How to AVOID deflating a caustic word’s impact in three easy steps
April 29, 2010 5 Comments
-All I read nowadays is how, due to a group’s stance on a certain political or socio-economical point, said people fit within either some or all of the characteristics of the above-mentioned words. In this post I am going to list the definitions of these three words and give tips on how to use them while preserving their impact.
1. Nazi –
- A German member of Adolf Hitler’s political party
- Relating to or consistent with or typical of the ideology and practice of Nazism or the Nazis; “the total Nazi crime”; “the Nazi interpretation of …
- Derogatory term for a person who is fanatically dedicated to, or seeks to control, some activity, practice, etc.
- National socialist: relating to a form of socialism; “the national socialist party came to power in Germany in 1933”
And how, pray tell, do these women fall into any of the definitions mentioned? Is it because they are protesting taxes? Is it because they sang the national anthem unabashedly? Or is it because, deep down, you fear them?
Tip number one in destroying the impact of a slanderous word: use it in labeling a target that is so far from the base definition that even in the most deluded psyche rationality steps in and laughs in the label’s face.
- based on racial intolerance; “racist remarks”
- a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
- discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
The newest use of this label was by a New York State Senator Kevin Parker accusing a white republican of said crime because he was interviewing a nominee for the power authority and did not like the direction that the questioning was going. From the article:
“I’ve never seen a white appointee be treated like this, in such a rude fashion,” accused Parker.
When Parker spoke out of turn, Chairman Carl Kruger attempted to take control.
“Why don’t you step outside?” Kruger suggested, “Why doesn’t everybody step outside?”
A normally dry meeting, had turned into an all-out shouting match.
The shouting turned into name calling Wednesday, as radio talk show host Errol Louis, took a call from Senator Parker.
“He thought that he was standing up for what he believed in,” said Louis.
That is, that racism is still a problem in Albany, but Parker made his point on the radio by saying, “These long-term white supremacist Republican senators, we’ve been the majority for a long time, they’ve lost the majority,” said Parker.
He used the phrase “white supremacist” several times.
“There’s only one kind of racism, and that’s the white supremacists, and a lot of the Republicans are,” said Parker.
Tip number two: don’t BLATANTLY sling out caustic labels just because you don’t like what you hear or disagree with the other party. Its like getting into an argument with your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband and the word “cunt” comes out: once it is said it can’t be unsaid, and you have just elevated your disagreement from civility to all out war over something that is categorically trite.
- A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism
I don’t think that I even need to say that after a google search of “republican+fascism” that turned up over ten MILLION hits I don’t need to quote any specific article, or web page, or book, etc. etc. that has been written on this topic. Off the top of my head the only place that I can immediately recall where this word has been used is what I have seen over at Zombie’s place and the fact that in WWII Mussolini’s fascist party had the word “Republican” as the title word. My only question about calling conservatives “fascists” is this; where in the Republican charter does it ever mention anything about “stringent social and economic control”? -Seem to recall that it is a democratically-controlled congress that is attempting to enact this…
Tip number three: learn the GODDAMNED definitions of the slanderous words you are using.
(Almost done here)
This mudslinging, this mislabeling, has gone well beyond the point where slinging around words like this shock and awe anymore. I see these words being used in the news… and I just ignore them. The overuse of said words just burn a person out after awhile and at the end of the day take on the same power as me saying the word “fuck” in a conversation with a construction worker.
They no longer have any other affect on me save identify the label applicator (?) as a child that can’t fight his own fights and needs abrasive words to do it for them.
It inadvertently labels them as weak, a word that still has some weight in my book.
An EXCELLENT ARTICLE on the same thing that I am attempting to highlight was written by Jim Geraghty highlighting the right way to debate / comment on a topic that you disagree with, and with the points mentioned not being “assisted” maniacal labeling they make valid, digestable points.