Reply To: On Tyranny Lesson 9: Be kind to our language
There are a large number of examples to cite for this question, but as a Canadian, I’ll focus on the issues related to the very recent issues instigated by the US administration against Canada, their closest friend, neighbour and ally.
I have never seen any animosity towards Canada from our American friends in all the years I’ve used FB, and particularly within our LP FB group where the overwhelming sentiment has always been extremely kind and friendly. However, in the past few months, there has been a sudden change in attitude from some of the members of our group – a shocking growth of hostility and contempt. These antagonistic feelings seem to have been adopted as the member’s own personal feelings because someone else has told them to feel that way.
The author attributes much of what’s happening in the US to terrible lies and abusive language by the current US leadership, both elected and unelected alike. The common phrases that we all know about, including numbers like “51”, “200 billion”, “fentanyl”, and the latest report of calling Canada “nasty” are constantly repeated on TV, news sites and social media. These soundbites turn into memes which spread like wildfire, branding ideas, feelings and hate into the brains of those who are susceptible. The reality is that “200 billion” is not correct, and the estimate of the U.S. trade deficit with Canada, according to the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, is placed at $63.3 billion for 2024. The reality is that the US is 10x the size of Canada and there is simply no possibility that we can match consumption and trade. The reality is that there is no real understanding of economics by anyone parroting these phrases. The reality is that there is no interest in fact-checking or deeper investigation of memes. Memes and soundbites are taken as truths, shaping alternate realities for those who believe them.
When refuting these claims, people often use the same phrases, which reinforces the ideas. The author is urging people to expand their knowledge beyond the soundbites that they are fed to them on “screens”, to gain a greater understanding of concepts, to widen their vocabularies beyond the basic catchphrases, to try to empathize with the groups being targeted and dehumanized. He advocates using language that is firm, clear, precise and terse in response.
The author suggests that reading will help to solve this problem. However, I’m not completely convinced that this is the solution, as it seems that only a fraction of any population is interested in reading books. In addition, the finding that many of our former members are MAGA indicates to me that those members never truly understood what Three Pines is about, despite the repeated messaging of tolerance over hate, kindness over cruelty, goodness over bullying, hope over cynicism.
That said, I do have hope that our group of readers, the ones who do understand the concept of Three Pines, are an important group of people who can acquire important knowledge from books and other sources. I believe that the sharing of this important knowledge may lead to positive change.
