(no subject)
10/10/13 13:11![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsDemocratic Underground, 2002 -- In the eyes of many modern conservatives, the battle between Republicans and Democrats is a battle between the Godly and the Satanic. To call this mindset a rejection of civility is to seriously underestimate the danger it poses. It's a rejection not merely of civility, but of the assumptions about tolerance and equal access that drive our political process….
Modern right-wing rhetoric becomes much less irrational if it's seen as the last gasp of the right's pretense of commitment to political freedom. Rather than self-destructing or imploding, it's quite possible that many conservatives are on the verge of moving from the covert to the overt rejection of this ideal. (emphasis added)
The first opinion piece aside from discussion forum OPs that I ever posted to the Internet was an essay carried by the then-brand-new website, Democratic Underground back in 2002. My piece was about American liberals and moderates hopefully opining (and let me emphasize -- this was eleven years ago.) that the right was “imploding.” As I observed back then, “This often takes place after some spectacularly insane statement from the right, like a Bush administration spokesman claiming that toxic sludge is good for the environment or a right-wing pundit suggesting that we invade France… Many liberals mistakenly believe that the right wing has an emotional investment in the logic of its own claims and, as a result, is due any day now to simply die of embarrassment.”
And that, I think, has been the core of the problem – a naïve refusal by many in politics and the media to focus on the serious agenda underlying all that ridiculous right-wing rhetoric. For three decades these extremists have been dismissed as irrelevant by moderate liberals and tolerated as “useful” by moderate conservatives. Now they have amassed enough influence to set into motion their dream of what amounts to a political monopoly. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are there to short-circuit the power of demographically liberal voters, and the very ability of a presidential administration to implement a law it has passed has come under attack. Merely enacting important legislation with which the right disagrees is presented as an outrageous act, even an impeachable offense.
And yes, the fact that our president is an African American does give a boost to this attack on political diversity. One of the oldest tricks in the racist book is portraying acts considered normal when done by a white man as criminal when done by a black man. The Republican Party, always willing to exploit racism, is happy to use that assumption as leverage.
I don’t know where this will end. Salon has a piece up saying the Republicans are just likely to get even more right wing. How much further can the GOP go to the right without openly declaring themselves the party of racism and religious dominionism and embracing violence as a tactic?
*
Modern right-wing rhetoric becomes much less irrational if it's seen as the last gasp of the right's pretense of commitment to political freedom. Rather than self-destructing or imploding, it's quite possible that many conservatives are on the verge of moving from the covert to the overt rejection of this ideal. (emphasis added)
The first opinion piece aside from discussion forum OPs that I ever posted to the Internet was an essay carried by the then-brand-new website, Democratic Underground back in 2002. My piece was about American liberals and moderates hopefully opining (and let me emphasize -- this was eleven years ago.) that the right was “imploding.” As I observed back then, “This often takes place after some spectacularly insane statement from the right, like a Bush administration spokesman claiming that toxic sludge is good for the environment or a right-wing pundit suggesting that we invade France… Many liberals mistakenly believe that the right wing has an emotional investment in the logic of its own claims and, as a result, is due any day now to simply die of embarrassment.”
And that, I think, has been the core of the problem – a naïve refusal by many in politics and the media to focus on the serious agenda underlying all that ridiculous right-wing rhetoric. For three decades these extremists have been dismissed as irrelevant by moderate liberals and tolerated as “useful” by moderate conservatives. Now they have amassed enough influence to set into motion their dream of what amounts to a political monopoly. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are there to short-circuit the power of demographically liberal voters, and the very ability of a presidential administration to implement a law it has passed has come under attack. Merely enacting important legislation with which the right disagrees is presented as an outrageous act, even an impeachable offense.
And yes, the fact that our president is an African American does give a boost to this attack on political diversity. One of the oldest tricks in the racist book is portraying acts considered normal when done by a white man as criminal when done by a black man. The Republican Party, always willing to exploit racism, is happy to use that assumption as leverage.
I don’t know where this will end. Salon has a piece up saying the Republicans are just likely to get even more right wing. How much further can the GOP go to the right without openly declaring themselves the party of racism and religious dominionism and embracing violence as a tactic?
*
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 20:51 (UTC)The phenomenon outside this forum I brought up is the one whereby some conservatives deliberately or obtusely refer to the party as the "Democrat (sic) Party". The one we've been discussing. You should note, by the way, that I entered this discussion not to berate you for your use of the rhetorical turn, but to attempt to explain it to you clearly. Explanations you have deflected rather than addressed.
As for the links you just put up: One of them is a screened post in the mod thread. As for the other, if you expect me to weed through all of the posts in this community for times when a liberal uses insulting terms of rhetoric for conservatives and to chastise them for it to have any grounds to explain to you why a term is insulting to Democrats, you will be waiting for the end of time because I don't owe you that. The mods do a reasonable job trying to police that and they do not need my help. The reason I pushed on you on your by now repeated expressions of contempt for liberals in your original posts is because I sincerely want to raise the question for you of what you expect to accomplish in a post where you open the discussion with telling roughly half of the country that you think we are contemptible. If you post to an open discussion forum, my first assumption about you is that you desire an open discussion, something that is entirely unlikely if you begin it with such obvious disdain for your fellow citizens. And it frankly becomes a self fulfilling and futile exercise where your contempt is met mostly with contempt in return. Congratulations. You've managed to goad some liberals into treating you with the negativity you assume we all possess for someone with your politics. That must be very satisfying.
As for myself? I may not scour the forum looking for liberals to chide, but I will put my conduct here against just about anyone else's any day. I am by no means perfect, but you will not find examples of me referring to Tea Party Republicans as "Tea Baggers" or "Rethuglicans" or any other term of contempt. I take pains to refer to politicians and parties by their actual names and appropriate titles. For several years, I have made it a point to write my posts with a care and an assumption of other people's intelligence and capacity to discuss complex issues, even though I have posted with much less frequency in the past year due to my perception of a very discouraging tendency of most conversations being depressingly predictable. And in case you have forgotten, I have MORE THAN ONCE taken a notable liberal poster to task for what I have deemed to be very crassly opportunistic posts.
And if that is not good enough for you, I 100% sincerely DO. NOT. CARE.
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 23:04 (UTC)You really haven't explained why it is insulting either. Essentially, "that isn't what they are called" isn't, in its self, an argument. My real name out of this forum is Benjamin Sexy Pants. If, for now on, you call me anything other than that I will be insulted. So please start out each response with "Benjamin Sexy Pants,...". If you don't like that idea, and call me Benjamin instead. Did you just insult me? No, not really. You didn't wan't to call me Sexy Pants, and understandably so. Now, if you called me Benjamin Butt Ugly instead, then you have insulted me. This is of course, is a bit exaggerated. In the case of Democrat Party and Democratic Party, a Republican might not like labeling the their opposition party as the democratic one. It is essentially giving them a bit of compliment every time they say it. Now, if they say DemocRAT Party instead, ya, they just insulted them. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, I don't think I've ever even heard him on the radio, but I looked up a clip on Media Matters where he used the term "Democrat Party." I heard no emphasis, whatsoever, on RAT.
You might not like someones argument as to why they are saying it, however, just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are saying it as purposeful insult.
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 23:11 (UTC)Yes, actually malasadas did. At length.
Apparently you can't muster up an argument against those very good points, so you're pretending they just were never made.
ch: . My real name out of this forum is Benjamin Sexy Pants. If, for now on, you call me anything other than that I will be insulted. So please start out each response with "Benjamin Sexy Pants,...". If you don't like that idea, and call me Benjamin instead. Did you just insult me?
Well, yes, actually, if they are deliberately calling you something you'd rather not be called, and know it, that's an oblique insult. If your last name is truly "Sexy Pants" and you would prefer to be called by your full name, then that is what you should be called.
The fact that some conservatives don't consider the Democratic Party truly "democratic" does not let them off the hook when it comes to using the correct party name. I never considered the "Moral Majority" either truly moral or a truly a majority, but that was its name, so I used it. I don't consider the G.O.P, truly "grand" but I still use the initials that stand for the "Grand Old Party." I don't think the right wing is truly "right," but the correct terminology remains, "right wing." I don't think that that lady named "Belle" who lives downstairs beautiful, but I still use the name she prefers -- which is "Belle."
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 00:07 (UTC)Ummm, I just did argue against it.
Well, yes, actually, if they are deliberately calling you something you'd rather not be called, and know it, that's an oblique insult. If your last name is truly "Sexy Pants" and you would prefer to be called by your full name, then that is what you should be called.
If you are going to speak to me, identify me properly. Don't bother responding unless you start out with "Benjamin Sexy Pants." Otherwise, you are being rude.
The fact that some conservatives don't consider the Democratic Party truly "democratic" does not let them off the hook when it comes to using the correct party name.
I think its more, democratic makes it sound like they are the only democratic party and less that they are not democratic.
I never considered the "Moral Majority" either truly moral or a truly a majority, but that was its name, so I used it.
That's good, but plenty of people called the Moral Majority "neither moral nor a majority."
I don't consider the G.O.P, truly "grand" but I still use the initials that stand for the "Grand Old Party."
I'm sure those in question wouldn't mind calling the Democratic Party D.P. (ignoring the sexual reference). I mean, It isn't like Democrat is essentially different. If it was considered rude by Republican to call the Republican party as GOP, instead of Grand Old Party, I'm sure there would be plenty who would do it anyways. Not to insult, but because they don't think it's Grand, or it's a pain in the ass to say.
And anyways, why do you consider yourself the authority on anything? Its all "I wouldn't do this..." or "I call them this." Not everyone is like you. If I was a Democrat, I wouldn't be offended at Democrat Party. But who cares, what I would do isn't an argument.
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 00:41 (UTC)No, actually you didn't address the points Malasadas made. You ignored them.
ch: If you are going to speak to me, identify me properly. Don't bother responding unless you start out with "Benjamin Sexy Pants." Otherwise, you are being rude.
As soon as you've changed your username to "Benjamin Sexy Pants" I'll certainly refer to you that way when I do refer to you. But I have no intention of using a nickname you've chosen only for me to use.
s: I think its more, democratic makes it sound like they are the only democratic party and less that they are not democratic.
Tough. The proper term is "Democratic Party."
ch: That's good, but plenty of people called the Moral Majority "neither moral nor a majority."
As a name? Not in the media. And I certainly didn't. Even Falwell's critics, as a rule, called the "Moral Majority" the "Moral Majority."
ch: I'm sure those in question wouldn't mind calling the Democratic Party D.P. (ignoring the sexual reference).
Is that a typical reference to the Democratic Party? I haven't seen it, any more than I've seen the Republican Party referred to as the "R.P."
ch: If it was considered rude by Republican to call the Republican party as GOP, instead of Grand Old Party, I'm sure there would be plenty who would do it anyways.
No doubt. That wouldn't make it any less an insult.
chf: And anyways, why do you consider yourself the authority on anything?
I'm not. I'm invoking common and correct usage. The common and correct usage is "Democratic Party." Right wingers who use the term "Democrat Party" do so as a way of denigrating the Democratic Party.
It's interesting to watch the evolution of you and Sandwichwarrior's "arguments" here. It's gone from "There's nothing insulting about saying 'Democrat Party'" to saying, "well, they only DESERVE to be called the 'Democrat Party' and besides, the Republican Party gets insulted a lot, too!"
I guess you're hoping anyone reading this will have lost track of Sandwichwarrior's original feigned confusion in which he pretended not to understand why the term "Democrat Party" is insulting.
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 05:39 (UTC)Sure they did. You just didn't care enough to notice.
Right wingers who use the term "Democrat Party" do so as a way of denigrating the Democratic Party.
You have your own way of displaying your contempt for people you disagree with. But hey, using a noun instead of adjective. How rude is that?
It's interesting to watch the evolution of you and Sandwichwarrior's "arguments" here. It's gone from "There's nothing insulting about saying 'Democrat Party'" to saying, "well, they only DESERVE to be called the 'Democrat Party' and besides, the Republican Party gets insulted a lot, too!"
There is nothing insulting about saying Democrat and I have been consistent since my first comment on it. The rest is just a bunch of bullshit. I have not argued that the Democrat's Party deserved to be called the "Democrat Party" and I certainly didn't argue that "Republican's Party get insulted a lot, too". Perhaps instead of misrepresenting my position, you could just not respond if you don't have any response to it?
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 08:44 (UTC)paft: As a name? Not in the media.
ch: Sure they did. You just didn't care enough to notice.
So now you're just making stuff up. I guess you figured that since the Moral Majority was a force in the '70s or '80s, theres nothing I can cite to show that you're wrong.
But you see, I did care, very much, and I noticed. I noticed to the point of doing a paper on them in college. Had kind of a ringside seat to the rise of the Moral Majority from the University of North Carolina. Bought a good many books on the subject, some of them by people who liked the Moral Majority, some by people who hated the Moral Majority. I still have them.
And those critics referred to the Moral Majority as -- The Moral Majority.
From Perry Deane Young's book, God's Bullies: "The idea for Moral Majority, Inc. itself came from two political operatives in Washington...What the rightists fear is freedom itself. This is suggested in an anthem of a percursor of Moral Majority...a national officer of Moral Majority named Charles Stanley says..."
From A. Bartlett Giamatti's speech at Yale: "A self-proclaimed Moral Majority and its satellite or client groups...The Moral Majority is a cry of exhaustion...
From the President of Georgetown University, Timothy S. Healy: now we have the new righteousness and its prophet 'The Moral Majority.'"
From Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy: "...the Catholic Church in the United States and extremely conservative Christian evangelical groups like The Moral Majority..."
From a book critical about the then-new religious right, Holy Terror by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman: "Moral Majority's reverend Jerry Falwell with his "Old Time Gospel Hour" was not the only stop on the dial..."
From Redemptorama by Carol Flake: "Contemporary groups like Moral Majority, however, who acted as a kind of Chrsitian counterculture..."
From Jerry Falwell: An Unauthorized Profile by Dr. William R. Goodman Jr., and Dr. James J.H. Price: "According to Jerry Falwell, the Moral Majority was born June 6, 1979..."
ch: But hey, using a noun instead of adjective. How rude is that?
It can be pretty rude. Consider the difference between referring to someone as a "Jew boy" and referring to someone as a "Jewish boy."
ch: There is nothing insulting about saying Democrat and I have been consistent since my first comment on it.
Oh, you've been pretty consistent in pretending that the issue is simply the word "Democrat" rather than the denigrating term "Democrat Party."
Seriously, the level of dishonesty in your posts here is pretty staggering. How do you justify it to yourself? Is it along the lines of the "holy lie?" Do you imagine that telling what you fondly imagine to be a "little" fib (Like your claim that critics tended to refer to the Moral Majority as the "immoral minority" in a manner comparable to 21st century conservatives calling the Democratic Party "The Democrat Party.") is in the service of some greater truth?
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 14:52 (UTC)You wanna know the difference? A few thousand years of extreme persecution. This isn't offensive because it's incorrect grammar. Take for instance "A Jew lawyer." Pretty similar to "Democrat Senator," grammatically at least. Now, lets change it to proper grammar, "that lawyer is a Jew" compared to "that Senator is a Democrat." For many people, the former statement is still not nice to say. The latter I would assume wouldn't be offensive to anyone. Sandwichwarrior mentioned a major persecution complex. If Democrats want to start comparing the level of persecution they receive to that suffered by Jews throughout history, well "major" is an understatement by far.
YOU:Oh, you've been pretty consistent in pretending that the issue is simply the word "Democrat" rather than the denigrating term "Democrat Party."
ME:
This is of course, is a bit exaggerated. In the case of Democrat Party and Democratic Party, a Republican might not like labeling the their opposition party as the democratic one.
If I was a Democrat, I wouldn't be offended at Democrat Party.
... many Republican's don't like saying that it's Democratic bill, or idea, or party. Just because it came from the Democratic party, doesn't mean it's democratic
Right Paft. I've obviously been trying to make it out to be about the word Democrat, instead of Democrat Party. I'm absolutely amazed at how try to argue I'm arguing something I'm not. I'm clearly talking about "Democrat Party," and if you don't want to address my points, why bother responding at all?
Like your claim that critics tended to refer to the Moral Majority as the "immoral minority" in a manner comparable to 21st century conservatives calling the Democratic Party "The Democrat Party.")
*rolls eyes*. You got all that from, "plenty of people did call them that." Not that it matter much anyways. You are the one who brought up the Moral Majority. I'm having trouble seeing how it has any bearing on the current discussion at all, as "Immoral Minority" is not the same as "Democrat Party." It would be more similar to "Undemocratic Party," which I think we would both be in agreement that it is a slur, and no, I don't see any groups calling the Democratic Party the Undemocratic Party.
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 18:14 (UTC)Which doesn't change the fact that pretty much every "argument" you've used for the term "Democrat Party" not being offensive could be used for claiming "Jew boy" isn't offensive.
As you know, I cited the term "Moral Majority" as an example of a proper name that some people might consider an inaccurate description. In spite of the fact that most of its critics did not consider Falwell's group either "moral" or a "majority," those critics referred to it as the "Moral Majority." They did not announce that their dislike for the group entitled them to rename it -- as you are claiming about Republicans who "don't like saying that it's Democratic bill, idea or party."
It's interesting to look over these word clouds you keep emitting and attempt to pin down the actual argument. so far, it seems to be: "There's nothing insulting about saying 'Democrat Party' rather than 'Democratic Party' and Republicans are entitled to do this because Democrats don't deserve the adjective 'Democratic' and there's nothing insulting about saying that." Which, of course, makes zero sense.
The only question left is the extent to which you believe your own schtick. The level of obfuscation I see in your posts requires an effort, and that effort strongly implies an awareness that it's needed, so I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
(no subject)
Date: 19/10/13 19:22 (UTC)Not a single argument I used would justify it. Why would someone not want to say Jewish? Why replace it with Jew?
As you know, I cited the term "Moral Majority" as an example of a proper name that some people might consider an inaccurate description.
I get it, but as I'm not as old as you, I can't remember how the media treated them. My guess though, they got called the Christian Right, the Party of Evangelicals, etc. all the time. Look at the Tea Party and all the thing they get called, some not offensive, others are.
"There's nothing insulting about saying 'Democrat Party' rather than 'Democratic Party' and Republicans are entitled to do this because Democrats don't deserve the adjective 'Democratic' and there's nothing insulting about saying that."
I guess I could repeat myself, but I'm fairly sure you posses the intellectual capacity to figure out what I'm saying. Go back, reread.
t effort strongly implies an awareness that it's needed, so I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
Oh thanks Paft!
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/13 01:01 (UTC)"ch: But hey, using a noun instead of adjective. How rude is that?"
Ch: Why would someone not want to say Jewish? Why replace it with Jew?
To insult Jewish people. Just as replacing the word "Democratic" in "Democratic Party" with "Democrat" insults the members of that party.
Ch: I get it, but as I'm not as old as you, I can't remember how the media treated them. My guess though, they got called the Christian Right, the Party of Evangelicals, etc. all the time.
And you base this guess on... What? I mean aside from your silly attempts to somehow justify your claim an insult is not an insult.
Here's a little history lesson -- the Moral Majority was referred to as the "Moral Majority" in books and speeches by its opponents, in news stories, etc. because it was, like the Democratic Party, a formal organization with an established hierarchy and different formalized divisions. I have already posted to you quotes illustrating this. Did you not notice them? Do you imagine many of those highly critical people truly thought the "Moral Majority" was moral?
No, it was not called "the Christian Right" except as part of that larger Christian Right movement, and I never once heard it referred to as "the Party of Evangelicals" because, you see, "Party of Evangelicals" was not its name. As strange as may seem to you, in the era before Rush Limbaugh was a household name, this petty, spiteful business of renaming an organization because you dislike it did not have a lot of traction. Sure, there were individuals who referred to the MM as the "immoral minority" but those were one-off, not especially funny jokes, not a concerted effort to alter the name of an organization against its will.
Ch: Look at the Tea Party and all the thing they get called, some not offensive, others are.
And this means the term "Democrat Party" isn't an insult because.....?
Ch: I guess I could repeat myself,
That would not make your arguments any less silly or any more convincing.
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 23:13 (UTC)Its a matter of record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)).
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 00:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 01:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 05:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 06:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 06:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 14:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 15:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 16:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 16:47 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 18:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 00:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 00:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 23:09 (UTC)More than once I have been persuaded to reevaluate my rhetoric via your critical efforts. I can attest to your sincerity and consistency especially in this area.