I completely get this.
I have one friend who agrees with everything I say, but as soon as I say any word that falls into the category of “bad thing” (as determined by his facebook feed), he disagrees.
Could you then reply with screenies or short videos explaining the term? A lot of American democrats are turned to stone at words like “socialism,” and “communism.” Some were in my business at what party I’d be supporting after criticizing my Deep South Democratic Senator, so I just said “probably the past Dr. King supported,” and got nods of approval. I’m sure they thought he was a democrat.
I think people with this mindset are just very resistant to being persuaded by ideas at all, because for them the ultimate determination of what is right is what the people around them approve/disapprove of (or maybe whoever they consider authorities for their chosen ideology). All you can really do for them is be a good example of someone they know who dissents, knowing they will never care why you dissent and will probably make their own assumptions about that.
The “bundle of sticks” analogy has historically been used a lot by fascists. If someone used it to try to convince me, you can be sure it would backfire!
"Well, you see, a single stick can easiky be broken in two, but a bundle of sticks will stand to almost anything!
Now, imagine if you will, that one of those sticks was actually an axe handle…"
Funnily the term “fascism” originated from a bundle of sticks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
So fascists are faggots https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faggot
I’m not sure it is great, to me it seems to handily encapsulate the bad parts of authoritarian ideologies. It’s a demand to follow the will of the group, and to prioritize your group identity in order to accumulate power for that group. Whether that group is race, nationality, or economic class, to think of yourself primarily as an instrumental component of it is an abdication of responsibility to have and apply your own unique perspective and thoughts, and leads naturally to abuses by whoever happens to be doing the thinking for all these people who have chosen loyalty over agency.
Which isn’t to say that cooperation isn’t important and necessary to accomplishing any goal, but if this sort of group unity is the core idea it seems extremely dangerous and malignant.
I’m not sure it is great, to me it seems to handily encapsulate the bad parts of authoritarian ideologies.
What’s authoritarian about strength in numbers?
It’s a demand to follow the will of the group, and to prioritize your group identity in order to accumulate power for that group.
Um… is it?
Whether that group is race, nationality, or economic class, to think of yourself primarily as an instrumental component of it is an abdication of responsibility to have and apply your own unique perspective and thoughts, and leads naturally to abuses by whoever happens to be doing the thinking for all these people who have chosen loyalty over agency.
Yeah, you just made all that up.
Which isn’t to say that cooperation isn’t important and necessary to accomplishing any goal, but if this sort of group unity is the core idea it seems extremely dangerous and malignant.
You are adding “group unity” yourself. “Ape together strong” just means groups are stronger than individuals.
That works with all groups. Use scary words and everybody reacts emotionally. That’s where new euphemisms are created.
I mean you do have to be tactical when talking to others. You need to gauge what level they are roughly at before you use certain “buzzwords.” For example, you might want to say an industry is “mostly dominated by guys” instead of using phrases like “white cis male patriarchy” with some people because it WILL trigger them. Same thing when talking about racism. We all know what “white supremacy” means but to your average normie they think only of the KKK and stuff like that. Same with terms like “systemic racism” or whatever. I hate to say it, but it’s kind of a game of cat and mouse. We always have to be ready to phrase things differently because once we settle on something, the right will figure it out and then run their media on overdrive to let their base know what buzzwords to watch out for.
I mean before I was where I am today just saying Stalin or Mao would have triggered me to think of the “millions that died” or whatever. At some point you do have to be open about your views but that doesn’t mean you need to bombard someone immediately with words like “bourgeoisie” or “dictatorship of the proletariat” or “means of production” right from the get go. Even something as banal as “material conditions” requires the other person to kind of already know what you’re talking about in the first place.
For example, you might want to say an industry is “mostly dominated by guys” instead of using phrases like “white cis male patriarchy” with some people because it WILL trigger them.
These phrases can become triggering even for people who agree with the overall concepts, because they’re overused and often used by people who don’t really understand them. Someone hears something like that, thinks it sounds smart, is a contrarian, and starts labelling anything remotely related to any of those words with the full phrase. They’re called buzzwords because they generate a buzz (like a bee, not a beer). Unfortunately that buzzing is often akin to a hornet, not a bee.
