This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard from the main stream press in a long time. Here’s a cheat sheet for all you race baiting retards:
‘N’ word: Derogatory word used solely because someone is black.
Socialist: Derogatory word based on someone’s economic opinion.
See the difference there? Notice how the same people who call Obama socialist, are also calling Pelosi socialist? Oh wait, now I see I gave you another idea. Socialist is also the new ‘c’ word, isn’t it? How creative of you.
Hey, I think both sides of the aisle can agree on this one!
No. Palin’s not a Socialist.
Can’t be the new “n” word because you don’t get your ass kicked for saying it.
It is akin to the n-word though in that it is an absurdly blunt weapon in people’s vocabulary used indiscriminately and rarely even remotely makes sense. It also illustrates the severe lack of intelligence of those who use it allowing the listener to adjust their rhetoric accordingly.
Yes. The difference is that the “N” word historically has been applied only to persons who actually are entirely or partially of African Negro descent; while the “S” word is routinely applied, here and now, to anyone who is not a hard-right bizcon. The first usage is distasteful; the second is dishonest, in the nature of what S.I. Hayakawa classified as a “snarl word,” void of semantic content and serving no function but expression of the speaker’s emotional hostility.
From “Obama’s Timid Liberalism,” by Michael Lind:
That may be. But it still isn’t remotely connected to race.
Without wanting to show support for MSNBC’s comparison (which I agree is ridiculous), you have to admit that the right have been tarring everyone who’s left of Arlen Specter with the “socialist” label for a good 6 months now.
Crafter_Man is a particularly noticeable offender in this regard.
I’m with RNATB here–the MSNBC comparison is ridiculous, AND the word “socialist” is so overused and wrongly used these days as to be devoid of all semantic context other than as a generic insult.
So no analogies should ever be attempted unless there is a complete correspondence? Then it’s not even an analogy.
It was not an analogy. He was calling ‘socialist’ a code word for the ‘n’ word. Watch the linked video.
Here’s an interesting experiment. Starting with Obama, and working backward, see how far back you can get before you find a Democrat President who wasn’t called “socialist”. I got back to Woodrow Wilson before I stopped Googling.
It’s been a boogeyman word for a long time, apparently.
What I’d like to know is if the “town hellers” consider Bush a socialist, since he’s the one who started the bailouts.
You’re assuming that the town hellers are aware of that fact. Given their stunning displays of ignorance and closemindedness overall, I’d call that highly unlikely.
Well, given that I just saw a clip of Glenn Beck linking the health care reform and other policies Obama wants to implement to reparations, socialist being a code word suddenly isn’t all that absurd.
It’s more akin to calling someone a communist during the McCarty era. It ends all reasonable debate and puts the callee on the defensive. Come to think of it, it’s like calling someone a *racist * up until a few years ago.
Sinaijon: n. one of those wonderful people who thinks that anyone who points out racism is a race-baiter.
To quote the relevant sentence from the commentator, “But what concerns me is when in some of those town hall meetings, including the one that we saw in Missouri recently, where there were jokes made about lynching, etc., you start to wonder whether in fact the word socialist is becoming a code word, whether or not socialist is becoming the new ‘n-word,’ for, frankly, for some angry, upset birthers and others.”
I haven’t seen this happening, and I don’t think it’s the case. When some conservatives get upset they’ll call anything socialist, so it’s not surprising to hear it used as a criticism of health care policies or anything else Obama does. (Or everything else Obama does.) So far it’s been pretty obvious when people make racial remarks about Obama and I don’t think we need to investigate the word socialist to find racial tension there.
The teabaggers don’t care or even know a thing about Obama’s economic policies. If they did, they’d know that, by their standards, Ronald Reagan was an even bigger “socialist” than Obama. These people are way too fucking stupid to actually know what the word means.
What’s driving these teabagger/birther/town hall morons (and it’s all the same morons) is anything but economic policies. That’s just a pretense.
Not so much a code word as a surrogate beef. A pretended beef to avoid having to voice their real beef.
Don’t forget our very own ‘words mean whatever I say they mean even though my cite directly contradicts what I’ve just pulled out of my ass’ Mad Hatter Mswas.
Sure, but it flows both ways. Implying they’re racist is surrogate beef as well. A pretend beef to avoid having actually address valid criticisms.
How is screaming about socialists “valid criticism”?