(12-07-2023, 11:23 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(12-07-2023, 01:38 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I love it when you play philosopher. Foucault's impact is definitely felt in the modern discourse. Not only because he's a "hard leftist," as you say, but because he's touching on truths. While it's easy to dismiss contributors to postmodern thought as radicals, they are addressing real concerns and problems. It's for this reason that they have helped shape our current world outlook. 

In Foucault's concept of power-knowledge, (read Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977 if you want to learn something new today) he proposes that power and knowledge are not separate entities but rather intertwined. This relationship can be summarized in two key points:

Power Produces Knowledge: According to Foucault, power relations within society actively produce and shape knowledge. This means that what is accepted as 'knowledge' or 'truth' is not independent of the power structures within which it arises. Institutions and individuals in positions of power have the capacity to define and disseminate knowledge that reinforces their authority.

Knowledge Reinforces Power: Conversely, the knowledge thus produced feeds back into and reinforces power structures. By defining and categorizing people, behaviors, and ideas, this 'knowledge' legitimizes certain forms of power and control. For example, scientific, legal, or moral discourses can create categories of 'normalcy' and 'deviancy,' which in turn justify various forms of societal control and intervention.

So how does this apply to label shaming within the power/knowledge framework? 

Labeling as a Form of Knowledge Production: When a group or individual is labeled (e.g., as 'anti-vaxxer,' 'conspiracy theorist,' etc.), it's not just a neutral descriptor. It's a form of knowledge production that categorizes and defines what is considered acceptable or deviant within society. When people like NYC use these terms, they are either enforcing or reinforcing acceptable knowledge put forward by people with power. NYC likes to say this is psycho babble, but it's pretty [BLEEP] common sense if any of you arrogant pricks actually read a book with words (see, that's name calling, and it's different than label shaming). 

Labels Enforce Power Structures: These labels, once established, become part of the accepted discourse and serve to reinforce existing power dynamics. They can marginalize certain viewpoints or groups and legitimize the exclusion or control of those labeled as such. Btw, this shouldn't need to be said, but people have been labeling others for centuries. That's not new. What's is new is the prevalence in which label shaming has been used by power structures in America, which in turn are trotted out and repeated by followers to silence and dissenting opinions. Election Denier is categorical. It is reductive. It's supercilious.  

Resistance and Counter-Discourse: Foucault also emphasized the potential for resistance within these dynamics. Just as power-knowledge can be used to enforce conformity, it can also be challenged and redefined. This aspect is crucial in understanding how label shaming might be contested or subverted in public discourse. For Foucault, it was important not only to stave off label shaming from the power structures, but to also to use it as a weapon. We saw this acted out in the 90's and 2000's, and we're seeing the power dynamic shift in favor of leftist ideology. What was being used to throw off oppression is now being wielded as a tool for compliance. This is also common in history, but when it shows up, things usually get ugly. 

But hey, I guess if you don't know anything about history or philosophy this just sounds like psychobabble about a hard leftist who was wrong about everything. You guys are geniuses. Really.

Right.  You're wrong about this thing, so we can, and those with power can, ignore what you say about the thing.  Tough cookies.  Now if you were right about it, and people with power said you were wrong, that would be hard.  We would have to help you struggle against that power.  The power would be corrupt.  But that's not the case, at least not regarding the 2020 election or Covid.

Again, you're missing the essential point. This isn't just about being right or wrong. It’s about how those in positions of power are crafting narratives that dictate our perceptions of rightness and wrongness. There's nothing inherently wrong in believing that the 2020 election might have been rigged, just as there's nothing wrong in believing it wasn’t, provided you have your reasons. The real problem lies in how institutional power is quick to slap labels on people for deviating from their sanctioned 'truths.' This is a classic case of othering, creating a divide between the 'acceptable' thinkers and the 'heretics,' and it’s about reinforcing what they call 'acceptable knowledge,' which is fundamentally (but not necessarily) different than TRUTH.

If I were to broadly claim that all elections are rigged or all vaccines are inherently bad, then yes, labels like 'election denier' or 'anti-vaxxer' might make sense, especially coming from an individual. But that’s not what we are discussing. We are addressing the rampant misuse of labels to shut down anyone who doesn’t conform to a certain narrative, completely disregarding the nuances of their arguments. It’s a way to stifle dissent and mold thought. These labels are broadcast by our institutions, then adopted and brandied about by the masses. They aren't wholly organic. You'd think people with a modicum of intellectual honesty would see through this charade. Reducing complex arguments to mere labels? That’s not just simplistic; it’s arrogantly dismissive and intellectually lazy.

I am not an "Election Denier," just because I am pointing out corruption in our system, any more than a person is a Jags fan because it's the only channel they get, and the game just happens to be on. There is nuance. Election denying is not part of my identity. It's not a mantle I've donned. Choosing to use a label over addressing the points I made, even in brevity, is textbook superciliousness. Declaring outright that I'm wrong without acknowledging probability, plausibility, or reasonability is incredibly close-minded. Sure, there's a limit to entertaining these things, but I'm nowhere near it. Everything I post here is rooted in good data and rational thought. Some of it requires foresight and critical thinking, which is where I lose half of you. Yeah... that last comment? That was supercilious.

---