Home / Forums / Author Forums / Timothy Snyder / On Tyranny / On Tyranny Lesson 17: Listen for dangerous words

  • Author
    Posts
    • March 5, 2025 at 7:15 pm #37327

      What does the author mean when he writes, “Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary?” (page 99) How can patriotic words be used for treacherous purposes? Why doesn’t Snyder believe that Americans must give up their freedoms in the name of safety? What do you think? How do tyrants use the word extremism? Can you think of examples of US politicians who use patriotic words for treacherous purposes?

    • March 26, 2025 at 5:06 pm #38358

      I think he means that if leadership starts hijacking words like “freedom,” “terrorists,” “extremists,” “fraud,” “traitors,” etc., be mindful, as they are trying to convince you of something for their own benefit. Just as Snyder points out in this chapter, Tesla protestors, Palestinian protestors, and immigrants are all being labelled as both extremists and terrorists. This justifies the current administration circumventing the law and the rights of individuals.

      As soon as you buy into this narrative that it’s okay to expel migrants to El Salvador mega-prisons without due process or a legal hearing, then you are already giving up freedoms in the name of safety because you have already bought into the narrative that everyone being sent there is already guilty of crimes.

      This is just the first group of people to be targeted, but it’s a slippery slope onto other groups that may not be labelled as “criminals” but can be labelled “extremists” by the government. Extremism is such a vague term it can include political opponents, LGBTQ community members, and religious groups.

      In Russia, the LGBTQ community is labelled an “extremist group,” which allows Putin to imprison them for inciting “social and religious hatred.”

      Trump has used the word “extremist” a lot already, especially when talking about Democrats. He labelled President Biden and his administration “extremists.” During the last election he called them “the enemy from within.” He called the DOJ and FBI “extremist.” He contextualized everyone with left-leaning politics as “radical left-wing extremists.”

      Another area where I see a dangerous use of patriotic vocabulary is with DOGE. DOGE is using words like “fraud” and “abuse.” The fraud and abuse is what they say is happening, so it gives them the right to access Americans’ sensitive data and ignore privacy and laws and security protocols. Talk about a situation where Americans “must give up their freedoms for safety.” DOGE talks about “disrupting” and “efficiency” when it really should be called mass layoffs and shutdowns. So I’d be getting angry at the use of this “business double speak” vocabulary too, as it’s being branded as a patriotic undertaking when it really isn’t.

      avataravataravataravataravatar
    • March 27, 2025 at 8:00 am #38365

      Tara you have such an insightful way of answering these questions. You help me see things in ways I would not otherwise see them. Sometimes I think too much with might heart and not enough with my brain and sometimes I just can’t see the forest for the trees. Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Thank you for making this book and the discussion about it a more powerful learning experience.

      I think something that I would add is the impact of using positive words to describe heinous acts or the perpetrators of those acts. What smacks me in the head is when tRump uses the words “patriots and heroes” to describe the criminals who attacked our capital on January 6. By doing this he is exonerating himself for any part in a coup attempt.

      avataravataravataravataravatar
    • March 27, 2025 at 8:39 am #38366

      Snyder captures well the reason that the administration is also targeting both lawyers and academia. Both of those groups are fundamentally averse to patriotic language, to using language in ways that distort the meaning of words. Academia has a long history of protecting speech and the right to hold and articulate controversial views where they are grounded in evidence and scholarship.

      Both the law and academia represent a threat to the administrations efforts to manipulate language to achieve control and remove personal freedom and rights. Sadly, some of these institutions have capitulated, apparently willing to attempt appeasement for economic safety. I believe they will find they have lost both freedom and safety as Snyder points out is the intent and predictable outcome.

      Right now, there are too many politicians willing to use “patriotic words for treacherous purposes” or to provide cover for the administraiton while they do. I take some comfort in those who object.

      Thanks, Tara and Libby, for great responses.

      avataravataravatar
    • March 27, 2025 at 8:52 am #38368

      Along the same lines!

      Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan.bsky.social) 2025-03-27T15:23:37.834Z

      avataravataravataravatar
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.