5 ms·
It's a sophist play on emotions. I don't think there's actual malice behind it, though. More that people struggle to assert themselves and provide direct, well-
by luke0016 5y ago
It's a sophist play on emotions. I don't think there's actual malice behind it, though. More that people struggle to assert themselves and provide direct, well-reasoned arguments. So, exaggerating or throwing meaning away altogether is an easy alternative. It is also particularly useful in obscuring a lack of any sort of coherent plan or proposed action(s) when one is angry/frustrated/etc.
To some extent I also believe it's natural to try to elicit an emotional response from the other "side," because then you can focus on attacking their words, tone, character, etc instead of engaging in reasoned discourse and debate. You get a bit of an automatic advantage if your opponent is already in an emotionally charged state. From what I've seen, the phrases you mention are pretty good at that too.
All of this ends up doing more harm than good most, if not all, of the time.
- sjg007 5y agoIt is a time tested political tool to capture power by redefining the narrative. It's very effective as is the other strategy of manufacturing crises like the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 school or having to wear masks in schools.
- luke0016 5y agoI actually support masks in schools. There's solid scientific evidence backing it as a mechanism to help limit the spread of COVID. Until all ages are able to be vaccinated, it seems like a prudent course of action. It's unfortunate that people are trying to turn such things into political statements.
- nomel 5y ago> limit the spread of COVID I think it can be claimed that it limits the rate of spread, not total spread/infections.
- sjg007 5y agoThink logically about what you just wrote... Masks can and do in fact limit the total spread/infections.
- brimble 5y agoWhat does "total" mean here? Is this some kind of "on a long enough timeline, everyone's dead" reasoning? Limiting rate of spread is the same thing as reducing how many infections there are at any given time. Or, the total over a bounded time frame. I don't think "well there will still be about the same total number of infections by 2025 with or without masking" is a useful observation.
- luke0016 5y ago> I think it can be claimed that it limits the rate of spread, not total spread/infections. Sure. We're probably all getting this thing at some point. But, that's why I said "until all ages are able to be vaccinated." I really wish the US and other countries would take the Singapore route and require the unvaccinated assholes clogging up our medical system (and exhausting our highly trained/educated/caring physicians and nurses) to pay their own healthcare costs incurred due to COVID. Having the unvaccinated directly realize some cost for their own ignorance seems highly appropriate here. Although I suppose at least some of them are paying the ultimate price with their life, which is also very unfortunate.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]