I am so fucking sick of the way the left and the right talk to each other

[Bryan_Ekers]

@The_Hamster_King

See, it’s just like I said. I objected. So now you get to use the “Why are you so sensitive?” line. Yay. You scored a point. Well done.

I didn’t say anything about your sensitivity. I was just wondering why Democrats would be sensitive to someone saying “The Democrat Party”.

You honestly don’t understand why deliberately calling someone by the wrong name is insulting?

As wrong names go, this one’s degree of wrongness is pretty slight. I honestly don’t get the fuss (for that matter, is there an actual fuss about this?). Of course, the only place I’ve ever seen the phrase “Democrat Party” is on this board, typically coupled with a bemusing description of how insulting and childish it is. I suppose if I listened to Fox News Radio I might be hearing the phrase (and the implied sneer) much more often, if not constantly.

Has the phrase ever been used in the Republican debates, of which I believe this cycle has had eight so far?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Blaster_Master

I largely agree with the OP, though I don’t completely agree with his list (for instance, most uses of Obamacare I’ve seen are neutral, not derisive). I don’t associate with either party, so these sorts of things stick out a lot to me and it’s endlessly frustrating because, while I generally disagree with either party more than I agree, I can’t really discuss the policies of either party without these sorts of things coming up and distracting from the discussion. But worse, it’s just the idea that “we’re right, they’re wrong” or “the other party is out to destroy the country” and not a perspective of “reasonable people can disagree” that is the real cause.

For instance, if I talk to a strong Democrat, he’ll talk about the tax policy of Republicans as obviously throwing the poor and middle class under the bus for the sake of the wealthy and so they’re evil and have no problem destroying the country, but yet I know plenty of Republicans who honestly believe that’s what’s best for the country. Similarly, if I talk to strong Republican about the same thing, it comes down to wealth redistribution and trashing the economy for the sake of maintaining power and they have know problem destroying the country, yet I know plenty of Democrats who honestly believe that their taxation policy is what’s best for the country. Neither of these people is out to destroy the country, they honestly believe that it’s what’s best. Obviously, one or both of them is wrong, but we never actually get to discussing which policy is best because we spend so much time pigeon holing motivations that aren’t there.

We talk about these things a lot. It’s an objective question and there are data by which to evaluate it. Nobody cares. It isn’t namecalling that gets in the way.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

We talk about these things a lot. It’s an objective question and there are data by which to evaluate it. Nobody cares. It isn’t namecalling that gets in the way.

What exactly does name calling add to the conversation? How is it helpful, other than as a means to determine who to ignore?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Lord_Ashtar

What exactly does name calling add to the conversation? How is it helpful, other than as a means to determine who to ignore?

I don’t know. Ask someone who claims that it does add to the conversation or that it is helpful.

[saoirse]

@Simplicio

No one seems to remember why gays should be insulted by being compared to a bundle of sticks, but we still all recognize “fag” as an insult.

Indeed, no one seems to remember what the actual origin of the term is:

To function as the servant of another student in a British public school.

[Da_Mikster]

“Democrat party”… might it be that it’s all too often pronounced “Democrap Party”?

To my thoughts (limited as they may be), the REAL problem isn’t even so much the ‘code’ words themselves, but that those using them have, in a huge number of cases, ceased to actually think.
They don’t think about their own position - except in how to justify it. They don’t consider anyone else’s.
In short they are on autopilot. … with mouth in gear, brain freewheeling in neutral… Yet they are also fully determined to dominate the ‘conversation’…

In the rest of the cases, it’s a deliberate attempt to provoke an emotional response. Just like your average playground bully.

Either way. The best course is usually to ignore the messenger, and his message. At least until you can get HIM behind the monkey bars and pound some sense into him

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@smiling_bandit

Yes, but then why is the Democrats instead of the Democratics?

Because “The Democratics” sounds like they’d be second on the bill to Gladys Knight and the Pips.

[Simplicio]

@saoirse

Indeed, no one seems to remember what the actual origin of the term is:

Look five different places and you’ll find five different explanations of the origin of the term, which was my point. There is no actual origin, or at least, not one that anyone knows.

The etymological dictionary gives several common theories:

“male homosexual,” 1914, Amer.Eng. slang (shortened form fag is from 1921), probably from earlier contemptuous term for “woman” (1590s), especially an old and unpleasant one, in reference to faggot (1) “bundle of sticks,” as something awkward that has to be carried (cf. baggage “worthless woman,” 1590s). It may also be reinforced by Yiddish faygele “homosexual,” lit. “little bird.” It also may have roots in British public school slang fag “a junior who does certain duties for a senior” (1785), with suggestions of “catamite,” from fag (v.). This also was used as a verb.

He [the prefect] used to fag me to blow the chapel organ for him. ["Boy's Own Paper," 1889]

Other obsolete senses of faggot were “man hired into military service simply to fill out the ranks at muster” (1700) and “vote manufactured for party purposes” (1817). The oft-heard statement that male homosexuals were called faggots in reference to their being burned at the stake is an etymological urban legend. Burning was sometimes a punishment meted out to homosexuals in Christian Europe (on the suggestion of the Biblical fate of Sodom and Gomorrah), but in England, where parliament had made homosexuality a capital offense in 1533, hanging was the method prescribed. Any use of faggot in connection with public executions had long become an English historical obscurity by the time the word began to be used for “male homosexual” in 20th century American slang, whereas the contemptuous slang word for “woman” (and the other possible sources or influences listed here) was in active use. It was used in this sense in early 20c. by D.H. Lawrence and James Joyce, among others.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

You are absolutely correct. The Democ-Rat party is much worse in this respect.

Regards,
Shodan

Your post is your cite. :rolleyes:

@FuriousGeorge

Awesome… is there something like Gaudere’s Law for this?

The tactic you see John using here was popularized in Casablanca, and goes back much further.

[gonzomax]

@tnetennba

Because, like “tax and spend,” it’s a basic function of government and only partisans pretend that it’s some devious scheme of the opposition.

It has no right or left slant. When the Dems developed a safety net, it some ways it did redistribute the wealth.
When the Repubs slashed tax rates to the wealthy, they redistributed the wealth.
That is simply what happened. There is no slant in the term. It is an economic term. it will be in every economic book you read.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

I don’t know. Ask someone who claims that it does add to the conversation or that it is helpful.

My point is simply that, even if it is not the primary reason why the two sides can’t communicate, if it doesn’t add anything, then it’s a waste of time. I suspect we agree on this, so I won’t argue with you about it anymore.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@gonzomax

It has no right or left slant. When the Dems developed a safety net, it some ways it did redistribute the wealth.
When the Repubs slashed tax rates to the wealthy, they redistributed the wealth.
That is simply what happened. There is no slant in the term. It is an economic term. it will be in every economic book you read.

If you don’t understand what the OP is complaining about, it’s okay to say so. We all know that you have trouble with some of the bigger words.

[C3]

My aunt posted an article on Facebook the other day that used the phrase, “fascist dictator el presidente.” I suggested she might want to fact-check the contents therein.

[SteveG1]

@Shodan

You are absolutely correct. The Democ-Rat party is much worse in this respect.

Regards,
Shodan

Only a smelly dooky head would say that

[gonzomax]

@Lord_Ashtar

If you don’t understand what the OP is complaining about, it’s okay to say so. We all know that you have trouble with some of the bigger words.

If you can not understand that it is not a slanted term and does not belong on the list, just claim your ignorance and I will accept it.
It is not a meaningless or slanted term. Perhaps there is someone around you who can explain it to you.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@gonzomax

If you can not understand that it is not a slanted term and does not belong on the list, just claim your ignorance and I will accept it.
It is not a meaningless or slanted term. Perhaps there is someone around you who can explain it to you.

The OP means that it is used in a slanted way, ie “It’s not a stimulus package, it’s…wealth redistribution. spit”

I’m surprised that you’re having so much trouble with this.

[gonzomax]

Redistribution of income and wealth - Wikipedia It is an economic term. it can be used . It has no slant. i am sorry this simple fact is beyond you. it is like saying “tax change” is a slanted term.

[John_Mace]

@ElvisL1ves

An even a more discussion-degrading tactic is to inevitably, regardless of topic, dismiss both parties’ actions by drawing false equivalences - they do not both do it equally, and are not equally “bad”, no matter what the self-described above-it-all may habitually claim with their supercilious tut-tutting.

And you know who I’m referring to in addition to the OP.

You’re right. The lefties on this MB are more guilty of this than the Righties. You will note that in my post I specifically referred to this MB, and not to the general public or politicians. That’s something you threw in there thinking it would stick to me, but I didn’t bring up the subject of any sort of equivalence, you did.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@gonzomax

Redistribution of income and wealth - Wikipedia It is an economic term. it can be used . It has no slant. i am sorry this simple fact is beyond you. it is like saying “tax change” is a slanted term.

I can link to the Wikipedia pages for fascist and socialist, if you want. Those words are also on the OP’s list and also have legitimate uses and definitions. That doesn’t change the fact that people willfully misuse them in an attempt to denigrate their opposition.

Mountains erode faster than your ignorance.

[gonzomax]

@Lord_Ashtar

I can link to the Wikipedia pages for fascist and socialist, if you want. Those words are also on the OP’s list and also have legitimate uses and definitions. That doesn’t change the fact that people willfully misuse them in an attempt to denigrate their opposition.

Mountains erode faster than your ignorance.

You are on the way to jerk highway. it is simply an economic term used by economists to describe a factor in economic trends. I suppose you could misuse the term . I would not, but you are argue emotionally. Because your discussions are bankrupt of real economic terms and vapid in understanding, that does not mean I have to accept your paltry knowledge of to give them any merit. I do not.
the ignorance is, as always yours.