Rethuglicans, Teabaggers, and Fundies, oh MY!

MacAllister said:

And God Save the Queen.

Click to expand...

Copywrite blocked over here. But I'm assuming it wasn't the Royal Marines playing the national anthem on some important occasion!

The Sex Pistols were a Glam Band. Although my spiky haired chums throw things at me when I start to say that.

Yet it brings us to back to the argument, viz, fascist regime. A pejorative use shurely?

But, since I hate punk, the Sex Pistols were Glam. And the Stranglers aren't punk either. And I'm so far up my own backside I'm starting to hear an echo.

MacAllister said:

Seriously, people -- is this really that hard for some of you, or are you just wanking?

Click to expand...

Please post the list of banned phrases when it becomes available. It would be just like me to use one and offend someone.

I'm just disappointed that you're cracking down after giving us such a fabulous insult in "lib-tard"...



/sarcasm

Macca,

Being a Scottish, Romy Joe I wholeheartedly agree with the fascist regime thing. But I was only having a laugh for Goodness Sake.

As to your other points. I wholly agree. It's a question of manners. Don't say anything you wouldn't say to somebody's face. But Libtard, I've never heard that before and it makes me chuckle. Sorry.

One last exception though. Wanking. Don't know what it means to you, but that image has just put me of dinner.

MacAllister said:

Seriously, people -- is this really that hard for some of you, or are you just wanking?

Click to expand...

Wow, Mac.

Anyway, I think it's fair for you to dismiss my posts as a minority concern. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Seems to me, if I can look up a term in the dictionary, it exists, and the primary definition is not a derogatory one, it's perfectly appropriate for mature discourse.

MacAllister said:

Republicrat looks a lot more like a deliberate portmanteau to convey a specific new meaning - not partisan playground name-calling. Linguistically speaking, then, it's functioning on a different level than "Rethuglican".

Likewise, socialist, liberal, conservative, etc. are specific labels that convey existing world views, not made-up words designed specifically for the function of mockery.

Click to expand...

As probably the most frequent user of republicrat, I thank you for your insightful analysis and fairhanded treatment of the issue.

However, since it's rather provincial, would you prefer I use statist? It's not as precise, I know.

What do "stoners" prefer to call themselves these days? Is there, for instance, a one-issue political party that represents their position?

To put it another way, ones' arguments in P&CE should stand strongly enough on their own that one shouldn't need to use loaded or derogatory language to make a point.

Don said:

As probably the most frequent user of republicrat, I thank you for your insightful analysis and fairhanded treatment of the issue.

However, since it's rather provincial, would you prefer I use statist? It's not as precise, I know.

Click to expand...

Just so you know, I lobbied to get you banned for your use of the former...

But I know you don't mean it as an insult, as much as you do an actual criticism, based on specific issues.

That said, "statist" is close to useless, insofar as you can call anyone a statist that approves of any active involvement of any government in anything. And there's no automatic linkage to a established political parties in "statist," like there is in "republicrat."

On what seems like a good day, I prefer not to label people at all, only their positions on particular issues. Not "you" so-and-so (you statements!!!), but "your position" on such-and-such. And even then, if I can, I'd like to move even farther away from labels and get right to the meat of the matter.

Yes, republicrat is an actual criticism, based on specific issues. I also see your point about statist, which I guess applies equally well to anarchist. Is it time for a rousing chorus of Kumbaya yet?

LaceWing said:

On what seems like a good day, I prefer not to label people at all, only their positions on particular issues. Not "you" so-and-so (you statements!!!), but "your position" on such-and-such. And even then, if I can, I'd like to move even farther away from labels and get right to the meat of the matter.

Click to expand...

Well, it's not always about people you're talking to, sometimes it's about groups being discussed: the democrats, the republicans, the liberals in the Senate, the conservatives on the SCOTUS, etc.

Don might refer to all of these disparate groups as republicrats, of course, but both his catch-all and the specific terms aren't insults or contemptuous, as a matter of course. But "those fundies in Congress" seems loaded with contempt, based on the term alone. So, it's insulting as a matter of course, whether talking to another or using it to label a group.

I saw teabagging mentioned in the thread title and expected something completely different.

robeiae said:

Well, it's not always about people you're talking to, sometimes it's about groups being discussed: the democrats, the republicans, the liberals in the Senate, the conservatives on the SCOTUS, etc.

Don might refer to all of these disparate groups as republicrats, of course, but both his catch-all and the specific terms aren't insults or contemptuous, as a matter of course. But "those fundies in Congress" seems loaded with contempt, based on the term alone. So, it's insulting as a matter of course, whether talking to another or using it to label a group.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think Don is quite contemptuous. Just not insulting.

kuwisdelu said:

Oh, I think Don is quite contemptuous. Just not insulting.

Click to expand...

I don't. I think he's pretty funny--for a geezer.

*smirk*

Fortunately, geezer isn't a poltically loaded word.

Ageist.

MacAllister said:

Hey - I'm dead serious. I'm not dismissing anything. . . . snip . . .

Similarly, Magdalen, that's why there's not going to be any such list of "banned phrases" -- what I'm saying is really pretty simple. I'm seeing a recent upsurge in people here thinking they'll get away with using labels and language in deliberately-offensive ways, either consciously or unconsciously. If you're not a good enough writer to be able to tell that's what you're doing, I'm not sure we can help you.

Click to expand...

See, ya just did! And then I googled this all by myself.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Click to expand...

Well then, I'll say goodbye to my secret love of libelous, callous and funny names for people and groups. I'm sure my snark skills will fill in the gaps.

So anyway, even if I can absolutely prove the Dick to have a played dual roles in the theatre of American Politics I will absolutely, positively no longer refer to him as Darth. K?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=2e7RTJ-zM8OUnQfr45S4DA&ved=0CCAQ9QEwAw

Yeah, Rob, between my last post and yours, I was thinking about just that, group labeling (and singing Kumbaya, wryly).

::

A disadvantage of labels is not just that it's "not nice" -- it's that it pins The Other in a corner. We can get really, really defensive about it, about our groups and our ideologies. (And by labeling ourselves, we volunteer to get pinned in a corner.)

I'm kind of hoping that if we can break out the issues separately, there's good thinking to be revealed.

And how does one do really good thinking at the issues level? I look to academics in the fields psychology, sociology and history. And not so much for their conclusions as for thorough explication of the problems.

MacAllister said:

Hey - I'm dead serious. I'm not dismissing anything. I'm honestly not sure if you're being sarcastic and deliberately disingenuous, or if you really, truly can't see a difference between "liberal" and "libtard" -- it seems really obvious to me, so either you're fucking with us, or it's NOT that transparent to you.

Click to expand...

"Libtard" is quite obvious, because of the "-tard" that lost its "re-". Words such as "commie" are less obvious, because diminutives can express affection as well condescension (see backslashbaby's post, for example). When I arrive at "neo-con" I'm no longer sure. It's really just an abbreviation; I'd have to know usage history to make the call. Obviously, personal impression is out as a compass, for me, since it wouldn't have occurred to me to be an offensive term.

So, yes, the principle is easy to grasp. Words like "libtard" or "rethuglican" are no-brainers, because they contain offensive words. "Teabagger" does not contain anything offensive in itself (unless you're a tea purist who scorns teabags), but anyone familiar with the topic should be able to tell that it's only used by opponents. Still, it's a step down from "libtard". Another step down are diminutives. And then there are abbreviations or quasi-objective labels (such as neo-con).

I rarely talk about politics; my interest in the topic is chiefly linguistic (which - when you look at my post history - should be plausible enough ). I thought I'd reply anyway. But I'm not SPMiller.

Haggis said:

Ageist.

Click to expand...

Not at all. How can I be an ageist when I'm a grandmother? (A grandmother at 42, mind you, but still...)

Heck, I'm officially a geezerette now.

For those who don't realize this, teabagger also has certain sexual connotations. "Teabagging" is a particular sex act. This has been a public service announcement.