Political insults

Memnoch

Okay,
This has been driving me crazy for some time now and I've finally had enough. What's the story with taking innocuous political or social concepts or theories and attaching some kind of sinister association with them? Forget the merits or demerits of a philosophy and declare it to be some kind of manifest evil that must be stood against at every avenue?

First it was communism.

In the 2008 presidential race the buzzword was Socialism. Obama was shock/horror a socialist. Firstly, he wasn't, but even if he was... so what? Why are Americans so scared of it?

Even the word Liberal, is an insult. I'm a liberal, I always have been, and I'm proud of it. I challenge anyone to pick up the Oxford English dictionary, read the meaning of the word and tell me that they think those are evil principles?

Most recently, a member of our forums has taken to using the word "Regime," as some kind of sinister form of dictatorial government. It's not the Obama administration, it's the Obama Regime.

How can you participate in nuanced political debate when one side of the argument seems to be driven almost entirely by slogans and by a gross and almost wilful misunderstanding of even basic political/social theory/philosophy?

Amerika

Either take it to the Dictionary Forum, or realize these terms and their current political meanings or intent are all part of the US Political environment... Like it or not.

Anyway, Obama seemed to be more of a Marxist than a socialist.

fontanalis

Memnoch wrote: »

Okay,
This has been driving me crazy for some time now and I've finally had enough. What's the story with taking innocuous political or social concepts or theories and attaching some kind of sinister association with them? Forget the merits or demerits of a philosophy and declare it to be some kind of manifest evil that must be stood against at every avenue?

First it was communism.

In the 2008 presidential race the buzzword was Socialism. Obama was shock/horror a socialist. Firstly, he wasn't, but even if he was... so what? Why are Americans so scared of it?

Even the word Liberal, is an insult. I'm a liberal, I always have been, and I'm proud of it. I challenge anyone to pick up the Oxford English dictionary, read the meaning of the word and tell me that they think those are evil principles?

Most recently, a member of our forums has taken to using the word "Regime," as some kind of sinister form of dictatorial government. It's not the Obama administration, it's the Obama Regime.

How can you participate in nuanced political debate when one side of the argument seems to be driven almost entirely by slogans and by a gross and almost wilful misunderstanding of even basic political/social theory/philosophy?

Don't forget in the universe of bumper sticker slogan discourse that socialism and nazi are interchangable.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

Either take it to the Dictionary Forum, or realize these terms and their current political meanings or intent are all part of the US Political environment... Like it or not.

Anyway, Obama seemed to be more of a Marxist than a socialist.

This is not about the dictionary forum.

The fact that these terms are twisted, misrepresented and misunderstood is a central reason behind why there isn't any compromise between the Left and Right in America.

That you don't seem to understand this, speaks volumes.

Memnoch

fontanalis wrote: »

Don't forget in the universe of bumper sticker slogan discourse that socialism and nazi are interchangable.

Yeah, I've seen some of the Glenn Beck segments. It's times like this that I think people should be required to take some sort of basic, general knowledge exam before they are allowed to vote. Sadly, it wouldn't be practically possible.

America really makes me feel sometimes that democracy is broken. But I'm not sure what the alternative is/could be.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, Liberal's greatly out number Conservatives in the field of education.

This says a lot about American Liberalism and American Conservatism.

Memnoch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not going to defend anyone using the word teabagger. It's silly to resort to insults like that. But the word itself is an insult, is it not? It's not some neutral term or philosophy that's being misrepresented somehow. It's like going up to someone and calling them a "c**t". You're obviously insulting them. That's not the same as implying that socialism/liberalism are manifestly evil somehow. I don't see how you can make a comparison.

I'll confess my own ignorance regarding "neocon's." The irony of neoconservatism was that in it's inception it actually espoused a liberal social philosophy and was all for government intervention in both foreign as well as domestic matters to bring greater "justice" and "freedom." The neocons of the modern era ala Bush, Cheney abandoned the social aspects of the philosophy yet clung on to the interventionist foreign policy doctrines. The fact that this ideology was used promote the invasion of afghanasthan and iraq probably cast it in a further negative light. I'll accept your point though that the term itself was poorly understood.

Those on the liberal left in the U.S. are arguably more grossly uninformed (or misinformed) about conservative and libertarian thought than vice versa. The majority of college and university faculty in the U.S. are on the left: Rothman's 1999 survey of faculty in all disciplines showed that just 15 percent of faculty identify themselves as left of centre, while 72 percent self-identify as left of centre. In the same year, Klein and Stern's survey of voting affiliations in humanities and social science departments found a Democrat to Republican ratio of 9 to 1. In sociology, the ratio is 47 Democrats to every Republican.

So far you've only given me one example, i.e. neocons where there has possibly been a demonstrable misunderstanding of a political philosophy. But I think it's safe to say when you compare neoconservatism, to socialism, one is much more widely practised, reported and understood than the other around the world, yet somehow Americans fear the world socialism to the point of turning it into an insult?

Now maybe I'm just like all those left liberal thinkers. My own view of modern conservatism is that it seems to be a philosophy of greed. The whole purpose of conservatism seems to be the maintain the status quo and to keep the divide between the haves and the have nots. And this is what astounds me most about many of the right wing electorate in America. How can they possibly be against concepts such as socialism and liberalism when those very concepts would empower them greatly.

billy the squid

"The Obama regime" is a Rush Limbaugh meme. you wil get this in most political ideologies.

If you are not a white supremacist, white supremasists will call you a red or a commie, was called a commie on this very site for disagreeing with a self proclaimed libertarian. even though I have no desire to be a communist

neocon is some sort of abreviated version of neoconservative, or new concervativism.

both sides will call there aponants fascist.

In my opinion, American fear of socialism is some sort of throwback to the cold war and the "red scare"

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

So far you've only given me one example...

Here's one just today from one of your buds in the topic which disturbed you so much. (The post is a real gem).

fontanalis wrote: »

Not california, but you're used to being wrong being a Tea Partier and all; hopefully in the future I might move there but whatever ridiculous stereotype the tea party has of it at least it's not a haven of creationists, rapturists and anti helath care medicare dependants.
I guess you'll be changing your banner to the GOP (the big spender party) in November.
I was going to ask you to name the actions Obama took but these kind of arguements are like wrestling a pig, you both get dirty but only the pig enjoys it

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please. Neo-con isn't even remotely an insult.

Those on the liberal left in the U.S. are arguably more grossly uninformed (or misinformed) about conservative and libertarian thought than vice versa.

How is that ^^^.....

The majority of college and university faculty in the U.S. are on the left: Rothman's 1999 survey of faculty in all disciplines showed that just 15 percent of faculty identify themselves as right of centre, while 72 percent self-identify as left of centre. In the same year, Klein and Stern's survey of voting affiliations in humanities and social science departments found a Democrat to Republican ratio of 9 to 1. In sociology, the ratio is 47 Democrats to every Republican.

...even remotely relevant to that ^^^?

Left-leaning liberals do not as a rule read or teach the work of conservative and libertarian thinkers—not even the Nobel laureates such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

Really? I don't find that to be the case.

However, the works of left-wing economists, political theorists, and literary critics are taught in spades, so that even the most reluctant conservative student will be compelled to make the acquaintance of a broad array of left-leaning thinkers.

So what? Why are you implying that all acquisition of theoretical political knowledge is somehow contingent upon academia or occurs in an academic environment?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

The irony is that that poster accurately satirises the activites, of Rove, Bush, Cheney and Co quite successfully.

Mjollnir

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, really.

I'm sorry, but citing one, third-rate political cartoon does not somehow, magically, transform the term neo-con into an insult.

I have never claimed that "all acquisition of theoretical political knowledge ... occurs in an academic environment," but I'm quite happy to claim that most of it does.

Fine, but you were very close to it by implication, as you mentioned only an academic environment. Much, if not all, of my political mindset comes from what I've learned since university, not just the years spent at university.

In fact, it seems rather absurd to maintain that one's political viewpoint is set during a tenure of a few years at school, given that one has the rest of one's life in which to consider things not learned there.

Memnoch

Just to add, I did not study politics or any related subject at University and my viewpoints are also based on outside sources.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

freyners

neo-con, conservative, liberal, you call these insults,
this is an insult:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugailEn8U5o

Mjollnir

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's not the NYT, it's and editorial of one person, in the NYT, and no, I don't believe what he's saying.

As for your personal experiences in academia—they're simply that. Your personal experiences.

And? I wasn't arguing any differently; you were.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nah, I'll just go by what I see here, where statements like

"Beyond that, neocon has morphed into an all-purpose insult for anyone who still believes that American power is inextricable from global stability and still thinks the muscular anti-totalitarian U.S. interventionism that brought down Slobodan Milosevic has a place, and still argues, like Christopher Hitchens, that ousting Saddam Hussein put the United States “on the right side of history.”

...simply don't reflect reality.