A rhetoric thing...

It's the Twitterisation of public discourse. On a platform where characters are counted and rationed, the most succinct (or simplistic) form of an argument gets peoples attention. A good tweet is absolutely certain, it is a proclamation, the language leaves no chink in the armour - all creases of nuance and doubt ironed out - all possibility of discussion or compromise shut down. When you see something you agree with, you can just retweet instead of going to all the effort of reconstructing the argument in your own words - this exercise would result in more intellectual engagement. The retweet can be an instantaneous reaction, a gut response, but paraphrasing these ideas for your own voice at least requires some thought. This is the platform that news sources use to gauge public opinion, many news stories take place entirely on Twitter now. So the rhetoric on Twitter has huge ramifications in the wider public consciousness. Politics has morphed into people shouting bumper sticker slogans at each other.

I've been musing over this. It does seem like some discourse will have its essence removed by rephrasing or attempting to explain it. Consider as a trivial example "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." To explain that the phrase relies on the different meanings of "flies" and "like" is to miss out on the playfulness that is the essence of the thing. Or consider "This is the way the world ends; not with a bang, but with a whimper". To change any word in that phrase alters the punchiness and diminishes the impact. I am certainly not arguing in favor of sloganeering that discourages critical thought or examination. Rather, I'm saying that there are circumstances where the words as stated need to be preserved.

Words and phrases, if well chosen, can be(come) an umbrella under which a movement or tribe can unite. Still leaving space for individuals and their personal narrative. "Yes we can" - "I have a dream" - "Amandla Awethu" But it needs to be engaging and vague at the same time. Not closing doors yet making clear for what a tribe stands. If not I have to agree completely. If so I think words are probably the best and strongest non-violent means a movement has.

( Maybe you should start a Cult ? )

Absolutely! & there's a thread running through that of Group behaviour & how it works (or doesn't). I've been following the BBC Analysis series (along with The Bugle & your Last Post - I have to do a *lot* of dog walking !) - there was one called Can I Change Your Mind? - which was about group identities, consensus, & whether people were prepared to change their minds. It featured a study which actually measured this, focused on Jury decisions in the US, and how they vary with Group composition in individual's opinions. I recommend a listen - link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0009z89 The net is: Human beings (& indeed some other animals) work on a perceived consensus based on what they see & hear around them, whether it be politics, social, or whether something is funny - I think you've talked about it, too in one of your TWA podcasts. But Echo Chambers distort that person's reality of where that consensus is. The difficulties with Groups & their accompanying catechisms are not only do they reinforcing the "normal" of that group consensus, but that being a Group also *moves* that consensus further away from any centre ground / compromise position, than if you simply take an average of the individual opinions. And activists can establish more extreme norms that get echoed and so amplified beyond the majority of members' natural inclinations. This can be towards more extreme political positions, & in some cases to commit extremist disrespect to others outside the group, & even as far as violence, or choose to ignore others in "your" side committing crimes, etc. so becoming complicit by inaction. My difficulty is that self-selection into groups of common interests makes that group naturally more homogeneous based around that common attitude, and therefore more likely to gradually polarise, simply by nature of the above instincts. I believe the hard Left and hard Right understand this very well, and exploit it, leading the centrists baffled as to how on earth outwardly sensible folk can suddenly appear to radicalise. The danger is the organised Alt Right are exploiting much more effectively because they are less tied to strong principles, other than the underlying racist or xenophobic I'm-better-than-"them", and so less likely for members to call Stop! when things go too far. The mentalist Derren Brown demonstrated this in one of his shows where the audience voted again and again for an increasingly uncomfortable narrative of a test subject, until he staged an "accident" that was a direct result of the cascade of decisions the audience had made. That end point was way beyond everyone's comfort zone, but each decision seemed OK when in an anonymous group. It was chilling, fascinating and shocking all at once. When laid alongside principles of Freedom of Speech, I think Group mindsets cause a lot of issues around censorship of the "wrong" - who am I to say that someone else is wrong, just because it appears self-evident to me based on my life & experiences? Folks on the other side may think exactly the same thing, but rather than encouraging mixing and good dialogue these echo chambers keep us apart and push the differences further away, making it harder to build bridges with the no-demonised "others". At the same time, allowing things to flow naturally in a Free Market of Ideas without any governance or guiding moral framework will eventually and naturally end up with a badly polarised & dysfunctional debate. The thing I think is missing across all this is leadership to encourage people - everyone - to stop, think more, and ask themselves whether their actions or speech is the Right Thing To Do, and as you say, to be able to join the dots across a long stretch of consequences. It's one reason why I love your work: you have a strong guiding principle of compassion, and a smart and realistic look at the issues involved, and a willingness to think and talk deeply about them.

For me it's all down to intent. You should be excused a faux pas of phraseology if your intent is good. It's easy to get left behind if you don't do the social media thing.