'Free, Free Palestine.' Sod off!
The "Not the Story" Fallacy: How Digital Evangelists Dictate Public Consciousness.
Have you seen this utterly ludicrous image yet? Well, it’s floating around the internet and was sent to me by a friend. Yes, the internet. A glorious bazaar of ideas, cat videos, and, increasingly, stern decrees from self-appointed custodians of Public Consciousness. You've seen them, haven't you? Those stark pronouncements: "This pop star? Not the story. That beloved children's educator? Absolutely not the story. That massive cultural festival everyone's talking about? Please. The actual story, and the only story you're permitted to care about, is X, Y, or Z."
It's a rather charmingly simplistic worldview, isn't it? As if the vast, messy, wonderfully chaotic tapestry of human existence can simply be rolled up and discarded by a single, declarative sentence. Let's peel back the layers of this particular brand of digital evangelism, shall we?
The Great Attention Purge: A Masterclass in Misdirection.
When our earnest purveyors of singular truth declare that "Bob Vylan is not the story," or "Gary Lineker is not the story," they're employing a rhetorical tactic best described as "competitive irrelevance." It's a bold move, suggesting that the very existence of a musician, a sports pundit, or indeed, the delightful "Ms. Rachel" (whose primary crime, one presumes, is bringing joy to toddlers rather than despair to adults), somehow detracts from, or is in direct competition with, profound geopolitical events.
One pictures Ms. Rachel, mid-song, being sternly informed that her ABCs are simply too frivolous for the current global climate. As if the human brain is a single-threaded processor, incapable of holding more than one thought, or indeed, one shred of interest, at a time. It's almost flattering, this belief in our collective intellectual frailty – "Oh, dear sheeple, if we allow you to ponder the intricacies of a celebrity's career, you might utterly forget that other things are happening!" The implicit assumption here is that our mental faculties are so utterly overwhelmed by the latest pop culture snippet that we require a firm, digital slap to the face to remember true gravity. What a testament to our alleged simple-mindedness!
Even Advocacy Gets the Boot: The Curious Case of Self-Sabotage.
And then, the pièce de resistance: "Action Palestine is not the story." Now, this is where the logic takes a truly delightful detour into the absurd. So, groups actively advocating for the very cause being championed are also deemed "not the story"? It's like a chef declaring that the ingredients are not the meal. One might assume that those actually doing something related to the proclaimed "story" would, by definition, be part of it. But no, apparently even active engagement is a distraction from the ultimate, singular, unblemished narrative. It's a commitment to a purity test so stringent it excludes its own champions. Truly, a masterpiece of self-defeating rhetoric.
The Grand Finale: "IS THE STORY!" (No, Really. Only This One.)
Finally, we arrive at the mighty pronouncement: "GENOCIDE IN GAZA IS THE STORY." And, indeed, the situation in Gaza is undeniably tragic and complex, demanding serious attention. But the definitive, capitalised, unyielding declaration that this – and only this – "IS THE STORY" carries the distinct whiff of a preacher thumping a pulpit. It's not an invitation to thoughtful engagement; it's a command to singular devotion.
This approach conveniently ignores that "the story" of any complex global event is never monolithic. It's a tangled knot of history, geopolitics, human suffering, and often, wildly divergent interpretations. To declare one's own very specific, highly politicised interpretation as the sole, undeniable "story" is less about informing and more about proselytising. It's an attempt to guilt-trip anyone caught glancing at a sports score or a celebrity selfie, implying their attention is a moral failing rather than simply the natural, multi-faceted flow of human interest.
So, here it is, summarised.
Prioritisation by Negation: The primary technique is to list a series of unrelated or tangentially related public figures, cultural events, and even advocacy groups, and then explicitly state that none of them are "the story." This builds a sense of mounting dismissal, clearing the mental landscape of distractions.
Creation of a "False Equivalency" (from the author's perspective): By grouping diverse figures like pop culture icons, sports broadcasters, children's educators, and massive cultural festivals, the author is implicitly creating a false equivalence between their relative importance and the stated issue of "genocide." The message is that anything occupying public attention that isn't the "genocide in Gaza" is a distraction and therefore "not the story."
Singular Focus and Moral Imperative: The cumulative effect is to establish "GENOCIDE IN GAZA" as the sole legitimate focus of attention and concern. It attempts to create a moral imperative for the reader to disregard all other news, entertainment, or even related activism, and focus exclusively on this one issue as defined by the author.
Emotional Appeal and Urgency: The use of "GENOCIDE" is a strong emotional trigger, intended to evoke outrage, horror, and a sense of urgency. By framing it as "THE STORY," the author implies that any diversion of attention is not just a misdirection but potentially a moral failing.
Dismissal of Nuance and Complexity: The tract is inherently simplistic and absolutist. It leaves no room for other important global issues, domestic concerns, personal lives, or the multi-faceted nature of media and society. It demands a singular, unwavering focus.
Political Stance: It is a clear and unequivocal statement of a specific political stance regarding the conflict in Gaza, identifying the events there as "genocide," a term with profound legal and moral implications that is widely disputed and not universally accepted in the context of the conflict. The entire tract is designed to rally people around this specific interpretation and to dismiss any other discourse as irrelevant.
In summary, the image is a highly polemical piece of rhetoric designed to shut down discussions about anything other than "genocide in Gaza," as defined by the author, by dismissing all other topics as trivial distractions.
So, the next time you encounter such a bold declaration, take a moment. Appreciate the sheer audacity of it. Because while the intention might be noble (or at least, loudly asserted), the execution is often a hilarious example of how a singular, unyielding focus can blind one to the beautiful, messy, and undeniable truth that the world, much like our attention spans, is simply too vast and varied for just "one story." And thank goodness for that.
