Doublespeak & Wrongthink

The banjo player is leaving a world famous band after receiving backlash for approving a controversial book. An apology was issued, but that too received backlash. It’s funny because he’s the banjo player, in trouble for reading a book.

For those of you that don’t follow Mumford, here’s the explanation given by Winston.

I understand the desire to be moderate on issues, I have certainly noticed reactions he describes repeated in other situations. Criticizing the Left will result in people assuming you to be on the Right. However, he flattens the blame more evenly than I think reasonable.

The Left came out against him because he thought well of a book by Andy Ngo that criticized Antifa. The Right came out against him because he apologized to the mob. The Right doesn’t have many examples of popular contrarians to support, so he quickly gained and lost the status.

One side was mad that he read a book. The other side was mad that he apologized for reading the book. These are not the same complaint. However, this being difficult for fans to cope with is another serious problem that can sound funny when out of context.

Reminds me of a bank I used to visit. A television was installed for those waiting in line. Attempts were made to find a moderate news source. Eventually they tried The Weather Channel, but that was too political. Bank ads were kept on a loop, and now the TV is unplugged.

Additional thoughts.

I expect the majority of music I hear to be written and recorded by people with political differences to me. That is a minor thing compared to religious songs produced by heretics.

To this I want to describe adiaphora, apostasy and the Donatist controversy, but that would turn this final thought into another thread.

Furthermore, I am reminded of this clip. *https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1407729409600016389?s=20&t=HTAyzsmI0fya2TYplJM0lg

When critiquing the shifting lexicon the usual response is that language evolves, this is natural, what’s the harm? We no longer use thee and thou in typical conversation, certain terms could/should/would be the same.

Denial of this seems similar to someone saying gay when indicating happiness. Yet, there are word games being played, definitions matter- perhaps not to participants at first, but not every change is an improvement. The difference is not always as subtle as saying pop or soda.

Differences can be as consequential as saying football or soccer. Perhaps the same, perhaps completely different and differences indicate ignorance. Context and target audience help determine word choice. Yet, word choice correlates with meaning.

In addition to word games, the logic being utilized is a stacked deck of cards. Your definitions make me look bad so I’m going to formulate new meaning. I can do this because things I don’t like are a social construct, we need to develop new constructs that affirm my desires.

This is the way to Utopia, I’m on the right side of history. It’s setting up the dialogue so that no one can reasonably oppose. Your disagreement proves you don’t understand, your disagreement proves your definitions are wrong.

No sensible person can disagree, it’s a catch 22. The only way to avoid pejoratives is to agree, and pragmatists define winning based on agreement. In order to win you must agree, and only winners can claim to have virtue and honor.

–//–

I am one of the many people who grew up fascinated and inspired by the way Monet and Van Gogh painted. As a young adult I learned that this style of painting was laughed at and heavily criticized by the academy that trained and defined artists. Impressionism was a pejorative.

Yet, this style (Impressionism and Post-Impressionism) was later loved, vindicated and emulated by amateurs and professionals. However, just because something is despised at first doesn’t mean it will later be approved. A fork without prongs is unique, but it is not useful.

It seems common to observe people wanting to be Copernicus. Heathens claim him as they continue a pursuit against dogmas of approved religion. They do this in abundance, as is required when overthrowing religious doctrine. However, the other side claims Copernicus as well.

Their claim is with observations that historical religious domination has already been dismantled. Those swinging swords in the air are surrounded by ruins, the cathedral has fallen. They claim Copernicus because the state has since formed a new religion out of the ashes.

It is secular, in that it denies theistic might and intervention, yet it has constituted sacred texts and obedience with fervor that resembles monks in a monastery. They are Copernicus seeking to rival the state religion of political correctness and whatever else is fashionable.

All of the nonconformists are shopping at Hot Topic. You can tell they are nonconformist because they all look the same. I need not describe the meme because the imagery is already in your head. What is acceptable is a social construct.

Everything I don’t like is a social construct, mailable to my desire. All I need to do is accumulate enough likeminded people to pave the road and we will arrive at Utopia.

Everyone claims to be the hero. Courageous through the lens of hindsight. They want a Diet of Worms moment, but at a time when the Pope has no strength. Seeking the claim of fighting a bear, it’s age and health is insignificant. It could have been a cub, but a bear nonetheless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s