Shaming people for speaking their mind, for communicating in the words they know, is hurtful and harmful. And it is capably argued here, that the rise of Trump was because he was so clearly smashing it.
I was pointed to this not by some right winger but from Richard Stallman's Political Notes.
I have never understood this issue until reading this article.
However despite being what one could call a leftist elitist, I've never thought shaming people is a good approach to anything. I have disliked seeing people (and me) shamed as Communists, Socialists, etc. I prefer talking about ideas and principles, not tribes, identifications or labels (though, I can talk about that too, and I would not offended by being called any of the things I just mentioned).
Does the badness of shaming people as a rhetorical technique extend to shaming them for being racist, xenophobic, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, misogynistic?
Yes, absolutely.
First, if there isn't an argument, it isn't necessary to always make one. Here I deviate from legions of leftist theorists, but not from practical philosophers.
Second, if there is an argument, one doesn't have to take on the total field. One should argue at the key weakness, which is always a mutually agreeable point, such as all people should have equal rights. Starting from agreement, or close to it, and moving forwards is the only way to argue with anyone. And to even make one small step forwards a day is all that is usually even remotely possible.
Starting from an attack, which shaming is perceived as, one cannot possibly move forwards.
OK, sometimes I may have forgotten this.
I was pointed to this not by some right winger but from Richard Stallman's Political Notes.
I have never understood this issue until reading this article.
However despite being what one could call a leftist elitist, I've never thought shaming people is a good approach to anything. I have disliked seeing people (and me) shamed as Communists, Socialists, etc. I prefer talking about ideas and principles, not tribes, identifications or labels (though, I can talk about that too, and I would not offended by being called any of the things I just mentioned).
Does the badness of shaming people as a rhetorical technique extend to shaming them for being racist, xenophobic, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, misogynistic?
Yes, absolutely.
First, if there isn't an argument, it isn't necessary to always make one. Here I deviate from legions of leftist theorists, but not from practical philosophers.
Second, if there is an argument, one doesn't have to take on the total field. One should argue at the key weakness, which is always a mutually agreeable point, such as all people should have equal rights. Starting from agreement, or close to it, and moving forwards is the only way to argue with anyone. And to even make one small step forwards a day is all that is usually even remotely possible.
Starting from an attack, which shaming is perceived as, one cannot possibly move forwards.
OK, sometimes I may have forgotten this.
No comments:
Post a Comment