Thank you, Mr. Naurekas… particularly for this:
“The pronouns do a lot of work in these sentences. Who are “we,” exactly, that understand white supremacists so well that we don’t have to pay any attention to them; are “we” different from the “you” that doesn’t suspect that these well-understood white supremacists might be dangerously violent?”
Increasingly, in the propagandistic war against truth, a ubiquitous WE frame is used to cloak over the specifics of power’s abusers and what THEY do in our names. There are concerted efforts to use “the passive voice,” particularly when Black males just “happen to die” in police custody. And for ages, what’s been true for the white male has been projected onto all females. As if HIS experience somehow represents hers. Similar “truth” as told by the dominator" or “war victor” eclipses the valid and EQUALLY true experience of those from other ethnic groups, political factions, and alternative (to the status quo) demographics.
I am glad that other writers and journalists are increasingly calling this “WE” B.S. into question.
It’s particularly galling that the WE frame is used in a phase where citizens are being given so little agency or say in all of the policies that concern them.
What Fast Track’s route to enshrining treasonous treaties like the TPP into law will do is effectively wipe out the public’s right to know what’s in its food. No legal means for curbing Big Industries’ polluting protocols will be left in place, either.
So do note the irony: the more inroads the 1%-elites-corporatists make into curtailing human agency, voice, and liberty, the more WE hear the WE frame as it purposely (and deceptively) conflates the policies that THEY enact with what the public arguably wants.
Smoke and mirrors! Disinformation! Propaganda! Mind Control! It’s ALL being served in lieu of Truth or frameworks of law that actually honor what the intent of said law is in place to enforce or protect.