Metaphors, questionable

[owlectomy]

I was thinking about a certain fantasy novel that attempts to provide a critique of the American welfare system. (It tries to be subtle, only...not so much). Of course, the system depicted in the book was awful beyond question. It also bore not a bit of resemblance to the actual welfare system, but rather the welfare system imagined by conservatives. It was a straw man argument on the scale of an entire novel.

And then I was thinking about hawks' attempts to paint anti-war folks as the meek, weak-kneed Neville Chamberlains to pro-war folks' brave Winston Churchills. As if it could be as simple as "You're like Neville Chamberlain, therefore you're wrong, because he was wrong."

That's the problem with metaphor, with re-imagining problems into a fantastical or hypothetical context. You get to move the goalposts. You get to make the solution obvious, and you get to make your opponents stupid. You don't actually have to rely on silly things like facts, or whether your metaphor has any validity to it once you port it over to the real world.

...I am mad about the whole Geneva Conventions thing. I am mad about the way the debate has gotten framed in terms of whether you're a Pansy-Ass Coward or a Real Man. Or, rather, I'm mad about which side is labeled as which.

There's a word for putting your own security ahead of acting with decency and respect. It's called cowardice.

Comments

[meaghanchan.livejournal.com]

very good point. Very good post.