Interesting techniques used by the Left to advance their goals
Continuing to look at propaganda techniques, here are some good ones:
1) Calling speech you disagree with "hate speech." "Hate speech" is a truncation of the term "hateful speech"---and the truncation is significant. Most people agree that some speech can be express hateful ideas, but until about 40 years ago the response to "hateful" speech has been more speech---i.e., engaging hateful ideas to show how and why they're unfounded; i.e. to defeat them in the marketplace of ideas.
But in the last 40 years the Left has re-branded "hateful speech" into "Hate speech," which the Left claims must not be tolerated. The goal is to avoid engagement instead of confronting the offending idea. The Left labels something "hate speech" to suppress views and ideas it opposes.
The gay-rights movement has used and popularized the term "hate speech" for over 40 years. Other Leftist movements saw how well the tactic worked, and adopted it.
2) Equating speech with violence. Everyone knows that Americans have great sympathy for "the little guy"--the underdog, the victim. And about 40 years ago we occasionally saw groups of young males physically assault gays--"gay-bashing." This was obviously wrong, and is now virtually unheard of, but the Left saw a powerful tool, and the gay-rights movement began to refer to anyone who verbally disagreed with them of "gay-bashing."
The tactic was a huge success for the Left, and now the substitution of a term describing physical violence for a term denoting opposition to another group's political objectives has become common.
3) Using "-ophobia" to ridicule opponents. A phobia is an irrational fear. The gay movement realized that calling someone or some group "homophobic" was a great way to get readers to dismiss critics' concerns--no matter how well-founded--as the mutterings of the mentally ill.
Ironically, Islamists have now adopted this tactic with "Islamophobia." This is ironic because Islamists in fundamentalist-ruled countries routinely throw homosexuals off tall buildings.
4) Claiming your group's goals are "fundamental human rights." The Left knows that virtually all Americans support "fundamental human rights." The question is, who gets to define what qualifies as a "fundamental human right"? And in the U.S. the answer, as always, is whoever controls the courts.
Voters who disagree with what judges have ruled are simply ignored. For example, voters in many states passed laws banning same-sex marriage. When those were overturned by state courts, voters in several states went so far as to amend their state's constitution to do the same.
No matter: Some judge--whether state or federal--always overturned those moves, usually on "due process grounds." Which is especially amusing since the voters followed every letter of due process. To no avail.
Judges piously claim we must follow the law--except of course when the law doesn't support what an individual judge wants. Amusing.
And of course the Left has now jumped on the "fundamental human rights" phrasing to extort ordinary people into doing as they demand. For example, forcing bakers to bake custom cakes for a same-sex marriage. Democrat legislatures in most states have established "human rights commissions" that use taxpayer funds to sue people who don't bow to gay- or trans demands.
5) Equating "discrimination" with harm: "Discrimination" is making of distinctions, and is a necessary element of day-to-day existence. As nutty as judges are, I'm not aware that any court has ruled against "discrimination" as such. But decades ago the courts ruled that it's illegal to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of race, religion, or national origin.
Congress then expanded this to include sex, then to include "sexual orientation"--the judicial term for homosexual. Now Democrats have introduced a bill whose sole purpose is to give transgenders the same special protections as the previous groups. Because they tell you that "everyone agrees" we should do that.
H/T commenter Buzzsawmonkey at PJ Media
1) Calling speech you disagree with "hate speech." "Hate speech" is a truncation of the term "hateful speech"---and the truncation is significant. Most people agree that some speech can be express hateful ideas, but until about 40 years ago the response to "hateful" speech has been more speech---i.e., engaging hateful ideas to show how and why they're unfounded; i.e. to defeat them in the marketplace of ideas.
But in the last 40 years the Left has re-branded "hateful speech" into "Hate speech," which the Left claims must not be tolerated. The goal is to avoid engagement instead of confronting the offending idea. The Left labels something "hate speech" to suppress views and ideas it opposes.
The gay-rights movement has used and popularized the term "hate speech" for over 40 years. Other Leftist movements saw how well the tactic worked, and adopted it.
2) Equating speech with violence. Everyone knows that Americans have great sympathy for "the little guy"--the underdog, the victim. And about 40 years ago we occasionally saw groups of young males physically assault gays--"gay-bashing." This was obviously wrong, and is now virtually unheard of, but the Left saw a powerful tool, and the gay-rights movement began to refer to anyone who verbally disagreed with them of "gay-bashing."
The tactic was a huge success for the Left, and now the substitution of a term describing physical violence for a term denoting opposition to another group's political objectives has become common.
3) Using "-ophobia" to ridicule opponents. A phobia is an irrational fear. The gay movement realized that calling someone or some group "homophobic" was a great way to get readers to dismiss critics' concerns--no matter how well-founded--as the mutterings of the mentally ill.
Ironically, Islamists have now adopted this tactic with "Islamophobia." This is ironic because Islamists in fundamentalist-ruled countries routinely throw homosexuals off tall buildings.
4) Claiming your group's goals are "fundamental human rights." The Left knows that virtually all Americans support "fundamental human rights." The question is, who gets to define what qualifies as a "fundamental human right"? And in the U.S. the answer, as always, is whoever controls the courts.
Voters who disagree with what judges have ruled are simply ignored. For example, voters in many states passed laws banning same-sex marriage. When those were overturned by state courts, voters in several states went so far as to amend their state's constitution to do the same.
No matter: Some judge--whether state or federal--always overturned those moves, usually on "due process grounds." Which is especially amusing since the voters followed every letter of due process. To no avail.
Judges piously claim we must follow the law--except of course when the law doesn't support what an individual judge wants. Amusing.
And of course the Left has now jumped on the "fundamental human rights" phrasing to extort ordinary people into doing as they demand. For example, forcing bakers to bake custom cakes for a same-sex marriage. Democrat legislatures in most states have established "human rights commissions" that use taxpayer funds to sue people who don't bow to gay- or trans demands.
5) Equating "discrimination" with harm: "Discrimination" is making of distinctions, and is a necessary element of day-to-day existence. As nutty as judges are, I'm not aware that any court has ruled against "discrimination" as such. But decades ago the courts ruled that it's illegal to discriminate against someone solely on the basis of race, religion, or national origin.
Congress then expanded this to include sex, then to include "sexual orientation"--the judicial term for homosexual. Now Democrats have introduced a bill whose sole purpose is to give transgenders the same special protections as the previous groups. Because they tell you that "everyone agrees" we should do that.
H/T commenter Buzzsawmonkey at PJ Media
posted by SF at
12:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home