- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 15,558
- Reaction score
- 13
A number of fairly popular articles have mentioned the weaponization of language by the left, so I think the idea of fairly common in public discourse.
What this essentially means is that certain words are considered inherently violent, and they are quite in contradiction to our well being. An example would be Milo speaking at Berkeley: the kind of stress Milo supposedly causes is so personal that it's considered unhealthy, especially considering the constant bombardment of similarly stressful ideology coming from our technologically connected lives.
Now, this is a myth, and the left (not just the young) are eating it up. They essentially assume that because it causes them dissonance and stress, it's not meant to be engaged with. So what then? Use power to bracket it completely. Kill the conversation.
So, this concern for violent language ends up turning into a form of discourse that actually wields the power to silence opposition. The left's inability to engage in public dialogue is what stops the impending revolution of liberalsism (though, by its true definition, most folks on the right are as neo-liberal and the left. They buy into the same myths regarding anthropology and history).
All this is to say: one of the major contributing factors to the odd circumstances in the US is the inability to engage with different opinions. The polarization effect comes from drastically different experiences of the world refusing to engage in discussion. The fact that a majority of liberals students at Berkeley can't protest and assert Milo is a sexist and racist asshole and then go engage his ideas head on is an embodiment of the issue.
What is more, it's not just the young and idealistic. The academy of the left refuses to engage with the conservative political philosophy that hovers above movements like the alt-right (kind like how most right wingers don't know shit about Hegel or Scheleirmacher). And while I think the alt-right is actually shitty and detrimental to society, I want to engage with it and understand what the "otherside" is tuned in on. The assumption, I think, is that there is no fundamental lacuna of truth in what the other side thinks. Thus, rational engagement based on a shared respect is impossible.
I'm drawing from articles like these:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/533970/
http://jmrphy.net/blog/2017/03/27/i...e-seriously-with-radical-right-wing-thinkers/
Sorry for typos and randomness. I'm a few beers I'm just doing this because I am.
What this essentially means is that certain words are considered inherently violent, and they are quite in contradiction to our well being. An example would be Milo speaking at Berkeley: the kind of stress Milo supposedly causes is so personal that it's considered unhealthy, especially considering the constant bombardment of similarly stressful ideology coming from our technologically connected lives.
Now, this is a myth, and the left (not just the young) are eating it up. They essentially assume that because it causes them dissonance and stress, it's not meant to be engaged with. So what then? Use power to bracket it completely. Kill the conversation.
So, this concern for violent language ends up turning into a form of discourse that actually wields the power to silence opposition. The left's inability to engage in public dialogue is what stops the impending revolution of liberalsism (though, by its true definition, most folks on the right are as neo-liberal and the left. They buy into the same myths regarding anthropology and history).
All this is to say: one of the major contributing factors to the odd circumstances in the US is the inability to engage with different opinions. The polarization effect comes from drastically different experiences of the world refusing to engage in discussion. The fact that a majority of liberals students at Berkeley can't protest and assert Milo is a sexist and racist asshole and then go engage his ideas head on is an embodiment of the issue.
What is more, it's not just the young and idealistic. The academy of the left refuses to engage with the conservative political philosophy that hovers above movements like the alt-right (kind like how most right wingers don't know shit about Hegel or Scheleirmacher). And while I think the alt-right is actually shitty and detrimental to society, I want to engage with it and understand what the "otherside" is tuned in on. The assumption, I think, is that there is no fundamental lacuna of truth in what the other side thinks. Thus, rational engagement based on a shared respect is impossible.
I'm drawing from articles like these:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/533970/
http://jmrphy.net/blog/2017/03/27/i...e-seriously-with-radical-right-wing-thinkers/
Sorry for typos and randomness. I'm a few beers I'm just doing this because I am.
