Political critics to their detriment speak their own tribal languages so often that opinions devolve into subjectivity. They devolve into obscurity and alienation. If one goal of cs thought is pure objectivity, it benefits us to understand communication problems in this realm. For example, think to yourself: Who is the target audience when I lambast poor Trump? Because if all you're doing is talking to your friends …. they already know.
(for those who jump to conclusions, no I don't like Trump)
Objectivity assumes your audience is all people who think, even those who disagree with you; it targets all people who share common experiences. To ridicule Trump for wanting to shoot thieves is an effort in unexamined futility and tribalism. Crime is out of control in the US and we all want to shoot them (figuratively?). The question is not: Is shooting them extreme? (of course it is). The question is: Should Democrats find universality in their discussions about crime reform policy? Do they really want to explore the issue or just attack poor Trump? Because as it sits, the attack on Trump usually sounds more like "ad hominem" than coherent. And when I say "coherent" I mean true to your original goals of communicating ideas. It is easy to smear Trumpy (he's a terrible politician) and I'm not sure what it accomplishes or communicates to the world other than tribalism. In fact, all attacks on his character are moot at this point - he's a businessman and businessmen steal for a living, we get it. This isn't "is/ought" (just cuz it exists doesn't mean its good) to say this, because, perhaps his character is irrelevant when we talk about social extremes (like misogyny). We are attempting to discuss language in general and crime in particular. To ignore the universal problems with capitalism and egalitarianism (equality) and devolve into "ad hominem," even if its correct, seems like skewed journalism. What I'm saying is: Trump didn't shoot the looters. But if his opinion is that we should be tougher on crime (which is what he meant) and you don't understand the difference, your complaint sounds tribal.
And speaking of skewed journalism, it seems our style of journalism has adapted to tribalism and especially in the realm of Russia and Trump. I get that online articles don't represent all articles, but this desire journalistically to "smear" rather than "report" seems counterproductive. I have read Trump articles recently that outright call him names throughout the article rather than discussed the initial issue. This tribalism and circular thinking (name calling, skewed journalism) is the exact same thing from liberals that they condemn from conservatives.
Speaking and understanding objectivity is a core of cs values. It is this way because communication is necessary not just to understand language as an idea but as an action. Communication is the tool of social philosophy and it is currently in very short supply.
Comments