[throw10920]

> psychic violence

Ironically, worse than the deluge of advertising described in this comment is the attempted redefinition of language for political agendas as exemplified in this comment.

Both are a form of psychic warfare - except that while I have seen non-intrusive and useful forms of advertising (i.e. product discovery, not trying to brainwash me into believing that Coca-Cola isn't unhealthy), I have never seen a non-malicious instance of this kind of hostile language redefinition.

[maxbond]

This is pretty absurd for two reasons.

The poster was clearly writing a jocular, one-sentence sci-fi story to express how they felt violated by the constant vieing for their attention. That's why it's _set in the future_ and regarding a _fictional constitutional amendment_. Making up words is a genre trope of sci-fi.

The second is that languages just change and people make up words. This isn't unique to the political arena and isn't necessarily malicious. Every term you have ever used exists because someone needed it, didn't have it, and so they made it up. You'll need to actually argue that introducing a term is harmful or deceptive in the particular instance that it happens.

This is pearl-clutching to portray people you disagree with as being shrill and ridiculous and not worth listening to. It's a bad faith tactic which you should desist from.

ETA: Because I seem to be earlier in the sort order, I want to point out that there is a much more important third reason is a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32016181

[durkie]

why do you get to say "psychic warfare" but "psychic violence" is unacceptable?

[pessimizer]

I was shocked that there were five comments saying something other than this before yours.

It's like how the people who talked about safe spaces and triggering being dumb were triggered by every single commercial, tv show, movie, news report, and passing conversation and begging for the stuff that triggered them to be removed.

"Go woke, go broke" is something said by people who are threatening to boycott businesses because of their triggering content.

[ClumsyPilot]

> hostile language redefinition

par for the course, and embedded in all political discourse.

Recently we started calling anyone proposing higher taxes a socialist, which indicates total illiteracy, as it has no bearing on centrally planned economy

Laws that stop business defrauding customers are called 'consumer protection' and 'red tape', but when we protect business from individuals it's called being tought on crime.

When you make an extra copy of a song, you commit intellectual property theft, and the state can prosecute you for free and put you in jail, and you are a criminal.

When a company does not provide warranty you paid for, its called a business dispute and you have to hire your own lawyer.

[ttgurney]

> When you make an extra copy of a song, you commit intellectual property theft

Don't forget "piracy"--associating copying information with looting a ship and killing everyone on board. I'd love to see an end to this ridiculous modern usage of this word.

[swayvil]

How would you characterize a powerful force that sucks you into an illusion and bends your will to its agenda?

Feel free to wax florid and metaphorical.

[ClumsyPilot]

The Walt Disney Company

[guerrilla]

> Recently we started calling anyone proposing higher taxes a socialist, which indicates total illiteracy, as it has no bearing on centrally planned economy

This too is ironically it's own redefinition because originally (and still to many socialists today) socialism means workers' ownership of the means of the production, which undemocratic centrally planning states never were and never could be.

[jokethrowaway]

The reason people associate socialism with taxes and a centrally planned economy is because that's the only popular socialism.

Anarcho-socialism rejects statism (totally agreeable) but doesn't offer a credible alternative. That's why common people don't even think about anarchy when you talk about socialism.

In a centrally planned socialist economy, the people in power can steal resources from the workers (like all the governments of the world do nowadays) and exercise power.

In anarcho socialism the power would be decentralised and distributed among democratic groups of workers. Why would the workers even bother to take all these decisions? They're not gaining power (or very little, due to the rightful decentralised nature of power in anarchy) nor currency.

The assumption is that workers are perfect human beings and don't need incentives do to the right thing, which is a pipe dream.

[pixl97]

Unless you have a powerful organization that prevents others from taking power, a powerful organization will always form that takes power.

[ClumsyPilot]

> socialism with taxes and a centrally planned economy

Taxes have nothing to do with socialism and have existed in Feudalism, in ancient Egypt and in every 'capitalist' state. Just because you collected money, does not mean you need to centrally plan how to spend it - carbon dividend would tax things that produce CO2, and distribute it equally to all citizen. Someone who produces no CO2 would get paid, and someone who produces the average amount would see no change.

I have no problem with central planning being associated, it was a key feature of socialist states. But Central planning means government sets prices on Salami, like USSR did, and I never came across anyone in the West proposing that.

At most someone advocates for some infrastructure, and they get called a socialist. But then, why does no capitalism society privatise the police, the army, the navy, the judges that sit in court, the federal reserve, the public library and the patent office?

If the accuser does advocates for privatising them, the rest of society will call him a nutcase and move on with their lives.

So he must instead make up excuses, of various levels of absurdity, for why free market can't be trusted with managing elementary building blocks of society here, but it's socialist to suggest government should step in over there.

The only solution is to Stop accusing everyone of being a socialist in disguise and learn from history and other countries: we have tried societies without government-managed police and courtsm, the results were terrible. We have tried private prisons, and government-managed consumer goods, also terrible.

[swayvil]

This is clearly conscience-assuaging rationalization. You must be in marketing.

But ya, "psychic violence" hits the nail on the head nicely.