The Political Discussion Thread

[mad_gater]

*reluctantly suits up and dives in*


Y'know, MG, that's not really fair to the people in this thread who are attempting to have a serious discussion. A large part of the art of effective discourse is the use of agreed-upon terminology. If you (generic "you", not specific "you") just want to be inflammatory, then tossing around inaccurate slang will probably serve the purpose. But if you're actually trying to have a legitimate conversation about a particular topic, or to join in on one that's already in progress, it really does help to use words properly. Words have meaning, and it isn't just a matter of "words mean what I want them to mean". No, they mean things among a community of people.

This is the Political Discussion thread, not the "Pi$$ People Off Any Way You Can, Just For Fun" thread. If you (specific "you" this time, not generic "you") want to throw around inflammatory rhetoric or argue terminology that most of the local community (in this case, Gateworld, or at least the denizens of the basement, here) agree is inaccurate, perhaps you ought to start your own thread. I'm sure the mods will love you for it.

so they don't officially call their government fascist....doesn't change the fact that I see very little if any difference between the authoritarian way Hitler ran things and the way islamic radicals run things....perhaps Islamo-authoritarian would be a better term but I'm too lazy to type all that.....perhaps I'll just simply call them radicals but again doesn't change the fact that they hate the Jews just as much if not more so than Hitler....surprised he didn't try to ask for their help back in WW2

[mad_gater]

and no civilized debate involves this much hair-splitting....most civil debates I've witnessed actually respect the debater's right to free speech as long as it pertains to the issue being debated...therefore in any discussion I will exercise my right to free speech....to shut down a debate because of the terminology one uses is an affront to our civil liberty that we have the right to redress grievances in whatever manner we the people see fit

[SF_and_Coffee]

so they don't officially call their government fascist

It's got nothing to do with what "they" call their government. We're talking about what terms actually mean in the linguistic and political sense.

....doesn't change the fact that I see very little if any difference between the authoritarian way Hitler ran things and the way islamic radicals run things....

Authoritarian regimes have similar characteristics in common, true, but that still doesn't mean they all spring from the same political philosophy. Here is the definition of fascism, and here is the definition of authoritarianism. You'll note that while there is some overlap, they are far from identical.

perhaps Islamo-authoritarian would be a better term but I'm too lazy to type all that.....

Two thoughts on that:

1. If a person is too lazy to do something right, then why would they bother doing it at all?

2. Why not just say "authoritarian" and leave the word unadorned by any modifier whatsoever? It would get the point across perfectly well.

perhaps I'll just simply call them radicals but again doesn't change the fact that they hate the Jews just as much if not more so than Hitler....surprised he didn't try to ask for their help back in WW2

Hitler hated a lot of people that other groups also hate, but that doesn't make everyone Nazis anymore than it makes everyone Fascists.

and no civilized debate involves this much hair-splitting....most civil debates I've witnessed actually respect the debater's right to free speech as long as it pertains to the issue being debated...therefore in any discussion I will exercise my right to free speech....to shut down a debate because of the terminology one uses is an affront to our civil liberty that we have the right to redress grievances in whatever manner we the people see fit

The proper use of language is not hair-splitting; it's communication. If I want an egg and I ask you for an apple, does it make sense for me to get upset when you give me an apple instead of an egg? After all, I have a "free speech right" to call an egg an apple if I want to, but that doesn't make it productive to do so.

[SoulReaver]

surprised he didn't try to ask for their help back in WW2

actually he did

[mad_gater]

It's got nothing to do with what "they" call their government. We're talking about what terms actually mean in the linguistic and political sense.

Authoritarian regimes have similar characteristics in common, true, but that still doesn't mean they all spring from the same political philosophy. Here is the definition of fascism, and here is the definition of authoritarianism. You'll note that while there is some overlap, they are far from identical.

Two thoughts on that:

1. If a person is too lazy to do something right, then why would they bother doing it at all?

2. Why not just say "authoritarian" and leave the word unadorned by any modifier whatsoever? It would get the point across perfectly well.

Hitler hated a lot of people that other groups also hate, but that doesn't make everyone Nazis anymore than it makes everyone Fascists.



The proper use of language is not hair-splitting; it's communication. If I want an egg and I ask you for an apple, does it make sense for me to get upset when you give me an apple instead of an egg? After all, I have a "free speech right" to call an egg an apple if I want to, but that doesn't make it productive to do so.

comparing apples to oranges I see.....that has nothing to do with me using a term that I happen to think perfectly describes the actions of Islamic radicals.....you forget that witnesses to the debate don't care much about big fancy words.....they care only that they can glean the substance of the debate with little effort.....therefore I'm likely to favor the debater that's using plain English to one that sounds like a walking dictionary

[SF_and_Coffee]

comparing apples to oranges I see.....

Umm, no. Read what I wrote.

that has nothing to do with me using a term that I happen to think perfectly describes the actions of Islamic radicals.....

Except that fascism isn't an action, so you're wrong already. Here's another example: You're Catholic. If I were in a discussion with you and I started talking about "those idol worshipping Catholics" -- because of course you worship idols, just look at all the statuary in your churches (note: I don't really think that, this is strictly a matter of example) and you tried to correct me, if I came back with "well, I think it's a perfectly legitimate description, so I will continue to use it" would that really further whatever discussion we might have been trying to have?

And no, I'm not Muslim, for the record. I picked the example I picked because I'm pretty sure you will understand it.

you forget that witnesses to the debate don't care much about big fancy words.....

What big fancy words are we talking about here? "Authoritarian" isn't any bigger or fancier than "Islamo-fascist". In fact, it's shorter, less fancy, doesn't contain any hyphens or other nonalphabetic characters, and has the added virtue of being accurate.

they care only that they can glean the substance of the debate with little effort.....therefore I'm likely to favor the debater that's using plain English to one that sounds like a walking dictionary

Okay, but you're not using plain English, and I don't sound like a walking dictionary. So who, again, are we talking about, exactly?

[Giantevilhead]

So much irony here.

Anyway, the reason why Islamofacist is not only a stupid but also dangerous title is because of the association it forms between Islam and facism. It implies either all people who believe in Islam are facists or that all facists believe in Islam.

It's making effective use of how we learn, by making associations between things. That's why the Nazis associated Jew with swine and why the Hutu extremists associated the Tutsis with roaches. So don't be surprised when additional modifiers are added to Islamofacist. It'll probably be a word that elicits disgust like slime or filth since that's the emotion that you really want people to feel before you get them to dehumanize other people.

It also takes advantage of the fact that we have poor source memory, which means that we don't really remember where we learned things. This is why myths and misconceptions are so common like the story of Newton and the apple or the idea that humans only use 10% of their brain. We rarely remember where we heard things but the more we hear it, the more we think it's true.

[mad_gater]

Umm, no. Read what I wrote.


Except that fascism isn't an action, so you're wrong already. Here's another example: You're Catholic. If I were in a discussion with you and I started talking about "those idol worshipping Catholics" -- because of course you worship idols, just look at all the statuary in your churches (note: I don't really think that, this is strictly a matter of example) and you tried to correct me, if I came back with "well, I think it's a perfectly legitimate description, so I will continue to use it" would that really further whatever discussion we might have been trying to have?

And no, I'm not Muslim, for the record. I picked the example I picked because I'm pretty sure you will understand it.


What big fancy words are we talking about here? "Authoritarian" isn't any bigger or fancier than "Islamo-fascist". In fact, it's shorter, less fancy, doesn't contain any hyphens or other nonalphabetic characters, and has the added virtue of being accurate.


Okay, but you're not using plain English, and I don't sound like a walking dictionary. So who, again, are we talking about, exactly?

and I would patiently tell you that the presence of statues does not mean that we worship the person depicted nor the manner in which they are depicted

and while the many and varied authoritarian regimes might have different theories behind their operation....it doesn't change the fact that all authoritarian regimes have one common goal....oppression....and oppression is exactly what the islamic radicals are doing...so yeah using the more general term of "authoritarian" might be more gramatically correct....but it doesn't change the fact that when the term "Islamo-fascist" is used pretty much everyone knows that it refers to those nutjob radicals....maybe that's what I'll call them from now on.....Islamo-nuts....

[SF_and_Coffee]

and I would patiently tell you that the presence of statues does not mean that we worship the person depicted nor the manner in which they are depicted

Of course you would, and you'd be completely correct (for a non-Catholic, I know an awful lot about Catholicism. Comes of having a cradle Catholic, however lapsed, for a husband, among other things). So, if I responded with, "I don't care what you say, as far as I'm concerned you worship idols" wouldn't that pretty much shut down any chance of a productive discussion between us?

THAT's the point I was trying to make, MG.

and while the many and varied authoritarian regimes might have different theories behind their operation....it doesn't change the fact that all authoritarian regimes have one common goal....oppression....and oppression is exactly what the islamic radicals are doing...so yeah using the more general term of "authoritarian" might be more gramatically correct

Grammatically, sociologically and in all other ways.

but it doesn't change the fact that when the term "Islamo-fascist" is used pretty much everyone knows that it refers to those nutjob radicals....maybe that's what I'll call them from now on.....Islamo-nuts....

And most people know what "idol-worshipping Catholic" refers to as well, especially if you happen to be in, say, one of the more extremely anti-Catholic regions of the country (such places do exist, although I've never had the misfortune of living in one). Just because people know what a derogatory term means, is that a good reason to use it in place of the correct term?

[mad_gater]

Of course you would, and you'd be completely correct (for a non-Catholic, I know an awful lot about Catholicism. Comes of having a cradle Catholic, however lapsed, for a husband, among other things). So, if I responded with, "I don't care what you say, as far as I'm concerned you worship idols" wouldn't that pretty much shut down any chance of a productive discussion between us?

THAT's the point I was trying to make, MG.


Grammatically, sociologically and in all other ways.


And most people know what "idol-worshipping Catholic" refers to as well, especially if you happen to be in, say, one of the more extremely anti-Catholic regions of the country (such places do exist, although I've never had the misfortune of living in one). Just because people know what a derogatory term means, is that a good reason to use it in place of the correct term?

that's a far cry from dissecting everything someone says to see if it's 100% accurate.....you wanna be 100% accurate in your use of the English language....knock yourself out....I reserve the right though to be perhaps only 80 - 90% accurate in my use of it when I call a spade a spade

and Islamo-fascist is far from being a derogatory term.....for it to be derogatory I'd have to be using it to tar ALL believers in Islam with the same brush.....which I don't....I just use the term simply to distinguish the radicals from the moderates....and maybe the term is not 100% accurate.....but I believe it's accurate enough for my purposes....thanks for the most pointless discussion I ever had the displeasure of participating in....nothing vexes me more than people who live to dissect every single word someone says....like I said you wanna be 100% accurate.....I ain't gonna stop ya....but I'll thank you to keep your nose out of my business which includes my private choice of terminology

[mad_gater]

and besides the term "Islamo-fascist" is a SLANG term as I thought I made clear before...slang terms are very rarely if ever 100% accurate but generally speaking most slang terms are good at conveying a general description of something

[SF_and_Coffee]

that's a far cry from dissecting everything someone says to see if it's 100% accurate.....

Nobody's doing that. Overreacting doesn't help your case.

you wanna be 100% accurate in your use of the English language....knock yourself out....I reserve the right though to be perhaps only 80 - 90% accurate in my use of it when I call a spade a spade

When you get to the 80% - 90% range, I'll rejoice. Keep working at it.

and Islamo-fascist is far from being a derogatory term.....for it to be derogatory I'd have to be using it to tar ALL believers in Islam with the same brush.....

As was said upthread, it feeds into an attempt by a lot of people to do precisely that. So when you use it, you help them to do so, even if that wasn't your intention. That's why it's a good idea to take care with your words, in case you accidentally promote something you don't mean to.

I just use the term simply to distinguish the radicals from the moderates....

So, again I ask you, why not just say "radical" and "moderate"? Why do you have to use the word "fascist" and throw in "Islamo"? I'm serious, that's a real question, and I'd like an actual answer to it. Why is the word "radical" not good enough?

and maybe the term is not 100% accurate.....but I believe it's accurate enough for my purposes....

Sure, if your purpose is to look like a uninformed doofus. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that isn't actually what you're going for here. You don't normally strike me as that kind of person, actually, regardless of how much we may disagree on certain topics. Believe it or not, I'm not arguing against you on everything here. I'm just pointing out that there are better ways to put your argument across. The most rational point of view can still suffer if it is poorly expressed.

thanks for the most pointless discussion I ever had the displeasure of participating in....nothing vexes me more than people who live to dissect every single word someone says[

And again, that isn't what I'm doing.

....like I said you wanna be 100% accurate.....I ain't gonna stop ya....but I'll thank you to keep your nose out of my business which includes my private choice of terminology

Yaddayaddayawn.

and besides the term "Islamo-fascist" is a SLANG term as I thought I made clear before...slang terms are very rarely if ever 100% accurate but generally speaking most slang terms are good at conveying a general description of something

Yep. Just like n****r, ***, frog, b*tch, broad, towel-head, ho, etc. They're all so useful in an intelligent discussion...

[mad_gater]

Nobody's doing that. Overreacting doesn't help your case.


When you get to the 80% - 90% range, I'll rejoice. Keep working at it.


As was said upthread, it feeds into an attempt by a lot of people to do precisely that. So when you use it, you help them to do so, even if that wasn't your intention. That's why it's a good idea to take care with your words, in case you accidentally promote something you don't mean to.



So, again I ask you, why not just say "radical" and "moderate"? Why do you have to use the word "fascist" and throw in "Islamo"? I'm serious, that's a real question, and I'd like an actual answer to it. Why is the word "radical" not good enough?



Sure, if your purpose is to look like a uninformed doofus. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that isn't actually what you're going for here. You don't normally strike me as that kind of person, actually, regardless of how much we may disagree on certain topics. Believe it or not, I'm not arguing against you on everything here. I'm just pointing out that there are better ways to put your argument across. The most rational point of view can still suffer if it is poorly expressed.


And again, that isn't what I'm doing.



Yaddayaddayawn.


Yep. Just like n****r, ***, frog, b*tch, broad, towel-head, ho, etc. They're all so useful in an intelligent discussion...

hey....I could do a lot worse than using slightly inaccurate terminology...I could use the terms you listed that are intended for one purpose....to offend....which is why it strikes me as odd that blacks use terms like the first one with each other

[mad_gater]

and it is pointless...instead of discussing something of actual socio-political substance you choose to go drastically OT by dissecting my slightly inaccurate use of the English language

[mad_gater]

and just because one's use of the English language might not be 100% accurate doesn't necessarily mean said person is not conveying the gist of his point properly......I suggest we move on to another topic...I grow weary of this one