Look, I’m up for a good debate about anything, but this socialism/socialist bullshit has got to go.
Unless you are 100% in favor of eliminating Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; privatizing police and fire departments, as well as road commissions; getting rid of the municipal water coming out of your faucet; and replacing your mailbox with a UPS/Fedex box, you’re not allowed to use the word socialist ever again.
It’s a thought terminating cliche. It accomplishes nothing. It’s as creative as comparing your adversary to Hitler.
And please do not try to argue that the above government-provided services aren’t socialist, whereas proposed Obama travesty de-jour is. I’m not going to argue the nuances of what is/isn’t socialist, because there be dragons. Every government is going to provide some kind of service to its citizens, and every type of government shares similar traits with others. Comparing any one to another is as useful as comparing Transformers to GoBots.
Please know that I’m not trying to overrule anybody with a different political view than myself. This isn’t a “please agree with me, or you’re wrong” thread. My interest is in cultivating actual debate without devolving into nonsense.
So please, in the interest of rationality and civility, try to refrain from using the S-word when debating… well, anything. Perhaps, in exchange, we’ll try to stop mentioning how Bush seemed intent on destroying the universe.
As an addendum, if you really feel like the government shouldn’t be providing a specific service, perhaps you could say as much. Simply disagreeing with something because “it’s socialist” seems like a shortcut, like saying you don’t eat Big Macs because “they’re from McDonalds” instead of because “they are loaded with preservatives and made in a factory a thousand miles away” etc.
It inflames the people who don’t know better. It is an effective way to change the debate . It is a tool of those who don’t have the arguments to win the debate.
Actually, that’s what a very loud and obnoxious fan at Progressive Field In Cleveland (who was sitting a few rows behind me) kept yelling at a couple of the Detroit Tigers players during a game I was at a couple weeks ago. It got so you’d flinch every time Carlos Guillen made it to the on-deck circle, because you knew the catcalls would be starting.
“Dir-ty Com-mie!!”
You see, Guillen is apparently from Venezuela, which is the home of Hugo Chavez, which means that Guillen must be a
Dir-ty Com-mie!! Hypo-crito!!"
Occasionally the loudmouth fan would vary his chant.
“Jo-sef Sta-lin!!”
Or even
“Fred-erick En-gels!!”
He was really piling on the abuse in the top of the 9th as Guillen stepped to the plate - and promtly hit a tying two-run homer.
Them Commies are murder on belt-high fastballs down the middle.
Just what I would expect from the move toward socialism: a banning of the word!
Seriously, it would be helpful. But most of the time its used as shorthand for more socialistic, not socialistic in the absolute sense. The word can usually be understood fine when used that way, but some legitimate confusion can arise.
I knew it wouldn’t be long before someone said that.
If someone has legitimate fears that we’re becoming a socialst nation, that should be its own argument. I imagine it would go something like “We’re becoming socialists!” “Why?” “Because of free healthcare!” “But you’re fine with social security/medicare/etc?” “Yes!” “Ok.”
But dragging it out during a separate argument about a specific thing just seems lazy.
I don’t mean to impugn anyone’s belief about real socialism, nor do I of anybody’s belief that Hitler was a not very awesome dude, but it’s generally understood that Nazi comparisons abruptly dismantle debates, and so it’s generally understood that you should try to avoid it. I’m only saying the same should apply to accusations of socialism.
What? No, I’m saying that the government is always going to provide public services using tax dollars, and that doing so is not socialism.
People who cry socialism seem to do so entirely on the basis that the thing in question is a service provided by the government, when the government already does provide several services and people love it. Thus, the only way to rationalize crying socialism is that the person must not want any government services.
They were “socialist” to that degree. Besides the fact that it’s being used as a scare-word, part of the problem is that it’s being used as an argument in itself, as if socialism automatically is a bad thing. In which case, you should be against publicly maintained roads. If such roads don’t bother you, then “it’s socialist!” loses it’s force as an argument, because at that point we are just arguing over how much socialism is desirable.
sigh Fine, I suppose I can get by with saying I’m a revolutionary Marxist. But really, the word I can’t use anymore is such a convenient way to describe myself!
But that kind of is socialism. There’s no reason for it to be a bad thing, and banning the word just makes it dirty somehow. Probably adding to the problem.
I am a socialist, what’s wrong with that? Well, I’m a social democrat (& actually mildly libertarian even for that), but I’d rather be a “socialist” than a “liberal” or “progressive”–concern for society is my aim, not fetishized freedom nor undefined progress.
As a conservative of sorts, I’m in favor of removing the word “socialist”, too. Too many people use it incorrectly. If it was WAS used right most of the time, I still think it would be useful. But it’s not.
And I have no problem with self-description still including the word.
Actually, there are a lot of words I’m in favor of removing for the same reasons. Maybe we should start making a list of “off limits” words that you may use only upon pain of mass shunning.
Low and inside is how you have to pitch to a Commie.
But, yeah, there should be an equivalent to Godwin’s Law that covers commies and socialists. Back in my Army days, if we had munchies or beers, and someone took the last one, he was the rotten Commie. It was just like saying “big poopy head”. Nobody took it serious, it was just a joke.
So, “socialist”, “ironic”.
I’d like to add “conservative” and “Republican” when used as a description.
I don’t mind someone saying “the Republican Party”, but saying “the Repulican viewpoint is x” is pretty out-there… after all, what is a Republican, really? Aren’t they all 1) Right-wing, 2) conservative, 3) red-state, 4) uneducated, 5) Bible-thumpin’ 6) idiots?
Well, while I probably am right-wing, I don’t think I’m conservative, I’m in California now and lived in Washington until recently, I have 2 bachelors in Engineering, I’m an agnostic, and I’m relatively secure in the knowledge that my IQ is over 80.
So I’m of the opinion that both of those terms have lost all meaning and are useless for discussion.
What would I call myself? Here are a few: “Free-Market”, “Liberal”, “Small Government”, “Anti-Spending”, “Economically-Oriented”, “Anti-Special-Interest”, “Anti-Lobbyist”, “Pro-Individual-Responsibility”, “Anti-Entitlement”, and maybe even “libertarian” (though never “Libertarian”). And to some of you I’m sure “jerk-faced idjit” will sound more appropriate, and I can work with that.
