In a time where the inundation of media barrages us 24/7/365 it is very easy to choose to insulate yourself in an echo chamber of like minded opinions and views. Those of us outside (and there IS an outside) the political spectrum are no less susceptible to that risk but it lends us a perspective on the Left/Right oddity (I only label it to place context - it's by no means limited to that magisteria) that's both humorous and frustrating. That perspective shows us the vilification and vitriol between people that's boiled down to 140 characters and buzzwords....
Buzzwords that are often loaded with emotion (if not outright connected and laced with base profanity) and seek to reduce or eliminate (via shaming or bullying) the target's very humanity whether accurately defining or not. Words like "fascist" "nazi" "racist" "sexist" and others are often used in order to singularize and reduce another person so that the user can feel ok with no longer treating them as human beings worthy of discussion, as a scapegoat of sorts to allow for a self ascribed moral victory. How is this accomplished? Well, one simply does not speak rationally (or at all) with a monster, one combats it or encourages inhumane treatment be done to them, right? Those words (and others) are loaded with powerful emotion that no one wants to have directed at them, whether true or untrue. Leveling these types of words at someone you're debating/discussing with waters down their power via overuse and/or incorrect application. I believe that's a dangerous tactic not rooted in intellectual strength that only divides further and encourages more use. It's not helpful. It's not human. It must stop.
It IS possible to discuss without reducing someone to a single word or two just before dismissing their thoughts and opinions. You'll find a discussion will go further and be more productive when you remove emotion and reductive attack terms. The goal is to engage and draw out opinions and come to common ground, is it not? It's to change the other person's stance such that they at least EMPATHIZE with your own, right? Social media thrives on that discourse FAILING (if it was ever started) but it doesn't need to.
Equally, if you are being "reduced" in that manner do not reciprocate. Remain calm and attempt to deescalate or simply walk away. Even if the conversation with your antagonist has failed, good can come from surprising places if you've remained calm and rational. You can still treat people as people even if you disagree mightily, in fact you SHOULD. Don't allow yourself to be reduced nor reduce others into buzzword obscurity. We are more than 140 characters and buzzwords. We as people need to learn to TALK again and have conversations with those we disagree with - the longer the better. Our attention spans are not helped by the media's constant barrage of clips and sound bites, but that's a topic for another day.
These following buzzwords are examples of mud slinging and a divergence between definition and accusation. It's a continuance of the assertion that words/labels are actual aggressions worthy of dehumanizing when that simply isn't the case.
Note: Attacking someone without being attacked makes THEM the victim in the eyes of the law and those not hampered or influenced by identity politics or at a minimum just a witness. Do you want to create in them a martyr and victim or do you want to make the world a better place for peace via rational thought and action?
Is that person REALLY a member of the Nazi party? If so (or even not), are they actively physically attacking someone without provocation? If indeed they are, THEN you may engage physically and with prejudice. Otherwise it could be libel or slander to suggest they are something that they are not. Talk it through. If in fact they are a self described Nazi, understanding and accepting of that label and its beliefs and not willing to discuss it with you...walk away. Exercise your freedom of and freedom from association and promote peace in doing so.
Is being a fascist by its very name a physical attack on you? Are they physically prohibiting you from living your life? Are YOU prohibiting THEM from doing so? Fascism is by definition dictatorial and totalitarian: stomping out opposing views and controlling industry in the pursuit of Nationalism and likely racial singularity. It wears no definitive left or right badge though it has been utilized most by far right groups.
Is being a racist a physical attack on you by its name alone or can it be a view that requires no externalizing? Are we not all free to think what we like so long as we do not harm others? If a person is a racist by belief alone....how does that warrant violence against them? Educate or walk away or YOU could become the aggressor. Racism is the belief that another "race" is less equal to your own, or that yours is the superior one or that an ability or weakness is directly tied to the color of one’s skin. It does not by default result in actions bearing those beliefs out in the form of violence. Anyone can be guilty of it or victim to it.
Is that person REALLY a sexist? Do they ACTUALLY believe they are superior to you because of gender? If they are, is that ACTUALLY manifested via discrimination categorically because of gender?
Feminist. This one is unfortunate as it was coined in a time where women’s rights were so beleaguered that they barely existed. At its core and original definition Feminism correctly and simply asserts that women are equal to men and should be treated as such. There are different abilities, strengths and weaknesses between the two genders, but that does not speak to EQUALITY. At its core principle it's a good thing. It does not seek to drag men down but to raise women up - this should be something we all seek to accomplish - men and women. It does not seek to ignore ALL problems within the genders but to equalize treatment of both. It recognizes social injustices on both sides. If the word angers you as self described in front of you, gain clarification of their views before writing it off as parody and humor. You might be surprised.
"Commie"/Communist. Does the person ACTUALLY belong to a communist party actively engaged in removing your goods for the common use? If - and only then - may you physically push back against that theft.
If not - and this applies to all these buzzwords - reevaluate your level of reaction as appropriate.
Truth and reason should always carry the day when in the context of discourse and the exchange of ideas. The use of emotional grandstanding and attempting to find grievance where there might not be any, or reducing a person's very humanity because you disagree, or assume their own belief system interferes with your own are methods of interaction that shouldn't ever be used. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard. "Be the bigger person" I'm sure you recall from childhood. Some people simply thrive on chaos and inciting emotion or inviting physical attacks. Those types of people should be avoided once identified as sadly there is probably nothing to be gained. Disengage and walk away with your sanity. If this happens enough they may consider their approach.
I hope this discussion has at least caused you to consider how you might improve on your discussion techniques and removing emotion from discourse. There is great usefulness and need for emotion and indeed we as a species would be lost without it, but that place is not in debate or discussion in my humble opinion. Until next time....let's try to just simply be nicer and TALK to one another.
-Ronin