General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm getting super fed up with Israel/Palestine posts here [View all]Igel
(35,462 posts)Instead of being relegated to the I/P dungeon, it's current and topical and falls under two categories.
It's divisive because of a lack of unity and presence of disagreement. Oh--and a bit of ill will.
I think we agree on more than we think but disagree as to facts or desired outcome. And we weaponize linguistic means.
I.
Discourse semanticists jocularly call (or called, a generation back) communication a game. One required rule of the game--that's the jocular bit--was good will. The goal on both sides was to communicate propositions or emotions or attitudes, maybe come to a common view about at least the topic at hand. This was sometimes incorrect--intentional miscommunication, mott & bailey arguments, intentional misunderstanding.
"Say, heard you uncle kicked the bucket."
"Yeah, Fred."
"Did he hurt anything when he nailed the thing with his foot?"
"No, he died."
"Seriously? He kicked a bucket and it killed him?"
Intentional miscomprehension, barring pretty clarifying context.
A typical example involves money.
"Say, Fred, I didn't bring any cash and I skipped dinner--only have money for water. Can I borrow $20 to buy a burger at The Burger Joint?"
"Sorry, Fawaz, I don't have $20."
Minutes later Fawaz sees Fred buy a burger, shake, brownie, and hand the cashier two 20s out of the 5 in his wallet.
Did Fred lie?
No: He didn't have $20, he had $50.
Yes: He had more than $20 because he had $50 and 50 > 20.
"Downward-entailing" and "upward-entailing" come to mind. Narrow v wide scope. Lots of ways of understanding it. How literal do we want to be? It's a question because we can manipulate it and with it context.
Mott and bailey arguments are another variant.
One shows ill-will, hostility, one shows a willing participation in "the game." Which is which is obvious in these two cases. But this was a common ploy for some groups and it's become much more widespread. SOP for some groups.
II.
At the same time, I think we often have divergent facts or things we think are facts.
I'll take an NPR story today. The anti-Vietnam-War commentators on today's ATC said they were proud of their participation or the students' participation. And while there's no proof they helped end the war, they liked their accomplishment. Ending the war.
But nobody claimed the consequences of what they want to believe they achieved; it's a leitmotif in modern Western thought--we own the good, but we don't get consequences. 2 million refugees. Numerous killed as boat people. Re-education camps. 49 years of oppression worse than that suffered under the corrupt S. Vietnam regime. Imagine a company like that--"We have income and profits, but no debts." As early as 1997 I watched a progressive white person argue with the son of a "boat family" called a "f**king liar" when he said his grandfather was killed because he was a dentist that treated American soldiers and he was small when he was in a boat hoping to find a safe shore to land on. The claim was that none of that "shit" happened, it's a "Reagan myth."
If you think the likely future consequence of your actions can't possibly happen because what you think is moral must always be right and good, you're simply deluded. "My tribe is good and pure--always--and their tribe is always evil and corrupt ... always." Ludicrous.) My colleague Loc walked away from the uber-idjit saying the fool needed to get a clue and get his head out of his a**. (I guess now Loc would have said, "So you're denying my lived experience as a person of color?", have it on video, and cancel the idjit. This was pre-cell-phone.) But part of that idjit's retort is rooted in denial that those like those he's modeling his actions on did things that had sharply negative results--if only out of self-protection. All rights, no obligations. All mitzvoth, no hatoth. (A sharply un-Xian view, but most aren't traditional Xians or Jews.)