“Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far,” Warren added. “This is a warning that if you push people hard enough, they lose faith in the ability of their government to make change, lose faith in the ability of the people who are providing the health care to make change, and start to take matters into their own hands in ways that will ultimately be a threat to everyone.”
Violence is the answer people give when the people asking the questions systematically ignore the correct answer for a literal generation.
Violence is the language of the unheard.
Also, a couple points of order:
Insurers are categorically not “providing healthcare”. They’re fucking profiteering middlemen making hay in a domain with inelastic, concrete, largely non-deferrable demand. In the medical industry, “payors” (insurers) are an entirely distinct category of entities from “providers” (doctors).
it’s not dangerous to everyone. It’s only dangerous to medical insurance C-suites.
I swear, Warren has a deeply frustrating habit of getting things 2/3 right, and then just absolutely mangling crucial parts of the thesis.
I theorize this is because she’s had to adapt to code switch to speak a rhetoric specific for wider media coverage. Since the attention span of the general reader is fairly narrow and so many readers demonstrate confusion at perfectly correct terms (or the right wing coverage co-opts things in a very specific pattern) there’s a certain way of looking at language utilized in short, quotable format as a unique tool. In those instances it’s more useful to approach language from the aspect of what is the specific choices being made doing rather than saying. It’s not always correct to believe the person saying it believes what they are saying is strictly literally true. The reasons for an intentional error are many, it could be phrased that way for a personal political reason, to attempt (though not always successfully) to make the quote more legible to someone with only a passing understanding or to achieve some kind of specific desired result in the reception of the audience.
Those who know better usually find it frustrating to interface with but if you are speaking to a large group you are actually speaking to multiple audiences and usually your target is to capture those at the bottom of the engagement curve. As an informed audience member target wise you are far more likely to understand what is being implied and are thus not the ideal target for the potential language tools being employed. In many ways as an audience type you can be safely ignored in favor of outreach to people who are generally not so literate or aware.
Violence is the answer people give when the people asking the questions systematically ignore the correct answer for a literal generation.
Violence is the language of the unheard.
Also, a couple points of order:
I swear, Warren has a deeply frustrating habit of getting things 2/3 right, and then just absolutely mangling crucial parts of the thesis.
I theorize this is because she’s had to adapt to code switch to speak a rhetoric specific for wider media coverage. Since the attention span of the general reader is fairly narrow and so many readers demonstrate confusion at perfectly correct terms (or the right wing coverage co-opts things in a very specific pattern) there’s a certain way of looking at language utilized in short, quotable format as a unique tool. In those instances it’s more useful to approach language from the aspect of what is the specific choices being made doing rather than saying. It’s not always correct to believe the person saying it believes what they are saying is strictly literally true. The reasons for an intentional error are many, it could be phrased that way for a personal political reason, to attempt (though not always successfully) to make the quote more legible to someone with only a passing understanding or to achieve some kind of specific desired result in the reception of the audience.
Those who know better usually find it frustrating to interface with but if you are speaking to a large group you are actually speaking to multiple audiences and usually your target is to capture those at the bottom of the engagement curve. As an informed audience member target wise you are far more likely to understand what is being implied and are thus not the ideal target for the potential language tools being employed. In many ways as an audience type you can be safely ignored in favor of outreach to people who are generally not so literate or aware.
In the absence of justice, people will begin to settle for revenge.
Either can come from the government or the community.