- 11 Jun 2019 11:10
#15011471
I've seen a lot of communists and far-leftists claim that practically everything, or in some cases that literally everything is a weapon.
Examples: art is a weapon because it can influence people, your social symbols (such as nice cars or nice clothes) are weapons because they demean others, education can be a weapon, jobs and money and so-on are weapons. Reproduction is a weapon because people can fight, which essentially means that people might be considered weapons too. Words are routinely treated as violence or weapons and this is used to argue that there should be no freedom of speech, the logic being similar to how guns and other weapons are controlled.
A question I was asking myself recently is this: if everything is a weapon, doesn't this mean that the term "weapon" has become redundant and no longer serves an important function as a descriptor?
I personally draw a line when it comes to defining weapons as that which can directly physically (not including emotionally) harm people. This kind of phrasing is apparently necessary in a time when words are considered weapons of violence.
If everything is a weapon, it seemingly follows that war is peace and that everything we can do is an act of violence unless it supports the amorphous "party" or whatever it is that western far-leftists believe themselves to be a part of.
Edit: and here is the largest problem with the logic of terming everything to be a "weapon". If everything is a weapon and we are still going to call things weapons instead of taking it as a given, that means that the term "weapon" must be a pejorative. If everything is deserving of a pejorative then this must logically mean that life itself is bad. Sad!
Examples: art is a weapon because it can influence people, your social symbols (such as nice cars or nice clothes) are weapons because they demean others, education can be a weapon, jobs and money and so-on are weapons. Reproduction is a weapon because people can fight, which essentially means that people might be considered weapons too. Words are routinely treated as violence or weapons and this is used to argue that there should be no freedom of speech, the logic being similar to how guns and other weapons are controlled.
A question I was asking myself recently is this: if everything is a weapon, doesn't this mean that the term "weapon" has become redundant and no longer serves an important function as a descriptor?
I personally draw a line when it comes to defining weapons as that which can directly physically (not including emotionally) harm people. This kind of phrasing is apparently necessary in a time when words are considered weapons of violence.
If everything is a weapon, it seemingly follows that war is peace and that everything we can do is an act of violence unless it supports the amorphous "party" or whatever it is that western far-leftists believe themselves to be a part of.
Edit: and here is the largest problem with the logic of terming everything to be a "weapon". If everything is a weapon and we are still going to call things weapons instead of taking it as a given, that means that the term "weapon" must be a pejorative. If everything is deserving of a pejorative then this must logically mean that life itself is bad. Sad!
Orb Team Re-Assemble!