Uncommon Sense: Embracing Honest Definitions and Discourse
I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again: there’s extreme confusion in society about the true definitions of things. Relativism was catchy for awhile, and it’s true there’s more than one way to understand things, but too much relativism creates objective confusion, especially about political definitions. This is no surprise considering that when it comes to beliefs and dominance, some people are more than willing to manipulate people’s ignorance, their hopes, and their fears. Perhaps people should start using the terms “extreme right” and “extreme left” correctly rather than labeling people they probably misunderstand and dislike as extremists. This would include the accelerationists on both the right and left, those who justify violent or criminal acts based on ideology, including true bigots of whatever political stripe.
The guy who thinks P.C. is bad for society’s exchange of free speech and ideas, the Christian patriot, the woman who is pro responsible gun use, any of these people might be labeled as far-right extremists at this time in history even if their beliefs coincide with the constitution and even if they are appalled by racism and despise innocents being hurt whether physically or in terms of criminals breaking the law in order to harass and discriminate against others.
Besides, hatred based on race is a sentiment not distinctly white in tendency. There are plenty of people of color who fully believe the C.R.T. narrative, feel like victims, and thus hate all whites regardless of their history or current innocence. There are people of color who hate other people of color, understanding the other as a member of an enemy lineage. Africa has had massive bloodshed among neighboring tribes, peoples almost identical genetically, like different branches of one family, but they see each other as different ethnically, perhaps spiritually, and certainly at odds for resources. The Mayans battled, conquered, and enslaved neighboring tribes, arguably different culturally but of the same race, even perhaps once coming from an older, mutual lineage. However, one tribe wanted dominance, and those who were viewed as different dealt with an inferior status.
European history had its own share of hatred among various European ethnic groups. One kingdom would batter the other down with ethnic stereotyping, striving for supremacy in power, land, or wealth. The Romans were racist against the Western Barbarians, the British against the Irish, the Venetian against the Tuscan. As history passed, old wounds were healed, but even in more recent history, there were the massive ethnic conflicts of World War II and the Bosnian War.
The story is not unique to one people but all humanity. Racism, slavery, and cruelty did not come about in the past few hundred years and has never been enacted by only one type of human. We are all very lucky at how far we have come, especially in the west where we can safely live side by side by law and where it is more than common place for all citizens, regardless of race, to follow their vocations, speak their minds, befriend who they wish, and more.
Here we are full circle: Some people on the left can be racist. If so, they should be viewed as extreme leftists, especially if they hold drastic views aimed at tearing down our society. On the right, if a person is factually racist, a murderous, pro-prejudice person who rejoices in the suffering of ethnic minorities and/or holds views in favor of an extremely strict, dogmatic government contrary to the U.S. government, then call that person extreme right. People who condone criminal hatred, violence, and treason are extremists.
I shouldn’t even have to say this. It should be obvious, but I’ve been seeing a lot of confused leftists support communist dictatorships, governments where human trafficking, starvation, and extreme persecution of political dissidence are common place even if hidden from view. I’ve also seen some leftists engaging in ethnic hatred and/or supporting terrorist groups, yet they don’t get called out on it. They won’t acknowledge the truth of their actions.
However, that’s not to lump in everyone on the left. Some people have deep concern about poverty, for example, and in error they adopt views that may favor socialism, not realizing that socialism necessitates oppression and that socialism isn’t your mixed market Scandinavia. They also may not realize that racial oppression is already 100% illegal in the United States. They may have friends and/or family who were at some point insulted due to race, or perhaps they themselves had suffered, and they want to do what they can to make life less painful for their friends, family, and themselves. They may believe racism is the rule rather than the exception and thus may think favoring people of color is justified. They are far-left. Maybe with enough conversation they may discover they actually have more in common with the classical liberal or find a centrist left position while never compromising their kind intentions and feelings for their friends or those they view as suffering. They may realize socialism isn’t quite what they thought it to be or that they learned incorrect information about history, for example, or they may even realize that celebrating Western culture doesn’t make a person racist.
On the right, if a person is a political fascist, though not a racist, then call them far-right. If they want to sit in an arm chair and talk about their beliefs but would never hurt anyone, isn’t about creating an ethno-state, doesn’t want to bring back mandatory religious affiliation and submission, then people shouldn’t apply the “extreme” adjective, realizing that instead the issue is having a far different opinion. The irony is that people who are law abiding, favor traditional American values upheld by the Constitution, or simply don’t favor the victim lens from which to see reality are often falsely labeled as far right (i.e. the conservative Republican ends up being called far-right wrongly and lumped in with people who hold far different beliefs). You might also have someone who is politically conservative but spiritually liberal viewed as far-right even if that person really is more centrist at the end of the day.
I believe that this mislabeling of people’s political views was intentionally started and/ or engaged in by these groups:
1. People with extreme or far leaning views who felt that dominating the discourse was worth misinforming others as in the case of faux-scholar, anarcho-communist Howard Zinn.
2. People who were poorly educated and believe propaganda. With the best intentions, they have ignored evidence contrary to their beliefs and have spread mislabeling.
3. People who sympathized so much with whatever cause they believed in that they became imbalanced and thus narrow minded.
4. Foreign government agents on the web, especially on youth culture websites and applications, who planted propaganda with the intention of sowing internal discord and strife.
5. People who want power or their political party to have power so badly that they used trolling services, paid protestors, and twisted media stories in order to demonize the opposition.
What it really comes down to is the label of racist or extremist being thrown around carelessly, knowing it destroys people’s lives. It’s fear tactics. If someone voices dissent, then those who lack ethics will use the dissent as an opportunity to spread rumors and mislabel others. The message is that even if you disagree a little with whatever opinion is out there, the consequences can be life altering and intense and that even if you are innocent, you will be portrayed as guilty. At this moment in time, I see this tendency more on the left. Leftists point to the cold war, for example, as a time where the right persecuted innocents due to politics. Instead of pointing fingers, it would be better to acknowledge that using fear tactics and distorted information in order to try to dominate politics is unethical regardless of who is doing it.
This tendency is mainstream, and when people hear the same messages daily, they tend to believe what they hear, often with little reservation, especially if it’s against people they assume to be bad even if they haven’t ever had an open mind to discuss politics with educated people who may disagree with them.
But to say these things is dangerous because an intellectual challenge is all too often misconstrued. If there aren’t long paragraphs deploring racism, people who want to throw stones will take issue with that. My writing in this piece discusses racism, but my purpose isn’t specifically to inform people that racism exists and that it is terrible to mistreat others due to race—it doesn’t make for unified writing to go off topic. Others may find cause to complain not realizing that all papers discussing politics and race do not all have to have the same approach. Still, this is the part where I give a sincere semiotic curtsy and say just that: Racism exists, and it is terrible to mistreat others due to race. Even more reason to get our definitions right.
But also people should be less inclined to take offense or less willing to scream racism at someone of European background who enjoys their own culture. Some European cultural symbols have been mistaken as symbols of hatred, such as the Celtic solar cross. There’s a tendency for mass media to push to the message of whiteness being inherently uncool vs. other groups, yet when people of European background try to celebrate their culture in order to honor what’s been done right and lovingly pass their culture on, they get criticized for that even though all cultures on earth do so.
Whatever others may think about politics, including the “all Republicans are racist” crowd or the “all leftists are hedonist losers or money grubbing frauds” crowd, at least get your definitions straight and stop blindly yet passionately insisting on your assumptions. Let’s respect each other enough to be open to hearing each other out more in detail. If something is bad, the bad can and should be explained logically, so the maximum amount of people can understand. “The everyone else is doing it/saying it” approach doesn’t explain anything.
Let’s be honest and admit when we see one-sided news reports or hear someone speaking about politics who is simply throwing around buzzwords and oversimplified definitions, and can’t logically explain with anything else than “I thought we all decided X,Y, Z is bad.” Let’s ask for our media, our leaders, our role models, our teachers, and our administration to respect our intelligence more and even to help those who are fooled or frightened by propaganda and won’t listen to any viewpoints that differ because difference of thought has been painted in the darkest tones. Lets ask librarians to stock more diverse books in terms of thought rather than favoring authors of a specific skin tone or belief system. Let’s create a culture of vibrant, thoughtful debate rather than one full of hateful, ignorant arguments.
What people have been missing is how much common ground we can find in diversity of thought and where we don’t relate or connect at least a cultural shift away from the us versus them mentality can help us learn and listen and change if we realize that in some way we acted on bad information. This applies to everyone, not one group, and it is common sense. It’s not extreme to advocate for common sense.
*updated 11/15/23 3:32 P.M.
