Hacker News Reader

Comment by simon666 | Hacker News Reader

A rhetorical point: I think it's best to avoid "resist" language.

1. It's antiquated and arouses imagery and iconography that IMO many have negative associations with. (I'm leaving this a bit vague intentionally.)

2. Framing oneself or a movement as "resisting" is to frame one self or a movement in a weaker, defensive position. It's better to use to language that indicates actions and offense as opposed to defense.

3. Because of 1 this opens up typical lines of attack and characterization that make one's "resistance" an easy rhetorical target. No unforced errors.

I don't have a sense of what would be a better alternative, but probably throwing things against the wall until something sticks/galvanizes people makes more sense. Something like "assert yourself", "push back"/"fight back", "take it to 'em" etc.

View on HN

Leave that advice for corporate drone training. Not all sort of countercurrent has to follow the same academic advice to create harmless, defensive and ultimately forgettable prose.

We are drowning in sterile PR speech already, sometimes an earnest “fuck the system” resonates better with the intended audience.

> Leave that advice for corporate drone training.

Not clear how you linked what I said with "corporate drone training" since the thrust of my comment was about what would make good rhetoric for fighting the authoritarianism in the U.S.

> Not all sort of countercurrent has to follow the same academic advice to create harmless, defensive and ultimately forgettable prose.

I'll point out two things: One, there's an inconsistency in your characterization of my comment. First you said it was the language of corporate drone training, now you're saying it's academic speak.

Two, I didn't advocate "defensive" prose. I suggested abandoning language that implicitly frames the the movement again authoritarianism in the U.S. as in a defensive movement and thereby in a weaker position than it actually is. I argued "resist" is an example of this defensive language that should be abandoned. If you're against defensive prose, I'd think you too would be against defensive terms as well.

> We are drowning in sterile PR speech already, sometimes an earnest “fuck the system” resonates better with the intended audience.

Yes, indeed. My whole comment was about having language that is not defensively frame, but that is playing offense. In fact "fuck the system" could be such language. Although to note "the system" is vague and so has risk rhetorically because it easily allows an audience to think what you mean by "the system" is what they, the audience likes by "the system", which leads to the audience you're trying to find common cause with to reject your movement.

Perhaps "deny, defend, depose" – not sure where I heard that, but it has a certain mental impact.

I am reminded of "turn on, tune in, drop out".

Or words such as "rise up" "fight the oppression".

Resistance sounds like some shortform offensive action, I'd prefer something more long term that shows a better path or what you're missing out on. The people I see who uses aggressive language like that aren't who I want to be around with ironically enough.

To my ear "rise up" and anything with "oppression" also have the negative connotations that aren't particularly useful. Both expressions are old, associated with a generic and unsuccessful leftist movement in the US. Additionally, "oppression" has the same problems as "resist" in that it makes one sound like a victim and a complainer. That's not to say the meaning of "oppression" is bad; roughly: undue or unjust restriction on freedom. In the US it's better to use the language of liberty. So instead of talking about "oppression" one should just articulate threats to liberty and freedom, particular from the government writ large or the Federal government in particular.

It would help a lot to show what someone is missing out, I can't really fathom how the world would look like if taxes we're laser focus on solving issues instead of being pocketed in shady ways.

Like it would be nice for useful services to be made and people having a reason to protect/maintain them, something that goes both ways no? But overall it's either rage or apathy. And you know it's strange how corporations always pivot fast to what people want during a crisis, why not just be like that by default? It's disturbing and I don't know how long this can keep up

I could get behind "exercise", as in your rights (while you have them), and your power (to stop relying on specific conveniences, businesses). Combines with imagery of gaining strength, independence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com