What's your LEAST favorite buzzword or cliche often seen on DU?
I'm talking words, expressions, or short phrases--not opinions. For example, someone brought up the term "straw man" the other day, which IS ubiquitous and overused--often wrongly--but at least it's a legitimate figure of speech.
There a lot of buzzwords that get on my nerves, but I think my least favorite is sheeple.
It's a pretentious, arrogant expression--I can never imagine anyone saying it without a sneer on their face--that implies the poster is an enlightened figure trapped within a crowd of dullards. I suppose we all feel like this from time to time, especially when the latest statistics on birthers and evolution-deniers come out. In a political context, however, it gives strength to the ugly conservative stereotype that liberals are elitist know-it-alls who look down on the majority of their fellow Americans. Worse, the bar for qualifying as a "sheeple" (singular--Sheeperson?) is often irritatingly low, like owning a television, or eating at a fast food restaurant, or saying anything that may be construed as patriotic.
I think "sheeple" bothers me most because liberals are supposed to be on the side of tolerance and open-mindedness, of listening to (if not agreeing with) all viewpoints and accepting lifestyles different than their own. A self-proclaimed liberal who refers to people who don't think like they do as "sheeple" reveals him or herself to be as big of a snob as cigar-chomping asshole Rush Limbaugh--and, ironically, exactly as conceited as he likes to claim WE are.
In fact, I hate the whole practice of twisting someone's name into a childish insult--that's what the Freepers like to do. It used to be standard practice over there to refer to Hillary Clinton as "Hitllery Klintoon." Klintoon--really? That's supposed to be an insult?
Of course, occasionally, someone will come along with a name that's just begging for ridicule--John Boehner, for example. Then I guess it's OK.
169. I don't mind the term when used with its real meaning...
but often it's used to refer to any sort of viewpoint that's seen as radical or icononclastic, even if spoken *by* someone in power. I remember in particular someone saying that Chavez spoke 'truth to power'. Whatever one may think of Chavez, he doesn't speak 'truth to power'; as a President, he *is* power.
Nothing like combining Olympic-standard hyperbole with raging personal insecurity.
Really... you want to compare an organization that lynches people with someone (often accidentally) clicking a button to vote down your (circle all that apply: poorly written/poorly researched/fearmongering/irrelevant/flame-baiting/sophomoric/pretentious/cryptoconservative/boring/misleadingly titled/duplicate/navel gazing/attention seeking/time-wasting) thread?
Really? Honestly? There's nothing else in your life that you need to be more concerned about right now?
No specifics on what they consider rich, how much should be taxed, what should be taxed (wealth or income), or what the money should be used for (deficit reduction or increased spending). It drives me mental.
Republicans can come up with new talking points far faster than it is possible to logically refute them since their talking points make absolutely zero sense the great majority of the time.
Not to mention that you can refute a Republican talking point, pound it flatter than an Armadillo in the middle of I-10 and they'll trot that same talking point out two minutes later and you have to go through the entire pointless exercise yet again.
And swatting down Republicon arguments with logical reasoning is one of my favorite sports.
When someone comes here with an anecdote or an observation that they may or may not know is something Rush Limpballs said, the best thing to do is to offer a logical explanation of why that just isn't so, if that is indeed the case. Sometimes, our side does things that are completely bone-headed, and we just have to admit it, and figure out what to do next.
27. Logic is an organized way of reaching the wrong conclusion..
Logic is all well and good but when the premises you start with are faulty no amount of logic will lead you to a correct conclusion. It's been my experience that Republicans start with such horribly incorrect premises that most of the time logical argument with them is all but impossible.
This has bugged me for a long time, granted, usually when Democratic arguments are dismissed as "merely talking points."
By definition, a "talking point" is a point that either side, ours OR theirs, comes up with because it is considered especially persuasive in an argument. We have our "talking points," too, and we use them because they are often our strongest and best-crystallized arguments.
Just saying something is a "talking point" is not an effective rebuttal, UNLESS (which is often the case), you can easily point to where it has already been raised and refuted.
On sheeple - I don't mind this one, though usually I use the simple "sheep". Mainly because its a very accurate term for many people, lets face it, there are a ton of sheep out there. Its not being arrogant or pretentious to see the reality IMHO.
Wikipedia says it means - "The implication of the term is that people fallaciously appeal to authority and believe or do what they are told by perceived authority figures who they view as trustworthy" while an online dictionary defines it more simply - "people who tend to follow the majority in matters of opinion, taste, etc ".
24. LOL... Maybe you should post the words you do like...
although I sort of think a lot of people here are just sick and tired of everything and everyone right now....Not to say this is not understandable-- given all we've been dealt lately... That said,I'd rather not have to fear the DU "word police," if I 'slip' up (as I invariably will). :shrug:
26. I think the word "sheeple" is very applicable to teabaggers and those
that continued to think bush was a great president. Sorry, but I don't have a problem with "sheeple", other than the phrase may have jumped the shark, but it still accurately describes those folks (aka as repukes).
I always think of a scene in my mind when someone uses the phrase 'speaking truth to power', but that scene usually ends with Power either going 'Ya, so?' or squishing the person speaking with a monolithic hammer of...you guessed it...power.
It's somewhat amusing to hear it described that way, but in reality its' not amusing at all. But it IS how power reacts. It ignores you...or it has you killed, if possible.
Traditionally fascism is a difficult one to nail down.
If you go by wikipedia's standards Fascism is a term used to describe simple totalitarian governments with command control economic structures. Other definitions include a form of constant political movement, a statologist secular faith that champions the state as an organic expression of the people.
78. Support the troops. To "support the troops" is to support killing and maiming. If we truly do
support the troops, bring them home and out of harm's way. Another one, "to leave now would make the sacrifice meaningless." In other words, we need to kill more to make legitimate the previous year's deaths. How mind warping is this logic?
Both words are too subjective. What is 'fair' to one person, would be 'draconian' to another. Everyone nods their heads, and +1's to 'fair' and 'reasonable', but if you try to pin that down to a concrete number/concept, every person's idea is different.
If a person is purposely using a word, and that word is too naughty for a person to type out, then choose another one. Don't do the little kid thing and try to disguise it.
The only exception I'll make is when a person doesn't have a choice with regard to the word he has to use. I mean, if someone is relating a story about someone else who might have used an epithet against a black person, then yes...go ahead and use the asterisks because that word is just too vile to see. Or use the phrase "N-word".
But everything else...no.
If FUCK is too nasty for one's fingers to type out fully, then use something else. SHIT. DAMN....same thing.
And the one that really makes me want to strangle the assholes using it...
Not a buzzword or cliche, but whenever a poster refers to someone by their first name only... as if it's assumed we should all know whom they're referring to and/or that person is a close personal friend of theirs. IE... "last night Hillary nailed it"
He didn't coin the phrase it was coined because of that inane episode, which showed how much the show had gone downhill. I think the guy who coined it started a website with the same name (jump the shark) but he must have sold it because I can't find it anymore.
Also, the truly moronic belief that anyone who points out that they have black friends must be a racist or else why would that person need to mention it after being accused of being a racist by someone who is just looking for the opportunity to call someone else a racist.
Oh, and in case someone wants to call me a racist for not seeing racism everywhere I look...yes, I've had black friends. I had black boyfriends. Native American boyfriend. I have a Mexican son-in- law. I have black cousins. And I either have, or will have soon, a black great-niece or nephew. And I'm proud to say that I have First Nations ancestry through my French Canadian relatives.
It's not so much the term itself but the type of poster that usually uses it: Paranoid, irrational, etc. always thinking something is a conspiracy. I doubt anyone on DU is actually a member of the DLC, BTW.
I don't mind so much when it's used of people blindly following their leaders into unnecessary wars, but I can't stand its use with regard to people's personal lifestyle choices, ranging from watching TV for relaxation to (ESPECIALLY) getting vaccinated!
However, the phrase I hate the most is 'New World Order' because this almost always goes together with xenophobic conspiracy theories.
174. I'll be pollyanna and give you one I like: the list
Edited on Mon May-16-11 01:01 PM by yurbud
Whenever I or someone else criticizes something Obama does, and someone posts ''the list'' of his accomplishments in office, it doesn't necessarily change my mind about the point at hand, but it does remind me that things are somewhat better than under Bush (even if I think much more can and should have been done).
And it is a reply with actual substantiation and evidence as opposed to glib but vacuous talking points.
The glass may be half empty, but at least the full half isn't gasoline with a match dropping into it.
Am I the only one who doesn't think Huckabee is the antichrist?
Am I the only one who thinks Obama is playing 7-dimensional djarts?
Am I the only one who doesn't get the new xyz fad/trend/fashion?
This is usually deployed in the thread title as a way of seeking buy-in from others while simultaneously putting oneself and adherents in an exclusive club (no, you're not the only one who thinks blah blah blah. I myself have had this same thought before, and this puts the both of us in a special, more with-it category than others....). And so on.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.