misinterpretation as a tool in the war over public opinion

One of the common tools some people use in arguments is misinterpreting the other. With the new meaning at hand, one can do wonders, and it doesn't matter at all what the interlocutor meant in the first place. After all, for many, the purpose of an argument is not an educated exchange of opinions, but the silencing of the other (thus adopting Carl Schmitt's analysis of political life, while denying it completely. But that is a matter for another post, at another time).

I've just ran into such an example, in reference to a post in Rachel Abrams' blog "Bad Rachel", which dealt with Gilad Shalit's freedom and the author's wishes to his captors.

Reading this post, it is quite clear that the author meant that the CAPTORS should be thrown to sea, not their women and children, who are described in the succinctly phrased sentences of the post as victims too.

Despite using a rather strong language, it is very clear to whom Rachel Abrams meant and what she meant. And yet, it does not bother bloggers, in the Hebrew and English web sphere, to misinterpret, in the effort to de-legitimize. I guess those who choose to misinterpret either demonstrate their own willingness to see the worst in their political opponents, or their own willingness to that whatever they can, so that the other's point of view shall be tarnished.

אין תגובות:

הוסף רשומת תגובה