Watch The Language

The snark is just no good

I rather dislike the way people talk nowadays - either towards one another or anonymously when posting in the celestial ether - the internet abyss. The way I see it, people display their thoughts through  trite, overused phrases and this makes me all too cognizant of how rare thinking people truly are.

And sure, there is a bit of elitism in that statement, but I say this not out of some sort of intellectual privilege- we could all express ourselves in a better way, if only we were to try. Perhaps it is an effort type of thing, but it is also an aesthetic preference.  I believe- based on the slight cringe I feel when I hear oft-repeated words and phrases so casually yet ignorantly flung: they say this or that with a type of self-assurance, a type of confidence that only stock phrasing can provide, which I believe emits a type of silent transmission- something like “we are all on the same page, here”.

Of course, anybody who practiced enough in self-expression can reliably communicate how they feel and what they think for casual conversation's sake.  Nowadays this is suspiciously easy when all that is required is to signal your loyalty or opposition to either side of the political binary. This can be done with a grunt or a moan, or even just the posting of a single emoji.

What I am more interested in is the noticeable trend in phraseology. That is to say, how the idea is specifically expressed, and what that idea signals to the reader- friend or foe. The type of phraseology I am referring to is seen ad nauseum in various social media feeds on a daily basis. It is my opinion that such stock phrases are disastrous to our self-expression, our communication, and our ability to hear one another. What I have begun to witness is the coarse, corroded, and canned parlance of our times. When our words drip in resentment and snark redundancy, we also begin to rely only on stock phrases.

I assume what will follow next is coarse thought. Low-resolution words result in low-resolution ideas, thus low-resolution problem-solving. Some examples and their corresponding contexts I have listed here:

1. Context: Telling members of the "other side" a surprising fact, that they would find inconvenient, followed by:

…Now take a moment to let that sink in.

 Every time I see this I instantly think, "No, fuck you!" This whole "let that sink in" business is just a rallying cry for the home team - showing them what you think about the speed of the cognizance of the other side. 

2. Context: Someone expresses an idea that is found to be inaccurate. Let's say, something about the economy:

 "Tell me you don't know anything about the economy without telling me you don't know anything about the economy".

I have seen this response (replaced by the subject) dozens and dozens of times in the last month alone. There is no political motivation for this type of jargon- just annoying, in my opinion.

From the fringe left I see much more of the stock phrasing being relied upon to signal allegiance, or as filler - a cheap replacement for actual thought. When I come upon these space fillers in a body of text, or an a la carte, I think of that same coarse vocabulary that says all too much and all too little at the very same time:

"Black Bodies" (dehumanizing, strangely anonymous) 
”Trans rights are human rights" (obvious, redundant - says nothing)
”Trans women are women" (then what is a trans-right?)
”Stop the Hate" (redundant - says nothing)
”Far-right" (catch-all, oversimplifying)
”White privilege" (overused, language of resentment)

As you can see, these statements are more like flags, and symbols- lacking nuance. 

And sometimes, we often fall victim to using “they” too often. Listen closely when someone affirms their enemies by the “they” vaguery. Many times, it is a shortcut to thinking and an all too easy way of making enemies out of generalized subjects. (ie. Conservatives, they are all just…)

Of course, this type of phrasing has no particular set of politics- the right can jump and shout to chants of “lock her up” and “build that wall”, too. But, as the release of the Twitter files has only confirmed what many already had suspected, it was largely the conservative thoughts that were being shadow-banned or altogether blocked in a much higher frequency than those liberal blue check marked profiles. And while social media’s titan outlet Twitter has taken many a punch to the gut lately- here’s another: not only does it promote anger and outrage as not just a systemic bug, but, yet, as a feature, it has also been (along with virtually all social media) a driving force in the destruction of language-based communication. Just as, say, online pornography may eventually warp the viewer's appreciation of human-to-human contact, unceasing Twitter users may find their vocabulary for expression similarly depreciating- where the real world of being held accountable, front and center, takes a backseat to the internet and its infinite combustible confrontations. 

In the world of online snark, the snappiest, most vulgar comebacks are king- I say vulgar in relation only to the ethics of debate and intellectual honesty- and on Twitter, as well as the internet at large, there is no intellectual honesty. As soon as one begins to “lose” out publicly, the humiliation of being wrong, outsmarted, or just plain out-argued goes away with the click of the block button.  Apologies are rare, verbal slaps are most frequent, and trolls run rampant like jokers, directing their ire at anyone who crosses their path.

In fact, this happened to me recently, when I was approached by a disagreeable type on the subject of CRT being taught in schools. He challenged me fiercely, but I had recently written an article on the subject, which I sent to him. “Oh cool. You have a blog” was his response. One could guess that he was not going to pay me the compliment of actually reading what I wrote, nor was he inclined to admit perhaps my thoughts on the subject were possibly more fleshed out than his. But I admit, this is pure conjecture.

I only ask the reader to pay close attention to the words they use and also the words they read. The rhetoric of our times is rotten. The hyperbolic nature of sarcasm and ad hominem style of argumentation is a structure built by foolish people - and it is now the game that only dumb people play. The snarky, defensive gestures we signal towards one another is a constant game of poking your finger in the eyes of those with which you disagree. 

However, this is not simply an acknowledgment of social media toxicity, but rather an acknowledgment of the decay of our individual voices, thought patterns, and modes of self-expression. Of course, the term "Orwellian" has been overused, but we may take heed of one of his earlier warnings - "Watch the Language".  Referring to "newspeak" - the ideological language of 1984's "Oceania", he insisted that:
"Language is of central importance to human thought because it structures and limits the ideas that individuals are capable of formulating and expressing."

Now we would be wise to take heed of this particular warning, particularly now, (right now!) - but I have a different phenomenon in mind, that is, not only the changing of our language but also the convoluting of our phrases, as a signal, as a shield, as homage. I would say that if you cannot properly express your ideas without relying on stock language, perhaps it is because you have none.

We will be much better off in our dialogue once we define, identify, and ultimately put down these childish tools so that high-resolution problems are afforded the vocabulary they so justly deserve.

JSV
2023