I think it's typical of modern advocacy in an age of numbness. To get people to care takes shock, so [Issue X] has to be couched in terms of a crisis, a war, an existential threat. You do whatever it takes to abate crises, neutralize threats...so a misleading approach to discourse is nothing compared to the existential consequences of failing to act. Put in that context, Machiavellian tactics seem almost heroic. You do what it takes to avert the threat.
Except the threat was built-up to get peoples' attention. So it's a Munchhausen thing: make it into a crisis, take heroic measures to avert the crisis. It's Bullshit Mountain. Some of us have walked onto that mountain with its maker, grabbed the stones into our virtual hands and pointed out "these aren't stones, they're nuggets of crap", but then the mountain shudders and rumbles and threatens to fracture and bury its maker. "fingers in ears" LA LA LA LA look at that mountain though, what about the CRISIS!
Contrast this with a calmer approach centered on simply understanding concerns, placing them in context, and devising a compromise that benefits the most people for the longest time. It's not a crisis, it's not a threat, it's just imperfect and we need to improve it. Snooze.
The majority opinion is shades of indifference, so the struggle becomes defining what indifference means in terms of this conflict.
In other words: "If you're not with us you're against us" can be viewed two distinct ways here. It's about defining the default position so the many silent parties are seen to align with one side or the other.
1) If you're not actively calling for change, you're supporting bad acts.
or
2) If you're not actively involved in posting and viewing the offending smut, you're not "with" the smut peddlers
(lol) and thus you're against them by default.
Neither is accurate, and either device of argument is inherently faulty and childish.
I see this as analogous to, and probably an extension of, general political discourse in this day and age. #sad
Bookmarks