What if the left was able to twist language to the same extent the right has?

[Infohawk]

Clearly the right-wing has been manipulating language lately to push their agenda. Though they are misrepresenations, I give them credit for their creativity.

-It started with "compassionate conservatism." This was creative because it was untrue, but at least it recognized that conservativism isn't generally compassionate (otherwise why would you need to say compassionate in front of conservatism).

-"Culture of death" Four years later we have this complete twisting of reality. An administration that starts premiditated war and tries to stop cures for diseases saying others have a culture of death? Peverse but again creative in its deception.

-Recently I saw a P&N xtian fundamentalist call the medical community and prp-choicers "zealots." Again, a complete reversal of the meaning.

Where is the left wing in all this? If liberals were to use these tactics, we would be calling Republicans "commies" and such. In some cases, one wouldn't even need to resort to lying. Take the whole "big government" attack often used on Dems. I think this is better used on conservatives lately. You have conservatives pushing giant war budgets, government intervention in universities, and vast moral intrusion. Is this not big government?

What other reversals of language can you liberals come up with? Can you match the conservatives in creativity?

 

[Steeplerot]

I like the simple phrase that is timeless for them: fascists

Nothing less then that. My grandad fought them over in europe and it is our job as americans to stop their spread here.
Notice skinheads are gone nowdays? Yeah, they are all republicans now.
There are some good books out there how fascist refugees and scientists got inside the GOP during the cold war.
Now look where we are at.
Whenever you see these people trying to strongarm and instigate trouble or spout off their hatred, just tell them their fascist dogma is old.

I swear I am so sick of these people's sh1t.
You have kinda-friends that are skins back in the day, and you have to hear them rant about their hate.
Now it's all over mainstream. ahhhhhh!
nazi rednecks f%^&* off!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Clearly the right-wing has been manipulating language lately to push their agenda. Though they are misrepresenations, I give them credit for their creativity.

-It started with "compassionate conservatism." This was creative because it was untrue, but at least it recognized that conservativism isn't generally compassionate (otherwise why would you need to say compassionate in front of conservatism).

-"Culture of death" Four years later we have this complete twisting of reality. An administration that starts premiditated war and tries to stop cures for diseases saying others have a culture of death? Peverse but again creative in its deception.

-Recently I saw a P&N xtian fundamentalist call the medical community and prp-choicers "zealots." Again, a complete reversal of the meaning.

Where is the left wing in all this? If liberals were to use these tactics, we would be calling Republicans "commies" and such. In some cases, one wouldn't even need to resort to lying. Take the whole "big government" attack often used on Dems. I think this is better used on conservatives lately. You have conservatives pushing giant war budgets, government intervention in universities, and vast moral intrusion. Is this not big government?

What other reversals of language can you liberals come up with? Can you match the conservatives in creativity?

Well your "creativity" in matching the Repugs "twisting" is a start.

Good job :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I like the simple phrase that is timeless for them: fascists

Nothing less then that. My grandad fought them over in europe and it is our job as americans to stop their spread here.
Notice skinheads are gone nowdays? Yeah, they are all republicans now.

When you are to straighforward and honest it doesn't grab people's attention. I'm looking for insidious language like the kinds the right uses. The Republicans have really used the advertising industry to their advantage. Is it not time to come back with something different too?

 

[Steeplerot]

I do not want these peoples attention though.
Any type of zealot you encounter has a million ways to tune out logic and reality for their fanatisism.
I mostly come here to speak to fellow progressives, the fascist have always and will always still still be not worthy of my contempt.
I learned this long ago. At least my old skin aquantences joined up to kill A-rabs unlike this new breed of cowardly fascist.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Ever hear the term "politically correct?" That was and still is an invention of the left. And looking around at all the gussied up sloganeering, rhetoric, and hyperbole from the left today, I think the OP poses an ignorant question.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ever hear the term "politically correct?" That was and still is an invention of the left. And looking around at all the gussied up sloganeering, rhetoric, and hyperbole from the left today, I think the OP poses an ignorant question.

:roll: The term was not started by liberals (but if you knew what you were talking about PIPA would be out of business). It actually has a long history not related to either modern side. In any case, the term is now used by conservatives as a weapon against liberals. Another example of jingoism from the right.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ever hear the term "politically correct?" That was and still is an invention of the left. And looking around at all the gussied up sloganeering, rhetoric, and hyperbole from the left today, I think the OP poses an ignorant question.

You shoud see the one I read a couple few threads back.

'Bush killed xxxxxx# of soldiers and Bush killed xxxxxx# of people in the wtc attack'

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Clearly the right-wing has been manipulating language lately to push their agenda. Though they are misrepresenations, I give them credit for their creativity.

-It started with "compassionate conservatism." This was creative because it was untrue, but at least it recognized that conservativism isn't generally compassionate (otherwise why would you need to say compassionate in front of conservatism).

-"Culture of death" Four years later we have this complete twisting of reality. An administration that starts premiditated war and tries to stop cures for diseases saying others have a culture of death? Peverse but again creative in its deception.

-Recently I saw a P&N xtian fundamentalist call the medical community and prp-choicers "zealots." Again, a complete reversal of the meaning.

Where is the left wing in all this? If liberals were to use these tactics, we would be calling Republicans "commies" and such. In some cases, one wouldn't even need to resort to lying. Take the whole "big government" attack often used on Dems. I think this is better used on conservatives lately. You have conservatives pushing giant war budgets, government intervention in universities, and vast moral intrusion. Is this not big government?

What other reversals of language can you liberals come up with? Can you match the conservatives in creativity?

Read this article about George Lakoff (he's a brilliant guy who has analysed the way the right manipulates language to frame the debate to their advantage):

Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics



Introductory article by Lakoff on how conservatives use language to frame the debate to their favor:

Simple Framing: an introduction to framing and its uses in politics.



Lakoff's book:

Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives

It's all about 'framing', how the right wing have framed the debate via a very co-ordinated use of language, and what the left can do to counteract right wing framing of the issues by introducing progressive frames:

"While Democrats may have valid arguments, Lakoff points out they are destined to lose when they and the news media accept such nomenclature as "pro-life," "tax relief," and "family values," since to argue against such inherently positive terminology necessarily casts the arguer in a negative light. Lakoff offers recommendations for how the progressive movement can regain semantic equity by repositioning their arguments, such as countering the conservative call for "Strong Defense" with a call for "A Stronger America" (curiously, one of the key slogans of the Kerry camp)."



George Lakoff's Rockrigde Institute, a progressive thinktank which works on framing issues from a progressive perspective. Excellent resource.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
'Bush killed xxxxxx# of soldiers and Bush killed xxxxxx# of people in the wtc attack'

That's not the kind of language we're talking about here. Do you know what slogans, catch-phrases and the like are?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ever hear the term "politically correct?" That was and still is an invention of the left. And looking around at all the gussied up sloganeering, rhetoric, and hyperbole from the left today, I think the OP poses an ignorant question.

You shoud see the one I read a couple few threads back.

'Bush killed xxxxxx# of soldiers and Bush killed xxxxxx# of people in the wtc attack'

Kinda funny, people here in NYC think bush straight up did it.
And there is anger toward him like I never saw in SF.
It still has not been investigated how it happened for the famlies, and those that spoke out who lost family members and demanded the WTC attack be fully investigated along with bush's ties to saudis have been labeled traitors by the administration media lapdogs.
Sound like a conspiracy theory? Or is that just fox telling you to look the other way?
people are not stupid, this government kills thousands at the drop of a hat through death squads assisnations and sells weapons and WMD to opposing sides.
I do not know if anything like that happened or not but it would not be surprising.

The government has no qualms about genocide, and the tools to blow it off as conspiracy theory with admin parrots squaking away 24-7 more lies.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Interesting. Do you use these methods? After a very brief reading I get the sense that it is still a somewhat reasonable approach. It seems to me the Republicans bypass reason and go straight to nonsensical things like "support the troops" and "culture of death" that have no real meaning. Wouldn't it be better to simply respond with similar bizarre statements instead of trying to have reasoned arguments? It doesn't seem like reason has much of a place in the mainstream public forum anymore.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Interesting. Do you use these methods? After a very brief reading I get the sense that it is still a somewhat reasonable approach. It seems to me the Republicans bypass reason and go straight to nonsensical things like "support the troops" and "culture of death" that have no real meaning. Wouldn't it be better to simply respond with similar bizarre statements instead of trying to have reasoned arguments? It doesn't seem like reason has much of a place in the mainstream public forum anymore.

I do try to pull apart the conservative frames, and point out why they are ludicrous or misleading. Like the whole idea of "protecting marriage" - how is banning gays from marrying protecting civil marriage? The Defense of Marriage Acts were really Marriage Discrimination Acts. Etc. Lakoff recommends turning the more misleading conservative frames on their head, i.e., Clean Skies initiative becomes the Dead Skies initiative (or whatever, I can't remember his exact words). I don't think progressives should be dishonest in the way that conservatives are (with their use of language to frame issues), but we should definitely be forming and disseminating progressive frames. And pulling apart conservative frames at any opportunity. There are many ways to support the troops. One way would be to get them out of Iraq.

 

[her209]

"the nuclear option"

 

[irwincur]

Umm, both sides are pretty guilty of this. IT IS CALLED POLITICS. Now my question is, why are those on the left such whiney losers... I can't seem to ever recall Republicans acting the way that the Democrats are - and they were out of power for nearly 60 years. Pretty sad that after only about 10, the left is totally disintigrating. I suspect that after 20, they will no longer be a viable competitor in the political arena.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Umm, both sides are pretty guilty of this. IT IS CALLED POLITICS.

Sorry, but calling something clean skies that increases pollution is a new low in political history. It does remind me of 1984 though.

Now my question is, why are those on the left such whiney losers... I can't seem to ever recall Republicans acting the way that the Democrats are - and they were out of power for nearly 60 years. Pretty sad that after only about 10, the left is totally disintigrating. I suspect that after 20, they will no longer be a viable competitor in the political arena.

I don't know, why don't you start a thread on it. It's not really relevant here, troll.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I can't seem to ever recall Republicans acting the way that the Democrats are - and they were out of power for nearly 60 years.

You mean the Republicans haven't been kicking and screaming about judges "legislating from the bench".

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: her209
"the nuclear option"

The term 'nuclear option' was coined by Trent Lott. It's not a media or democratic term. It wasn't until the Republicans realized that it didn't test well that they changed it to the laughable 'Contitutional option'.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: irwincur
I can't seem to ever recall Republicans acting the way that the Democrats are - and they were out of power for nearly 60 years.

You mean the Republicans haven't been kicking and screaming about judges "legislating from the bench".

8 years of investigations against Clinton and they best they could come up with is a BJ? Come on, the Repugs are guilty of cheap tricks as much, and probably mush more so then the Dems.

 

[Jhhnn]

The truth is that there aren't any new ideas from the Right, merely new ways to sell them- the "framing" Lakoff so astutely references. Much of it has been distilled and tested in their thinktanks, like the Heritage Foundation, and popularized in the Media by Rush, Hannity and others. Their weakness is deviating from the script, as with the Schiavo affair- it's all canned, pre-tested, and designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason. It's sound-bite propaganda at its finest, gibberish with meaning. What's represented as the party of ideas is really just the party of hucksterism for the same old ideas that held sway prior to the progressive movement, ideas intended to justify the accumulation of power and wealth into the hands of a hereditary oligarchy.

Perhaps the cruelest cut of all comes in the "Liberal Media" attack. The Media isn't Liberal, at all, certainly not since the days of Nixon. That starts with the ownership, and extends down thru the ranks, in ways subtle and profound. Read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" to get an idea of how it works...

Even the OP concedes to the framing of the rightwing with reference to the "Left". There is no "Left" in American politics, nobody with national stature calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Which is, of course, part of the problem- the ability to frame moderate and truly centrist opponents as "Leftist", and to claim that the median point on the American political spectrum is a lot further right than it really is... by definitions currently in vogue, the majority of the population is "Leftist", even though they'd deny it, and would erroneously self identify as "conservative"...

 

[Infohawk]

So, do Jhnnn you think Lakoff has viable solutions? (as in it will actually win Dems a national election). Like I said earlier, I think he is too reasonable. I think Dems need to amp up their garbage to match the Republicans. I think Chomsky's analysis of the PR machines from both parties is accurate generally. However, I don't think the Dems are matching the Republicans right now.

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Even the OP concedes to the framing of the rightwing with reference to the "Left". There is no "Left" in American politics, nobody with national stature calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is mainly semantics. I believe there is a right-left spectrum. It's not perfect in its represenation, but its very useful. If you define left as communism, then there's no left in America. I don't think that's a particularly good use of the term however.

 

[Jhhnn]

I beg to differ with you, infohawk. Take a standard bell curve, remove the left-hand 10%. That's American politics. Now refer to anybody left of the right-hand 10% as "Leftist"- That's emotional Repub framing, and you're playing right into it. They represent a far right 10% as 50%, appealing to the herd instinct. Failure to frame it in other terms is part and parcel of the problem at hand, Americans in general being very anti-leftist as an induced pov... a pattern of belief.

It IS semantics, as you pointed out in the OP- yet you're allowing Repubs to represent 90% of the population as "The Left"....

Capiche?

 

[irwincur]

POLITICS...


Now call me stupid for simply answering your question. Apparently, if you don't hear what you want to hear you cannot deal with it. A good reason why the average person today identifies the liberal as out of touch and completely nuts.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I beg to differ with you, infohawk. Take a standard bell curve, remove the left-hand 10%. That's American politics. Now refer to anybody left of the right-hand 10% as "Leftist"- That's emotional Repub framing, and you're playing right into it. They represent a far right 10% as 50%, appealing to the herd instinct. Failure to frame it in other terms is part and parcel of the problem at hand, Americans in general being very anti-leftist as an induced pov... a pattern of belief.

It IS semantics, as you pointed out in the OP- yet you're allowing Repubs to represent 90% of the population as "The Left"....

Capiche?

So Republicans are vote cows?

 

[Infohawk]

First off Jhnnn, you forgot to answer my other question.

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I beg to differ with you, infohawk. Take a standard bell curve, remove the left-hand 10%. That's American politics. Now refer to anybody left of the right-hand 10% as "Leftist"- That's emotional Repub framing, and you're playing right into it.

Who said I am adopting that definition of left? You seem to be assuming that my idea of left comes from Republican framing. I don't know why you think you know that.

It IS semantics, as you pointed out in the OP- yet you're allowing Repubs to represent 90% of the population as "The Left"....

How does it hurt to to allow them to represent 90% of the population as the left? In a democracy, that would help people who identify themselves with the left.