[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics

Yeah, we keep hearing catchphrases like "growing the economy", "preserving freedom", "the values that we stand for", etc. These tend to be repeated over and over to no end, until you get the feeling that these words have lost their meaning. So which is the political slogan, talking-point or soundbite that has annoyed you the most? Here are some suggestions that you may or may not like to pick up from...

[Poll #1992744]

(no subject)

Date: 19/12/14 14:52 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com
Where the hell is the "All of the above" button when you need it!?

(no subject)

Date: 19/12/14 15:01 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com
> Agh!

I see you've fully adopted the South African interjections now. Hey, you don't have to use them while you're back in Europe!

(no subject)

Date: 20/12/14 01:33 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mikeyxw.livejournal.com
Well, he used checkboxes instead of radio buttons, so you can actually check them all.

(no subject)

Date: 19/12/14 15:04 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com
That's one helluva mighty poll! And tough to choose from, too.

Let's just add "The lamestream media" in there.

(no subject)

Date: 19/12/14 19:31 (UTC)
garote: (ancient art of war china)
From: [personal profile] garote
Oh that one gives me chills. Every time I hear it I hallucinate the idiot grin of a former Alaskan governor.

(no subject)

Date: 20/12/14 06:43 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fieryphoenix.livejournal.com
Any witty-as-a-bowling-ball-is-sharp political puns like that (Dumbocrats, Repugs, etc.) are especially grating. Fortunately, I don't hear many of those outside online news comment sections, which I guess begs the question of why I look in the first place.

(no subject)

Date: 20/12/14 07:41 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com
Republicrats.

Yuck.

(no subject)

Date: 19/12/14 15:44 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com
"The world is going to hell in a handbasket"

Luv,
Everybody' grandfather everywhere.

(no subject)

Date: 19/12/14 17:54 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rick-day.livejournal.com
"It's for the children"

That apology never means what it says.

(no subject)

Date: 20/12/14 11:59 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com
that one and "think of the children" always make me want to punch the speaker in their reproductive organs.

(no subject)

Date: 20/12/14 01:38 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mikeyxw.livejournal.com
"I take full responsibility". It wouldn't be annoying except this is always the opposite of what they really mean.

(no subject)

Date: 20/12/14 11:59 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com
Lind of like how "with all due respect" really means "kiss my ass"

(no subject)

Date: 20/12/14 14:12 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mikeyxw.livejournal.com
Yeah, but I'll give that one a pass, every language needs a polite way to tell someone to "kiss my ass"

(no subject)

Date: 20/12/14 15:56 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] johnny9fingers.livejournal.com
It is my favourite phrase when dealing with the wilfully stupid and privileged.

"With greatest respect" is the sop to their opinion of themselves which their egos require.

(no subject)

Date: 21/12/14 06:52 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kylinrouge.livejournal.com
No offense, but
From: [identity profile] montecristo.livejournal.com
People need to talk in short-hand when talking about government and politics because these things are all about quasi-religious, collectivist myth-making. An example of this is the concept of "the common good." The truth is that the nature of value is subjective, individual, and context-dependent. There is no single one-size-fits-all "common good" beyond the modus vivendi offered by things like "The Golden Rule." Nevertheless, everyone thinks they know what everyone means when they invoke "the common good," because it is an abstract label and spells nothing out explicitly. The truth is, no two people have the same exact idea of what such a thing would look like, presuming that it could even be concretely and explicitly defined in the first place. What people do come to know is that it causes fights and arguments when everyone tries to get "too specific" with these floating abstractions, so they evoke images and euphemisms and handy non-specific labels to talk about them, instead of coming to the understanding that, since no two people are going to agree completely on these things, we had all best be damned careful of what we propose to coerce others into doing or accepting, which is what politics is in essence. Collectivism is just one of those primitive superstitions that plague the human race, and people do not want to give up their cherished illusions, especially when these have been deeply integrated into their ways of dealing with life and the world. So, they resort to "canned labels" that everyone can accept because they are sufficiently abstract and non-specific.

Hyper-theorizing platitudes galore!

Date: 21/12/14 16:45 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com
Yet again, I get the feeling that I'm reading some graphomaniac's musings on Mises.org.
From: [identity profile] montecristo.livejournal.com
  1. Privilege
  2. Rape Culture
  3. Patriarchy
  4. Stake-holders
  5. Giving back
  6. Fair Share
  7. Economic Stimulus
  8. Global Leadership
  9. The One Percent/The Ninety-nine Percent
  10. Culture War
  11. Letting the Terrorists Win
  12. The Public Interest
  13. Zero Tolerance
  14. Living Wage
  15. Food Security
  16. National Interest
  17. Universal Healthcare
  18. Responsibility to Protect
  19. Special Relationship/Strategic Partner
  20. Balance Between Freedom and Security
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
— Lewis Carroll
Edited Date: 20/12/14 21:33 (UTC)

Credits & Style Info

Monthly topic:
Post-Truth Politics Revisited

Dailyquote:
"The NATO charter clearly says that any attack on a NATO member shall be treated, by all members, as an attack against all. So that means that, if we attack Greenland, we'll be obligated to go to war against ... ourselves! Gee, that's scary. You really don't want to go to war with the United States. They're insane!"

May 2026

M T W T F S S
     1 23
4567 8910
11 121314 1516 17
1819 2021222324
25262728293031