I would have to concur with catsix: when a speaker of unknown affiliation uses terms like ‘African-American’, I think most people would tend to assume he leans leftward. And that a person who chides such usages would be assumed to lean rightward.
But that doesn’t mean that all name-callers are conservatives. Rude people on both sides of the spectrum do it. If you don’t believe that, you are probably ignoring the instances that don’t denigrate the side you’re on.
Sorry, I should have been more clear – my use of the term “you” in my previous message was not a reference to you specifically, but a reference to “Republican pundits” in general (Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.).
(Note to self: In the future, keep things simple for Dogface 
)
Funny, I see the so-called enlightened liberals here start a thread against me calling me all sorts of names when all I did was be conservative.
Strange, seems you’re completel bass ackwards.
Well, pure anecdotal here…
At work, I sometimes listen to wing-nut radio…Glugger, Pronger, Mike Morbid…and these guys are stunning. If I didn’t hear it myself, I wouldn’t believe. For instance, this morning we’re getting Glugger’s reaction to John Kerry’s speech criticizing Fearless Misleader’s Iraq policy. Rather mildly, from what I heard and read.
But this guys talking about “treason”! Treason! Then this guys calls in ands starts talking about how some of “those people” need to be “in the ground”. Any criticism of the Commander in Chief in time of war was by definition “aid and comfort to the enemy” and hence, treason.
I hadn’t heard shit like that since the Bad Old Days, and the nostalgia is entirely malignant. Deja voodoo
Name-calling? Like comparing a wedgie with an ax murder.
Line up, line up… see if I managed to respond.
John Mace. Any personal attacks on ME would only tend to prove my point. Attack my beliefs and opinions all you want.
blowero. I never mentioned anything about exclusiveness. I merely note that the phenomenon of name-calling and racist rhetoric seems to peak in both instance and variety when conservative whites do it. Not even conservative blacks – or even racist blacks, with whom I know intimately, sadly – match the fervor, imagination or volume of a mad conservative on a roll. Well – unless they’re talking about gays, maybe.
andros. I recognize I may have an inherent bias. That’s why I’ve posted, to explore and confront them.
Mullinator. I might add that freerepublic.com represents ordinary Americans who identify with conservative beliefs and causes, and not politicians and pundits who are coached in coded speech.
JuanitaTech. To the right of the middle of the socio/economic/political spectrum are conservatives of all stripes, from the moderates to the radical fringe. Those on the far-far right are white, typically racist and angry. If I do “see only what I want to see”, it’s because those who speak on that side of the spectrum tend to get my attention.
catsix. Right. Using “tolerant language” is typically the mark of liberals, in my experience. You sound like a moderate or libertarian.
tomndebb. Good God, Tom – Farrakhan is a conservative! Look at his dress (austere), speech (formal), political leanings (anti-welfare and anti-government), anti-gay views (homophobic), anti-white (racist) and belief in separatedness (segregationist). My perspective may be filtered, yeah, but I’m not blind.
The_Raven. I did request ‘restrained’ debate. Please play nice with stick monkey and others.
stick monkey. Ahhhhh, that’s been hours ago. Betcha now I don’t even make the top fifty.
Sqweels. My comments aren’t totally worthless, I hope. Yes, please note I was not talking about all white people or even all conservatives. There is such a thing as self-control and restraint. I hope my response to JuanitaTech answers your question to relevance.
NotMrKnowItAll. You may have something with the propaganda angle. But parroting propaganda doesn’t excuse anyone. Displaced racism is still a form of racism – would you characterized your wife’s grandmother as conservative or not?
Dogface. That’s true about liberals. My experience with conservative whites is that they’ll follow up with “… stupid nigger.”
Lemur866. Sigh. Even when they try to help, they hurt.
rjung. My point exactly. rjung. (Second response.) Do you really need context to recognize those names – “traitors”, “anti-American” and “feminazis” – as conservative rhetoric? – and did you mean to say totalitarianism or did you mean fascism? aside: Please play nice-nice with Dogface.
Tars Tarkas. Geez, thanks much.
DanielWithrow. Are saying that liberals DON’T avoid name-calling, or that they do and it isn’t a virtue?
Apos. That’s pretty much what I believe – even when I don’t agree with it. I believe the wit and style of the name-calling is part of the attraction to a conservative way of thinking.
F. U. Shakespeare. Of course there are rude liberals. I also think the average conservative is a damned sight more verbal and vocal while being rude than liberals.
monty2_2001. Of course, by your own admission you started it.
elucidator. Perhaps… but only if I’m studying the incidence of using wedgies among ax-murderers. Could be an important forensic clue.
I think I see your problem. You define racism as a conservative viewpoint:
So you assume (Ha!) that all racists are conservative. So if I follow your logic correctly, you think ‘racists are rude, racists are conservatives; ergo, conservatives are rude’.
I think that’s called ‘begging the question’.
You also said:
But it only proves your point if the person doing the attacking is a conservative, which is assuming facts not in evidence. So, if I understand correctly, people who ‘insult’ you are assumed by you to be conservatives.
Again, begging the question.
Well, I initially gave you the benefit of the doubt that your filters were unintended, perhaps even unconcious. However, if one defines “conservatism” by mode of dress and having a racist viewpoint, then I’m not sure that your filters are unconscious and I am sure trhat your filters are skewed. Farrakhan is not a political conservative. If you examine his actual (muddy) views on welfare and government, you will find that they are actually quite radical, although a too casual look at his rhetoric can make it appear to resemble that of conservatives. At any rate, one may substitute Sharpton for Farrakhan and my point stands. (Equating racism with conservatism is simply wrong.)
I am not sure why you even promote your thesis. At any given moment, one might possibly find more visible spokespersons of the left or the right who are somewhat more prone to name-calling, but finding that 50.000001% of name-callers are from the right (or left) while 49.999999% of name-callers are from the left (or right) hardly makes a case for one to characterize either group.
Had you asserted that the majority of currently successful, public name-callers happen to be on the right, I might agree with you. The U.S. tilts pretty far to the right, anyway, often identifying centrists as “left wing,” so it is more likely that one will find that a right-wing bigot can find audience. However, if one is discussing the random person on the street, I do not believe that you can make a successful case for name-calling to be the province of any particular political leanings.
CrazyPawn. I noted that namecalling itself tended to be a ‘rude, racist or reactionary’ act – so you’re almost right. I do believe racists have essentially a conservative viewpoint – mostly far right, but definitely tied historically on that end of the American socio-economic-political spectrum. I did not say, all racists are conservative. Witness the excellent parody site, www.blackpeopleloveus.com. But I certainly believe the vast majority of racists choose to be traditionalists, slow to accept social changes, evoke God-given rights to preserve the status quo and tend be fiscally and politically conservative – regardless of ethnicity. But racist white male conservatives are the worst!! Grrr.
tomndebb. I never said Farrakhan was political conservative. But in addition to what I mentioned above, Farrakhan is anti-abortion, anti-drug and pro-school prayer. He deplores gun violence in the black community but has never said anything about gun control. Like any good fiscal conservative he urges thriftness and community investment. He disdains most forms of popular culture, including rap, as being too violent, sensual and anti-family. Farrakhan is a social conservative with many politically conservative views.
With regard to name-calling on behalf of public speakers… that observation, at least in the current political environment, helped form my overall opinion.
As for why I promote this thesis, I formed this opinion, kept it to myself for awhile and decided to see if it might stand up to scrutiny. I may be guilty of “begging the question”, but I have been begging for a dialogue. You are helping me shape, modify and reconsider my ideas. There is nothing more or less sinister than this.
Equating political conservatism and racism would be wrong. Equating racism with social conservatism (I never said political, although I offered some political issues) seems accurate… so far.
(Yawn!) Back to bed…
Remember Newt Gingrich’s advice to Republicans during the 1994 Congressional elections. In a memo from his PAC, he told Republicans to describe all Democrats (no matter who they were or what they had done) as “sick,” “pathetic,” “bizarre,” “twisted” and “traitor.” People talk about the breakdown of civil discourse in this country…
As a fairly liberal guy, I have to say the OP’s vision is very selective.
I see name-calling and racism across the board.
My experience with conservatives is nothing like that at all.
Where the heck do you live?
Askia, this is not meant to be a personal attack but I think you are way off base here. There’s little difference between your position and those that posit all black people are stupid, lazy and ghetto because that’s all they see.
If you don’t understand you’re just giving them more fodder for their racist views, I pity you.
I’m saying that IMO, liberals tend to have better political positions than conservatives. That I should sa this should surprise nobody: I’m pretty liberal on most issues myself, and I wouldn’t be if I didn’t think liberal posiitons were superior to conservative positions on those issues.
However, I see liberals calling people names just as often as I see conservatives indulging in this vice. While our positions are better, our behavior isn’t.
Furthermore, think on this: your position above is an extremely hyperbolic position, so exaggerated that you risk having it dismissed out of hand. When you post something like that, its main effect will be to lower people’s opinions of liberals in general, and cause people espousing liberal positions to be taken less seriously. In other works, you’re causing a small but real harm to your cause by being so over the top.
Restrained, rational, intelligent rhetoric is where it’s at.
Daniel
So exactly what insults do liberals and conservatives hurl at each other? Maybe it is because I consider myself to be pretty conservative but the way I see it the adjectives used by liberals are worse.
In my experience a common view among conservatives is that liberals are naive and think they can resolve problems by throwing money at them and so they want to raise taxes for this.
OTOH, I have seen plenty of liberals saying conservatives are greedy, selfish and plain evil. To me it seems quite a bit worse to be called evil than to be called naive.
I remember a thread quite a long time ago where I said something similar and it was a matter of minutes before the first liberal came in and posted “we think conservatives are evil because they are evil (greedy and selfish)”.
Maybe I’m wrong and others can add to what I just said. What exactly are the insults liberals and conservatives commonly hurl at each other and which are worse?
Actually, I’m socially conservative. I’m so socially conservative that I consider racism to be a raving lunatic innovation. It’s a practice that can’t be more than a couple of centuries old. Scripture essentially denounces it (“in Christ, there is no Greek, no Jew”, or words to that effect). Thus, due to my conservative leanings, I reject racism. Not only that, but liberals like Thomas Jefferson adopted racism, so it must be a liberal doctrine.
It seems to me that Askia is engaging in some kind of religious crusade against “conservatives”, trying to rationalize his urge to indulge in name-calling against them, always working very hard to say that conservatives are all “racists”, especially.
Of course, since liberals are as equally as narrow-minded and bigoted as are conservatives, this is to be expected.
So basically Askia admits that those people who Askia sees using ‘tolerant’ language are automatically assumed to be moderate, libertarian or liberal, but those people who use racist language and insults are automatically assumed to be conservative.
And now Askia wants to know why all conservatives are name calling racists.
I think the problem here is that Askia sees exactly what Askia looks for.
If I’m going to insist on calling everything that’s red a ‘rock’, and nothing that isn’t red a ‘rock’, it seems pretty absurd if I start wondering why all rocks are red.
tomndeb wrote:
Personally, I take issue with Roger Moore’s work in Octopussy rather than for his name-calling.
Actually, most of the black community can be depicted as socially conservative, depending on one’s terms. However, your response presents two separate problems:
You have ignored my substitution of Sharpton for Farrakhan.
You seem to have set up an amorphous definition that allows you to define as “conservative” anyone whom you wish to portray as an evil name-caller. Few humans are rigorously conservative or liberal in all their thoughts and beliefs. Some are, of course, but most people have a continuum of beliefs in which they respond to different situations from different perspectives. Using that definition, we can go through any list of name-callers and point out that this one dresses conservatively, this one dislikes various (progressive) forms of music, this one has restrictive views of acceptable sexual behavior, this one prefers “conservative” fiscal policies, this one follows right wing politics, on so on. Given some time to look over all their opinions and habits, I can probably return with the triumphant declaration that Michael Moore and Al Franken are “conservative” in some manner.
And, as sailor points out, there are a number of people who hold that while both ends of the political spectrum engage in name-calling, the names that the “liberals” use are more hateful. (We actually had an entire run of threads with one poster plaintively trying to portray “liberals” as worse name-callers than “conservatives.”)
I’m afraid I just do not believe that your thesis has legs.
Yeah, yeah. I have no idea why I typed Roger in place of Michael.
(Probably confused Michael’s first name with his first target.)