Car: We all know what a fucking car is.

Duck: I guess it’s a bird with webbed feet and a bill, which is different than a beak…in some way. I guess it’s the shape? Let’s go with that.

Trend: A trend is like, when something happens and becomes popular, so people recreate that thing or adopt the thing for themselves or something like that.

Conservatism: Ugh. That’s like, the antithesis of the progressive liberal. It assigns value to tradition, and it’s essentially like being closed-minded.

Liberalism: Ugh. That’s a weapon used to impose ideological supremecy, commonly by using virtue signaling or identity politics.

Tradition: Tradition is like…a practice or belief from the past that people latch onto rather than attempting to establish their own meaningful values.

Virtue Signaling: That’s like when you pretend to care about something, so people think you’re a good person when you’re really just trying to gain power or control over people.

What if I told you that none of these descriptions are technically accurate definitions? Quite literally, none of the prior descriptions are technically accurate.

Why do at least some of them sound so reasonably accurate? or at least familiar? They sound reasonably accurate in part because of their familiarity. One generally hears these terms in reference to a person’s perception of the term, rather than in reference to a technical, critical analysis of some mode of discourse. The perception is usually expressed with some emotive expression – “ugh” is an emotive expression, for example – as well as some misguided understanding of the technical definition. Then the new term, which shares the spelling and pronunciation of the original term, becomes a part of the colloquial lexicon.

This introduces a new problem. Not every subpopulation shares the same perception of the original term. Therefore, different subpopulations will have different understandings of the original term, and this leads quite directly to a language barrier between parties practicing sociopolitical discourse.

The logical conclusion of this trend seems to be that sociopolitical discourse is rife with the proverbial straw man, and that is readily apparent and demonstrably true. Each side attempts to use their own understanding of terminology as a foundation for the conversation. This is a significant issue for both sides of the discussion and perhaps a more significant issue for the observer. That is, using a colloquial understanding of a technical term in a conversation with someone who might not agree with the assumed perception weakens the foundation of the discussion. Each side will attempt to dismantle the other’s likely poorly articulated perception, assuming the weakest possible implication of said perception. This is the straw man.

“…Oh, so you think anyone should just be able to buy an assult rifle? …”

“…Oh, so men should just cry all the time and be emotionally weak? …”

“…Oh, so anything [masculine / feminine] is toxic? …”

Questions such as these are important in that they might further the naive or ignorant individual’s understanding of his or her own opinion about the matter at hand. However, it is generally best to proceed as though such absolutes are not to be assumed as part of the opposition’s perception. That might be a familiar sentiment, that it is best not to speak in absolutes. It seems to me that there is a fair bit of utility therein, even in a secular setting.

If one proceeds rather by strengthening the argument of the opposition and if by some miracle the opposition might do the same, then the value of each party’s perception might be more easily distinguished, analyzed, and coopted.

To battle a straw man and win says little about the strength of the warrior.

However, to engage willingly with a man of iron, to acknowledge his potential strengths, and to walk humbly away, perhaps beaten bloody but having learned or taught a meaningful thing or two: this is the tale of a true warrior.