So let's drag this thread back onto the "Republicans have a marginal mindset". There is actually probably enough evidence within this very thread to expand the concept to Libertarians.
No kidding. Reading the original PDF, one of my two main objections is that in the circles I run in, the people who have these persecuted feelings and think Glenn Beck is a prophet who speaks the truth in the face of opposition and feel so marginalized and forced to be politically correct and feel victimized by accusations of racism etc. absolutely do not identify as Republicans. They are not "self-identified conservative Republicans." Last week, a direct quote from a family member who fits this profile almost exactly: "I'm no Republican, and I never have been."
Dude's never voted for a Democrat, either.
That's part of the point of the article, I believe. What it means to be a "Republican" is so far down the drain that we have the GOP catering to a "conservative base" even if the persons don't identify as "Republicans".
The issue is that there are tons and tons of us for whom the GOP doesn't really represent, and neither do the Democrats.
if that's the point of the article, why does it focus almost exclusively on "self-identified conservative Republican voters" when a great many of the people who share these sentiments would self-identify as independents (who the memo categorizes as more liberal and open to Obama and his policies) or libertarians?
They have no intention of leaving the party per se – they still believe
it is the best and only means of opposing Obama and the Democratic Congress
The people I'm talking about don't feel like they've ever been in the party to begin with. I submit that the article is flawed because it deals with "self-identified conservative republicans," who I do not think constitute the entirety of people who have these paranoid sentiments and love for Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.
So let's drag this thread back onto the "Republicans have a marginal mindset". There is actually probably enough evidence within this very thread to expand the concept to Libertarians.
No kidding. Reading the original PDF, one of my two main objections is that in the circles I run in, the people who have these persecuted feelings and think Glenn Beck is a prophet who speaks the truth in the face of opposition and feel so marginalized and forced to be politically correct and feel victimized by accusations of racism etc. absolutely do not identify as Republicans. They are not "self-identified conservative Republicans." Last week, a direct quote from a family member who fits this profile almost exactly: "I'm no Republican, and I never have been."
Dude's never voted for a Democrat, either.
That's part of the point of the article, I believe. What it means to be a "Republican" is so far down the drain that we have the GOP catering to a "conservative base" even if the persons don't identify as "Republicans".
The issue is that there are tons and tons of us for whom the GOP doesn't really represent, and neither do the Democrats.
if that's the point of the article, why does it focus almost exclusively on "self-identified conservative Republican voters" when a great many of the people who share these sentiments would self-identify as independents (who the memo categorizes as more liberal and open to Obama and his policies) or libertarians?
They have no intention of leaving the party per se – they still believe
it is the best and only means of opposing Obama and the Democratic Congress
The people I'm talking about don't feel like they've ever been in the party to begin with. I submit that the article is flawed because it deals with "self-identified conservative republicans," who I do not think constitute the entirety of people who have these paranoid sentiments and love for Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.
The simple answer is that their focus was not on "self-identified conservative independents" (who have probably voted Republican every time) but on those who the study was focused (Republican "basers" and independent, rational conservatives). No one is interested in the wackjobs who are so marginal they take themselves out of the equation.
Basically what I'm saying is I shouldn't be forced to follow laws I disagree with
I'm going to kill you because I believe laws are only there to enforce order, and I don't believe in this order. Order should be natural and if you can't defend yourself from me you don't deserve to live.
I'm obviously not serious.
Also:
Rent is a soldier and he can/will kill you. :P
I hope everyone knows that I was joking
I don't actually believe any of what I just posted
Also, I'm a nice guy I won't kill you. I swear. Honest. PeregrineFalcon can vouch for me
Rent's hardcore. He bites into raw tabasco peppers and skinny dips in frozen ponds for fun. And judging by his anime-ish avatar, he's killed someone named Billy with a spork.
The simple answer is that their focus was not on "self-identified conservative independents" (who have probably voted Republican every time) but on those who the study was focused (Republican "basers" and independent, rational conservatives). No one is interested in the wackjobs who are so marginal they take themselves out of the equation.
Yeah, I get that. I just don't think those people are all that marginal compared to the self identified republican conservatives. I know it's bad to quote from a small sample size, and I'm no sociologist, but the same disenchantment with the GOP that these self-identified republican conservatives have probably led to defectors who no longer consider themselves republicans but still align with this base on just about everything. I'm only saying that the group in question ought to be more broadly defined than it is, because it's not encompassing an, in my estimation, sizable portion of people who share this paranoia.
lenore beadsman on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
That comic is almost as ridiculous as Liberality for All. Almost.
LOL, I remember that. It had cyborg Sean Hannity fighting socialism with G. Gordon Liddy while the liberals at the UN were giving Osama an award for 9/11.
Deebaser on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Basically what I'm saying is I shouldn't be forced to follow laws I disagree with
I'm going to kill you because I believe laws are only there to enforce order, and I don't believe in this order. Order should be natural and if you can't defend yourself from me you don't deserve to live.
I'm obviously not serious.
Also:
Rent is a soldier and he can/will kill you. :P
I hope everyone knows that I was joking
I don't actually believe any of what I just posted
Also, I'm a nice guy I won't kill you. I swear. Honest. PeregrineFalcon can vouch for me
Rent's hardcore. He bites into raw tabasco peppers and skinny dips in frozen ponds for fun.
Uh...yeah...sure
And judging by his anime-ish avatar, he's killed someone named Billy with a spork.
1) You should know what that avatar is from because I totally burned you about it. Fuckin' VC skipping bastard :P
2) You haven't seen Dr. Horrible?! You philistine bastard :P
I think unitedshoes is probably not actually racist, but he soaks up a lot of rhetoric from people who run in those circles. E.g., I can imagine Hannity (or cyber-Hannity) whining about CRA and states' rights, and he picks it up from there without knowing the subtext.
To tie that back onto the topic, I think that "Socialist!" is the new word for "black", like "liberal" was for "Jew".
I finished reading the whole study from the OP and I feel vastly dumber having read the direct quotes in it.
Obama is secretly trying to destroy the country with socialism? REALLY?
They know more about the world because they watch Fox news which they don't consider it part of the main stream media?
Health care is being pushed too fast?
They believe they are arguing with facts and are being called racists for it?
GAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!?
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I think unitedshoes is probably not actually racist, but he soaks up a lot of rhetoric from people who run in those circles. E.g., I can imagine Hannity (or cyber-Hannity) whining about CRA and states' rights, and he picks it up from there without knowing the subtext.
To tie that back onto the topic, I think that "Socialist!" is the new word for "black", like "liberal" was for "Jew".
I am just happy that every time my conservative friend hears Republican talking heads decrying Obama's "socialist/communist" tendencies he is automatically subbing the phrase "socialist/communist" with the actual meaning, "black," and he drifts further and further away from the party.
I think unitedshoes is probably not actually racist, but he soaks up a lot of rhetoric from people who run in those circles. E.g., I can imagine Hannity (or cyber-Hannity) whining about CRA and states' rights, and he picks it up from there without knowing the subtext.
To tie that back onto the topic, I think that "Socialist!" is the new word for "black", like "liberal" was for "Jew".
Can we please stop with the race (racism?) baiting? Not everyone you disagree with has to be a racist.
I think unitedshoes is probably not actually racist, but he soaks up a lot of rhetoric from people who run in those circles. E.g., I can imagine Hannity (or cyber-Hannity) whining about CRA and states' rights, and he picks it up from there without knowing the subtext.
To tie that back onto the topic, I think that "Socialist!" is the new word for "black", like "liberal" was for "Jew".
Can we please stop with the race (racism?) baiting? Not everyone you disagree with has to be a racist.
Yeah, racial dogwhistles don't exist, and there's no racism if I don't see it. Intent means more than impact, you guys! If a person of color says something sounds racist, ignore her or him. They're probably just making it up because they disagree with it.
maybe "white populist" would be a better term to make people who follow this line of logic more comfortable. haha just kidding.
I think unitedshoes is probably not actually racist, but he soaks up a lot of rhetoric from people who run in those circles. E.g., I can imagine Hannity (or cyber-Hannity) whining about CRA and states' rights, and he picks it up from there without knowing the subtext.
To tie that back onto the topic, I think that "Socialist!" is the new word for "black", like "liberal" was for "Jew".
Can we please stop with the race (racism?) baiting? Not everyone you disagree with has to be a racist.
Truth, just because 3 of the generally misinformed tea-partiers have overtly racist signs does not mean the thousands of generally misinformed tea-partiers are racists.
I think unitedshoes is probably not actually racist, but he soaks up a lot of rhetoric from people who run in those circles. E.g., I can imagine Hannity (or cyber-Hannity) whining about CRA and states' rights, and he picks it up from there without knowing the subtext.
To tie that back onto the topic, I think that "Socialist!" is the new word for "black", like "liberal" was for "Jew".
Can we please stop with the race (racism?) baiting? Not everyone you disagree with has to be a racist.
Yeah, racial dogwhistles don't exist, and there's no racism if I don't see it. Intent means more than impact, you guys! If a person of color says something sounds racist, ignore her or him. They're probably just making it up because they disagree with it.
maybe "white populist" would be a better term to make people more comfortable.
Are you going to respond to what I said, or just fill up space?
If you have an instance of racism to report, say it. Saying that 'socialist' is now the new 'black' is about as dumb as when 'hates america' and 'supports terrorism' meant 'liberal'.
Are you going to respond to what I said, or just fill up space?
If you have an instance of racism to report, say it. Saying that 'socialist' is now the new 'black' is about as dumb as when 'hates america' and 'supports terrorism' meant 'liberal'.
I'm with SageinaRage.
Republicans have been bitching and blathering about "socializm" since FDR.
You could say that actual racists are gravitating towards the more-palatable term "socialism" because they need some slur they can throw around, but that's different than the claim that "socialism" is just a proxy for "black." It's not, and the real dynamics are much more complicated than that.
Are you going to respond to what I said, or just fill up space?
If you have an instance of racism to report, say it. Saying that 'socialist' is now the new 'black' is about as dumb as when 'hates america' and 'supports terrorism' meant 'liberal'.
Saying things like "Not everyone who disagrees with you has to be racist" has the effect of being dismissive to instances of racism. There are code words and dogwhistles, and I think it's a fair point to say that "socialist" has become one of them.
Here's Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy for you, on the development of these code words and dogwhistles (warning: words that aren't allowed on PA [for good reason] are in that quote).
And I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you think that at some point in media discourse "hates america" and "supports terrorism" did mean "liberal?" Because if so I'm not sure what your objection to saying "socialist" is code for "black" other than it's a banal thing to say because everybody already agrees.
Are you going to respond to what I said, or just fill up space?
If you have an instance of racism to report, say it. Saying that 'socialist' is now the new 'black' is about as dumb as when 'hates america' and 'supports terrorism' meant 'liberal'.
I'm with SageinaRage.
Republicans have been bitching and blathering about "socializm" since FDR.
You could say that actual racists are gravitating towards the more-palatable term "socialism" because they need some slur they can throw around, but that's different than the claim that "socialism" is just a proxy for "black." It's not, and the real dynamics are much more complicated than that.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
temple wulf said
To tie that back onto the topic, I think that "Socialist!" is the new word for "black", like "liberal" was for "Jew".
I guess I'd insert a "becoming" after that "is."
lenore beadsman on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
If you have an instance of racism to report, say it. Saying that 'socialist' is now the new 'black' is about as dumb as when 'hates america' and 'supports terrorism' meant 'liberal'.
Um they did. This was the overt intention of the phrases - to imply that liberals supported terrorism and hated America.
Are you going to respond to what I said, or just fill up space?
If you have an instance of racism to report, say it. Saying that 'socialist' is now the new 'black' is about as dumb as when 'hates america' and 'supports terrorism' meant 'liberal'.
Saying things like "Not everyone who disagrees with you has to be racist" has the effect of being dismissive to instances of racism.
Horse shit. Calling people who criticize (even incorrectly) the administration's economic policy "racists" has the effect of divisive polarization, and I've seen it happen multiple times on this forum. Call a spade a spade when someone's being racist, but if someone says "I'm worried about the government controlling healthcare", that does not make them a racist.
Are you going to respond to what I said, or just fill up space?
If you have an instance of racism to report, say it. Saying that 'socialist' is now the new 'black' is about as dumb as when 'hates america' and 'supports terrorism' meant 'liberal'.
Saying things like "Not everyone who disagrees with you has to be racist" has the effect of being dismissive to instances of racism. There are code words and dogwhistles, and I think it's a fair point to say that "socialist" has become one of them.
Here's Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy for you, on the development of these code words and dogwhistles (warning: words that aren't allowed on PA [for good reason] are in that quote).
And I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you think that at some point in media discourse "hates america" and "supports terrorism" did mean "liberal?" Because if so I'm not sure what your objection to saying "socialist" is code for "black" other than it's a banal thing to say because everybody already agrees.
The existence of code words does not make this one of them. 'Everybody already agrees' is also not evidence.
To tie that back onto the topic, I think that "Socialist!" is the new word for "black", like "liberal" was for "Jew".
I guess I'd insert a "becoming" after that "is."
That's different.
Socialism isn't a new word. As I said, Republicans bitched about FDR's socialism. It's a long-standing slur used by Republicans and has no historic racial connotation.
You're saying that socialism is the new word for "black." That's not true. It's not even true for the subset of Republicans who are actual racists and use the word "socialist" to describe Obama. They're not using the word to mean black either.
And while you can argue that such racists are seizing on the word in lieu of expressing their real reason underlying their resentment of Obama, I'm not sure it's "in lieu," as the racist and anti-socialist demographics probably line up a lot on Venn diagrams.
Frankly, this whole line of debate strikes me as an attempt to silence opposition to Obama. I think that opposition is incredibly stupid. I don't think "socialist" should be a slur, and most of that opposition ignores the fact that Obama isn't even that socialist. But you cannot just declare that anyone who calls Obama a "socialist" actually means he's a "n——." That's like saying anyone who criticizes Islam is an "Islamophobe bigot." It's conversational censorship and it will backfire.
Edit: regarding Atwater, what he was saying was actually more complex than you're making it out. And pretty interesting. I actually interpret that as him justifying his strategy because it causes racism to become more abstract, less conscious and, thus, less harmful.
If you have an instance of racism to report, say it. Saying that 'socialist' is now the new 'black' is about as dumb as when 'hates america' and 'supports terrorism' meant 'liberal'.
Um they did. This was the overt intention of the phrases - to imply that liberals supported terrorism and hated America.
I'm saying that republicans meant for that connection to take place, even though in the minds of most rational people, it didn't happen. The same thing will happen with this socialism->black connection. Yeah, you'll try to paint republicans with it, and then you'll look dumb when people see through it.
Socialism is not a word with a historical racial connotation, and it's not new to the political lexicon. Nobody has shown ANY EVIDENCE here that it's being used racially.
HAVING A BLACK PRESIDENT DOESN'T MAKE ALL CRITICISM RACISM. NOT EVEN DUMB CRITICISM.
Are you going to respond to what I said, or just fill up space?
If you have an instance of racism to report, say it. Saying that 'socialist' is now the new 'black' is about as dumb as when 'hates america' and 'supports terrorism' meant 'liberal'.
Saying things like "Not everyone who disagrees with you has to be racist" has the effect of being dismissive to instances of racism. There are code words and dogwhistles, and I think it's a fair point to say that "socialist" has become one of them.
Here's Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy for you, on the development of these code words and dogwhistles (warning: words that aren't allowed on PA [for good reason] are in that quote).
And I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you think that at some point in media discourse "hates america" and "supports terrorism" did mean "liberal?" Because if so I'm not sure what your objection to saying "socialist" is code for "black" other than it's a banal thing to say because everybody already agrees.
The existence of code words does not make this one of them. 'Everybody already agrees' is also not evidence.
Clearly. Most people on this forum don't agree.
I think the authority rests with people who aren't me, necessarily, to determine whether "socialist" is a code word. I think it is in this context. I also think that in general it is better to err on the side of "it is a code word and there are myriad other words in the English language I could use to convey this" rather than "whatever I don't care if it's offensive Imma say it anyway."
I think the authority rests with people who aren't me, necessarily, to determine whether "socialist" is a code word. I think it is in this context. I also think that in general it is better to err on the side of "it is a code word and there are myriad other words in the English language I could use to convey this" rather than "whatever I don't care if it's offensive Imma say it anyway."
What word better conveys the meaning of 'socialism'? First you have to convince me that they're not actually complaining about socialism. Which, considering he's pushing some ideas that are, actually, socialism, you're going to have a tough time of.
And, you err on the side of attacking someone personally rather than on their ideas and opinions?
SageinaRage on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
If you have an instance of racism to report, say it. Saying that 'socialist' is now the new 'black' is about as dumb as when 'hates america' and 'supports terrorism' meant 'liberal'.
Um they did. This was the overt intention of the phrases - to imply that liberals supported terrorism and hated America.
I'm saying that republicans meant for that connection to take place, even though in the minds of most rational people, it didn't happen. The same thing will happen with this socialism->black connection. Yeah, you'll try to paint republicans with it, and then you'll look dumb when people see through it.
Socialism is not a word with a historical racial connotation, and it's not new to the political lexicon. Nobody has shown ANY EVIDENCE here that it's being used racially.
HAVING A BLACK PRESIDENT DOESN'T MAKE ALL CRITICISM RACISM. NOT EVEN DUMB CRITICISM.
"Socialist" is a word with historical racial connotations, but it used to refer to Jews.
I'm not really sure about the theory of it being code for "black" now. I am more inclined to believe that it's just being used as a rallying cry out of ignorance and pique.
Even the die-hard racists I've talked to seem to regard Obama as somehow different than the "black" that they know and hate. In a lot of ways the guy is really regarded as post-racial, even by these ignorant fuckheads. I've heard the same stupid racist/ stereotypical tropes applied to every other black public figure, but not to Obama.
This isn't to say that they like him. Ironically, they seem to hate Obama even more than they would hate a President Marion Barry - maybe because he so clearly brings the lie to their racist worldview.
Irond Will on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Socialism is by no means always a code word, although I think it often is. My alarm bells ring whenever I hear cries of "socialism!" coming from someone who does not seem to have any recognizable political beliefs.
I think the authority rests with people who aren't me, necessarily, to determine whether "socialist" is a code word. I think it is in this context. I also think that in general it is better to err on the side of "it is a code word and there are myriad other words in the English language I could use to convey this" rather than "whatever I don't care if it's offensive Imma say it anyway."
What word better conveys the meaning of 'socialism'? First you have to convince me that they're not actually complaining about socialism. Which, considering he's pushing some ideas that are, actually, socialism, you're going to have a tough time of.
And, you err on the side of attacking someone personally rather than on their ideas and opinions?
Well, whether "socialism" is functioning as a code word or not has a lot to do with who the speaker is and how it's received. In general if Rush Limbaugh says that Obama is a socialist, given his history of racist speech, I'm not going to think he's making a substantive critique of policy. If someone has a problem with what they perceive as an inappropriate distribution of wealth, then they can say that. If someone has a problem with the income tax code, they can say that. But if all a person has to say is "Socialist!" then I don't feel a responsibility to listen very closely.
I don't know what you mean by your last question. Not using commonly used dogwhistles isn't "attacking someone personally."
In general I would say my position is better stated by Ta-Nehisi Coates:
It's quite wrong to dismiss the Tea Parties as racist cabals. But when protesters are toting signs like this, and the movement's interlocutors are on national TV claiming that the president of the United States, who's [sic] mother was white, is "a racist" with a "deep-seated hatred of the white culture," the specter of white populism hovers.
Earlier in the article he talks about white populism:
White populism is Ronald Reagan fighting for a tax exemption on behalf Bob Jones University, despite a school-wide ban on interracial dating. White populism is John McCain standing for the Confederate flag in South Carolina while he still could win in 2000. (Props to McCain for reversing field.) White populism is Mike Huckabee, eight years later, insisting, in the same state, that ""if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole; that's what we'd do."
White populism isn't simply yelling"You Lie!" at a black biracial president, it's yelling "You Lie!" at Strom Thurmond's 78-year old black biracial daughter. White populism is Trent Lott insisting that his state was proud of supporting segregationists and that had they prevailed electorally, "we wouldn't have all these problems over the years." White populism is The Ron Paul Political Report asserting that New York City should be named "Welfaria" or "Lazyopolis," predicting an oncoming race war, and asserting that, in the wake of the Rodney King riots, order was restored "when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began."
I think the authority rests with people who aren't me, necessarily, to determine whether "socialist" is a code word. I think it is in this context. I also think that in general it is better to err on the side of "it is a code word and there are myriad other words in the English language I could use to convey this" rather than "whatever I don't care if it's offensive Imma say it anyway."
What word better conveys the meaning of 'socialism'? First you have to convince me that they're not actually complaining about socialism. Which, considering he's pushing some ideas that are, actually, socialism, you're going to have a tough time of.
And, you err on the side of attacking someone personally rather than on their ideas and opinions?
Well, whether "socialism" is functioning as a code word or not has a lot to do with who the speaker is and how it's received. In general if Rush Limbaugh says that Obama is a socialist, given his history of racist speech, I'm not going to think he's making a substantive critique of policy. If someone has a problem with what they perceive as an inappropriate distribution of wealth, then they can say that. If someone has a problem with the income tax code, they can say that. But if all a person has to say is "Socialist!" then I don't feel a responsibility to listen very closely.
I don't know what you mean by your last question. Not using commonly used dogwhistles isn't "attacking someone personally."
I think that it's abundantly clear that "socialist" just means anyone who doesn't jerk off to Glen Beck.
These people whose mouths are moving certainly don't have any idea what they mean. I wouldn't go as far as to give them credit for coming up with a new way to hate on minorities.
I think the authority rests with people who aren't me, necessarily, to determine whether "socialist" is a code word. I think it is in this context. I also think that in general it is better to err on the side of "it is a code word and there are myriad other words in the English language I could use to convey this" rather than "whatever I don't care if it's offensive Imma say it anyway."
What word better conveys the meaning of 'socialism'? First you have to convince me that they're not actually complaining about socialism. Which, considering he's pushing some ideas that are, actually, socialism, you're going to have a tough time of.
And, you err on the side of attacking someone personally rather than on their ideas and opinions?
Well, whether "socialism" is functioning as a code word or not has a lot to do with who the speaker is and how it's received. In general if Rush Limbaugh says that Obama is a socialist, given his history of racist speech, I'm not going to think he's making a substantive critique of policy. If someone has a problem with what they perceive as an inappropriate distribution of wealth, then they can say that. If someone has a problem with the income tax code, they can say that. But if all a person has to say is "Socialist!" then I don't feel a responsibility to listen very closely.
I don't know what you mean by your last question. Not using commonly used dogwhistles isn't "attacking someone personally."
It's attacking someone personally when you don't even bother to find out what they actually think, you just automatically assume they're racist. And please stop trying to use repetition to make it sink in, it's still not a 'commonly used dogwhistle', no matter how many times you type it. You're not applying for a job at fox news here.
Socialism is by no means always a code word, although I think it often is. My alarm bells ring whenever I hear cries of "socialism!" coming from someone who does not seem to have any recognizable political beliefs.
Do you think the mobs of idiots opposing FDR's New Deal yelling "socialism" should have sent off alarm bells?
The fact that a person does not have a coherent or honest reason for yelling a political slur does not mean the slur functions as a code word. "Rallying cry" is a better term.
Socialism is by no means always a code word, although I think it often is. My alarm bells ring whenever I hear cries of "socialism!" coming from someone who does not seem to have any recognizable political beliefs.
Do you think the mobs of idiots opposing FDR's New Deal yelling "socialism" should have sent off alarm bells?
The fact that a person does not have a coherent or honest reason for yelling a political slur does not mean the slur functions as a code word. "Rallying cry" is a better term.
"Socialism" is code for "I don't know what the word socialism actually means."
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Socialism is by no means always a code word, although I think it often is. My alarm bells ring whenever I hear cries of "socialism!" coming from someone who does not seem to have any recognizable political beliefs.
Do you think the mobs of idiots opposing FDR's New Deal yelling "socialism" should have sent off alarm bells?
The fact that a person does not have a coherent or honest reason for yelling a political slur does not mean the slur functions as a code word. "Rallying cry" is a better term.
"Socialism" is code for "I don't know what the word socialism actually means."
Socialism is by no means always a code word, although I think it often is. My alarm bells ring whenever I hear cries of "socialism!" coming from someone who does not seem to have any recognizable political beliefs.
Do you think the mobs of idiots opposing FDR's New Deal yelling "socialism" should have sent off alarm bells?
The fact that a person does not have a coherent or honest reason for yelling a political slur does not mean the slur functions as a code word. "Rallying cry" is a better term.
I'd say that in FDR's day, crying socialism made more sense because socialism was actually a viable force in American politics. At the time it seemed the country could have easily tipped either way into socialism or fascism. Nowdays this notion is pretty laughable.
"Socialist" is certainly used by a broad spectrum of people who have seized on it as a surface reason for their incoherent rage. For many of these people, this incoherent rage is no doubt racist in nature; for others, it's not. I recognize there is a fairly diverse range of motivations for these populist conservatives, even if the murkiness of their rhetoric disguises this fact.
Socialism is by no means always a code word, although I think it often is. My alarm bells ring whenever I hear cries of "socialism!" coming from someone who does not seem to have any recognizable political beliefs.
Do you think the mobs of idiots opposing FDR's New Deal yelling "socialism" should have sent off alarm bells?
The fact that a person does not have a coherent or honest reason for yelling a political slur does not mean the slur functions as a code word. "Rallying cry" is a better term.
"Socialism" is code for "I don't know what the word socialism actually means."
You can't see it without looking at the code, but I actually limed that a second time.
Socialism, IMO, is a code for "not one of us," which may or may not also mean "black" depending on the person. As several people have pointed out, to many in the Republican base GOP-brand Free Market Capitalism(TM) has taken on the weight of religion. "Socialist" nowadays practically means "unbeliever."
You can't see it without looking at the code, but I actually limed that a second time.
Socialism, IMO, is a code for "not one of us," which may or may not also mean "black" depending on the person. As several people have pointed out, to many in the Republican base GOP-brand Free Market Capitalism(TM) has taken on the weight of religion. "Socialist" nowadays practically means "unbeliever."
Call me an elitist if you have to, but somehow I get the feeling a lot of the poorer conservative populists aren't being driven by their unfailing devotion to the free market. In fact a lot of Glenn Beck's rhetoric is thoroughly anti-corporation.
Edit: I am aware that the bailouts weren't exactly a stunning example of the free market in action. But since "free market" really ends up meaning "monopolies and corporatism" I don't see why that would be a problem here.
Posts
if that's the point of the article, why does it focus almost exclusively on "self-identified conservative Republican voters" when a great many of the people who share these sentiments would self-identify as independents (who the memo categorizes as more liberal and open to Obama and his policies) or libertarians?
The people I'm talking about don't feel like they've ever been in the party to begin with. I submit that the article is flawed because it deals with "self-identified conservative republicans," who I do not think constitute the entirety of people who have these paranoid sentiments and love for Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.
The simple answer is that their focus was not on "self-identified conservative independents" (who have probably voted Republican every time) but on those who the study was focused (Republican "basers" and independent, rational conservatives). No one is interested in the wackjobs who are so marginal they take themselves out of the equation.
Rent's hardcore. He bites into raw tabasco peppers and skinny dips in frozen ponds for fun. And judging by his anime-ish avatar, he's killed someone named Billy with a spork.
Yeah, I get that. I just don't think those people are all that marginal compared to the self identified republican conservatives. I know it's bad to quote from a small sample size, and I'm no sociologist, but the same disenchantment with the GOP that these self-identified republican conservatives have probably led to defectors who no longer consider themselves republicans but still align with this base on just about everything. I'm only saying that the group in question ought to be more broadly defined than it is, because it's not encompassing an, in my estimation, sizable portion of people who share this paranoia.
LOL, I remember that. It had cyborg Sean Hannity fighting socialism with G. Gordon Liddy while the liberals at the UN were giving Osama an award for 9/11.
2) You haven't seen Dr. Horrible?! You philistine bastard :P
To tie that back onto the topic, I think that "Socialist!" is the new word for "black", like "liberal" was for "Jew".
Obama is secretly trying to destroy the country with socialism? REALLY?
They know more about the world because they watch Fox news which they don't consider it part of the main stream media?
Health care is being pushed too fast?
They believe they are arguing with facts and are being called racists for it?
GAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!?
I am just happy that every time my conservative friend hears Republican talking heads decrying Obama's "socialist/communist" tendencies he is automatically subbing the phrase "socialist/communist" with the actual meaning, "black," and he drifts further and further away from the party.
Can we please stop with the race (racism?) baiting? Not everyone you disagree with has to be a racist.
Yeah, racial dogwhistles don't exist, and there's no racism if I don't see it. Intent means more than impact, you guys! If a person of color says something sounds racist, ignore her or him. They're probably just making it up because they disagree with it.
maybe "white populist" would be a better term to make people who follow this line of logic more comfortable. haha just kidding.
Truth, just because 3 of the generally misinformed tea-partiers have overtly racist signs does not mean the thousands of generally misinformed tea-partiers are racists.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Are you going to respond to what I said, or just fill up space?
If you have an instance of racism to report, say it. Saying that 'socialist' is now the new 'black' is about as dumb as when 'hates america' and 'supports terrorism' meant 'liberal'.
Republicans have been bitching and blathering about "socializm" since FDR.
You could say that actual racists are gravitating towards the more-palatable term "socialism" because they need some slur they can throw around, but that's different than the claim that "socialism" is just a proxy for "black." It's not, and the real dynamics are much more complicated than that.
Saying things like "Not everyone who disagrees with you has to be racist" has the effect of being dismissive to instances of racism. There are code words and dogwhistles, and I think it's a fair point to say that "socialist" has become one of them.
Here's Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy for you, on the development of these code words and dogwhistles (warning: words that aren't allowed on PA [for good reason] are in that quote).
And I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you think that at some point in media discourse "hates america" and "supports terrorism" did mean "liberal?" Because if so I'm not sure what your objection to saying "socialist" is code for "black" other than it's a banal thing to say because everybody already agrees.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
temple wulf said I guess I'd insert a "becoming" after that "is."
Um they did. This was the overt intention of the phrases - to imply that liberals supported terrorism and hated America.
Horse shit. Calling people who criticize (even incorrectly) the administration's economic policy "racists" has the effect of divisive polarization, and I've seen it happen multiple times on this forum. Call a spade a spade when someone's being racist, but if someone says "I'm worried about the government controlling healthcare", that does not make them a racist.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
The existence of code words does not make this one of them. 'Everybody already agrees' is also not evidence.
Socialism isn't a new word. As I said, Republicans bitched about FDR's socialism. It's a long-standing slur used by Republicans and has no historic racial connotation.
You're saying that socialism is the new word for "black." That's not true. It's not even true for the subset of Republicans who are actual racists and use the word "socialist" to describe Obama. They're not using the word to mean black either.
And while you can argue that such racists are seizing on the word in lieu of expressing their real reason underlying their resentment of Obama, I'm not sure it's "in lieu," as the racist and anti-socialist demographics probably line up a lot on Venn diagrams.
Frankly, this whole line of debate strikes me as an attempt to silence opposition to Obama. I think that opposition is incredibly stupid. I don't think "socialist" should be a slur, and most of that opposition ignores the fact that Obama isn't even that socialist. But you cannot just declare that anyone who calls Obama a "socialist" actually means he's a "n——." That's like saying anyone who criticizes Islam is an "Islamophobe bigot." It's conversational censorship and it will backfire.
Edit: regarding Atwater, what he was saying was actually more complex than you're making it out. And pretty interesting. I actually interpret that as him justifying his strategy because it causes racism to become more abstract, less conscious and, thus, less harmful.
I'm saying that republicans meant for that connection to take place, even though in the minds of most rational people, it didn't happen. The same thing will happen with this socialism->black connection. Yeah, you'll try to paint republicans with it, and then you'll look dumb when people see through it.
Socialism is not a word with a historical racial connotation, and it's not new to the political lexicon. Nobody has shown ANY EVIDENCE here that it's being used racially.
HAVING A BLACK PRESIDENT DOESN'T MAKE ALL CRITICISM RACISM. NOT EVEN DUMB CRITICISM.
Clearly. Most people on this forum don't agree.
I think the authority rests with people who aren't me, necessarily, to determine whether "socialist" is a code word. I think it is in this context. I also think that in general it is better to err on the side of "it is a code word and there are myriad other words in the English language I could use to convey this" rather than "whatever I don't care if it's offensive Imma say it anyway."
What word better conveys the meaning of 'socialism'? First you have to convince me that they're not actually complaining about socialism. Which, considering he's pushing some ideas that are, actually, socialism, you're going to have a tough time of.
And, you err on the side of attacking someone personally rather than on their ideas and opinions?
"Socialist" is a word with historical racial connotations, but it used to refer to Jews.
I'm not really sure about the theory of it being code for "black" now. I am more inclined to believe that it's just being used as a rallying cry out of ignorance and pique.
Even the die-hard racists I've talked to seem to regard Obama as somehow different than the "black" that they know and hate. In a lot of ways the guy is really regarded as post-racial, even by these ignorant fuckheads. I've heard the same stupid racist/ stereotypical tropes applied to every other black public figure, but not to Obama.
This isn't to say that they like him. Ironically, they seem to hate Obama even more than they would hate a President Marion Barry - maybe because he so clearly brings the lie to their racist worldview.
Socialism is also the opposite of freedoms, which is what makes america the greatest country on earth. </sarcasm>
Well, whether "socialism" is functioning as a code word or not has a lot to do with who the speaker is and how it's received. In general if Rush Limbaugh says that Obama is a socialist, given his history of racist speech, I'm not going to think he's making a substantive critique of policy. If someone has a problem with what they perceive as an inappropriate distribution of wealth, then they can say that. If someone has a problem with the income tax code, they can say that. But if all a person has to say is "Socialist!" then I don't feel a responsibility to listen very closely.
I don't know what you mean by your last question. Not using commonly used dogwhistles isn't "attacking someone personally."
Earlier in the article he talks about white populism:
I think that it's abundantly clear that "socialist" just means anyone who doesn't jerk off to Glen Beck.
These people whose mouths are moving certainly don't have any idea what they mean. I wouldn't go as far as to give them credit for coming up with a new way to hate on minorities.
It's attacking someone personally when you don't even bother to find out what they actually think, you just automatically assume they're racist. And please stop trying to use repetition to make it sink in, it's still not a 'commonly used dogwhistle', no matter how many times you type it. You're not applying for a job at fox news here.
The fact that a person does not have a coherent or honest reason for yelling a political slur does not mean the slur functions as a code word. "Rallying cry" is a better term.
"Socialism" is code for "I don't know what the word socialism actually means."
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I'd say that in FDR's day, crying socialism made more sense because socialism was actually a viable force in American politics. At the time it seemed the country could have easily tipped either way into socialism or fascism. Nowdays this notion is pretty laughable.
"Socialist" is certainly used by a broad spectrum of people who have seized on it as a surface reason for their incoherent rage. For many of these people, this incoherent rage is no doubt racist in nature; for others, it's not. I recognize there is a fairly diverse range of motivations for these populist conservatives, even if the murkiness of their rhetoric disguises this fact.
You can't see it without looking at the code, but I actually limed that a second time.
Socialism, IMO, is a code for "not one of us," which may or may not also mean "black" depending on the person. As several people have pointed out, to many in the Republican base GOP-brand Free Market Capitalism(TM) has taken on the weight of religion. "Socialist" nowadays practically means "unbeliever."
What?
Call me an elitist if you have to, but somehow I get the feeling a lot of the poorer conservative populists aren't being driven by their unfailing devotion to the free market. In fact a lot of Glenn Beck's rhetoric is thoroughly anti-corporation.
Edit: I am aware that the bailouts weren't exactly a stunning example of the free market in action. But since "free market" really ends up meaning "monopolies and corporatism" I don't see why that would be a problem here.