As you know, here in the UK we are in the middle of a General Election campaign, leading up to polling day on 5 May.

Already, both sides are using some phrases that are rapidly becoming cliches (if I knew the special character to get the accent there - I'd use it).

For example, it seems impossible for anyone to talk about taxes without using the word "burden" - never mind "obligation", "responsibility", or "the fair price of public services", which is the kind of language one might expect from, say, the Labour or Lib Dem parties, who are not instinctively opposed to taxation.

And the only type of people that politicians seem interested in are "hard-working families" - anyone single, childless, or unemployed clearly isn't worth bothering with. (Which bugs me more than most people, as currently I am all three.)

It bothers me superficially because it's only halfway through the campaign, and I'm already sick to the back teeth of hearing the same phrases parroted (or regurgitated, depending on the mental image you want to conjure) over and over again.

But it also goes deeper, because such language isn't value-neutral, and sets the tone for the whole debate (particularly in these two examples).

Clearly, at an election, if one side can frame the debate in a particular area in terms that automatically puts their opponents at a disadvantage, it's going to help them win votes from the undecided, so more power to them.

But once elections are over, is such, er, "covertly partisan" language helpful for constructive government (and for constructive opposition)?

Questions for debate:

What examples of political cliche, from whatever source, stick in your craw?

Is it healthy that such phrases can shift the tone of a debate so far in one direction, be it for or against things you personally support?

What can be done to take debate back to neutral ground, and should the attempt even be made?

I too feel that buzzwords and parroted phrases are harmful to the democratic process, although they are likely unavoidable.

My dislikes...

From the Right:
"Throwing money at the problem" The money is only being "thrown" when it's spent on something they oppose. Increasing the terrorism defense budget isn't throwing money at the problem.

"The free market" or "Market forces" which are clearly the solution to all the ills of man. Thankfully I'm pretty sure free-markets have never existed in modern times, that would be a real mess.

"Family Values" or "Traditional" talk about your blanket terminology... can we just discuss whether something is beneficial or detrimental without consulting the history books to be whether we've always done it this way.

Perhaps the way we've always done it is...wrong.

From the Left.
Neoconservative: My goodness I hope we can give this meaningless term a swift burial.

Imperialistic: Call US foreign policy what you want, but it's not imperialism by a long shot.

The "Super" "Mega" or yea even "Ultra rich": Yes, there wealthy... clearly this makes them unworthy of consideration.


.and both harp on the whole "middle-class" routine, no one else matters.

The use of such loaded language is not healthy it is in fact one of the greatest problem with our democratic institutions. They remove thought form the equation and replace it with labels.

I don't really know it can be stopped on even slowed. As usual I opt for ridicule there are awards for worst political jargon are there not?

If we all started laughing when they peddled this tripe to us, maybe they'll stop.

I'll try it at the next campaign visit I see.

Politics is sales.

The idea in sales is to show the prospective customer where he / she has a need, and how the product or service you are selling best addresses that need, a how it does so better than the competition.

The object in politics is to convince the electorate that there is a need, and that the policy or law (or even the politician) you're campaigning for best addresses that need, and how it does so better then the opposing view / candidate.

Language is the tool of both professions.

"Better then the leading brands". Sounds good, but it is completely meaningless since you did not dare actually mention the other brands. Who is it you are saying you are better than?

"Highest strength pain relief available over the counter". Great, though you forgot to mention that all of your competitors have the same strength pain relief on the shelf.

"It eliminates ring around the collar". Of course if you take any detergent, and apply it undiluted to a stain and rub it in vigorously you are very likely to remove that stain. Also, anyone ever consider ring around the collar to be such a horrid problem prior to the ads?


"For the children" My god has this not been overused? How can it be that everything we do is for the children? If the concern really was the children wouldn't we be focused on the massive debt we are leaving them above all else?

"I cannot support this plan because it does not go far enough". What a cop out. You believe that we need to address whatever the problem is, you likely even campaigned on it, and yet you decided that doing nothing about it at all is better then doing something? Ever notice that this line tends to be used by the political side opposite of the side proposing the solution. What they are really saying is that they cannot support it because they do not want the opposition to get the credit.

"Sanctity of Marriage" The need to protect this has be waved around endlessly lately. Seems that single parent families, insanely high divorce rates, the complete lack of standards in regard to who can marry (so long as the are the opposite sex) has no impact on the laughable sanctity of marriage in the eyes of the opposition to gay marriage.

"Freedom of Choice". The Pro-Life argument is that women should have the right to choose what they do with their bodies. Then they fight proposed regulations designed to force abortion providers to counsel their patients on abortion alternatives prior to the procedure. I guess they have the right to choose, just not the right to make an informed choice. Even more interesting is NOW recent stand against allowing Silicone breast implants back onto the market. There is no scientific evidence to back up the claim against them. Yet NOW is working hard to block them. Apparently women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies, unless NOW finds what they want to do to be wrong.

It is all salesmanship, smoke and mirrors and half-truth masquerading as wisdom. The point is to convince people to do buy what you want them to buy, or support what you want them to support. The absolute truth need not apply.


As a side note: this reminds me of a joke.

Picture a couple approaching the maitre d' at a restaurant, looking to dine there that evening.

The maitre d' asks:

"Would you care for a seat in non-smoking, or in the Nicotine addicted, sub-human, scum section?"

#3: [Mostly from Liberals]: War-mongering. Oy vey, if I had a dollar for every time I heard that used. Every single time there is a war that someone doesn't agree with, those who start that war are automatically named war-mongerers.

#2 [Mostly from Conservatives]: Family values. Apparently, a group of people in our country cannot fathom the idea that different families have different values. The Christian Right can use this little gem to justify almost anything.

and the #1 political clichè that makes me nuts is: X+National Security. Let's pass the PATRIOT ACT, it gives our gov't the power to stop terrorists. But it's illegal. Fine, I guess you don't want us to have any national security. Security can be used to justify ANYTHING. The current crop of conservatives in Congress [alliterations are awesome] are using national security and American's fears to give the gov't unthinkable power, and yet still, X+Natonal Security=Acceptable.

Well, our gov't watchdog, the media , needs to expose some of the bull that our politicians try to sneak by using these clichès. Until they're held responsible, our politicians will keep on doing what they've been doing.

CP

What examples of political cliche, from whatever source, stick in your craw?

CP just hit one of mine "the media" or "the liberal media"- two totally useless words. Jon Stewart on the daily show said it much better than I could- but I will try to paraphrase - he was talking about the Swift boat liars club (one of his better namings during the elections LOL) - and he said "you know, it is not like "the media" is one entity where we all get together and decide stuff- it is thousands and thousands of individually acting seperately, but sometimes inadvertantly, sometimes on purpose, doing ths same thing. This is what Karl Rove has exploited so well, he keeps throwing so much lies and *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** that there is no one assigned person to pop up and go "Karl Rove and the GW admin is full of it on this one too"- so alot of crap just gets through, the "media" is overwhelmed by *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***" LOL

I think he about summed it up- the "media" is talked about as if it were a living entity with one mind, and it is not.

And the liberal media thing is just so much hot air.

Using the word "socialist" for anyone that DARE contradict anyone that labels themselves "conservative" (whether thier definition of the word conservative for themselves is accurate or not)


The way the right wing, since about Reagans time, has managed to make the word liberal a "catch all" phrase that usually doesn't include classic liberal ideology at all LOL

Is it healthy that such phrases can shift the tone of a debate so far in one direction, be it for or against things you personally support?

No, of course not- I wish things were defined more accurately myself! I would personally like a better definition of "Neo-con"- a catch all for the big goverment, fiscally irresponsible, invade every country that doesn't agree with us group that currently reside in almost every branch of goverment today, but really don't adhere to any fundamental old conservative ideology, such as fiscal responsibility, smaller goverment and "fixing america first" that I recall from my childhood and early teenage years.

What can be done to take debate back to neutral ground, and should the attempt even be made?

I don't know- the damage may already be done, and a new ideology may have to arise to fix it, something unknown to us now.

P.S. - CP, the one I do agree with is "warmongering"- that one seems totally accurate to me LOL

"Death tax" comes first, followed by "classical liberal" or "liberty" as code for selfishness, followed "reform" as code for destruction.

The attempt should be made, but it's still more important to focus on concepts rather than terms. As I wrote recently on my own website (links to which are still uniquely censored AFAIK or else I'd provide one) it's relatively easy to counter something as facile as the "death tax" misrepresentation. Countering the more substantial (but ultimately no more legitimate) arguments based on specialized interpretations of property rights is much more difficult. If the arguments people rely on were better understood, the disconnect between ideas and language would be self-evident. Since nobody wants to be obvious about abusing terminology, the incentive to do so would therefore be decreased. Trying to counter one vacuous or misleading term with another (basically what Lakoff and his disciples suggest) only helps those who resorted to obfuscation in the first place.

Good point - I hadn't thought of this when I wrote my original point, but you're right.

"Active liposomes" - er, no. They are the droplets of grease in your bog-standard oil-in-water emulsion.
"Micro-fruit acids" - think fruit juice with the sugar removed (presumably the juice from very small fruits - cranberries maybe?)
"Boswelox" - chemically treated frankincense.

Indeed, a better analogy to the kind of language in politics we're talking about - stuff that carries with it unchallenged and value-laden assumptions - are things like "fights the seven signs of ageing". Because we all knew what those seven signs were before that campaign, or even that there were seven of them, and that they were bad things that needed to be fought. And not just a snappily alliterative list of the bleeding obvious thought up at great expense by some Madison Avenue suit on a wipe-clean A-board.

Now, I think the problem is not that such language gets used - as you've elegantly illustrated, it's part of the process of persuasion that all salesmen and politicians have to use to get their message across.

No, I think the problem is threefold.

1. Too often, especially in politics, the medium has become the message. Politicians have had so much media training today that if even they ever have an original thought themselves, it has to be filtered through the Meaningless Platitude Machine until it becomes so superficially anodyne it slips past the conscious mind un-noticed. We don't get to see the thought process, the intelligence, or the personality of our politicians any more, because we might be able to engage with them, and that engagement permits the possibility that we might conceivable argue with or reject them. So instead we get bombarded with language like "pro-life" (instead of anti-abortion, which more accurately describes the position, but which has been rejected because some focus group said Joe Public doesn't like anyone who is anti- anything).
   
2. With a REALLY skilled verbal illusionist, like a really skilled physical illusionist, you can't see how they're doing it. Sometimes you only known they've done ANYTHING once they have told you. Even then, one can be impressed by the skill of James Randi or David Copperfield when they are apparently smashing our watch in a handkerchief or making elephants appear or disappear at will, but having seen them do that, one would not then want to play poker with them for money, or buy a used car from them.
   So, when we become suspicious of verbal illusionists such as politicians (or advertisers) in contexts other than entertainment (we still like the verbal illusionists whose goal is to make us laugh or cry in live comedy, print, theatre, film and TV), we tend to avoid consciously engaging with them at all.
   Which is when they become most dangerous, because they can then appeal directly to our unconscious. Taxation becomes a "burden" that has to be lightened, while services remain "essential" and have to be continued and extended, leading us to trillion-dollar defecits nobody worries about or blames anyone for.
   
3. If the political illusionists were really so skilled, would we even be having this conversation? We can certainly see the palmed foam ball, the false-bottomed box, and the rabbit wriggling inside the false jacket lining (or this thread wouldn't exist). Most of the political (and commercial) language we are talking about here is only noticable and irritating because it's sloppy and it isn't working any more, at least not as well as it used to work. Yet it keeps being used to death.
   It's as if politicians have locked themselves into a habit they can't now get out of. Their media training says they have to focus on their message and not be distracted, so now they are publicly incapable of answering a closed question such as - ooh, just random examples, "did you threaten to over-rule him?", or "how many failed asylum seekers are currently in the country?" - for fear of maybe alienating some of their potential supporters if they give a straight answer.
   Now, maybe we at America's Debate are more politically engaged than the average bear (I hesitate to say "smarter" even though that's probably also true in strict IQ terms), but I'd bet any money that a big part of public disengagement from politics stems from this self-imposed verbal strait-jacketing.

Smoke and mirrors worked fine until Toto pulled the curtain back.

At least Oz had the sense and the good grace to talk to Dorothy & Co face-to-face once this happened. Bush and Kerry, Blair and Howerd - and all their circus chums (Limbaugh, Moore, Franken and the rest over there; Clarkson, Dickson-Wright, Elton, Morgan and Neill and others over here, in their own way) - they are still puffing the smoke and spinning the mirrors, to the increasingly bemused and disenchanted populace.

What examples of political cliche, from whatever source, stick in your craw?

War on Terror (What is a terrorist? What is terror? I dare someone to define either term in a way that doesn't implicate present and past US foreign policy.)

Here is how the CIA defines terrorism (after taking pains to lie about their involvement with Osama, but that's another thread):



Notice their weasel word: subnational. However, since the CIA has used contractors in other countries operating 'subnationally' (unless you really want to be a weasel and say that a coup leader in Chile was working for the US and so was not a terrorist because they were working for the nation of America, in which case there are almost never terrorist acts carried out, including the WTC bombing, if any member of the government of Afghanistan at the time approved it). Therefore, even the CIA convicts itself, calling itself a terrorist group, by that definition.


Homeland Security (Orwell is laughing in his grave over that name!)


Spreading Democracy (Haitians are laughing at that term, or would be, if they weren't too busy dodging coup leaders sent by America to overthrow their democratically elected President).

Regional Instability: This is a Bush favorite. Chavez has to go, because he creates "regional instability." Uh huh. And the SOA doesn't? Panama booted the school out of it's country decades ago because it was notorious for training coup leaders and dictators (Noriega is a grad, so is Somoza and plenty of other thugs). It's now renamed and operating at Ft. Benning Georgia. I guess we better invade ourselves, we're known for causing regional instability!


Terrorist sympathizer: US policymakers have long been terrorist sympathizers, who are they to judge?

Harborers of terrorists/hotbed of terrorism (Hey, that's us, too!):


Posada, 77, is accused of blowing up a Cuban airliner in 1976. His attorney, Eduardo Soto, said Posada was acquitted twice in Venezuela in the bombing of the aircraft.

Soto said Posada is seeking asylum in the United States based in part on his claim that he worked "directly and indirectly" for the CIA. He said Posada deserves asylum protection because he could face execution if returned to Cuba.

Posada openly admits to using violence to try to bring down the Cuban leader, including, he claims, a string of bombings in 1997 targeting fashionable Cuban hotels and nightspots.

http://www.local10.com/news/4402775/detail.html


Free Market Capitalism: We don't have it, we don't want it, we're being badly hurt by what aspects of it our government has forced us to adopt, and we shouldn't want to impose it on anyone else!









Is it healthy that such phrases can shift the tone of a debate so far in one direction, be it for or against things you personally support?


No, it's extremely dangerous.


What can be done to take debate back to neutral ground, and should the attempt even be made?

The media could force people who drip these terms in press conferences and speeches to define them, and could then ask them to clear up any future ambiguous usage. Here is something I would love to see!:

"Mr. Bush, you said Saddam Hussein tortured people."

"Yes, yes he did! And he's been brought to justice, thanks to America!"

"So Saddam didn't abuse people, he tortured them."

"He abused and tortured people! He's a monster!"

"Sir, could you tell us the difference between torture and abuse? When is something abuse, and when is it torture?"


Anyway, you see where I'm going with this. But back in the real world, the media isn't going to grow a spine. So the best way to combat this is for Americans to get their news from as many sources as possible, and to shun the mainstream reports as much as possible. And to think about these things. Think hard!

What examples of political cliche, from whatever source, stick in your craw?
I have an aversion to people who refer to things as "Nazi" when it is disparate with the Nazism. Ward Churchill's "Little Eichmann's", or MoveOn.org's commercial of President Bush in the election year. They disagree with what they are demonizing, but to compare it to Nazism detracts from their message.

Is it healthy that such phrases can shift the tone of a debate so far in one direction, be it for or against things you personally support?
Politically correct language muddles the message. It is not healthy when you cannot discern your answer.

What can be done to take debate back to neutral ground, and should the attempt even be made?
A politician needs to say what they mean in clear concise words that the average human being can understand. No reason to say 'ameliorate' when you can just say 'improve.' Your vocabulary is dictated by your audience, if your audience are a bunch of housewives, tone it down, if they are Harvard graduates, step it up. And if someone asks a yes or no question, it would be nice if someone answered it with a yes or no first and then explained why; instead of expounding on the options, leaving us to guess whether they mean yes or no. Taking the debate back to neutral ground (whatever that is) would require the masses to be tolerant of dissenting opinions and more specifically, frankness. The strange thing is, that people really what sincerity, but politicians have not figured this out. Rush, O'Reilly, Nancy Grace, Jim Rome, and Chris Matthews have become famous for being sincere.

What examples of political cliche, from whatever source, stick in your craw?

Some I don't care for are:

1. At the end of the day,

2. People of faith,

3. Judicial activism,

4. Elite media,

5. Political capital,

6. Values or family values

What examples of political cliche, from whatever source, stick in your craw?

Hate - A favorite tactic of the left, whenever a right wing demagogue speaks, especially on talk radio, it becomes hate radio. Somehow when Air America does the exact same thing, it escapes their attention.

Working Families - Some are led to believe that anyone who is lower and middle class and has a family and a job, must be democrats and are always on the chopping block by the evil, greedy, filthy rich republicans.

Faith - If I am looking for faith in an invisible, omnipotent super being....I'll find a church. I don't need it in my government, nor crammed down my throat.

Framing the issues - Politics is about selling your point, if you can't compete in the open marketplace of ideas, then don't blame the other guy for using better words. All it is is a slap to the intellect of the very people you claim to be working to represent/protect. Heck one side even has it's own linguistics professor to cover up shortcomings. Hypocritical at best, as they do the same thing themselves....as usual.

And of course, the Nazi/brownshirt/Taliban references. It demeans those who really have suffered under tyrants and diverts attention away from facts and the crux of the debate at hand. I'm not sure if it's simply a matter of time, or a small matter of class that conservatives aren't as vocal with Stalinist/Maoist retorts.

I heard all of these used by the right long before I heard them used by the left.

Rush was saying leftists hated America years ago.

Politicians on both sides try to claim those working families and small businesses.

Well, you know it's the right that generally tries to invoke faith. Now that the left is trying, they're getting shelled for it, of course. Myself, I try to keep faith out of it, I'm with you, it's for church, not politics (personally, I find that politics sullies faith). But if someone wants to claim I have no faith on the grounds that I'm a leftist, well, let them bring it on.

Framing the issues: The rightwing radio crowd has called it liberal media spin for a long time (where they get the idea that we have a liberal media is beyond me, unless it's because they're so far right that middle right looks left, but that's beside the point).

Nazi/Brownshirt/Taliban: Well, fair is fair, all of us socialists have been lumped in with Stalin for years. Although I try to avoid these terms when speaking of individuals. However, our nation should beware a trend toward fascism, and Michael Savage is a fascist, plain and simple. So are some of the Bush regime's war criminals and information controllers. There are definate similarities between our political and social climate and that of Germany's just prior to the rise of Hitler. It isn't that bad yet, whoever said it was? But it could go that way.

(Emphasis mine)


The above is a perfect example of political cliche.

All those who support individual liberty are selfish. Unless of course the liberty they are supporting is Abortion Rights, Legalizing Drugs, or any other individual liberty that is acceptable to the left.

All those that want to reform government want to destroy it. Apparently it is not possible to think that some services provided by the federal government are useless, and many others are in extreme need of stream lining and modernization. Nope, if you talk reform, you really want to see the government disassembled all together.

Your words, not mine, and lease try not to misrepresent what I said. When I say "X as code for Y" it pretty clearly refers to a specific use (or abuse) of X; if I wanted to refer to X in general I wouldn't have bothered with the qualifier. Supporting liberty is great. I support liberty myself. However, supporting selfishness and calling it liberty is noxious, just like supporting exploitation and calling it free trade or supporting puppet governments and calling them democracies. Do you seriously deny that anyone engages in such Orwellian doublespeak, or that it's reasonable to be offended when it occurs? It's precisely because those principles are so valuable that their names should not be misappropriated.

Now you've really gone off the deep end. Not only did I not say that calls for reform always refer actually to destruction, but I didn't say anything about reform of a part implying necessitating reform of the whole either, so your rant is actually directed at something not one but two leaps removed from what I said. Why don't you take a deep breath and actually read what people write before you respond to it? If that knee keeps jerking so much, you're going to sprain something.

Patriotism.

The idea that any justification is granted unto those that subscribe to a certain interpretation of a national identity because they believe their actions and opinions are in the best interests of the nation as they perceive it.

That any one who opposes their particular perspective are traitors/ bigots/ unpatriotic/ the enemy.

That patriotism is blind loyalty to symbols without due regard to the context by which those symbols came into being, for example, uniforms, flags and the little trinkets by which Napoleon tells us men are led.

That any action, however heinous and evil can be excused if the perpertrators were acting through patriotic fervor.

The wearing of little flags on suit lapels by political leaders

The action of wearing one's flag as if it were an indicator of righteous justification under the guise of national pride.

The idea that a flag validates a political perspective.

The use of national pride/ love as a means to deflect criticism.


It makes no difference. It is our actions that change who we are, not how we describe them. Blind patriotism is an irrellevent folly until the day it allows the violation of law or excuses human rights violations.


Nothing should be done to moderate people's opinions.

But everything should be done to hold people responsible for their actions. Regardless of who they are or why they acted.

From the right:

1. Family Values . Yes, like the Conservatives have a mandate on religion and all Democrats are "god-less"...I'm sorry, I may not go to Church, but that doesn't mean I'm not religious. It's not like I worship the

2. The use of "evil" and "liberal" in the same sentence . This probably irks me more than anything else. Being liberal doesn't mean I'm evil. I just live to the mantra that we're all free to make our decisions, however, we also have an obligation to help those who need it, because we're only as rich a country as our poorest, and we're only as healthy as our sickest, and our schools are only as good as the weakest.

From the left:

1. Neo-conservative . What is exactly a neo-con, anyway?

2. Save the trees . I'm a liberal, but I'm not that pro-environment. You won't see me out planting trees or riding the bus. I like driving my car.

Not sure how I missed this response originally, but I found it now so here we go.



Nice, you can attempt to disparage my character all you like, but the misrepresentation here, if you can really call it that, is the direct result of the wording you chose to use.

Originally you said:


Now Code is a word used mostly to describe something that is used to hide the real meaning of something else (at least in the context, another meaning is similar to programming for example).

So, I think it is reasonable for someone to read:



And conclude you are saying: People use the words classical liberal or liberty to obfuscate their true selfishness.

There were no qualifiers to suggest the context in which the word was used. Based on the statement above, the way it was written, It would seem logical to conclude that when you later said:



You meant I am selfish myself, but I don't want others to know that is what I mean.



You claim a qualifier, was used, but I fail to see one. Was I to assume that you statement only applied to those who are attempting to Obfuscate their meaning with the intent to defraud the pubic? Because "code" is not a qualifier IMHO. It is only if one assumes that you meant "code" as a deceptive action, rather than an action in general that they can come to see the statement as you later describe it to be. If you had written on this in more detail originally, then perhaps the misunderstanding would not have happened.



What qualifier?



It all depends on your own personal interpretation. Where do you draw the line between liberty and selfishness for example?



Which is why I had a problem with your earlier post.



Your gonna have to try that one again, I didn't quite get your point. However, the same issue applies.

The meaning of Reform = to improve, correct errors, etc. Add that to the meaning of code, and I find it quite difficult to come to any other conclusion based on what you wrote earlier.

Reform (it fix) as code (to hide meaning) for Destruction (to destroy).

What else can one conclude from those five words other then that you think the use of the word Reform in politics (political context based on the topic question) is a cover for a desire to destroy? Again, if you had expanded your explanation of this statement beyond three key words then perhaps others might not have misunderstood you.



I don't what to say to this other than I am sorry, but words mean things. If you do not wish your remarks to be misinterpreted, then choose your words better.

What examples of political cliche, from whatever source, stick in your craw?

From the American Left:

"Religious Right" - used to delegitamize anyone on the "Right" who considers religion to be a valid source of political values. Curiously, this delegitimization is never attempted against those on the "Religious Left"

"bipartisan" - used to mean something, but in its current predominant usage by Democrats, it means "meet us on our doorstep."

"fair" - used by both sides, the word is nothing more than a friendly boggle.

"right to X" - whenever the claimed right requires somebody else to provide or serve, its not a right, tis a privilege, and its not simply dishonest to claim otherwise, it is evil.

"the rich" - yah, right, remind us about the selfishness of the rich there Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, etc, etc... class warfare rhetoric is disgusting.

"world opinion" - world opinion only deserves respect when the world is acting respectable.

"homophobe" - instant, ad hominem attack intended to delegitamize.

"censorship" - Imputed violations of the First Amendment by private parties who disagree with the view being expounded by the censoree...

From the American Right:

90% of what spews out of Michael Savage's mouth.

"rule of law" - too often, this is simply capitulation to "rule by lawyers", which is an entirely different beast. Tis this different beast that I oppose.

"violence is never an option" - great festering mounds of bovine excrement. Violence is always an option. It may be a very remote, distant option, or a bad option, or a last option, but it is always an option. If the Founding Fathers believed that violence was never an option, we'd all be hoping that Prince Charles passes on the throne... If Lincoln had absolutely disavowed violence, well, things would be mighty different.

Is it healthy that such phrases can shift the tone of a debate so far in one direction, be it for or against things you personally support? Whether or not its healthy depends on how far is "so far", and just as siginficantly, whether or not any rebuttal is allowed and/or heard.

What can be done to take debate back to neutral ground, and should the attempt even be made? There is no neutral ground, not for long. Our language shifts constantly, as the evolution of terms for the mentally impaired amply demonstrates. Terms that were adopted previously because they were 'neutral' have been jettisoned because they came to be perjorative, or were so considered by some. The issues shift, and the body politic shifts. Thus, any attempts to take it back to 'neutral ground' are folly, and that's before we even get to trying to figure out what constitutes 'neutral ground'.

Yes...some people. Show me where I said all people and you'll have an excuse. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time making excuses for an unwarranted flame.

Yes, they do, and what they mean is not just a matter of opinion. "X as Y" clearly qualifies X, which is what I meant to say and what I did say, and if you can't deal with that then it's not my problem.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother coming here very often. Other places where I'm more active, this little sidebar would not have been necessary.

I get really annoyed by the use of 'investment' when they mean 'maintenance'

A classic one in Britain is about 'investment' in the NHS or 'investing' in the transport infrastructure.

Building a new road is investment. Filling up the potholes in an existing road is maintenance.
Equally, buying new funky medical equipment is investment, paying nurses salaries is not.

And yet everyone seems to call all money spent as an investment.

Show me where you said some.

The problem here, as I see it, is that you assume that others will assume your meaning. IMHO, a better approach would have been, to elaborate a bit more in the original post. That would have avoided this entire discussion.



Now it's a flame? I am sorry, but the only flames I have seen around here are in your avatar.

This has become an even better example of the problem of language in politics. It illustrates how two people can see the same phase and assign two different meanings to it.



I am sorry, but unless someone reading X as code for Y, assumes the intention of the statement is use "as code for" to, in part, mean: occasionally, sometimes, etc, then when a statement like "Reform as Code for Destruction" is read, it would appear to mean those who claim to want to Reform, actually want to destroy to a reasonable portion of those that read it.

I realize your intention now, thanks to your clarification. However, I am rather surprised that you assign the fault in this solely to me, when the statement is obviously vague, and easily interpreted in multiple ways.



Well, what can I say, perhaps at those other places you go, the phrase "as code for" has been used often enough in the same way in topics where it has become standard there that implied within is the concept that "some use it that way and not all". Perhaps these places are made up of mostly people on the same side of the issues and thus would tend to read more into such a statement because of their similar politics, they assume that you meant it as something to apply to some people, rather then as a statement that the use of one word constitutes the intent to obscure the meaning of another. don't know what to tell you. I do know that your attempt to impugn the character of this sight is laughable.

You attempt to impugn my character here as well, simply because I called you on a statement, the way that statement read to me. I read the statement that way because you failed to fully explain your position on it earlier, I generally choose to read words as written.

If that is what constitutes a flame in your eyes, then so be it. In my eyes, it is another misuse of a word and as such another good example for this thread.

A flame, at least my use of this word (which I believe to be standard), is a personal attack on someone else. That would be a personal attack, not a rebuttal to their stated opinion. Unless you consider someone disagreeing with your position, or more directly, the words you chose to express that opinion with to be a flame, then there are no flames coming from me here.

A good example of taking a topic into the realm of personal attacks can be found here:

A fair point.

The one that's really getting my goat at the moment is the way Michael Howerd is going around the country calling Tony Blair a liar.

What annoys me is NOT that Blair is being unfairly maligned because I don't think he is - though the lies I think he's been caught out on are not those over Iraq that are making the headlines (I think his lawyerly slipperiness is irritating but correct on that issue) but over things like student top-up fees and increased NI contributions.

No, what REALLY annoys me is that nobody is pointing out that Michael Howerd's record in government is not that of a "plain-talking guy" where "what you see is what you get", the way he is painting himself at the moment. This is still the man who can avoid the same question fourteen times on national television. This is still the man who presided over the poll tax and then the council tax (with it's periodic revaluations that are now scaring the middle classes half to death) has never apologised for it.

Michael Howerd's record in government makes Tony Blair lies look the harmless white lies of a man who tells his wife that no, her bottom doesn't look big in that skirt, and makes him look supremely competant and straightforward and nobody anywhere - including in the Labour party - has bothered to mention it.,

Now, I know that this is probably because the campaign is trying not to lead on negative campaigning, which they believe doesn't play that well with the electorate, but some of Howerd's mud is bound to stick, and that can only make his path to Downing Street easier.

It annoys me that Howerd is being allowed to get away with this stuff, when countering it is such an easy target.

Another one I've just heard on the radio has caused the pot of irritation that has been filling up in my head through the campaign to finally overflow...

...the silent majority...

GAAH! It's like verbal fingernails down a metaphorical blackboard to me.

This time, the silent majority was motorists - I'm a motorist, and I didn't agree with a word the guy said. Last time it was anti-EU people (I think). The time before that it was whichever minority group the depserate politician in question wanted to appeal to.

The trouble with a "silent majority" is that they never say anything, so nobody has the faintest idea what they think.

It's human nature to think that one's own opinions form the majority view, but it's also a pretty basic logical fallacy. SO I WISH PEOPLE WOULD STOP USING THE PHRASE

Especially as it only ever seems to be right-wingers using it, who I have an innate dislike of anyway.