0  0

0  0

It’s not the least bit convincing on what grounds? That you could cite an author (Solzhenitsyn) who could probably fit a better analogy? You are only improving my point that it is not uncommon to utilize hyperboles for the purpose of raising public awareness to a current socio-political issue, and that authors and activists in both hemispheres who pursue this route are often celebrated, not chastised.

“Moreover, his criticism ignores the primary question at play in this article. While certainly an attack on YAL, Thakur’s editorial is also questioning the role of inflammatory demonstrations (shock tactics) in social activism”

Actually, my criticism includes a defense of the primary question at play, which you unsuccessfully attempted to debunk by citing a Soviet-era author who also fit the hyperbolic prescription, naturally unintentionally strengthening my case.

“At no point does Thakur attempt to quiet YAL”

No, she doesn’t. What she does do is criticize YAL for attempting to defend itself against those who DID quiet YAL. Maybe she should reconsider her tactics.

“it is deeply aggravating to see John M. accuse Thakur of writing incoherently when he writes sentences like this: “The author makes several incoherent factual statements that reveal her inherent biased and distaste for YAL.” Are you claiming that her incoherent statements ARE indeed factual? Are you merely disgruntled by her style? What exactly is an “inherent biased?””

1) It is that she makes incoherent statements which muddle (and sometimes completely ignore) the facts which reveals her bias.

2) I’m not disgruntled in the slightest. She is the one accusing YAL of being disgruntled. Her style, however, is weak and unconvincing, employing a multitude of rhetorical flourishes with little regard for substantive argumentation. She tells the reader hyperbolic presentations are bad because she says so, without elaborating as to why she feels they are so inappropriate. FYI: Just saying “shock tactics” are wrong, doesn’t make it so.

3) An “inherent bias” is a preconceived disposition towards a group regardless of their action. While it could be true that she is against hyperbole whether they are issued from the left or right of the political spectrum, it is clear from her word choice alone that she possess an unfavorable preconceived disposition or “inherent bias” towards YAL the organization, regardless of their tactics.

4,5,6,7,8,) I used “meaning” in that context as a synonym of “purpose”. I thought it was pretty obvious.

“You see, “last time I checked…””

Last time I checked authors defend themselves from their own critics, but with the rare possibility that you aren’t a friend/associate of the author’s, I’d appreciate it if you read my work over more than once before you formulate your rebuttal, which in this case consisted of miscomprehending almost all of my points.

0  0

0  0

So many great arguments open with that line. Oh wait…

With all due respect to John M. and his attempt to engage this topic through literature, his commentary on hyperbole is no less dubious than that of Thakur.

I, too, found myself thinking about dystopian fiction as I read this article, but I think we might be better served by looking at an author like Solzhenitsyn and A Day in the Life instead. This powerful novel, one with more explicit ties to questions of communism and gulags, was not prone to “Orwellian” hyperbole (although referring to 1984 as a “novel-sized hyperbole” demonstrates a rather superficial reading of the text) and arguably offers a much more compelling case against the loss of liberty than 1984. We should also make it clear that hyperbole is a form of overstatement rather than misstatement; not all distortions and fictions are hyperbolic. Some are frankly disturbing. I don’t see why we can’t have a conversation about that without being labeled censors. Regardless, John’s assumption that the literary success of 1984 somehow helps him make the case for inflammatory social activism is not the least bit convincing.

Moreover, his criticism ignores the primary question at play in this article. While certainly an attack on YAL, Thakur’s editorial is also questioning the role of inflammatory demonstrations (shock tactics) in social activism. At no point does Thakur attempt to quiet YAL, but rather makes it clear in her final paragraph that she believes YAL should reconsider its tactics. For all its flaws, this is an article about the efficacy of the message more than anything else.

Finally, it is deeply aggravating to see John M. accuse Thakur of writing incoherently when he writes sentences like this: “The author makes several incoherent factual statements that reveal her inherent biased and distaste for YAL.” Are you claiming that her incoherent statements ARE indeed factual? Are you merely disgruntled by her style? What exactly is an “inherent biased?” For that matter, what do you mean by accusing Thakur of not knowing the “true” meaning of hyperbole? Is there some primitive inherent meaning of the term? Does it not have roots in other terms and languages? Does its etymology not show various meanings and usages over time?

You see, “last time I checked…”

0  0

0  0

0  0

The author makes several incoherent factual statements that reveal her inherent biased and distaste for YAL. One of which is as follows, “[YAL] is quick to criticize those who disagree with what the group does”. So, to defend oneself from criticism is to criticize those who disagree with what a group does? Apparently it is somehow unethical to defend your right to free expression… and the author thought the gulag hyperbole was excessive… Then there is this gem, “criticizing people who do not buy into YAL’s claims, such as members of Students for Fair Trade and the officials from Event Services who shut down the gulag display.” So criticizing those who coercively transgressed the rights of free expression is also unethical and hypocritical? I think the author makes it abundantly clear that she does not respect or value free expression when she strikes against an organization for simply_ attempting to verbally defend_ its right of free expression.

For some reason I doubt the author truly believes her own words, that “all student groups are free to hold and express their own opinions.” YAL’s demonstration, a hyperbolic representation of the declining state of civil liberties in this country, was denied its freedom to hold and express its opinions. Not only does this seem to satsify the author, but this is not punishment enough for YAL’s hubris in believing they could get away with alarming the student body into awakening to what they believe could be an impending fritghtful reality. The author must make sure through her inflammatory remarks that they are too disgraced to attempt to express themselves via Orwellian hyperboles ever again.

But in the end I guess I’m just another student showing, “complete ingratitude for the blessings we have at such a well-off university.” Or maybe, just maybe, the entire point of the demonstration was to express their belief that they do not respect the “blessings” and that they feel they deserve better. But no, that couldn’t be the message. That sounds too obvious and rational. YAL is clearly an irrational, “reactionary, disgruntled group. ” They couldn’t possibly have a logical motive for their presentation, after all, they are reactionary! Disgruntled reactionaries never have sound motivations, right? One must be liberal/progressive to have legitimate claims. Perhaps next time YAL displays a mock gulag they will say it is a warning for if society doesn’t do anythng about climate change or all of those in the US without health insurance, then perhaps the author will be more sympathetic to hyperbolic presentations.

Finally, while I do not agree with what the author has to say, I will fight to the death for her right to say it…and prop up a few mock gulags too if that’s what it takes to keep her freedom to write safe and secure into posterity.

0  0

Don’t like the wars overseas? Just be quiet. Don’t like that the State locks up non-violent drug users? Be quiet. Eminent domain abuse? Over-taxation and draconian regulation? Be quiet.

Trying to demonstrate Friedman’s theory that there is no liberty without economic liberty, as has been demonstrated many times over history? Just sit down. Be quiet. Don’t rock the boat.

Just sit down and take it.

0  0

0  0