Don’t let that knee jerk!
I want to get an early start on demonstrating the lack of political side taking that I will demonstrate and also hope you will be able to emulate, when that would help you, which is often, in our present times of unprecedented (at least in the past century) divisiveness.
For one thing, I need you to stretch a little and not automatically view the presently-posted criticism of current pronoun trends as “political.” Don’t let that knee jerk.
It’s a temptation because almost all criticism of current “discursive trends” (how we talk, in this case, as regards pronouns) does, absolutely, come from a direction hostile toward “the left” — to conservative critics, the “woke.” Yes, pronoun criticism usually does show marked political animosity, if not a lot of critical thinking.
Making nice with Aristotle’s “mean“
That’s one thing that I believe marks my commentary as unique. I may bash pronoun abuse, but I’m not bashing lefties. I lean that way, myself, though always striving toward “Aristotle’s golden mean” (my Gram would smile; it’s her lesson!). Of course I have my inherent biases, though they have evolved as I have grown, but I strive sincerely and determedly to find truth in both directions.
That’s another difference I hope you can emulate. Don’t “take sides blindly.” Strive to see the truth in both directions. As you develop this skill and proclivity, you will distinuish yourself as “one of the smart ones” — maybe a leader — not merely an overzealous follower. Yuck to that.
The overzealous can’t be trusted. Tomorrow, they might follow the exact opposite path, and with equal (over)zeal. To the one-sided viewer, it’s about the zeal, not the path. Make it about the path. See the truth (and lies) in both directions, not just one.
My orientation, as a critic, does not come from the right or the left. I think that’s why you can trust me, whatever your politics. I just want the grammar right and the argument strong and stylish.
Yes, I am hoping to help any reader – righty or lefty – who wants to better understand and utilize language. That’s what I love, and if you love it, too, we’re buds, in my book. I might critique your sentence structure, but I care little about your politics. It’s just not my thing.
I proudly offer rich expertise in the subjects I’ve studied and taught intensively, like writing, discourse, speaking, listening, and other topics in communication. But I’m neither a political scientist nor economist (nor, likely are you, I might point out), so I tend to keep my many (!) opinions on such topics on the private (not public) side. My friends get an earful. No harm there. As for the public, you shall be spared!
Not the policies, but the “talk about“
However, when and where it comes to language and rhetoric, that is, how people (including politicians!) “talk” (whether speaking or writing) – that’s “fair game” for my crosshairs.
Love to do it. That’s my stuff. Not the policies (not trained in that), but the talk about the policies —that’s another story (no pun!).
Should we drop a bomb on X? Well, it’s never my first inclination (preferring diplomacy), but, truth be told, I really don’t know. I lack any and all training in political and international military matters. On the other hand, if person X says Y on Tuesday and Z on Friday — and acts like his stance never changed — that’s rhetoric, and I just might go there, if I think it matters and I can pass my own test: can I share a perspective that’s not already being said plenaty — if at all?
I do like to make original — not tired — points, and I’m trying to inspire you to shoot for the same high standard.
So don’t expect to read anything here that you’ve already read elsewhere. I’m asking for – and striving to demonstrate – authenticity! You’ll know it when you read something that is NOT the same old stuff being said the same old way just about everywhere — and nowadays, maybe written by “the great homogenizer,” AI.
The right is not my enemy. The left is not my enemy. My enemy is people not speaking for themselves — and the worst case-scenario happens when an app does your talking for you. Just Say No!
Both sides now
Truly, both “sides” (left and right) offer important insights into our social co-existence and, to my interests, human interaction – not just one side or the other. I want to extol and even model the ideal of finding validity in both directions. I’ve taught students of every political stripe, and I coached them all, with all my heart, to make their arguments strong, sturdy, and stylish. Same goes for you.
That’s my bias: Authenticity — that is, say what hasn’t been said — at least not my (or your) way.
I want to make a good role model — for you! If and when you’re not too pissed off by this or that unconventional view of mine, I hope you find refreshing my non-political basis! Rhetorical, yes; political, no.