I am special, no question about it. But I cannot understand why my level of specialness is required to call someone by their name instead of a derogatory nickname.
Your response doesn’t answer that question at all, and, frankly, suggests a certain approval of the name-calling practice. So, please, answer the question, and try to avoid celebrating my specialness as you do so. I realize that’s a difficult challenge, but try.
Why the left alienates voters:
This link was posted in another thread by another poster. I clicked it, read it, and I was quite impressed. I don’t agree with some of the author’s stances, but I think it sheds some needed light on the topic of lessons to be learned.
Some people think name-calling comes with the territory; other don’t. Rush Limbaugh calls Clinton “Slick Willie” almost exclusively. I think nobody came up with a nickname for Kerry because nobody came up with a nickname for Kerry.
They made fun of him in equally disrespectful ways, though - the horse-face thing, his fake metrosexual grooming obsession, his ability to speak French.
So my answer is that some from both sides use derogatory nicknames, and some don’t, and some take cheap shots, and some don’t.
Bricker
I think the person who wrote that letter is either thoroughly confused or is possibly being selective about how she views things. If I understand her (and several other Bush voters) correctly, the reason why they were supposed “hesitant” Bush voters was because of Kerry’s indecisiveness (flip flopping). I find this to be utter fertilizer material. Bush has been a poster boy for flip flopping on several issues, yet he seems to get a free pass by most of these people because he states his views with more fervor than Kerry.
Also, there seems to be the common complaint of feeling “insulted” by the left who feel they are more intelligent. This is about as stellar of an example of hypocrisy as one is going to find considering how the right-leaning folks think they have some monopoly on morality.
I think many of these discussions regarding the why the left didn’t get these so called moderates is wrong headed. I hope the Democrats do in 2008 what the Republicans did this time; play to their base. You can’t expect your base to turn out in force while you play crossdresser games to woo votes from the right. Present your case as strongly and intelligently as you can. Select a candidate that inspires emotion. And leave the goose hunting displays and foreign “democracy tours” to those who do it best.
OK. Good luck with that.
I’ve read both. I still have yet to see any evidence. Saying that it’s obvious isn’t proof. Repeating it over and over isn’t proof. I understand that this is a Republican talking point, and you’ve heard it over and over, but that doesn’t make it true.
You’re not new here, but I can see you still haven’t caught on to something about the SDMB. See, we do demand more than most message boards do. No, it’s not like a doctoral thesis - because we’d demand evidence from peer-review journals and your own research if it was. But we still expect those arguing something to be able to provide evidence. Saying that it’s common sense doesn’t cut it - after all, if it were ‘common sense’, we would agree with you, wouldn’t we?
But I assume that, since you’re spending so much time and energy yelling about how you don’t need to prove your point, you must have tried and failed. That’s cool, we’ve all been there.
Yeah, I agree with Bricker. This “Dubya” and “Shrub” shit is stupid. I’ve probably done it once or twice, but I try to avoid it, and I’ll make sure not to do it in the future. These stupid nicknames don’t add any credibility to our statements, and there’s something to be said for respect and basic civility.
It’s not, though. Surely you’re aware of the difference between anarchy and the agenda pushed by the Democratic Party. “The Left Will Rise” clearly does not represent us Democrats here - at least, that’s not the logical conclusion of the sign.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed how trendy anarchism in general, and anarcho-communism in particular, are at the moment. I’d venture that the sign is pushing the latter view, and if he did indeed vote for Kerry, it was only because Bush is even further from his view.
Needless to say, I don’t support anarcho-communism (in fact, I think it’s an idea that’s idiotic on its face) and the rest of the democrats out there, it’s safe to say, mostly agree with me. The left and the Democratic Party are not synonyms.
These are some of the signs on the OP’s site are much ado about nothing. Some I find totally inoffensive, and merely statement of opinions or feelings of the sign carrier:
A SAD DAY: Nov 2 2004
Stop the attacks on Fallujah
Re-defeat Bush
Hey Bush, You’re Fired
Not My President
Those are not inherently offensive. The below are just matters of political or personal opinion and not inflammatory IMO, even though I disagree with several of them:
The Left Will Rise (the anarchy symbol is just idiocy)
No Blood for Israel (entitled to his opinion, I don’t agree with the root sentiment)
No to War for Capitalist Profit (arguably a very valid concern)
I’m Ashamed to be an American (sad and sorry, but what’s it to you if he is?)
Several were obviously hyperbolic or in bitter jest, and if you choose to take them seriously you’re just being deliberately obtuse:
Bush = Satan
Can We Secede Already?
Yes, I acknowledge that some of those signs are offensive and alienating, but I think the right is guilty of equally offensive and alienating sloganeering. Getting all in a snit about some of these signs is a waste of energy, since it’s all talk and say what you will, much of it is not at all representative of the many left-wing voters I know (and I know a lot). I’m more worried about actual actions, such as 11 states banning civil unions. JMO.
The assertion was that the anarchy sign had nothing to do with the left. The second picture in the link explicitly connected them. No one mentioned Democrats until you.
Of course it’s idiotic. But apparently the anti-Bush protestors in the link don’t think so. And they identify themselves as “left”.
Read the title of the thread. See the connection?
Regards,
Shodan
So, tell me, Shodan, who did Jack Chick vote for?
Which proves what, exactly? That there are some wackjob leftists out there? Of course there are. And there are wackjob right-wingers out there as well.
Yes, the person using the anarchy symbol identifies as a leftist. However, the symbol itself is NOT a leftist symbol.
One of those “big government” anarchists.
Good one. Quite funny.
well, here’s one for you. Jimmy Carter set up the Fedral Dept. of Education. As a cabinet level position, the Sec. of Education was supposed to cure the nations’s ills in education. Now, some 28 years alater, this bloated monster consumes $8.5billion/year, with no appreciable benefits.
Oh, and a little tidbit from Boston: the Boston Schools are finding out that their administrators are abusing their city-issued cellphones! These phones were paid for by the Fedral govet. (a grant from the DOE)-funded by the Al Gore “Universal Connectivity Tax”. School staffers have rung up tHOUSANDS in excess charges (one woman used her phone to call her daughter in the Cirrbean (she was attending medical school down there/
Thanks, Al Gore!
).
Generally speaking, I refer to all people by their names. I take the use of belittling nicknames as a sign of anger. I think it’s interesting to point out that George W. Bush himself is in the habit of making up nicknames for people. His side portrays this not as belittling or as angry, but instead as “regular guy” stuff, but having encountered a few regular guys, it seems to me that this practice is commonly done in a passive-aggressive, bullying, and belittling manner.
Perhaps you could provide a cite to show where George Bush made up a belittling nickname for, say, John Kerry, and used it in public.
And I am not quite sure - are you asserting that referring to Bush with a nickname is an example of a “passive-aggressive, bullying, and belittling manner”? FWIW, I think it is.
Not that I haven’t done the same myself - “Slick Willie” springs to mind.
Regards,
Shodan
I didn’t make such a claim. Bush’s use of nicknames for colleagues, journalists, and for others in personal encounters is in the record. I’ll not bother to provide a cite. I doubt that there is any instance of his using such a nickname for
No.
While it could in theory be passive-aggressive, I think that, if you take the particular use being discussed in this thread, it’s not passive at all. It’s an open expression of anger or disdain. There’s a distinction and it’s one I tried to draw in my earlier post. There are nicknames that are obviously disparaging and “Shrub” is one. The purpose for its use is obvious. Then there’s the kinds of nicknaming that Bush himself is prone to. Taken out of context, they might not be obviously disparaging but they have a bullying effect. The purpose is not to express open disparagement, but to employ a subtler means of intimidating.
Yeah, that’s just like the “Shrub” stuff. Open disparagement. It’s one thing for people like us to use nicknames like that to convey our attitudes. It’s another thing for a person in power to use nicknames in a passive-agressive manner to effectively disarm line of critical questioning or the expression of disagreement in a policy discussion and derail the public discourse.
It can be. And it can be done in a friendly, jocular, “You’re part of the gang,” manner as well.
I assure you that “Shrub” for Mr. Bush is not a kindly, jocular avocation. What’s more interesting is how posters like malkavia, when confronted by this practice, won’t openly condemn it unless absolutely pressed. Her response to me: “Because you’re special, Bricker,” was simply a dodge - she still hasn’t addressed the issue.
Why is that?
Because she, like so many of us, is in awe of you.
Same with Bush. He is such a towering figure, we are reduced to snide remarks. How else to approach a man so entirely flawless that the cannot remember ever making any mistakes (except, perhaps, being too generous in his estimation of others)? We are stunned by his capacity to transform simple factlessness into truth. And his majestic ability to ignore trivial details, minor points that would trouble lesser beings. Such as whether the things he says have any basis in reality, the sort of things carping liberals call “lying”, when it is really only a capacity to judiciously sort which facts to admit into ones awareness, and which can be shunted aside.
His personal judgement, his ability to assess character - these are awesome. Achmed Chalabi, for instance, who had an honored position at his State of the Union Address - who can doubt that here was a patriot, here was a man of principle and character, just the sort of man to lead a nation from brutal authoritarianism into chaos and bloodshed. And “Pooty-poot” Putin? Ah, well, enough, one tires of singing praises, even for a collossus like Himself!
OK, readers, draw your own conclusions.
Fair enough. I have trouble documenting things I pulled out of my ass as well.
Regards,
Shodan