Political devisiveness and terminology from EP 148

[ChiliFan]

I was thinking to myself throughout this story that I didn't completely fit into either of the two camps, but now I've read in this topic that this was part of what the story was about. One thing I'm not sure about is that the author Carole McDonnell posted earlier on that she's a "conservative Christian". I wonder if she means that she was born into a conservative Christian family, but her personal beliefs have changed over time, although her denomination hasn't?

[DKT]

Actually, that was only the beginning of what she said.  She also considers herself a womanist and a liberal.

As for me, I'm a conservative Christians and Jamaican-American. I am also a womanist, and a liberal.  One of my essays appears in Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of  gender and conformity a book written by a gay editor-friend of mine about the inability to fall neatly into any one political or social agenda.  The story won third prize in the Contemporary Western Fiction contest several years ago and is included in Jigsaw Nation, an anthology written during the last election whose premise was based on imagining the extremes, i.e. "What would happen if the blue states and red states seceded?" If the story seems to be anti any group, then I have failed and I am sorry. I really did try my best to show that all the "societal" groups people put themselves into were neither totally wrong nor totally right. I tried to show all the characters --including the black girl, Jody-- as being good but stressed individuals who were trying to compress themselves into a single "group." 

[wintermute]

I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy. 

I always enjoy this particular spelling error.  I know it hasn't anything to do with the story under discussion, but what form of government would a "hypocracy" be? 

Actually, it sounds like a pretty good form of government.  "Hypo" means beneath or under or less than, so it would be a government below something or less than something.  Less government is good!  I want to vote for the Hypocratic party in 2008!

Government by the under-class, maybe?

Personally, I'm holding out for hippocracy. I for one welcome our new Houyhnhnm overlords!

[Chodon]

I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy. 

I always enjoy this particular spelling error.  I know it hasn't anything to do with the story under discussion, but what form of government would a "hypocracy" be? 

Actually, it sounds like a pretty good form of government.  "Hypo" means beneath or under or less than, so it would be a government below something or less than something.  Less government is good!  I want to vote for the Hypocratic party in 2008!

Government by the under-class, maybe?

Personally, I'm holding out for hippocracy. I for one welcome our new Houyhnhnm overlords!

Wouldn't that mean hippopotamus rulers, not horse-rulers?

Either way, I welcome our new overlords as well.

[wintermute]

Wouldn't that mean hippopotamus rulers, not horse-rulers?

Either way, I welcome our new overlords as well.

Nope. "Hippo" is Greek for "horse". Hippopotamus literally means "river-horse", the "potamus" having the same root as "potable", "Mesopotamia", "Potomac" and other river-related words.

[Chodon]

Wouldn't that mean hippopotamus rulers, not horse-rulers?

Either way, I welcome our new overlords as well.

Nope. "Hippo" is Greek for "horse". Hippopotamus literally means "river-horse", the "potamus" having the same root as "potable", "Mesopotamia", "Potomac" and other river-related words.

Hey, I got a new wrinkle in my brain!  Thanks for the info.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

Actually, that was only the beginning of what she said.  She also considers herself a womanist and a liberal.

As for me, I'm a conservative Christians and Jamaican-American. I am also a womanist, and a liberal.  One of my essays appears in Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of  gender and conformity a book written by a gay editor-friend of mine about the inability to fall neatly into any one political or social agenda.  The story won third prize in the Contemporary Western Fiction contest several years ago and is included in Jigsaw Nation, an anthology written during the last election whose premise was based on imagining the extremes, i.e. "What would happen if the blue states and red states seceded?" If the story seems to be anti any group, then I have failed and I am sorry. I really did try my best to show that all the "societal" groups people put themselves into were neither totally wrong nor totally right. I tried to show all the characters --including the black girl, Jody-- as being good but stressed individuals who were trying to compress themselves into a single "group." 

Okay, so... major pet peeve axe-to-grind moment that I've been holding back on forever:

Does it bother NO ONE else that the words "liberal" and "conservative" are ADJECTIVES?  Therefore, you cannot be "a liberal" or "a conservative"... that would be like being "a smelly" or "a large".   Part of the ridiculous divide in American politics stems from this misuse of the terms.

After all, most of us are both smelly AND large... er, I mean both liberal AND conservative... in comparison to other political spectra in Europe, say.  You could argue that since Liberalism is an actual political philosophy, a person could be a "Liberal", much the way a person could be a "Green"... but no one can be a "green", because you would have to be a green "something".  And because there is no single "Conservative" philosophy ([Conservatism is always defined in comparison to the political climate in which it exists) you can never have "a conservative" by definition.

Am I just being nit-picky here?

[Darwinist]

Am I just being nit-picky here?

No.  I run up against this all the time and I'm sure most people do.  Everyone is little of everything like you said.  Broad labels are misleading and lame but people love to pigeonhole.  I'm not religious and I don't like Bush - does that mean I'm a "liberal".  But I'm fiscally conservative and I'm not big on Obama or Hillary - I guess that makes me a "conservative". What the hell?     

And you're right about the "ridiculous divide in American politics stemming from the misuse of the terms".  Most people are in the muddled grey portion between the extremes but that doesn't fit nicely in to any labeling system. 

[stePH]

Broad labels are misleading and lame but people love to pigeonhole.  I'm not religious and I don't like Bush - does that mean I'm a "liberal".  But I'm fiscally conservative and I'm not big on Obama or Hillary - I guess that makes me a "conservative". What the hell?     

Some months ago I was mistaken for "a fellow Democrat" by somebody on another board because I said "Bush is a bald-faced liar" and linked to a story of him denying having ever said "stay the course" (said story also including several quotes of him saying just that.)  When I attempted to correct him, he said "If you're not a Dem, steph, then with those flaming leftist tendencies, you'd have to be one of those idiot Greens who contributed to Bush getting elected (both times) by splitting the liberal votes."   

So yeah, if you point out one verifiable instance of Bush lying, that means you have "flaming leftist tendencies".  And despite never having identified with the Democratic party, I voted for Kerry/Edwards in the last presidential election, so I hardly think I'm responsible for "splitting the liberal votes" even assuming there was no fix.

Off on a tangent, how come just about everybody is referring to Obama by his last name, but Clinton by her first?  Not that I'm big on either of them either; just wondering.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

Off on a tangent, how come just about everybody is referring to Obama by his last name, but Clinton by her first?  Not that I'm big on either of them either; just wondering.

That's just branding... "Hillary" is trying to differentiate herself from her husband, and "Obama" tests better and suggests more formality (which he needs as a counter-weight to the "inexperience" label.

Isn't it sweet that we found a purpose for all those marketing majors?   

[DKT]

Actually, that was only the beginning of what she said.  She also considers herself a womanist and a liberal.

As for me, I'm a conservative Christians and Jamaican-American. I am also a womanist, and a liberal.  One of my essays appears in Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of  gender and conformity a book written by a gay editor-friend of mine about the inability to fall neatly into any one political or social agenda.  The story won third prize in the Contemporary Western Fiction contest several years ago and is included in Jigsaw Nation, an anthology written during the last election whose premise was based on imagining the extremes, i.e. "What would happen if the blue states and red states seceded?" If the story seems to be anti any group, then I have failed and I am sorry. I really did try my best to show that all the "societal" groups people put themselves into were neither totally wrong nor totally right. I tried to show all the characters --including the black girl, Jody-- as being good but stressed individuals who were trying to compress themselves into a single "group." 

Okay, so... major pet peeve axe-to-grind moment that I've been holding back on forever:

Does it bother NO ONE else that the words "liberal" and "conservative" are ADJECTIVES?  Therefore, you cannot be "a liberal" or "a conservative"... that would be like being "a smelly" or "a large".   Part of the ridiculous divide in American politics stems from this misuse of the terms.

After all, most of us are both smelly AND large... er, I mean both liberal AND conservative... in comparison to other political spectra in Europe, say.  You could argue that since Liberalism is an actual political philosophy, a person could be a "Liberal", much the way a person could be a "Green"... but no one can be a "green", because you would have to be a green "something".  And because there is no single "Conservative" philosophy ([Conservatism is always defined in comparison to the political climate in which it exists) you can never have "a conservative" by definition.

Am I just being nit-picky here?

It is ridiculous, and I think your point is completely valid.  I thought that was what I was pointing out with her quote, but maybe it came off wrong.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

<snip grammar screed>

Am I just being nit-picky here?

It is ridiculous, and I think your point is completely valid.  I thought that was what I was pointing out with her quote, but maybe it came off wrong.

I wasn't aiming that at anyone in particular.  I'm guilty of doing it, too (I'm a bit of a verbal chameleon...  I say "y'all" when talking to Texans, and "you lot" when talking to Britons). 

It just vexes me whenever it comes up, and I'm not usually surrounded by folks who understand why I'm upset about it.  I have taken the time to explain it before, and the offender just patted my head and said, "You're just mad because you're one of them."

*sighs*

[Darwinist]

It just vexes me whenever it comes up, and I'm not usually surrounded by folks who understand why I'm upset about it.  I have taken the time to explain it before, and the offender just patted my head and said, "You're just mad because you're one of them."

*sighs*

Typical reaction from a whiny liberal.   

[Tango Alpha Delta]

It just vexes me whenever it comes up, and I'm not usually surrounded by folks who understand why I'm upset about it.  I have taken the time to explain it before, and the offender just patted my head and said, "You're just mad because you're one of them."

*sighs*

Typical reaction from a whiny liberal.   

A whiny liberal WHAT, though!?!?   GAAAHHH!!!

[birdless]

I have to admit, at first I thought you were being nit-picky, and that "Part of the ridiculous divide in American politics stems from this misuse of the terms" was a significant overstatement, but as I read stePH's and Darwinist's posts, I see that you are not being nit-picky, and, furthermore, I think you're right about that being one of the reasons of the divisiveness... well, maybe not actually "misuse" of the terms, but having only (or primarily) those two terms with which we all get associated with (maybe that stems from having two primary political parties). But you're all right: we all most of us fit into a grayer area in which it would be incorrect to associate us with either one of those "philosophies."

<edit>
After further thought… So is having only two "climates" more divisive or less divisive than having more than two climates? It may be worse if we had more with which we tried to label ourselves... What do you think?

I'm tired, but I hope that made sense....

[Darwinist]

But you're all right: we all most of us fit into a grayer area in which it would be incorrect to associate us with either one of those "philosophies."

<edit>
After further thought… So is having only two "climates" more divisive or less divisive than having more than two climates? It may be worse if we had more with which we tried to label ourselves... What do you think?

I think the fact that most of us fit in to a grey area is one of the reasons that Ventura was able to win the governor's race here in MN.  The two main political parties candidates were doing the usual bickering and mud slinging and in walks Jesse with his Joe Six-Pack common-sense message which appealed to a lot of the voters who were sick of the usual political rat race.  Of course he pissed off a lot of those same people later with his comments like "religion is a crutch for the weak" and when he went on Leno and said he wanted to be reincarnated as a bra.   

Having more than two climates would make us less divisive I would say.  It's is harder to focus negative energy on multiple groups than a single group which you oppose.   

[Windup]

After further thought… So is having only two "climates" more divisive or less divisive than having more than two climates? It may be worse if we had more with which we tried to label ourselves... What do you think?

I dunno.  If you look at someplace with massive diversity in political parties -- say Italy or Israel -- they suffer from a lot of instability, since governments are almost always coalitions stitched together from disparate groups and when one those groups become dissastisfied, the coalition dissolves.  For the same reason, these arrangements typically cause power to flow to the extremes, and reward single-issue or limited-issue parties, since they can withold support from a broad coalition until their demands are met. You think "special interest groups" have too much power now?  This is not your answer...

See The Economist piece on Israeli politics for an overview.

[williamjamesw]

Canada has (I think) 4 of 5 major parties.  Seems to work out well enough for them; as far as I can tell from what I hear from radio stations from across the border.
I figure there should be some happy medium number.  Greater than 1, less than 50. 

[birdless]

This was too good not to post… (a little background: Mac Manc McManx hails from Manchester, England, and has a ridiculously strong Cockney accent (for you Brits, what Mac says is pretty much unintelligible to most of us Americans)).



<edit: image originally linked to original comic site, then realized that in a month, the link will be obsolete, so added the strip to my photobucket account and linked to that instead>

[DKT]

So true.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

It was a wise man that said "Ah dinna ken fit yer oon aboot."

Oh, wait... that wasn't a wise man; it was a Scot Chief Tech with a lisp.  Carry on.


Now, what makes you think that kitty is unintelligible?  It's perfectly clear to me, and I'm a right thick spam git.

[birdless]

I did say "most." And I understood your Chief Tech... but I really pretty much didn't catch what Mac said.... except for the second panel. I figured that out.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

I did say "most." And I understood your Chief Tech... but I really pretty much didn't catch what Mac said.... except for the second panel. I figured that out.

An actual native speaker could probably correct me, but to translate:

Dude... Well, I'm totally wasted from the bafflegab.  The talking heads are way out of line, am I right?  Stick a fork in 'em, and turn 'em over.

Innit?

[birdless]

Ha, thanks for the translation. The beauty of this Get Fuzzy is that it works both ways (with and without translation).

[wintermute]

I did say "most." And I understood your Chief Tech... but I really pretty much didn't catch what Mac said.... except for the second panel. I figured that out.

An actual native speaker could probably correct me, but to translate:

Dude... Well, I'm totally wasted from the bafflegab.  The talking heads are way out of line, am I right?  Stick a fork in 'em, and turn 'em over.

Innit?

Close enough. I have to admit, I don't actually speak Mancunian (which, despite what Birdless says, is completely different from Cockney) fluently, and I couldn't work out who "chinnies" might be. Talking heads makes sense, though. But I'm also pretty sure that the authors messed up slightly. "Kippered" means physically tired, and doesn't make sense in the context of "sick and tired".

Unless a real Mancunian wants to correct me?