New Political Forum

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Regarding the term Obamacare,

Obama:
"I have no problem with people saying Obama cares."
"I do care," he pointed out. "If the other side wants to be the folks who don't care? That's fine with me."

Your example may not have been the best. Certainly more inflammatory and derogatory political terms out there. They may be valid grounds for action. However, such terms are widely used in politics. To deny them would be to hold us to a higher standard than the national dialog, above Senators, Congressman, and the national media.

Is that the sort of forum you seek?

That doesn't change the fact that "Obamacare" is not the proper name nor that it's used as a pejorative for propaganda purposes. If this forum is intended to be for factual, in good faith debate it has no place there any more than "libtard."

And holding people to standards above politicians should be the least this new forum does, and the national media outside of the CEC typically uses the proper name for "Obamacare." If this new forum isn't supposed to be a notch above the "national dialogue" there's no point diverging off what is already well represented in this one.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

"Libtard" is pejorative because it's a portmanteau of "liberal" and "retard", and "retard" is pejorative.

How is "Obamacare" pejorative?

The term is widely used, and even used by Obama himself. Not seeing what the problem is here.

 

[shortylickens]

Porch and Monkey are not insulting but if you put the two together someone may be insulted.

Obamacare could be the same way by uptight individuals.

Theres the problem: How do you know someone is being genuinely insulted? How do you decide when a word or term is offensive?

Apparently many of you guys dont like hearing the term "illegals" here in P&N. I think its a perfect acceptable way to describe a particular group of people in America. I dont see how someone could be offended by saying just that word.

How do we decide when to ban a term on this forum?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If someone is here illegally, then they are illegal. I have no interest in political correctness that extends to the level of denying simple reality.

"Porch monkey" doesn't refer to reality unless it is meant in the literal sense. Generally speaking, it's just a slur.

None of these are difficult choices IMO. There will be some out there, I'm sure, and everyone will just have to accept that there isn't any perfect objective manual showing what should and should not be allowed, trust the mods to do their best, and let a few things slide.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

"Libtard" is pejorative because it's a portmanteau of "liberal" and "retard", and "retard" is pejorative.

How is "Obamacare" pejorative?

The term is widely used, and even used by Obama himself. Not seeing what the problem is here.

I'm shocked.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The term is widely used, and even used by Obama himself. Not seeing what the problem is here.

The problem is with those who use these questions to try to derail anything good that can come of this decision to start another forum.
The kicker is that they insist they need to ask the question so that that they can be better informed in order to obey the rules......
Instead of asking these inane questions they need to apply for membership to the new forum and follow the rules....3 warnings is a very generous way to be alloiwed to modify behavior towards that which is acceptable in this proposed new experimental forum!

 

[Jaskalas]

Before we come to blows over terms, there is something else Gonad the Barbarian touched upon that I feel is of vital importance to the new forum. To his credit, he hit the nail on the head.

I guess I should post a link to this here to get the right eyes on it.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2301328

This speaks to the rules of intellectual dishonesty. This is regarding questionable assertions made against Obamacare, particularly with "The government turning our health records over to the IRS". I find it's similar to the "death panels" discussion, etc.

I always imagined the role "Debate Club" plays would be to have a directed discussion. Where that sort of material is moderated. This is in contrast to the open discussion nature of P&N where it's the wild west and such assertions are contested, not moderated.

So now I mention it, to highlight the potential identity this new forum may take. Where we might always have a distinct role for both forums to co-exist. Where quality posters in P&N may graduate to the debate club.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm shocked.

It would be more constructive to explain to me what the problem is.

Jedi, I think there is no problem whatsoever with people asking questions and hashing out these issues. I think it's a good idea.

 

[HopJokey]

I am willing to join this new forum.

 

[lotus503]

It it out of turn to ask when we can expect the new forum to start?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Really doesn't sound like a problem to me:

In an email sent to supporters, Obama strategist David Axelrod and campaign manager Jim Messina touted the legislation on the two-year anniversary of its passage.

The email directed readers to a part of the Obama reelection campaign's website where supporters can "stand with" the president and say, "Hell yeah, I'm for Obamacare."

"Obamacare means never having to worry about getting sick and running up against a lifetime cap on insurance coverage," Axelrod writes in one email. "It gives parents the comfort of knowing their kids can stay on their insurance until they're 26, and that a 'pre-existing condition' like an ear infection will never compromise their child's coverage."

Another version of the email from Messina said: "If you're tired of the other side throwing around that word like it's an insult, then join me in sending a message that we're proud of it."

The campaign also pushed the message on Twitter with the hashtag, #ILikeObamaCare.

"If you're proud of Obamacare and tired of the other side using it as a dirty word, complete this sentence: #ILikeObamacare because…" read Obama's Twitter.

It it out of turn to ask when we can expect the new forum to start?

No, just to expect an answer. I don't know either.
​

 

[EagleKeeper]

"Libtard" is pejorative because it's a portmanteau of "liberal" and "retard", and "retard" is pejorative.

How is "Obamacare" pejorative?

The term is widely used, and even used by Obama himself. Not seeing what the problem is here.

I'm shocked.

People may use the term Obamacare as derogatory to the actual legislation.
Others use the term to identify the legislation vs. the legislative title.

Due to the president use of the word in a positive context; I can not see a need to filter it out.

Certain other words can be brought to our attention and be evaluated.
At this point; to have a word filtered; it would be best to have a detailed explanation why it should be.

There are words that are already filtered by the forums itself.
Any words that would be filtered within the new forum would not be automatically filtered but manually handled and announced.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Also, are pejoratives and propaganda terms like "Obamacare" going to be allowed to run rampant in the new forum or will there be a requirement to call things by their actual names, like the Affordable Care Act or ACA.

When I first read this, I thought it was silly, but it does raise an interesting point. Where does the line between descriptive terminology and willful misrepresentation occur? True, the act is not legally known as Obamacare, but I'd say that most of the country knows it by that term whether they're for it or against it, so it's not inherently pejorative. On the flip side, referring to the "GOP war on women" seems like it's just intended to fan the flames of partisan bickering rather than promote honest discussion, regardless of how we may feel about what a particular politician has said. But some terms are very divisive while seemingly innocuous; referring to illegal immigrants as "illegals," as mentioned earlier, might seem fine to some regardless of their stance on immigration reform, but the people who are offended by it are usually very offended by it, and that can easily derail a conversation.

That said, I think that the rules of the new forum, by encouraging mature discussion, will also help foster an air of thicker skin, in knowing that terminology is being used, not as an insult or personal attack, but as serious communication for how someone views a particular issue. If I have to respond to someone calling me a "libtard," it doesn't add anything to the discussion, and dialogue suffers. If I have to defend my stance on why the term "illegals" makes me uncomfortable, at least it's a dialogue about an issue and not just mindless partisan hatred. So I'd personally like to see the new forum be somewhat lenient when it came to terminology that is somewhat on the fence from a political correctness standpoint. Trying to not offend anyone just makes it more difficult to have an honest discussion. We're all adults here; I think we can take a few disagreements on terminology without falling to pieces.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The problem is with those who use these questions to try to derail anything good that can come of this decision to start another forum.
The kicker is that they insist they need to ask the question so that that they can be better informed in order to obey the rules......
Instead of asking these inane questions they need to apply for membership to the new forum and follow the rules....3 warnings is a very generous way to be alloiwed to modify behavior towards that which is acceptable in this proposed new experimental forum!

I guess setting the standard of using proper and accurate terms for points of genuine debate instead of disingenuous or ambiguous labels was too much to expect. And it's no wonder people who rely on them would be hostile to the idea of addressing it before the forum started.

 

[lotus503]

When I first read this, I thought it was silly, but it does raise an interesting point. Where does the line between descriptive terminology and willful misrepresentation occur? True, the act is not legally known as Obamacare, but I'd say that most of the country knows it by that term whether they're for it or against it, so it's not inherently pejorative. On the flip side, referring to the "GOP war on women" seems like it's just intended to fan the flames of partisan bickering rather than promote honest discussion, regardless of how we may feel about what a particular politician has said. But some terms are very divisive while seemingly innocuous; referring to illegal immigrants as "illegals," as mentioned earlier, might seem fine to some regardless of their stance on immigration reform, but the people who are offended by it are usually very offended by it, and that can easily derail a conversation.

That said, I think that the rules of the new forum, by encouraging mature discussion, will also help foster an air of thicker skin, in knowing that terminology is being used, not as an insult or personal attack, but as serious communication for how someone views a particular issue. If I have to respond to someone calling me a "libtard," it doesn't add anything to the discussion, and dialogue suffers. If I have to defend my stance on why the term "illegals" makes me uncomfortable, at least it's a dialogue about an issue and not just mindless partisan hatred. So I'd personally like to see the new forum be somewhat lenient when it came to terminology that is somewhat on the fence from a political correctness standpoint. Trying to not offend anyone just makes it more difficult to have an honest discussion. We're all adults here; I think we can take a few disagreements on terminology without falling to pieces.

I think its a judgement call, its pretty easy to determine if people use terms in a manner to stifle debate or to offend/derail discussion.

I think context counts.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So, Gonad, you're saying that everyone in the forum should have to write out "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", or its clumsy acronym, every time it is referenced -- even though nearly everyone calls it "Obamacare", including Obama?

That doesn't seem too reasonable to me.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Really doesn't sound like a problem to me:

No, just to expect an answer. I don't know either.
​

There's irony in a black president having to "take back" a pejorative used against him. And it bothers me so many people seem to not have a problem with that.

 

[Jaskalas]

So, Gonad, you're saying that everyone in the forum should have to write out "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", or its clumsy acronym, every time it is referenced -- even though nearly everyone calls it "Obamacare", including Obama?

That doesn't seem too reasonable to me.

To Obama's credit he may have merely been yielding ground to his opponents and expressly using the term to turn something derogatory around into a positive. A little campaign magic, if you will. We do not know how he initially reacted to it.

The ACA is not truly difficult to reference otherwise.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There's irony in a black president having to "take back" a pejorative used against him. And it bothers me so many people seem to not have a problem with that.

So you're implying that "Obamacare" is a racist term?

How about "Romneycare"? Is that racist? It predates "Obamacare" by several years.

How about "Hillarycare"? That goes back to the early 90s.

To Obama's credit he may have merely been yielding ground to his opponents and expressly using the term to turn something derogatory around into a positive. A little campaign magic, if you will. We do not know how he initially reacted to it.

Certainly possible, but now that he has done so, it's hard to make a compelling argument for it being pejorative.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

So you're implying that "Obamacare" is a racist term?

How about "Romneycare"? Is that racist? It predates "Obamacare" by several years.

How about "Hillarycare"? That goes back to the early 90s.

No, just parallels to one that is. And the "it's OK because they use it too" justification for continuing to use it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No, just parallels to one that is.

What parallels? The "N word"?

There's nothing racist in the term "Obamacare". It's named after him just as other pieces of legislation have been in the past.

And you think that only blacks that have taken back "derogatory" terms? How about "queer"? Or, more appropriate to this forum, "nerd"?

And the "it's OK because they use it too" justification for continuing to use it.

No, the argument is "it's okay because HE uses it too". Sheesh.

 

[lotus503]

What parallels? The "N word"?

There's nothing racist in the term "Obamacare". It's named after him just as other pieces of legislation have been in the past.

And you think that's the only blacks that have taken back "derogatory" terms? How about "queer"? Or, more appropriate to this forum, "nerd"?



No, the argument is "it's okay because HE uses it too". Sheesh.

I think Obamacare started as a derogatory term, but evolved to a simple way to refer to a piece of legislation.

But it brings up a valid point, there are those that are going to be offended NO MATTER WHAT.

Thats why there are going to be a lot of judgement calls especially early on. We have to move past what we each find personally offensive to more of a what does the community think, what do the mods think.

 

[randomrogue]

Obamacare isn't the best example. Here are some others though.

Obummer, Obamao, Obumma, Obama the Post Turtle
Barack Hussein Obama out of context since his full name is Barack Hussein Obama II
W, Dubya, King George, Junior

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Obamacare isn't the best example. Here are some others though.

Obummer, Obamao, Obumma, Obama the Post Turtle
Barack Hussein Obama out of context since his full name is Barack Hussein Obama II
W, Dubya, King George, Junior

Don't see much use for any of those. (You reminded me... haven't seen the "post turtle" guy since the election, for which I am eternally grateful.)

But really, do you guys REALLY want us policing every post down to this level?

Look, the idea here isn't to create a church knitting group. It's just to have discussions that are honest and reasonable. Silly names shouldn't be necessary, but neither do I think people should freak out over their occasional use.

ETA: And yes, no matter what we do, some people will be pissed off. You guys are just going to have to accept the occasional decision you don't like. Just as we ourselves will!

 

[Wardawg1001]

I think theres a number of terms that should be disallowed, the 'libtard' example is a great one, there is doesn't seem to be a way to spin that positively.

Other terms like 'Obamacare' should probably be looked at within the context of the post. As others have noted, its basically become a common term and used by people on both sides of the issue, so there doesn't seem to be a case for automatically banning it. However, many people do in fact use it in a derogatory manner, and it is usually quite obvious when they do. I think most of these instances will be punishable under the general umbrella of trolling anyways.