I think you are right, that certain language can lose its potency over time. I’m having an internal debate about what the more effective alternative might be, that avoids such a phenomenon. I heard another (!) interview with Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow over the weekend, and she made a plausible point that Democrats waited t…
I think you are right, that certain language can lose its potency over time. I’m having an internal debate about what the more effective alternative might be, that avoids such a phenomenon. I heard another (!) interview with Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow over the weekend, and she made a plausible point that Democrats waited too long to call out the Q adjacent nonsense accusations being aimed at Democrats. I think both perspectives are valid . . . but where’s the sweet spot?
I honestly feel the phenomenon of Trump was that they no longer needed to hide... embrace the sexism, the cruelty and the racism... fly your bigot flag high and be proud about it. 1890s-1920s MAGA values.
The problem is that "racist" and "racism" have become over used words that have lost their power (or so many wish to argue)--while, at the same time, people take umbrage when the word is applied to them--which is strange if you think about it. If the word is actually powerless/meaningless, why the outrage?
The words haven't REALLY lost power or meaning (because you can trigger someone with them in a heartbeat)--but they HAVE lost the power to move people. The reaction to the word is purely defensive rather than reflective.
The same thing has happened in reverse with socialism (reverse as in who the target is). This is a word that has power and meaning on the right--but far less so (or not negatively) on the left.
The words and their function mirror each other. These are more signs of identity (both self and applied) than they are words with actual substantive meaning (at least in political discourse).
I am not sure where the sweet spot is. I am not sure there necessarily is a sweet spot, given the hardening of identity in political discourse. Maybe just more directly and specifically calling out bad behavior without actually using the word.
I agree with McMallow that the Dems need to be calling BS on things more quickly forcefully and directly. Not sure how much it will accomplish in the overall picture though.
I think you are right, that certain language can lose its potency over time. I’m having an internal debate about what the more effective alternative might be, that avoids such a phenomenon. I heard another (!) interview with Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow over the weekend, and she made a plausible point that Democrats waited too long to call out the Q adjacent nonsense accusations being aimed at Democrats. I think both perspectives are valid . . . but where’s the sweet spot?
All you have really said is that Republicans refuse to be the conscience of the country. News flash, I know. /s
Should they not, at least, HAVE a conscience of their own? Or a sense of shame? Or perhaps some reflection on why people see them a certain way?
I honestly feel the phenomenon of Trump was that they no longer needed to hide... embrace the sexism, the cruelty and the racism... fly your bigot flag high and be proud about it. 1890s-1920s MAGA values.
The problem is that "racist" and "racism" have become over used words that have lost their power (or so many wish to argue)--while, at the same time, people take umbrage when the word is applied to them--which is strange if you think about it. If the word is actually powerless/meaningless, why the outrage?
The words haven't REALLY lost power or meaning (because you can trigger someone with them in a heartbeat)--but they HAVE lost the power to move people. The reaction to the word is purely defensive rather than reflective.
The same thing has happened in reverse with socialism (reverse as in who the target is). This is a word that has power and meaning on the right--but far less so (or not negatively) on the left.
The words and their function mirror each other. These are more signs of identity (both self and applied) than they are words with actual substantive meaning (at least in political discourse).
I am not sure where the sweet spot is. I am not sure there necessarily is a sweet spot, given the hardening of identity in political discourse. Maybe just more directly and specifically calling out bad behavior without actually using the word.
I agree with McMallow that the Dems need to be calling BS on things more quickly forcefully and directly. Not sure how much it will accomplish in the overall picture though.