There’s nothing wrong with criticism or calling out bad behavior. However, shouting “ACAB” in a thread about police violence, making jokes about beheading rich people, or throwing “muskrat” comments in discussions about Elon Musk, just to name a few examples, makes you an asshole and part of the reason why social media is so incredibly toxic.
If you’re doing that while also explaining why you feel that way, then it’s still not the best approach, but at least you’re contributing to the conversation instead of just making noise. Throwing out insults without adding substance doesn’t challenge anyone or encourage meaningful discussion; it just perpetuates the toxic environment that so many of us complain about.
ACAB is not an insult, it’s shorthand for an ideological shift in how we perceive civil servants. It’s a reminder, or a clue for those who haven’t seen it before, that we have a very real problem.
Similarly, references to the guillotine should serve as a reminder that the social contract applies to everyone. When the rich devalue the lives of the poor, enriching themselves at the expense of human suffering, they need a reminder that they are outnumbered. The downtrodden need a reminder that basic human decency is a reciprocal requirement.
I’m with you on personal insults, even against shitbags like Leon, but I also enjoy clever or novel insults, so it’s more about how repetitive they are for me.
Thought-terminating clichés like “ACAB” never changed anyone’s view on civil servants. It’s virtue signaling to the in-group and baiting the out-group. The intention is to fish for upvotes and provoke outrage, fitting the very definition of slacktivism.
If the goal is to inspire real change in the world, spreading awareness and writing thoughtful, engaging comments is a far better approach.
I don’t think you’re wrong, but I think you expect too much from people. Some people don’t have more to offer than virtue signaling and proviking outrage. Not everyone has the capacity to write a thoughtful and compelling argument. We’re hanging out on Lemmy writing comments to each other. It’s an open forum. There’s no entrance exams or rules against slacktivism.
And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a slogan or a chant or a meme or a bumper sticker or a tshirt or a hat or a button or a plaquard or a tweet or an emoji being the summary of your message. It’s easier to share and easier to remember. Calling it “slacktivism” is itself a clever portmanteau to convey a much broader concept, instead of a thoughtful and compelling argument. But I’m not mad, because I understood what you were saying and do not need additional convincing.
If you’re reading yet another article about police protecting a criminal because the criminal wears a badge, then “ACAB” is sufficient to share your point of view. It would be really cool if we didn’t live in a society where the term had any relevance, and nobody knew exactly what it meant. Sadly, the things we have shorthand for tell us the things we see a lot.
“thought terminating cliche” is a propaganda term made up during the cold war by a US academic who was trying to claim that we have reasoned, rational ideology whereas communists only have slogans that prevent them from realizing how wrong they are.
It’s a catchy collection of words, but calling another’s argument a thought terminating cliche is just using a cliche to avoid thinking about their point.
It’s a name for a concept, so called “bumper sticker logic.”
Criticizing the author of a statement isn’t addressing the argument itself.
I’m not criticizing the author I’m criticizing the purpose that verbal tool was constructed for. It was designed to close off debate and that’s the only way it’s ever used.
It’s the best example of what it’s trying to describe. It’s a hypocrite of a phrase, engaging in what it condemns.
Kind of an extreme claim which is definitely not true.
So phrases are by themselves guilty of word crimes? A cliche isn’t just an often repeated series of words, it’s a tired idea. “Thought terminating cliche” is itself a thought terminating cliche if it’s being used that way (such as to shut down someone who was engaging in good faith and happened to use a common expression as part of that), but that doesn’t mean this category of expression doesn’t exist. Of course it exists, the modern internet is plagued with it because it’s full of propagandists with an interest in pulling people’s levers with minimal effort and no interest in argument.