FRAMING AND REFRAMING VIOLENCE

Reframing is powerful and that’s because meaning is what you create and invent about the events, activities, words, people, etc. around you. Outside of your nervous system and mind, nothing has meaning. Meaning is not in things, it is what you attribute to things. That’s why in Neuro-Semantics we constantly say, “You are the meaning-maker.” With your nervous systems and your brain (neurology), you invent symbolic symbols, classify things, and thereby construct meaning systems like language. You look outside to what’s going on and you construct an understanding about it— you give it meaning. And the meaning you give is the neurology you then live (a Neuro-Semantic principle).

Now if meaning does not exist “out there,” if meaning is the ideas, understandings, words, etc. that you use to give significance to things— then you have a lot of leeway in making meaning of things. That’s why nearly everything has multiple possibilities of meaning. What does “failing to achieve a goal in a certain time frame” mean? Some people call it a failure, others call themselves a failure, some see it as meaning “not enough time,” someone else evaluates it as “not enough resources,” another “lack of discipline,” another “a learning what to do next time,” and so on and on it goes. There is a large leeway from negative and limiting meanings to neutral meanings and on to positive meanings. The bottom line is that your meaning constructs is a choice and a skill, and therefore we can view it as a style. How are you as a meaning-maker?

Meaning attribution may have a large leeway, but it is not infinite. You cannot give any meaning for any thing. There are constraints— there are contexts, historical precedents, a matter of fitness, logical reasoning, critical thinking, etc.

When people in democrat governed cities and states (e.g., Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Baltimore, Washington DC, Minneapolis, Kenosha, Pittsburg, etc.) allow protests to become riots without coming down hard on criminal actions and dismiss it as “a summer of love,” “peaceful protests,” etc., and when the President says all you have to do is ask for the National Guard to control the rioters, then there’s no logical, rational way to blame the president for the violence. When Congress failed to pass Senator Tim Scott’s bill for Police Reform, President Trump took it upon himself to sign an executive order for Police Reform— most of what the protesters say they wanted. The executive order provides more governance over any policeman who misuses his or her authority, eliminates chock holds, etc.

While those are some of the actions he took to deal with the violence, Biden, the mayor of Portland, and others try to blame Trump for the violence. But that’s stretching the framing of meaning far beyond the constraints of logic. I give them the hutzpah for trying to push the logic

of reason beyond logic and common sense, but it goes beyond what is possible for framing and reframing. Facts do count as do social and cultural contexts.

To “incite” violence is to either directly encourage people to set fires, throw rocks, refuse to obey the curfew orders, yell insults, shout obscenities, or in the passive mode, to not discourage it by a strong law and order stance. What is fascinating is that three weeks ago at the Democrat National Convention, not a single word was ever mentioned about the riots— now three weeks later they are accusing the President as being the inciting cause of the riots!

Actually there are lots of videos of Democrats calling for people to “get in the face” of Republicans (Maxine Waters) and to take Trump out behind the gym and “I’d beat the hell out of him” (Joe Biden). It was Kamala Harris who applauded L.A. officials for slashing millions from the Police department. It was also the Biden campaign who funded the bail for the rioters in Minnesota. So who is really inciting violence?

Given that the violence is occurring almost exclusively in the Democrat run cities (mayors and governors being Democrats), it strains reason to try to frame the violence being incited by the other party. That doesn’t even make sense. The violence occurs where those in charge tell the police to back off, who forbid the police to do their job, and who do not support the police when something goes wrong. They are quicker to support the rioters than the Peace Officers. If they do arrest rioters, they do not keep them in jail or prosecute them. That essentially gives free rein for them to keep doing what they are doing. Any parent knows that you do not “discipline” a child by stating consequences and then dismissing the consequences. It is being soft on law and order that incites violence by providing no constraint against it.

[This series on Political Thinking represents my thinking, and mine alone. It does not necessarily represent Neuro-Semantics which is a psychological model. L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.]