[DaveH explains the shirt-rippin':]

The activists have seized upon, and then amplified, some key emotional hooks.

Sounds quite endearing.

Let’s test it:

"Dad, when I grow up, I want to be an activist!"

Depends on the dad, I suppose.

Nullius,

There is not much words needed to point at this from #129:

We’ve had two dozen comments so far in pursuit what appears to be an infinitesimal point about using the word “tyranny” being a case of “name-calling”. I don’t agree that it is.

when I said in #98:

The second sentence [...] picks “name” in namecalling to argue that labeling a policy tyranny is not namecalling. We’ve already saw in #71 that the argument has no merit.

implying that I am underlining the labeling aspect of “tyranny”, and quoting #98, which was repeating an argument that has been answered in #71:

Name-calling and labelling are techniques with which even children are familiar. In propagandistic ventures, however, the systematic association between a people (or country, ideal, etc.) with a negative label creates a prejudice, and as such negative opinions will be formulated. The technique leads to the automatic association between the targeted entity and a negative label; this becomes a substitute for critical thinking and a careful examination of actual facts.

a point rendered even more explicitely in #102:

I’m not saying that Nullius is namecalling, kdk33. I’m saying that namecalling is a verbal abuse. One is against namecalling because it’s a verbal abuse.

does not suffice to stop the litteralist debate about what namecalling means. Insisting on an irrelevant definition is a perfect example of parsomatic.

But from now on, I’ll keep “parsomatic” for rhetorical defense mechanisms akin to the Chewbacca defense:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/24188591829

To make sure I was not tone trolling about the meaning of the expression “verbal abuse”, I suggested “mental abuse” (to keep in the mind framing theme) or “rhetorical abuse”, which I believe is needed, because studying fallacies is not enough to pay due diligence to what I believe is contemporary sophistry.

This is a work in progress.

That you want to argue “yes, but that’s not namecalling” is simply irrelevant to the property and the effect emphasized in the quote about labeling and namecalling above. My criticism applies to both cases. Since you already said that name-calling was not particularly admirable, I believe that labeling a position as tyrannic might not be admirable either.

While I do appreciate your efforts in turning the discussion about myself, what matters here is the use of the word tyranny, i.e. what you’re doing by mentioning that “success word”, to borrow an expression from David Stove. Nothing warrants its use so far, even more so that it introduces a discussion that might not be relevant to Steve Easterbrook’s analysis. This word carries connotations that are so strong that it ought to be neutralized, again to use Stove’s terminology.

Since you agree with me that the word “tyranny” deserves due diligence, and that you need to justify it, I don’t think it’s fair for you to shift that burden on me.

Indeed, Eli, I had a vague idea that this [labor camps] was not rosy. But looking around the various historical implementations tends to show us the potency of the bagage our metaphors are carrying. You can say it’s just a reason to browse Ze Wiki too.

But I also believe that non casual readers should be aware of another kind of bagage, carried by content of the discussions the members of the climate bloglands previously had.

In that case, I believe the notion of re-education got your attention in that comment by Richard Tol at MT’s, just after agreeing with me:

For instance, you may have noticed that I am affronted by the notion of sending Christian fundamentalists to re-education camps.These are deep issues. I think climate policy should simply respect such divisions of opinion. We may use other policies to counter the excesses.

http://init.planet3.org/2010/08/end.html#comment-23553

Deep issues indeed. This expression got a bit carried away. The aggravation did not come from the term, but from the insistence to use it: it’s tough to stay in speaking terms with someone who insists in using a label you told him you do not like.

Anyway. This episode ended OK, I believe. It took time, though, and people involved still remember it. That you are still use the expression shows that these metaphors cut deep.

Sometimes, using them may have some healing effect. Or at least some dedramatization effect. It is a part of your irony kit.