The point is it’s not just an unsubstantiated opinion, there is a long history of political science, involving ‘critical study and evidence’. Terms like imperialist and neocolonialism aren’t buzzwords like ‘woke’, they have distinct definitions.
As you say, such characterizations are a matter of opinion. That’s quite unlike medical knowledge which is established by objective, not subjective, evidence. Generally I hear such accusations leveled at credible, mainstream sources that don’t fit the narrative of those on the far left.
They aren’t a matter of opinion though, there are defining characteristics accepted by a historied scholarly community that correspond with these words. There are ranges of perspectives as is common in any social science, so it is viewed as a ‘softer’ science compared to physics or chemistry but it is a science no less.
It may be common for criticial leftists to use these sort of terms flippantly, but that doesn’t remove their meaning or usefulness in the larger discourse.
Can you explain why someone who knows what the words “neocolonialist” or “imperialist” mean wouldn’t use them to describe the “global north” and “global south” disparity? I’m interested in your theory.
If anything it’s the opposite. Propaganda implies your only getting one side of the issue, so the less words or concepts you know the more likely you are to have been propagandized.
Oh the irony. One doesn’t use terms like, “neocolonial imperialist,” without having their own sort of indoctrination first.
My doctor uses terms like “acute encephalopathy”, damn their medical school indoctrination.
Clearly medical knowledge acquired through critical study and evidence is different and more objective than political opinions.
The point is it’s not just an unsubstantiated opinion, there is a long history of political science, involving ‘critical study and evidence’. Terms like imperialist and neocolonialism aren’t buzzwords like ‘woke’, they have distinct definitions.
As you say, such characterizations are a matter of opinion. That’s quite unlike medical knowledge which is established by objective, not subjective, evidence. Generally I hear such accusations leveled at credible, mainstream sources that don’t fit the narrative of those on the far left.
They aren’t a matter of opinion though, there are defining characteristics accepted by a historied scholarly community that correspond with these words. There are ranges of perspectives as is common in any social science, so it is viewed as a ‘softer’ science compared to physics or chemistry but it is a science no less.
It may be common for criticial leftists to use these sort of terms flippantly, but that doesn’t remove their meaning or usefulness in the larger discourse.
lol
indoctrination is when words
Can you explain why someone who knows what the words “neocolonialist” or “imperialist” mean wouldn’t use them to describe the “global north” and “global south” disparity? I’m interested in your theory.
If anything it’s the opposite. Propaganda implies your only getting one side of the issue, so the less words or concepts you know the more likely you are to have been propagandized.
Brilliantly said.
Explain
The road goes both ways.
You’re not explaining anything. How does understanding neocolonialism and imperialism equate to being indoctrinated?
this dude’s whole argument is “no u” lmao
Why does the road go both ways? If you point at a fish, and call it a fish, is it because you’re also indoctrinated?
As if the hegemonic liberal capitalist terms you’ve used your whole life aren’t from indoctrinations. The Fascism of Common Sense