"Political cocaine" is a gaslighting concept no matter which way you slice it, but perhaps a valid threat to any notion of a civil society is worth the flame? It is inherently a dangerous, volatile observation, but David is right to coin it sociologically.
David, I typically enjoy reading your stuff—especially as it pertains to the divisive rhetoric of race—but this essay feels awfully leaning a particular way (and your biases are blatantly evident).
When it comes to messages about uniting and toning down the rhetoric, you say “These are platitudes. They’re hard to object to, but they’re nevertheless misleading or vacuous. Unity isn’t always a good thing.” Says who? You? Just because you think they are vacuous and misleading platitudes?
You also say “ They imply that violent speech is evenly distributed across the political spectrum—that Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault. But Trump and his allies are the worst offenders, by a long shot.” Can you provide empirical support for this, at minimum? You should hop on social media (such as TikTok) once in a while to say how progressive left-leaning folks talk about, for example, the archetypal “straight white male” and anyone else they racialize as white.
I’ll likely be unfollowing your work for a while, which is a shame since your thoughts on the divisive rhetoric of race is fascinating. But I think an essay such as this one is more a part of the problem than any kind of way of addressing the divisiveness (and honestly a bit intellectually lazy). And this is coming from a lifelong Democrat who still can’t see himself voting for Trump in the Fall.
This wasn't my impression at all. It's not as though he's advocating making inflammatory comments online, or is out there tweeting "They started it first, it's mostly their fault." This is a subscription newsletter with a relatively small number of followers generally interested in his other work, with whom he's sharing reflections based on his area of expertise and candid opinions regarding the bigger picture. Sure, it's a point of view (hardly extreme, though you might disagree) - but laying out this point of view in a forum devoted to the roots of dehumanization and related phenomena is not what I would call irresponsible or polarizing. There's a big difference between stirring up trouble or reinforcing ideologies, and carefully examining the problems and contradictions of particular narratives, having providing proper context, in.an appropriate venue. If you can't offer your honest interpretation and opinions in a personal newsletter like this, where are you supposed to do it?
Normally I wouldn't comment but this seemed important.
"Political cocaine" is a gaslighting concept no matter which way you slice it, but perhaps a valid threat to any notion of a civil society is worth the flame? It is inherently a dangerous, volatile observation, but David is right to coin it sociologically.
Why do you think it's gaslighting?
David, I typically enjoy reading your stuff—especially as it pertains to the divisive rhetoric of race—but this essay feels awfully leaning a particular way (and your biases are blatantly evident).
When it comes to messages about uniting and toning down the rhetoric, you say “These are platitudes. They’re hard to object to, but they’re nevertheless misleading or vacuous. Unity isn’t always a good thing.” Says who? You? Just because you think they are vacuous and misleading platitudes?
You also say “ They imply that violent speech is evenly distributed across the political spectrum—that Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault. But Trump and his allies are the worst offenders, by a long shot.” Can you provide empirical support for this, at minimum? You should hop on social media (such as TikTok) once in a while to say how progressive left-leaning folks talk about, for example, the archetypal “straight white male” and anyone else they racialize as white.
I’ll likely be unfollowing your work for a while, which is a shame since your thoughts on the divisive rhetoric of race is fascinating. But I think an essay such as this one is more a part of the problem than any kind of way of addressing the divisiveness (and honestly a bit intellectually lazy). And this is coming from a lifelong Democrat who still can’t see himself voting for Trump in the Fall.
This wasn't my impression at all. It's not as though he's advocating making inflammatory comments online, or is out there tweeting "They started it first, it's mostly their fault." This is a subscription newsletter with a relatively small number of followers generally interested in his other work, with whom he's sharing reflections based on his area of expertise and candid opinions regarding the bigger picture. Sure, it's a point of view (hardly extreme, though you might disagree) - but laying out this point of view in a forum devoted to the roots of dehumanization and related phenomena is not what I would call irresponsible or polarizing. There's a big difference between stirring up trouble or reinforcing ideologies, and carefully examining the problems and contradictions of particular narratives, having providing proper context, in.an appropriate venue. If you can't offer your honest interpretation and opinions in a personal newsletter like this, where are you supposed to do it?
Normally I wouldn't comment but this seemed important.
I'm all for differing views to be shared. I think providing substantiating evidence to justify a particular view is also important.