According to William Safire, Minnesota Governor Harold Stassen, campaign manager to Republican Wendell Willkie during the 1940 presidential campaign, explained that because the Democratic Party was at that time partly controlled by undemocratic city bosses, “by Hague in New Jersey, Pendergast in Missouri and Kelly-Nash in Chicago, [it] should not be called a ‘Democratic Party.’ It should be called the ‘Democrat Party.’”
You did miss them if you weren’t watching the news reports in the 80s. This has been going on a long time.
Ah. I missed it because it was before I was born.
And it was a campaign line referring to a situation that no longer exists.
– I’m not claiming that the term hasn’t occasionally been used as a slur since the 1940’s. I’m claiming that, as your cite itself says, it’s also used ‘in a non-hostile way’; and also claiming that there are significant numbers of people who don’t know about its use as a slur.
It occurs to me that many of them might not be spending a lot of time listening to conservative commentators.
I wasn’t much, in the 80’s. I got my news from newspapers at the time, and didn’t spend a lot of time on those. And a lot of people now weren’t watching the news in the 80’s, because they weren’t old enough at the time to pay attention; though that wasn’t my reason.
In general, I just roll my eyes at it, but the example in the OP, he was making a point of it, and IMHO, that crosses the line a bit into admitting that they are doing it with the explicit purpose to annoy.
As far as banning, or even moderating, I don’t really agree. It’s not like it is really offensive, it’s either a mistake, in which case, it’s a bit pedantic to point out, or it’s childish, in which case it’s playing into their own game to point it out.
I refer to my own party as “Dems” and sometimes “dems” if I’m feeling particularly lazy. Is that offensive to anyone?
One question though, upthread, someone said that if democrat party were modable, then MAGAs should be too. Isn’t that actually what they call themselves?
I have a number of choice things that I don’t mind calling some of my political opponents, but I do confine them to the pit, to the best of my knowledge and ability.
One last question, is 45 a disparaging name for Trump that should be avoided? I can see it as being slightly offensive in that it is avoiding using the name of the occupant of the white house, but so was the phrase I just used, and I don’t see any reason why that would be either.
Is not knowing that a word is a slur excuse it’s continued used after it’s explained to you it is?
(And, fuck if dopers shouldn’t just be upset because the word, when referring to the American political party, GET’S CAPITALIZED BECAUSE IT’S A PROPER FUCKING NOUN!!!)
It’s an old thing. And in this case that is an indication that it’s not an important thing either. As someone pointed out above, it’s a clue to the type of person you are talking to.
Of course it’s not an excuse after it’s explained. I’m now careful not to abbreviate the word in that fashion. What I’m saying, yet again, is that not everybody’s had the explanation.
I don’t keep careful enough track of everybody’s posts on this board to know in all cases who has had the explanation.
I agree that if somebody’s making a point of it they’re being deliberately annoying. I just don’t jump to conclusions if the rest of the post, and/or other posts I do recall by that poster, don’t lead me to think it’s deliberate.
I don’t think the comparison was to MAGA, but to phrasing such as Trumpanzee, Rethuglicans, Drumpf, repukelicans (terms taken from various posts in this thread, basically from people agreeing that if we’re going to forbid slurs on Democrats we need to also forbid slurs on Republicans. Did I type that right? I was careful.)
Did you mean that it’s not an important thing, or that it is? Because it seems to me that if you’re judging people purely on that basis, even in cases in which it’s not possible to tell whether it was intended as a slur, then you do think that it’s intentional.
It appears to be both an old thing and a new thing. That doesn’t mean that it’s a thing everybody knows about.
You don’t understand what a ‘clue’ is. It’s not conclusive proof.
The person who uses the phrase “Democrat Party” (capitalized or not) at once reveals himself to be an idiot. That’s punishment enough.
Well said.
I don’t get the outrage, but then again, recreational outrage hasn’t ever been my thing.
Much like being called a “nerd” for my proclivity for scholarship in my school years, I just instantly categorize the person that perceives using that “epithet” as somebody whose opinion suddenly matters a little less. If I spent all of my time being outraged because somebody was being an idiot, I would have severe blood pressure problems.
Gotta agree. I LIKE “America-hating fuckstick”, and I don’t intend to stop using it, whether it’s here, on FB, or if I happen to get a job writing copy for the six o’clock news on Channel 7.
Yes, I am a Democrat. I belong to the Democratic Party. Nothing wrong with either.
Some Repubs call it the democrat party, and that annoys the OP.
I’m softening my position slightly. This is my current view (except when it’s obviously a troll attempt):
Yes, same with Teabagger party, Amerika, Sheeple, etc.
I agree with the OP’s proposal, with iiandyiiii’s amendments: all forms of political name-calling, whether “democrat party” or “Rethuglicans” or whatever, should be moderated under the “don’t be a jerk” rule. That stuff is childish and stupid, and should be beneath the dignity of this board.
Once again it has to be pointed out that people that use those terms don’t pretend that no insult is intended.
And I’ll point this out yet again the next time someone tries to make this weak-ass argument.
But that’s an insult against a specific public figure, which is allowed, even outside the Pit. What’s not allowed, under the “don’t be a jerk” rule, is insulting/demeaning other posters outside of the Pit. Thus you can call Trump a pigfucker, but “democrat party” or “Rethuglican party” shouldn’t be allowed, since that’s insulting to many posters. IMO.
To all those that make the “Gee, I had no idea you find this derogatory!” claim: Now that you have been informed will you stop using the term? I don’t think anyone has said anything akin to this in this thread yet.
In the present case, the usage of 'democrat party" was intended as a insult. What is your point? Usually, you can tell when a insult is intended.
Is your point that that term is never innocently used? Of course it is.
That would be my point if I said anything remotely close to this, but since I didn’t, it probably isn’t.
That clear it up for you?