comment were unsuccessful. Charles X. Wang, an attorney and board member of the nonprofit Fair Fencing Organization (FFO) who wrote on Facebook that he was 'proud to represent Turner' in the matter of her disqualification, did not immediately respond to Rolling Stone's request for comment. FFO in February announced a crowdfunding campaign to mount a class-action lawsuit against USA Fencing over a litany of complaints, including 'wrongful application of DEI policies.' USA Fencing has so far stood by the decision to eject Turner from the Cherry Blossom, which will not affect her eligibility for future events. The expulsion, they said in a statement, 'was not related to any personal statement but was merely the direct result of her decision to decline to fence an eligible opponent, which the [International Fencing Federation] rules clearly prohibit. USA Fencing is obligated to follow the letter of those rules and ensure that participants respect the standards set at the international level.' The Cherry Blossom Open is a non-collegiate tournament, and Sullivan had met USA Fencing's hormone requirements for trans athletes to compete in a women's event. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said he will investigate the organization, as did Education Secretary Linda McMahon. Sen. Ted Cruz also wrote a letter attacking USA Fencing's inclusion policies. Republicans and far-right agitators have spared no effort in demonizing the vanishingly tiny fraction of trans athletes among sporting associations around the world, even in games like disc golf and darts. Sullivan finds it absurd. 'Darts, what trans advantage is there?' she asks. 'You're throwing a tiny little thing at a board.' She says she's 'been aware' that she could be targeted the same way, and that after the aborted face-off with Turner, 'I knew I was cooked.' Sullivan had already attracted the attention of anti-trans groups in December, when the faux-feminist transphobia site Reduxx published a post about her winning a women's Junior Olympics qualifier. 'While it sounds super prestigious, it's not,' Sullivan says. 'It's just a national tournament with kind of different branding.' She was friends with almost everyone in the tournament, she says, including the woman to whom she nearly lost in the finals. On Fox News, Turner cited the Reduxx hit piece as the reason she'd known that Sullivan is trans. In the past week, Sullivan has been frustrated by coverage that not only features older pictures of her and her birth name, but trades on the 'patently false' idea that 'sex is binary and immutable' and constantly describes her as a 'biological male.' And she finds anti-trans sentiment about protecting women's spaces and sports, when couched in the language of feminism by figures like Rowling, former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines, and former tennis pro Martina Navratilova, who faced potential repercussions for coming out as gay in the 1980s, particularly disingenuous. (Navratilova wrote on X that USA Fencing had thrown women 'under the gender bullshit bus' when she shared the tournament video.) 'Feminism should include all women, including trans women, and, I mean, coming from a trans person, that's less likely to be well received,' Sullivan says. 'But they aren't even fucking feminists.' She calls Navratilova, 'morally bankrupt' for recycling the toxic rhetoric she and other queer athletes endured in the past to go after trans athletes. 'In a world of Navratilovas, be a Billie Jean,' she adds, referencing another gay tennis superstar of the 1980s who supports trans people's participation in sports. Thankfully, Sullivan has found that the actual fencing community has rallied to her side, and is reading 'incredibly' supportive comments across platforms, including Reddit and Facebook. She reiterates that fencing is hardly a matter of broad public interest compared to stories like Trump's tariffs or Israel's war on Gaza. 'Even when it's an Olympic cycle,' she says, 'if you were to say, 'Name a gold medal Olympian [fencer],' people would be like, 'What's fencing?'' Best of Rolling Stone Every Super Bowl Halftime Show, Ranked From Worst to Best The United States of Weed Gaming Levels Up
