Just read a fascinating article about boredom and its role in the current political/social/media landscape. It does make sense that search for meaning would propel people into this savior dynamic. Unfortunately, we live in one of the safest, if not the most safe, times in human history. People create struggle for the sake of it, and someone needs to be wrong for that to gain traction. Here is the article if I may share.
While these people are indeed lunatics I would avoid describing anyone as a truther as this term is being used to delegitimize any criticism of any establishment narrative. Using this phrase may make the people you are trying to convince see you as an establishment shill and help those trying to silence the actual truth by normalize this language.
I didn't say anyone was a "lunatic." This freak out is a logical and reasonable response to what they have gone through.
We have no control over other people's definitions of words. The term "truther" wasn't used in this article to normalize the delegitimization of criticism, and I'd be surprised if anyone saw it as such just as I was surprised to see your comment.
You missed every point I made. I called them lunatics I never said you did. I said the use of the term was delegitimizing not anything you said. I was speaking of the use of the term not its definition. Every defense you make is to something I never said.
I'm not defending myself. I was simply responding to what you wrote. I wanted to clarify for anyone reading my article and then looking at the comments, what my response to what you said would be.
I'm also surprised to think you thought I was being defensive, rather than simply commenting back on the topics you were discussing (ie. truthers being lunatics and the term being used to delegitimize criticism).
I know that you were not saying that MY use of the term was trying to normalize it, as I didn't say I was surprised that YOU thought that (since I didn't think you thought that).
People see the word "truther" have various versions of what it means in their heads. I'm not going to stop using a word because other people may think it means something I didn't mean it to mean.
My brother is a liberal. If I say truther he immediately gets angry. So, say for example I want to make him hate people who think, for example, pesticides are harmful all I have to do is call organic food advocates truthers. I do not have to discuss the pros and cons or any facts. I just have to say truther. If this doesn’t work I can pick a group he really hates and call them truthers too. Then I can say, why don’t you hate truthers like organic food lovers? No facts just bad language. This how his mind works. Saying it is his fault is true but is irrelevant. If I want to comunicate with facts I can not use language that makes his brain shutdown. Words that do this are inflammatory. The history or what the term actually means is irrelevant. In communicating ideas I need to not use language that turns of thought.
Ok. We disagree. Thats fine. Saying why would be nice. That would be a conversation. If that is not possible I will simply say I respect but do not agree with your opinion. There make no personal attacks or even criticisms of your original point. Just the language you used.
The reason I was talking about the "definition" of the word earlier was that it seemed you thought that the word "truther" had some connotation that was inflammatory. I was making videos on YouTube and watching self-described "Truther" videos back in 2015. We all considered it a worthwhile endeavor. I still think it's a good term. No one I have ever met has thought of it in a negative light. Until I met you that is. I don't run in the same social circles as you and I haven't seen anyone see it as a negative thing until now. I have no control over if others see it as inflammatory.
And I got a notice while writing this comment that you think I deleted my other comments. I'm sorry you can't find them, but they are still here.
It is inflamatory . Language changes by use. In my opinion the term “Truther” is being used now to dump all anti establishment voices in one basket. Then one can take a perfectly reasonable point of view and argue against it by saying, for example, flat earthers are truthers avoid any engagement with the idea one is criticizing by saying it is a truther theory as well. . MSM does this all the time. I believe using the term “Truther” instead of describing the individual idea one is discussing legitimizes this dishonest practice of the MSM.
Just read a fascinating article about boredom and its role in the current political/social/media landscape. It does make sense that search for meaning would propel people into this savior dynamic. Unfortunately, we live in one of the safest, if not the most safe, times in human history. People create struggle for the sake of it, and someone needs to be wrong for that to gain traction. Here is the article if I may share.
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/how-boredom-kills/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=How+Boredom+Kills&utm_campaign=How+Boredom+Kills
While these people are indeed lunatics I would avoid describing anyone as a truther as this term is being used to delegitimize any criticism of any establishment narrative. Using this phrase may make the people you are trying to convince see you as an establishment shill and help those trying to silence the actual truth by normalize this language.
I didn't say anyone was a "lunatic." This freak out is a logical and reasonable response to what they have gone through.
We have no control over other people's definitions of words. The term "truther" wasn't used in this article to normalize the delegitimization of criticism, and I'd be surprised if anyone saw it as such just as I was surprised to see your comment.
I was making a point on use of language not a criticism of anything you said. I agree with what you said.
You missed every point I made. I called them lunatics I never said you did. I said the use of the term was delegitimizing not anything you said. I was speaking of the use of the term not its definition. Every defense you make is to something I never said.
I'm not defending myself. I was simply responding to what you wrote. I wanted to clarify for anyone reading my article and then looking at the comments, what my response to what you said would be.
I'm also surprised to think you thought I was being defensive, rather than simply commenting back on the topics you were discussing (ie. truthers being lunatics and the term being used to delegitimize criticism).
I know that you were not saying that MY use of the term was trying to normalize it, as I didn't say I was surprised that YOU thought that (since I didn't think you thought that).
People see the word "truther" have various versions of what it means in their heads. I'm not going to stop using a word because other people may think it means something I didn't mean it to mean.
My brother is a liberal. If I say truther he immediately gets angry. So, say for example I want to make him hate people who think, for example, pesticides are harmful all I have to do is call organic food advocates truthers. I do not have to discuss the pros and cons or any facts. I just have to say truther. If this doesn’t work I can pick a group he really hates and call them truthers too. Then I can say, why don’t you hate truthers like organic food lovers? No facts just bad language. This how his mind works. Saying it is his fault is true but is irrelevant. If I want to comunicate with facts I can not use language that makes his brain shutdown. Words that do this are inflammatory. The history or what the term actually means is irrelevant. In communicating ideas I need to not use language that turns of thought.
I don't believe I used inflammatory language.
Ok. We disagree. Thats fine. Saying why would be nice. That would be a conversation. If that is not possible I will simply say I respect but do not agree with your opinion. There make no personal attacks or even criticisms of your original point. Just the language you used.
The reason I was talking about the "definition" of the word earlier was that it seemed you thought that the word "truther" had some connotation that was inflammatory. I was making videos on YouTube and watching self-described "Truther" videos back in 2015. We all considered it a worthwhile endeavor. I still think it's a good term. No one I have ever met has thought of it in a negative light. Until I met you that is. I don't run in the same social circles as you and I haven't seen anyone see it as a negative thing until now. I have no control over if others see it as inflammatory.
And I got a notice while writing this comment that you think I deleted my other comments. I'm sorry you can't find them, but they are still here.
It is inflamatory . Language changes by use. In my opinion the term “Truther” is being used now to dump all anti establishment voices in one basket. Then one can take a perfectly reasonable point of view and argue against it by saying, for example, flat earthers are truthers avoid any engagement with the idea one is criticizing by saying it is a truther theory as well. . MSM does this all the time. I believe using the term “Truther” instead of describing the individual idea one is discussing legitimizes this dishonest practice of the MSM.