Bush subliminally slurs Dems in State of the Union speech [Archive]

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 11:18 PM

Listen to the audio of Bush's State of the Union Address (http://www.pluggd.com/state-of-the-union) at about minute 2:25. While the transcripts found on various news web sites say "Democratic majority", Bush says, "I congratulate the Democrat majority". You may think this is insignificant. A Bush gaff, what else is new, or he probably uses the label all the time and just slipped. As carefully as he pronounces words in his speeches, as if he had to practice a foreign language, I don't buy it. The transcripts offer a convenient excuse from culpability.

Check out the "mentalist" magic James Randi discloses and you'll see just how small of a subtle suggestion will make you pick a certain card or envelope on a table. The choice to slip Democrat majority in the speech shows Bush's claim of wanting a new bipartisan working relationship is phony, which I guess is no surprise.

GOP strategists christen "Democrat [sic] Party" -- and the media comply (http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005)

"Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo 'Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,' and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz."

"The words in that paper are tested language from a recent series of focus groups where we actually tested ideas and language." (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0094LY)

His political action committee (GOPAC) mailed a pamphlet entitled Language, A Key Mechanism of Control to Republicans across the country. The booklet offered rhetorical advice to Republican candidates who wanted to "speak like Newt." It was subsequently awarded a Doublespeak Award by the National Conference of Teachers of English in 1990. (http://propagandacritic.com/articles/examples.newt.html)

Or this one: (http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/002414.html)[size=2]This is Luntz' bipartisanship in action during the 2000 presidential race:

The post-debate extravaganzas were very damaging to the Gore campaign. In one memorable case, Republican operative Frank Luntz (not identified as such) conducted a “focus group” discussion of the just-completed debate. Up front, he asked the group which candidate came across as more “likeable.” When they voted for Bush, Luntz proclaimed Bush the “winner” of the debate.

A member of that group, Lisa Ramsey, later blew the whistle on Frank Luntz’ con:

I was part of Frank Luntz' "focus group" that pitted ten Republicans against ten Democrats.

We were told to come to a hotel in West Palm Beach an hour before the show. Upon arrival, we were checked off a list and segregated by party. I was close enough to the Republicans to see a man passing out "talking points" to his fellow panelists -- telling them that it would be great if they could incorporate them into whatever they said -- and to make it sound personal.[/size=2]

As near as I can tell, this is the transcript of the memo, including suggested good and bad words. (http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~condrey/RHE306/gingrichgopac.htm) It comes from this excellent source, How They Change Your Mind - Subliminal Persuasion Today. The weblog for HowTheyChangeYourMind.com (http://howtheychangeyourmind.blogspot.com/index.html)

I assume this blog comment (http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/9/9/155027/0374) has merit whether it is factual or not.

[size=2]Democrats Must Stop Being Appeasers Email Print

By Devilstower
09/09/2006 03:50:27 PM EST
The word first appeared in the mealy mouths of the right wing venom patrol. Bill and Rush and Anne tried out "traitors," and made a go at just directly calling Democrats "terrorists," but the word that survived the focus groups and test polling was "appeasers."

Stamped with Rovian approval, that word next began to pass through the lips of men like little Ricky Santorum and hiss from the lipless beak of Dick Cheney. Another few weeks, and even supposedly moderate senators were using this term to refer to their "respected colleagues." Finally, with the ice broken, Bush rolled out the word as the central focus of the Republican attempt to turn around their poll numbers this election season. Democrats are appeasers.

More examples of using these focus groups to pick winning language.[/size=2]

August 15, 2006
McCain, Newt Score in Luntz Focus Group (http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=534)

I'm missing the article I read years back about the specific focus group where Democrat was tested. I'll post it when/if I find it, but the first article discussing the use of the term by Republicans followed by newscasters who may have unconsciously started using it after Newt's little talking points campaign should be supportive evidence the slur is a slur and it has been used intentionally.

Cleon

24th January 2007, 11:22 PM

davefoc

24th January 2007, 11:52 PM

If Bush's rhetoric has actually gotten to the point where he's able to include subliminal messages in his speeches, then I think it's time that everyone stands up and applauds.

Compared to his usual command of the English language ("misunderestimated," anyone?), this would mark a tremendous step forward for our dear president. Hell, he usually can't even *pronounce* subliminal.

Cleon's thoughts were similar to mine. There was a editorial on Huffington Post taking Bush to task for this. I didn't get it. The guy is famous for making verbal gaffes and all of a sudden he can speak so well that he's intentionally using feigned verbal gaffes as insults so subtle that most people wouldn't have noticed?

Be pissed off about the misrepresentations of WMD evidence used to start a war, be really pissed off that Bushco used the war as a means to enrich crony companies, but after that and a lot more somebody thinks going after Bush on this was useful?

Cylinder

25th January 2007, 12:54 AM

What, did they close down the tin foil forum already?

Skeptic Ginger

25th January 2007, 01:50 AM

Ahh, I knew there'd be skepticism. And the insertion of the word form will be written off as a gaff, no doubt.

First, let me point out this was not Bush's idea. He doesn't appear clever enough to have thought of it, but even if he was clever, the use of the term was initiated by Gingrich in a talking points memo back in the late 90s. It is well documented that the Republican talking points messengers used the term repeatedly in a short period of time and were ecstatic to hear it repeated by the newscasters.

Do any of you recall the political ad that had the 'rat' portion of the letters in Democrat linger a few seconds at the end of some word art? It was noticed and the ad was withdrawn. Anyway, the point is the term Democrat Party is a well documented use of purposeful negative language.

The statement, Democrat majority, could have been purposeful (I happen to think it was more likely than not purposeful) or there is a small chance Bush has been purposefully using the term for so long he accidentally used it here.

For those of you still skeptical, read the material on my links (they're all very short) and critique that before you so readily dismiss this stuff as only worthy of the CT forum. For those of you who heard my talk on Sunday at TAM, this is an example of one of those hidden messages.

BTW, I read all that stuff about subliminal messages years ago when there were claims of sexual innuendo in the ice cubes of the liquor ads. The theaters were supposedly flashing, "eat popcorn" on the movie theater screen so as to suggest people visit the snack bar during intermission. (Wow, it's been a long time since movies had intermissions.) I'm skeptical of the ice cubes, but I know for a fact advertising words are carefully chosen and a lot of research goes into the science of persuasion. This is one science the anti-science crowd knows about. And they use the scientific process including testing outcomes which provides evidence the word choices have an impact.

I just researched all this for the TAM paper, which though I may have been more rushed than eloquent, I believe was well received. I have been asked to present the paper again here in Seattle at the local skeptic's group.

A few other notes, the "mentalist" at TAM demonstrated the effect of this kind of stuff. On the other hand, such word choices don't make zombies out of people. Instead they have subtle influences which people sometimes act upon without being aware. And Gingrich went for the cumulative effect, not a single effect.

Don't you ever wonder why every Republican pundit and politician interviewees on the talk show circuits go out and repeat the same slogans over and over and over? The latest one is Bush et al using every word for the war escalation which downplay the fact it is an escalation. What is a "surge"? Is that a military term you have ever heard before?

past war terminology (http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff07112003.html)

Escalation in Terminology - When President Bush described a war against ‘Islamic fascists,’.... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14319984/)

Surge is simply escalation, say war critics (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/surge-is-simply-escalation-say-war-critics/2007/01/10/1168105052131.html)

Now the buzz word is 'augmentation'. (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070112/NEWS07/701120322)

Rat ad (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/12/bush.ad/)

I guess the 'rat' came from 'bureaucrats'and flashed over Gore prescription drug plan. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/americas/2000/us_elections/election_news/921830.stm)

from the link in my first post:

The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.
Why does any of this matter? Because it is an example of a pervasive assault of words chosen to influence people that skeptics should at least be aware of. Decide what you want but decide because you weighed the issues, not because certain word choices gave you a negative or positive connotation under the radar.

And, because it shows Bush's disingenuous claim to want bipartisan rule, but then what else is new?

joe1347

25th January 2007, 04:19 AM

Too bad Nancy Pelosi didn't flip off Bush when he made the intentional slur. It would have been especially interesting to see how the press would have responded to a 'grandmother' flipping off the President. I bet that the netroots would have loved it.

Cylinder

25th January 2007, 04:43 AM

What is a "surge"? Is that a military term you have ever heard before?

Yes.

"Troop surge" is a well-identified term that dates at least back to WWII. The two examples that come to mind off-hand was the relief of Bastonge by the and the initial deployment of ground forces o Saudi Arabia in 1991. Usually the term is just surge used as a verb to mean rapid deployment or as a noun to reference those troops or the tactic itself.

BPSCG

25th January 2007, 04:56 AM

The guy is famous for making verbal gaffes and all of a sudden he can speak so well that he's intentionally using feigned verbal gaffes as insults so subtle that most people wouldn't have noticed?Well, that's consistent with the Bush-haters' longtime meme that he is at once the idiot spawn of George and Barbara, in thrall to his svengali Cheney and at the same time an evil genius who tricked the entire United States Congress into supporting an unjust war.

I've heard this "calling-the-Democratic-party-the-Democrat-party-is-an-insult" complaint before. Oddly enough, it seems it's only the Democrats who take offense at being called "Democrat," though I suppose if someone called me a Democrat, I'd be offended, too.

It's the Democrat party's own fault for assigning themselves two different identities. "I'm a registered Democrat," and "I'm registered with the Democratic party," mean the same thing. You can't do that with the Republicans. "I'm a registered Republican," and "I'm registered with the Republican party."

Maybe the Dems (ooh, is that a slur?) can get back by starting to call the Republican party the "Republic party."

Okay, I'm gonna look for my tinfoil hat. Cylinder, you found them yet?

Cleon

25th January 2007, 04:57 AM

What, did they close down the tin foil forum already?

Oh, please. If tinfoil hats did any good against Bush's butchering of the English language, I would've bought stock in Alcoa years ago.

Cylinder

25th January 2007, 05:11 AM

Cleon

25th January 2007, 05:17 AM

Google Dictionary part of Bush evil plot? (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+surge&btnG=Google+Search)

I guess his subliminal messages must be working well. Myself, I'm gonna go for something in a bowler.

Hrm, a foil bowler. I dunno. Me, I favor the traditional conical "wizard" motif, though I'm partial to the yarmulke look as well. To really keep out the mind rays, of course, you really need a full-length foil burqa, but this has limited flexibility and tends to tear as soon as you site down. (Or scratch your ass.)

Maybe some designed Klan-style foil-wear is in order? There's a certain poetry to the idea...

Cylinder

25th January 2007, 05:37 AM

To really keep out the mind rays, of course, you really need a full-length foil burqa...

I tend to focus of the higher-order areas. If they really wanted to jack with my life-support functions - they'd just send Chuck Norris.

The Painter

25th January 2007, 05:51 AM

hgc

25th January 2007, 05:58 AM

brodski

25th January 2007, 06:07 AM

hgc

25th January 2007, 06:13 AM

I may be missing something, but how is labelling the party the "democrat" party worse than labelling it the "democratic party", even if it is a long standing insult in the US, how did it become an insult?
I'll explain. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party. That's what they call themselves. "Democratic" is the adjective that refers to them. That goes back to the founding of the party and the predecessor parties of similar name from the beginning of the nation. When someone intentionally changes your name for you, it's very schoolyard in a taunting sort of way. It's a childish game. To hear it from the president is pathetic. To hear it on Fox News is to be expected.

headscratcher4

25th January 2007, 06:15 AM

brodski

25th January 2007, 06:17 AM

I'll explain. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party. That's what they call themselves. "Democratic" is the adjective that refers to them. That goes back to the founding of the party and the predecessor parties of similar name from the beginning of the nation. When someone intentionally changes your name for you, it's very schoolyard in a taunting sort of way. It's a childish game. To hear it from the president is pathetic. To hear it on Fox News is to be expected.

I can see the schoolyard taunt, and I can see how it could get annoying, but what I don't see is how it can be regarded as an insult. Ok so it may be intended as an insult, but I still really can't see why. And if this is the best insult that your opponents can think up for you, you're doing pretty well. ;)

BPSCG

25th January 2007, 06:23 AM

I'll explain. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party. That's what they call themselves. No, they call themselves "Democrats." They call their party the "Democratic party."

C'mon - you know Bush is an idiot and have even alleged here many times that he's insane. How can you expect him to keep the difference straight in his poor little special-ed head?

"Democratic" is the adjective that refers to them. No, it's a proper noun - the name of a person, place, or thing. And again, it doesn't refer to "them;" Hillary doesn't say, "I'm a proud Democratic." It refers to their party.

hgc

25th January 2007, 06:23 AM

I can see the schoolyard taunt, and I can see how it could get annoying, but what I don't see is how it can be regarded as an insult. Ok so it may be intended as an insult, but I still really can't see why. And if this is the best insult that your opponents can think up for you, you're doing pretty well. ;)
Yeah, in the big scheme of things, it's not a important problem. It's just depressing to see the public discourse include the schoolyard taunt. Especially when the top guy is doing it instead of leaving it to his toadies.

fuelair

25th January 2007, 06:29 AM

Well, that's consistent with the Bush-haters' longtime meme that he is at once the idiot spawn of George and Barbara, in thrall to his svengali Cheney and at the same time an evil genius who tricked the entire United States Congress into supporting an unjust war.

I've heard this "calling-the-Democratic-party-the-Democrat-party-is-an-insult" complaint before. Oddly enough, it seems it's only the Democrats who take offense at being called "Democrat," though I suppose if someone called me a Democrat, I'd be offended, too.

It's the Democrat party's own fault for assigning themselves two different identities. "I'm a registered Democrat," and "I'm registered with the Democratic party," mean the same thing. You can't do that with the Republicans. "I'm a registered Republican," and "I'm registered with the Republican party."

Maybe the Dems (ooh, is that a slur?) can get back by starting to call the Republican party the "Republic party."

Okay, I'm gonna look for my tinfoil hat. Cylinder, you found them yet? NO, no, no!! He did not on his own trick congress into the war. Without his puppetmasters (Cheney,Rove etc.)feeding him the lines and policies, no one would have ever figured out what he was saying so they could bring it up and vote on it.:D :D

fuelair

25th January 2007, 06:32 AM

daredelvis

25th January 2007, 06:40 AM

Subliminal

subliminal

Hell, he usually can't even *pronounce* subliminal.

subliminal

subliminal

subliminal.

subliminal

Get it right people. It is "subliminable". It is like people don't care about the language they use anymore.

Daredelvis

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 06:42 AM

Do any of you recall the political ad that had the 'rat' portion of the letters in Democrat linger a few seconds at the end of some word art?

Would that be similar to the consistently repeated "Bush Lied People Died" sound byte, or the continuing harangue on the popular vote of 2000 among some who oppose Bush?

I am part way through the links you offered. Use of language is interesting, and worthy of careful inspection, to include that language that you are parroting. More comments after I read all of your links, but the appeasers meme is rather old news.

I am trying to understand the problem: emphasis on the last syllable of the word Democrat?

ETA:

Much ado about nothing. The Democrat usage matter is, like "appeasers," old news. The President spends the first two minutes paying public respect to the new speaker, and you want to whinge about this? Flyturds and pepper for fifty, Alex.

The semantic and linguistic problem is a curiosity, for sure. Republican and republican act as a two way word, as noun and adjective respectively. Democrat is a noun, Democratic is an adjective, and Green is an adjective. The attempt to make Democrat (the proper noun only) a two way word suffers from democratic already being available. So no points to the NeoCon spinmeisters on this one, but if you recognize it, so what? OH, and how about the Bull Moose Party? That isn't an adjective, is it? What about the Whig Party? What about the Labour Party? Having an adjective isn't a requirement, it is an option. That said, if the Democrats want their party to be called the Democratic party, I don't see a problem with that.

Over this word, skeptigirl, you are getting your piss in a bubble? Should generally happy people once again get riled up over a usage change in the word "gay?" A few years back, I read a column/rant in Newsweek by a guy wanted the word "gay" back from the homosexual community. That genii is out of the bottle, and ain't going back in. Get over it.

I suggest that we discuss something of worth, like Senator James Webb's rebuttal speech from the same link you offered. Your attempts at playing amateur Chomsky are disappointing. By the way, if you think the Neocons are the only people who use language for control, I will point you to the PC movement and ask you to open your eyes. It isn't even sublminial. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message) Daredevils, take note.

DR

Upchurch

25th January 2007, 06:48 AM

Jon Stewart mentioned this. (last night maybe?) I had to go back and make sure I heard him correctly. I still don't understand what it is supposed to be conveying.

hgc

25th January 2007, 06:56 AM

No, they call themselves "Democrats." They call their party the "Democratic party."

C'mon - you know Bush is an idiot and have even alleged here many times that he's insane. How can you expect him to keep the difference straight in his poor little special-ed head?

No, it's a proper noun - the name of a person, place, or thing. And again, it doesn't refer to "them;" Hillary doesn't say, "I'm a proud Democratic." It refers to their party.
So in your case, it's just plain ignorance, and not intended as an insult.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/democratic

marksman

25th January 2007, 06:57 AM

To really keep out the mind rays, of course, you really need a full-length foil burqa, but this has limited flexibility and tends to tear as soon as you site down.

Cleon on the town...
http://theonly80sbandever.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/img_5677.jpg.w560h420.jpg

Now I understand... Gene Simmons fights the man!
http://www.sacktrick.com/photos/GeneMetalsuit80.jpg

marksman

25th January 2007, 06:58 AM

So in your case, it's just plain ignorance, and not intended as an insult.
"Never attribute to malice that which can more easily be attributed to incompetence."
-Jeanene Garofalo

marksman

25th January 2007, 07:00 AM

Ahh, I knew there'd be skepticism.I'm shocked... shocked to find skecpticism on a skeptics' forum. SOmeone get this girl a million dollars!

Beeyon

25th January 2007, 07:11 AM

This reminds me of how some republicans think that the media's association of republicans and red in the 2000 elections was done to associate republicans with communists.

Get over it.

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 07:15 AM

Skeptibimbo, may I suggest you listen in on minutes 28:30 through 30:00, where the adjective "democratic" is correctly applied to Afghanistan's new government and its elections, and the constitution of Iraq. Do you also construe this as a slam on the American Democratic party?

How do you feel about East Germany having called itself "The Democratic Republic of Germany" when only one party was allowed? Does the American Democratic party also want a single party, rather than a multi party system? I think not.

DR

BPSCG

25th January 2007, 07:17 AM

So in your case, it's just plain ignorance, and not intended as an insult.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/democratic
If it's an adjective and not a proper noun, it should not be capitalized.

By the same logic, you would argue that "united" as in "United States," is an adjective, and not the name of a person, place, or thing, and that properly, the place I live in is "the united States."

Why do you hate america?

brodski

25th January 2007, 07:19 AM

Get it right people. It is "subliminable". It is like people don't care about the language they use anymore.

Daredelvis

the internet disagrees with you.
http://www.answers.com/subliminal&r=67
As does Collins' Dictionary (which happens to be the one on my desk).

robinson

25th January 2007, 07:23 AM

This is the best thread ever!

hgc

25th January 2007, 07:27 AM

If it's an adjective and not a proper noun, it should not be capitalized.

By the same logic, you would argue that "united" as in "United States," is an adjective, and not the name of a person, place, or thing, and that properly, the place I live in is "the united States."

Why do you hate america?
And if you were the King of Grammar, we'd be highly honored to have you around here. Did you read the definition, #2. It says this adjective often capitalized. Will you relent and admit reality? If you do, I promise not to disagree with you for one whole month.

daredelvis

25th January 2007, 07:29 AM

the internet disagrees with you.
http://www.answers.com/subliminal&r=67
As does Collins' Dictionary (which happens to be the one on my desk).

That is "the internets".

It was a play on the way W said the word when denying subliminable advertising in the 2000 election. Goes back to the DemocRATS ad.

Daredelvis

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 07:35 AM

That is "the internets".

It was a play on the way W said the word when denying subliminable advertising in the 2000 election. Goes back to the DemocRATS ad.

Daredelvis
Wasn't that a bureaucrats ad?

DR

BPSCG

25th January 2007, 07:38 AM

And if you were the King of Grammar, we'd be highly honored to have you around here. Did you read the definition, #2. It says this adjective often capitalized. If "Democratic" is an adjective, then it is simply descriptive, not part of the actual name.
Will you relent and admit reality? If you do, I promise not to disagree with you for one whole month.Believe me when I tell you that my personal sun does not rise and set depending on whether you agree with me or not. :p

hgc

25th January 2007, 07:40 AM

If "Democratic" is an adjective, then it is simply descriptive, not part of the actual name.
Believe me when I tell you that my personal sun does not rise and set depending on whether you agree with me or not. :p
I see. You will persist. I can do no more.

You should know by now that I choose my words carefully. I never promised to agree with you, but merely to not disagree with you. ;)

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 07:42 AM

If "Democratic" is an adjective, then it is simply descriptive, not part of the actual name.
Believe me when I tell you that my personal sun does not rise and set depending on whether you agree with me or not. :p
Is there a rule that all parties have to be "The Noun Party" or they incorrectly named themselves?

Where does this put the Green Party?

DR

BPSCG

25th January 2007, 07:42 AM

It was a play on the way W said the word when denying subliminable advertising in the 2000 election. Goes back to the DemocRATS ad.
No, it goes back much farther than that. Would you believe 1890 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase))?

hgc

25th January 2007, 07:48 AM

Why do you hate america?
Forgot to answer this question.

I hate America because some jerk stole my bicycle when I was 10 years old.

daredelvis

25th January 2007, 07:50 AM

No, it goes back much farther than that. Would you believe 1890 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase))?

I was referring to subliminable. I think that was 2000 vintage.

Daredelvis

billydkid

25th January 2007, 07:57 AM

billydkid

25th January 2007, 07:58 AM

Glad to see I added, essentially, nothing to this thread.

BPSCG

25th January 2007, 08:34 AM

Okay, I'm starting to think the Democrat Party has been taking Muslim "Be Offended At Everything" classes. (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/01/overlooked_dems.html)

EBU

25th January 2007, 12:45 PM

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 12:51 PM

Yeah, the last time I remember "democrat party" being considered insulting was about 40 years ago. Anyhow, my father, who was very precise about language, was insulted. He suggested a counter-measure: "Publicans." But it never caught on.

Two reasons for that.

One is that Republican and rebpublican are differnet parts of speech. No one coined "republicanic," so usage made the adjustments.

The other is that a Publican is a man who runs a pub, which would be the guy who provides you with beer on tap. Guinness even. That is not a derogatory connotation, but a positive and friendly one. Calling someone by a friendly sounding name will not meet the sneering standard needed for a veiled insult.

DR

Cleon

25th January 2007, 12:52 PM

I can't believe how serious this thread has gotten.

I mean, come on...Bush, sublimiibibinal messages? That, in eloquent the words of Ralph Wiggam, is unpossible.

ceo_esq

25th January 2007, 12:59 PM

The semantic and linguistic problem is a curiosity, for sure. Republican and republican act as a two way word, as noun and adjective respectively. Democrat is a noun, Democratic is an adjective, and Green is an adjective. The attempt to make Democrat (the proper noun only) a two way word suffers from democratic already being available.

Interestingly, the OED indicates that "democrat" has a rare but acceptable usage as an adjective, including in a capitalized form referring to the political party.

Apparently Samuel Coleridge used the word in this way.

Snide

25th January 2007, 01:24 PM

Cleon's thoughts were similar to mine. There was a editorial on Huffington Post taking Bush to task for this. I didn't get it. The guy is famous for making verbal gaffes and all of a sudden he can speak so well that he's intentionally using feigned verbal gaffes as insults so subtle that most people wouldn't have noticed?How is it inconsistent to suggest the guy can't speak extemporaneously, yet has his written speeches deliberately geared to a specific goal?

My take: The guy is dimwitted on both ends. He speaks poorly off the cuff, and over-enunciates off a teleprompter, like a reasonably bright 10th grader would in a speech contest. Not very impressive for a leader of the free world.

As for the whole democrat thing and it being offensive...it's not that it's inherently offensive, it's that there is no secret that it's being deliberately done, and that is offensive. (I just find it laughable, like the whole "escalation/surge" thing.) In that context it's every bit as offensive as democrats call republicans "necons."

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 01:28 PM

In that context it's every bit as offensive as democrats call republicans "necons."
Not quite. Some republicans are neocons, some are not. All Democrats are Democrats.

DR

Snide

25th January 2007, 01:32 PM

Not quite. Some republicans are neocons, some are not. All Democrats are Democrats.

DRI know. We all know. But it's irrelevant to my point: that it is as offensive because of the intent behind it. Remember, they are not calling democrats something offensive. They are calling something democratic "democrat," purposefully.

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 01:34 PM

I know. We all know. But it's irrelevant to my point: that it is as offensive because of the intent behind it. Remember, they are not calling democrats something offensive. They are calling something democratic "democrat," purposefully.
I know, I was tweaking your nose, partly because you left the "o" out of neocon. :) Now that I think of it, neocon sounds like a cleaning product.

"Scrub those blood red stains with new, fast acting Neocon!"

DR

hgc

25th January 2007, 01:37 PM

I know. We all know. But it's irrelevant to my point: that it is as offensive because of the intent behind it. Remember, they are not calling democrats something offensive. They are calling something democratic "democrat," purposefully.
Someone had better get the word to Irwin Seltzer, neoconservative author of The Neocon Reader (http://www.amazon.com/Neocon-Reader-Irwin-Stelzer/dp/0802141935/sr=8-1/qid=1169760946/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5202415-7783926?ie=UTF8&s=books)

A neocon is a Jewish Intellectual you disagree with. - Michael Kinsley

Snide

25th January 2007, 01:39 PM

I know, I was tweaking your nose, partly because you left the "o" out of neocon. :) I meant to do that...'cause neocons hate it when I do that! ;)

Now that I think of it, neocon sounds like a cleaning product.

"Scrub those blood red stains with new, fast acting Neocon!"

DRI was going to try to one-up you, but I got nothin'.

Spindrift

25th January 2007, 01:42 PM

Snide

25th January 2007, 01:49 PM

I still don't get why it's a "slur".

Incorrectly referring to the name of a political party would reflect badly on the speaker not the subject of said speech. It's not like he said Doody-head majority.

As a registrred Democratic of the Democrat party, I'm not offended in any way.Part of it is because they know it bugs some people. So because they intentionally say something that bugs some people, it bugs even more people.

It's actually funny, because the main reason it started was that the people who do it are too chicket sh** to say "democratic" about their opponents when in the next sentence they might be using the word as a positive descriptive (e.g., in describing the US as having democratic ideals, or such).

(And no, they do not have a monopoly on being chicken sh**...see escalation/surge again).

hgc

25th January 2007, 01:52 PM

Spindrift

25th January 2007, 02:00 PM

Part of it is because they know it bugs some people. So because they intentionally say something that bugs some people, it bugs even more people.

It's actually funny, because the main reason it started was that the people who do it are too chicket sh** to say "democratic" about their opponents when in the next sentence they might be using the word as a positive descriptive (e.g., in describing the US as having democratic ideals, or such).

(And no, they do not have a monopoly on being chicken sh**...see escalation/surge again).

That is so dumb, but I shouldn't be surprised.

If they're really doing something that silly, I'd just keep correcting him. "I'm sorry, Mr. President, you messed up the name again. It's Democratic Party as in democratic ideals, but I can understand how you keep forgetting that word."

roger

25th January 2007, 02:01 PM

No, it goes back much farther than that. Would you believe 1890 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase))?

1809 according to the OED (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50060572?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=democrat&first=1&max_to_show=10).

I know most don't have an online subscription to the OED, so to summarize there are quotes attributed to Washington in 1893, Kendall in 1809, H. Clay in 1847, and Bryce in 1888. The exact definition given for the word is "A member of the Democratic party".

I'm a democrat, call myself one, and take no offense in it's use, especially the President's.

With that said I could believe that some people decided to start using democrat when they could use democratic party just to avoid associating democratic in reference to our party. I could care less if its true, though.

ETA: actually, as DR has kindly pointed out, it's 1798 by Washington.

hgc

25th January 2007, 02:10 PM

That is so dumb, but I shouldn't be surprised.

If they're really doing something that silly, I'd just keep correcting him. "I'm sorry, Mr. President, you messed up the name again. It's Democratic Party as in democratic ideals, but I can understand how you keep forgetting that word."
When lib/con pundits face off every night on TV, you will frequently hear someone say Democrat when they mean Democratic. If the lib pundit present would kindly correct the offender, and it started to happen frequently, this whole silly situation might clear up pretty quickly.

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 02:20 PM

I know most don't have an online subscription to the OED, so to summarize there are quotes attributed to Washington in 1893, Kendall in 1809, H. Clay in 1847, and Bryce in 1888. The exact definition given for the word is "A member of the Democratic party".

Washington died in 1799. Did you mean 1793 for the Washington attribution? :)

DR

roger

25th January 2007, 02:32 PM

Washington died in 1799. Did you mean 1793 for the Washington attribution? :)

DRYou have a problem with pronouncements from beyond the grave? :)

The correct date is 1798. Thanks for catching that.

BPSCG

25th January 2007, 03:35 PM

With that said I could believe that some people decided to start using democrat when they could use democratic party just to avoid associating democratic in reference to our party. I could care less if its true, though.I couldn't. :)

andyandy

25th January 2007, 04:21 PM

democrat majority/democratic majority

what's the big deal?

.....maybe there should be a prize for the most tenuous JREF segueway into a bush bashing :D

Darth Rotor

25th January 2007, 05:44 PM

You have a problem with pronouncements from beyond the grave? :)

The correct date is 1798. Thanks for catching that.
Well, some statements from beyond the grave are OK, but you have to take each on its own merits. :)

DR

AgingYoung

25th January 2007, 05:50 PM

....
Check out the "mentalist" magic James Randi discloses and you'll see just how small of a subtle suggestion will make you pick a certain card or envelope on a table. ....

I don't doubt it. I'm a true believer. George Bush will use his mental powers to bend the world's will to his. yep.

You are getting seepy, very seepy. When I clap my hands you will wet your pants.

Gene

fuelair

26th January 2007, 05:44 AM

Get it right people. It is "subliminable". It is like people don't care about the language they use anymore.

Daredelvis

This was, I hope, a joke - Bush used the "word" subliminable in a speech. Out in the world, some have been using it as a joke.:D :D

Snide

26th January 2007, 06:04 AM

This was, I hope, a joke - Bush used the "word" subliminable in a speech. Out the the world, some have been using it as a joke.:D :DYeah, and not just once, but several times in a short period. It was really funny to watch a guy trying so hard to be taken seriously while botching the word time and again.

eta: Regarding making a joke of it, I often intentionally say "supposably," a la Joey Tribiani. I wonder how many people don't realize I'm joking and think I'm that stupid. I wonder how many don't notice it's wrong! :)

President Bush

26th January 2007, 07:17 AM

I mean, come on...Bush, sublimiibibinal messages?
Think what you will... but I've got a new one. When you refer to the Attorney General, call him Gonza-lues.

Ryan O'Dine

26th January 2007, 07:54 AM

eta: Regarding making a joke of it, I often intentionally say "supposably," a la Joey Tribiani. I wonder how many people don't realize I'm joking and think I'm that stupid. I wonder how many don't notice it's wrong! :)

Supposably, the word “supposably” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=supposably) is a word, irregardless of what my spellchecker says. (OMG -- Microsoft Word doesn’t flag “irregardless.” :eek:)

Anyway, re: “Democrat Party,” I agree with others that it’s all about intent. The “error” itself is silly, but if the leader of the free world intended it as a slur, well... how adolescent can a leader of the free world be?

Maybe it's time he go back to his nukular family and grow up.

Ziggurat

26th January 2007, 08:00 AM

Supposably, the word “supposably” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=supposably) is a word, irregardless of what my spellchecker says.

Hmmm... it actually makes perfect sense, though I never thought about it before. Of course, "supposably" and "supposedly" don't mean quite the same thing, so using "supposably" in place of "supposedly" could still mark you as an idiot even among the rare group of people (to which I can now add myself) who know it's a real word.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 03:19 PM

Yes.

"Troop surge" is a well-identified term that dates at least back to WWII. The two examples that come to mind off-hand was the relief of Bastonge by the and the initial deployment of ground forces o Saudi Arabia in 1991. Usually the term is just surge used as a verb to mean rapid deployment or as a noun to reference those troops or the tactic itself."well-identified term that dates at least back to WWII"? Give me a break!

How about some links to documentation here. I don't care if it was ever used, I want some evidence it's a specifically used term like "rout". How does it differ from escalation which is a more honest term? What, escalation only applies if it isn't rapid?

BTW, Bush also stopped an interviewer who used the term "escalation" and said something to the effect, "no, it's troop enhancement". The troops are being enhanced sounds like they are getting new uniforms or platform shoes. :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 03:25 PM

....Oddly enough, it seems it's only the Democrats who take offense at being called "Democrat,"...Are you even reading the thread? The term was chosen after focus group research by Republicans under the direction of Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich sent a "talking points" memo out telling all the talking heads instructing them to use negative words from a long list every time they mentioned Democrats and positive words every time they mentioned Republicans.

As a bonus, the the talking points were repeated so often, newscasters started repeating the terms.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 03:45 PM

Google Dictionary part of Bush evil plot? (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+surge&btnG=Google+Search)

I guess his subliminal messages must be working well. Myself, I'm gonna go for something in a bowler.Well that link shoots your claim of common term for increase in military troop size.

"The army surged forward" is the only military reference on the page and it isn't the same thing as adding more troops now is it?

No one is saying you can't stretch the definition to apply. That doesn't make it any less dishonest. Did you hear anywhere in this supposed plan when the temporary increase was planned to end?

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 03:53 PM

OMG you people need to get a grip on reality. I saw no slur, nor did I perceive one. This is really trivial. Here’s an idea, talk about the things that matter, like some of the policies he proposed. Even if he did slur the Democrats, who cares, because you know they’ve always been so polite, cordial and kind to him. Haven’t they?It seems the point here is being missed by a few folks. For those reading only what they want to in the OP:

This thread is NOT about a single word substitution.

I am pointing out ONE example of this particular persuasion tactic to draw attention to the tactic.

And, for Bush to use the term while claiming he aims for more bipartisan cooperation is disingenuous to say the least.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 04:03 PM

It's not subliminal. The renaming of the Democratic Party by Republicans goes back to the 70's, and it's just habit for so many of them. I don't know of Bush ad libbed that change from the prepared speech intentionally or just slipped into an old habit by accident. In any case, it's kind of funny that he would immediately follow his sop to bipartisanship with a blatantly partisan insult of the most childish nature.I keep hearing about this past practice. But the focus group where it was determined the word choice had a negative connotation was done in the 90s.

Subliminal doesn't only mean invisible to the consciousness. You can be influenced by many things that are directly in front of you and not realize you are being influenced.

Do you have anything I might read about Republicans using the term for its negative connotation before Gingrich's focus group research? Maybe I'm mistaken and some of the negative terms came from additional focus groups done much earlier.

"The Selling of the President" (http://www.amazon.com/Selling-President-Joe-McGinniss/dp/0140112405) certainly came out much earlier. That signaled the beginning of marketing research as the means for determining the best persuasion techniques as opposed to just using what seemed to work. And that is one of the issues I brought up at TAM. The anti-science people use very good science when it comes to marketing research. The science community hardly recognizes marketing is even a science. And I think a few of the replies in this thread attest to that.

Cylinder

26th January 2007, 04:09 PM

"well-identified term that dates at least back to WWII"? Give me a break!

How about an education instead? Read the chart on page 17 of this (http://www.ausa.org/pdfdocs/TB_SecReport2.pdf) logistics white paper.

WildCat

26th January 2007, 04:12 PM

How about an education instead? Read the chart on page 17 of this (http://www.ausa.org/pdfdocs/TB_SecReport2.pdf) logistics white paper.
Don't stop her, she's on a roll...

marksman

26th January 2007, 04:13 PM

I think you typed "on a " when you meant to type "a t". Common mistake.

hgc

26th January 2007, 04:17 PM

Do you have anything I might read about Republicans using the term for its negative connotation before Gingrich's focus group research? Maybe I'm mistaken and some of the negative terms came from additional focus groups done much earlier.
What luck. The first result of my Google search turned up this recent article (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_hertzberg) in The New Yorker.

The history of “Democrat Party” is hard to pin down with any precision, though etymologists have traced its use to as far back as the Harding Administration. According to William Safire, it got a boost in 1940 from Harold Stassen, the Republican Convention keynoter that year, who used it to signify disapproval of such less than fully democratic Democratic machine bosses as Frank Hague of Jersey City and Tom Pendergast of Kansas City. Senator Joseph McCarthy made it a regular part of his arsenal of insults, which served to dampen its popularity for a while. There was another spike in 1976, when grumpy, growly Bob Dole denounced “Democrat wars” (those were the days!) in his Vice-Presidential debate with Walter Mondale. Growth has been steady for the last couple of decades, and today we find ourselves in a golden age of anti-“ic”-ism.

Cylinder

26th January 2007, 04:27 PM

DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 11B, Chapter 14 (http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/fmr/11b/11b_14.pdf)

1403 DEFINITIONS

140301. Mobilization Capability Costs. Mobilization capability costs include the costs to maintain a surge capacity, to procure and maintain approved war reserve material levels, and/or to maintain other assets, functions, or capabilities required to meet an operational contingency as documented in Defense Planning Guidance or operational plans.

140302. Surge Capacity

A. An activity group’s total surge capacity most often manifests itself in facilities and equipment that are unutilized or underutilized during normal peacetime operations.
.
1. Unutilized (Reserve) plant and equipment capacity is that part of a DWCF activity’s assets including plant and equipment that is held in a standby, idle, or lay away status or for war reserve storage.

2. Underutilized plant and equipment results when the volume of workload is less than full capacity of an operating facility. The costs of maintaining underutilized capacity, except as defined below for the Transportation Activity Group, is not considered a mobilization requirement eligible for separate appropriation funding under this policy.

B. Unutilized capacity associated with the ability to satisfy a projected surge capability is considered a mobilization requirement eligible for separate appropriation funding if it is, or is expected to be, utilized in a given month or if utilized only 20 percent or less of available workdays in a month. The DWCF rates shall not include the cost of unutilized..

Whoop! Whoop!! Diebold!! Haliburton!!

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 05:04 PM

This is an interesting opinion piece (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1013-31.htm) some in this thread will agree with and some will not depending on how you view "the facts" in the piece. Some of you will see only the politics and be unable to let that go temporarily in order to discuss the marketing. If it makes it easier to discuss the image/reality dissonance to give an example of a Democrat with image/reality dissonance, go for it. But you'll have to present the marketed image and evidence of the differing reality in order to support your example.

When your frame of reference is one that agrees with the marketed image, it is much harder to look objectively at how you are being sold an image rather than the qualities as advertised. If you think you can support the image version of Bush, then present some hard evidence. Everyone else can probably relate to the fact they don't buy the marketed Bush image and are wondering, like me, why so many people do.

This excerpt explains what I am talking about.
And the occupation of Iraq, the basis of his image as a "war President," is looking even worse. If that's not bad enough, his reasons for invading Iraq in the first place have officially evaporated.

Yet the race [2004] is still a dead heat. How can this be?...

...Mr. Bush still has some millions of Americans convinced that he is a leader, a down-home type of ordinary guy that they can trust. At first glance this seems incredible: he lied to get this country into a disastrous war....

...But modern political marketing techniques, combined with the ability of a post-9/11 government to generate fear, are very powerful. The Democrats' big mistake has been to allow the myth of George W. Bush as a leader to prevail for so long. The Republicans took the gloves off right away, spending more than $85 million on character assassination before the electorate knew who John Kerry was....

...When Mr. Bush was preparing for war last year, local protestors in Albuquerque, New Mexico held up a sign that was instructive for liberals: "George W. Bush is Not a Cowboy." Indeed he is not -- most cowboys know what it is like to work for living. Nor is he a leader, an "ordinary American," a "War President," a "top gun" fighter pilot, or any of the other characters that the cynical puppeteers and costume designers dress him up to be. He is a complete fake, a marketing ploy....Now that 2 more years have passed, there is a majority who believe Bush is doing a lousy job. I think the marketed image has been shown to be quite different from reality.

My neighbor is still buying the image, Bush good, Kerry bad. More than a few forum members still buy the image over the reality of the poor job this guy has done.

So how is it that even among skeptics, such marketing is effective?

AgingYoung

26th January 2007, 05:04 PM

:clap:
Everyone change your britches!

davefoc

26th January 2007, 05:07 PM

OK, Skeptigirl your arguments and information have persuaded me that it is possible that Bush used Democrat Party either as an intentional slur or as an inadvertent slur because he heard it used that way in the groups he hangs out with.

I hope you won't be too disappointed with me though if I think the whole lying about evidence for WMD to get the US into the Iraq war, the crony hiring practices that were used to staff the occupation leadership, the crony contracting practices that were used to obtain material and services for the war, the overall inept handling of the occupation, the prison scandals, the billions of dollars of unaccounted for Iraqi money and the complete failure to display anything like diplomatic skills to work toward an end of the war are somewhat more important reasons to think badly of Bush than this.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 05:09 PM

What luck. The first result of my Google search turned up this recent article (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_hertzberg) in The New Yorker.So it would appear perhaps Gingrich merely tested the term rather than initiated its use.

It should also be clear tin foil is not the defense of choice. Enlightenment is.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 05:11 PM

Ralph

26th January 2007, 05:21 PM

I think there's a sticky over on the Rapture Ready forum about subliminal messages from Satan when you play Ozzy Osborn's "Bark at the Moon" backwards.

Perhaps this thread should be moved there.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 05:33 PM

I may be missing something, but how is labelling the party the "democrat" party worse than labelling it the "democratic party", even if it is a long standing insult in the US, how did it become an insult?There are lots of words which have subtle connotations that influence our reaction. Democratic is a positive word. Democrat is possibly more neutral. Democrat Party is less positive than Democratic Party but for whatever reason, was also perceived as more negative to people in the focus groups. I'm not sure anyone has analyzed why but my guess is merely the way it sounds.

The "mentalists" which Randi has made us all aware of provide great demonstrations of just how easy it is to influence people by verbal tricks which cue thoughts and actions while remaining under the radar. There isn't going to be a subliminal cue that gets a hard core political junkie like me to think Bush is a 'top gun'. But for the middle grounders, who are paying little attention to details, image has a very substantial influence. That applies to a lot of people. For the pro-Bush folks it merely bolsters the confidence in their choice and allows them to more easily ignore contradictory evidence.

Reality is hard to ignore so the image bubble has popped for the middle grounders, while those who have a more fixed image of Republicans being "their" party continue to select only the evidence that supports their beliefs.

Think how much image plays a role in out lives. Do you drive or know people who drive an off-road vehicle but never take it off the street? Do you have a big truck or know someone who has one that could haul a semi trailer but the most you've/they've ever put in the bed was the washing machine you/they hauled to the dump? Can you relate to the couple in the Viagra ad but in reality you are nothing like them? Image is very influential and very much not often in our conscious thought.

jsfisher

26th January 2007, 05:40 PM

There are lots of words which have subtle connotations that influence our reaction.

The "mentalists" which Randi has made us all aware of provide great demonstrations of just how easy it is to influence people by verbal tricks which cue thoughts and actions while remaining under the radar. There isn't going to be a subliminal cue that gets a hard core political junkie like me to think Bush is a 'top gun'. But for the middle grounders, who are paying little attention to details, image has a very substantial influence. That applies to a lot of people. For the pro-Bush folks it merely bolsters the confidence in their choice and allows them to more easily ignore contradictory evidence.

Reality is hard to ignore so the image bubble has popped for the middle grounders, while those who have a more fixed image of Republicans being "their" party continue to select only the evidence that supports their beliefs.

Think how much image plays a role in out lives. Do you drive or know people who drive an off-road vehicle but never take it off the street? Do you have a big truck or know someone who has one that could haul a semi trailer but the most you've/they've ever put in the bed was the washing machine you/they hauled to the dump? Can you relate to the couple in the Viagra ad but in reality you are nothing like them? Image is very influential and very much not often in our conscious thought.
So, how, exactly, does all this make "democrat party" an insult (let alone one with the nearly mystical powers you seem to have attributed to it).

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 05:43 PM

I can see the schoolyard taunt, and I can see how it could get annoying, but what I don't see is how it can be regarded as an insult. Ok so it may be intended as an insult, but I still really can't see why. And if this is the best insult that your opponents can think up for you, you're doing pretty well. ;)It isn't an insult. It has a negative connotation. Those are two different things. The fact Bush would use it purposefully (if true) is more rude and disingenuous than insulting. The fact he thought he could get away with it (if true) is insulting.

There is a lot of nuance here.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 05:45 PM

[re democratic being an adjective]

No, it's a proper noun - the name of a person, place, or thing. And again, it doesn't refer to "them;" Hillary doesn't say, "I'm a proud Democratic." It refers to their party.
On second thought, I see where the confusion is. While Hillary is a Democrat and the Democratic Party is a proper name, handling a matter in a democratic way makes democratic an adjective.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 05:47 PM

Get it right people. It is "subliminable". It is like people don't care about the language they use anymore.

DaredelvisFor a minute I thought I posted some ignorant gaff and misspelled subliminal. 'Till I got to the end of your post anyway. :)

Kopji

26th January 2007, 06:02 PM

Listen to the audio of Bush's State of the Union Address at about minute 2:25. While the transcripts found on various news web sites say "Democratic majority", Bush says, "I congratulate the Democrat majority". You may think this is insignificant.

Yeah I do - "insignificant".

Sorry, I've just never heard it referred to as anything else. Don't mean to be offensive. "Democrat" party, the "Democrats"... etc. Seems easier to say and just sort of rolls off the tongue.

Bush may have been the only one in the room who was not head down reading or asleep though...

This seems more like a branding issue than a conspiracy to make us think that the Democrats are somehow not Democratic - which seems a silly argument btw: In what ways are Democrats more Democratic than Republicans? That seems designed to be a little offensive to Republicans.

If the Democrats are so upset about this affront, it would be good to stand up and defend their honor and chosen label - oh, starting about 60 years ago.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 06:20 PM

Would that be similar to the consistently repeated "Bush Lied People Died" sound byte, or the continuing harangue on the popular vote of 2000 among some who oppose Bush? This example is one of a slogan or catch phrase. It's different from using word connotation but one can combine the two. Lying is of course more negative than merely having made a mistake. But I don't think you would need to test that in a focus group. And your example isn't exactly analogous to using negative and positive words selectively as Gingrich instructed the talking heads to do in his talking points memos.

I am part way through the links you offered. Use of language is interesting, and worthy of careful inspection, to include that language that you are parroting. More comments after I read all of your links, but the appeasers meme is rather old news.

I am trying to understand the problem: emphasis on the last syllable of the word Democrat?

ETA:

Much ado about nothing. The Democrat usage matter is, like "appeasers," old news. The President spends the first two minutes paying public respect to the new speaker, and you want to whinge about this? Flyturds and pepper for fifty, Alex......Speculate all you want but in marketing science they test their hypotheses. Why 'Democrat majority' would be perceived more negatively is not important to the marketer in this case.

Over this word, skeptigirl, you are getting your piss in a bubble? ....
I suggest that we discuss something of worth, .... Your attempts at playing amateur Chomsky are disappointing. By the way, if you think the Neocons are the only people who use language for control, I will point you to the PC movement and ask you to open your eyes. It isn't even sublminial. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message) Daredevils, take note.

DRYou underestimate the role persuasion technique plays in our world. And no one said anything about this being confined to one side of the isle. On the contrary, our lives are saturated with marketing assaults. The Democrats were better at it when Kennedy looked good on camera and Nixon thought make up was not for men. But the Republicans learned their lesson and 'surged' ahead. The Christian Evangelical movement has invested a great deal in marketing their message.

While I care about politics and the dangers of the Evangelical movement, right now I just want the skeptic community to open its eyes a bit wider. The thread example is but one of many. There is an entire body of scientific evidence and theory out there which has been collected and formulated to provide the people using it the ability to increase their persuasive power. Critical thinking involves awareness of, not just how to evaluate evidence, but also how to recognize the factors which influence perception and belief.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 06:29 PM

This reminds me of how some republicans think that the media's association of republicans and red in the 2000 elections was done to associate republicans with communists.

Get over it.Amazing how many people are interested in my getting over "it" while not recognizing which "it" I've been talking about.

I don't believe the red states do have any connotation of communism, especially now that terrorism is the fear du jour. I think red white and blue is the inspired image instead.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 06:31 PM

Elizabeth I

26th January 2007, 06:38 PM

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 06:39 PM

Wasn't that a bureaucrats ad?

DRIt was but one of the results of this sort of thing is people now remember it but think the rat was from Democrat. I did the same thing until I hunted up the link and looked. The ad had its effect.

That is true of lots of these kind of messages. Even after withdrawn or admitted as an error, the effect remains.

Listerine kills germs. The ad which preceded that one said Listerine decreased the number of "colds and flu" in the family. How many of you are aware Listerine was the first product the FDA required a retraction of a false claim be aired? Anyone remember seeing the retraction? Anyone think Listerine decreases the incidence of upper respiratory viral infections?

Cylinder

26th January 2007, 06:41 PM

A "gaff" is "an iron hook with a handle for landing large fish." (http://dictionary.reference.com) There are other definitions, but this is the most common.

A "gaffe" is a "social blunder; faux pas." Same source. (Note: "gaff" is given by the American Heritage Dictionary as an alternate spelling of "gaffe," but most educated people won't understand "gaff" used in place of "gaffe." They will want to know why the President was hooking fish in the middle of the State of the Union message.)

She did that to mislead us. You people really need to wake up to the truth!

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 06:42 PM

Glad to see I added, essentially, nothing to this thread.

If you went back and read the OP, it would help. But don't go away. These threads can get long fast and many of us just join in wherever.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 06:49 PM

Not quite. Some republicans are neocons, some are not. All Democrats are Democrats.

DRDemocrats have the subgroup, Progressives, and the Republicans have the Neo-conservatives. I suspect Neocon would get that same negative connotation in a focus group as Democrat Party but I don't know if that hypothesis has been tested.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 06:51 PM

Elizabeth I

26th January 2007, 06:54 PM

"Democratic" is the adjective that refers to them.

No, it's a proper noun - the name of a person, place, or thing. And again, it doesn't refer to "them;" Hillary doesn't say, "I'm a proud Democratic." It refers to their party.

"Democratic" and/or "democratic" are adjectives. Oddly enough, "Republican" can be either noun or adjective.

BPSCG, in English, adjectives derived from proper nouns are capitalized: America (proper noun) / American (adjective); Mexico (proper noun) / Mexican (adjective); China (proper noun) / Chinese (adjective); Democrat (proper noun) / Democratic (adjective); Darwin (noun) / Darwinian (adjective).

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 06:55 PM

Jekyll

26th January 2007, 07:02 PM

As a heads up to the tinfoil-hatted brigade, in the UK your two main parties are referred to as the Democrats and Republican (Party). So the BBC, channel4 and the Guardian are all also conspiring against you. Either that or it's just done to avoid confusion "Former Democratic president Bill Clinton" makes it sound like he's seized control of the country in a coup d'état.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 07:02 PM

It's not insulting. Just mildly depressing to see adults of high standing, who rule over us, engaging in this childish taunt - ie, changing your name for you. Yes, it reflects badly on them, but considering who they are, that reflects badly on all of us.From my perspective, I'm disgusted we are electing people because they manipulate beliefs and not because they merely present their voting positions and expertise in a typically inflated way.

Add to that the voter suppression shenanigans and it's downright sleazy.

Advertisers can be just as sleazy so it isn't merely politics this stuff applies to.

It's long past time we educate ourselves and the public about all these techniques. They lose a lot of their effectiveness if you perceive a deceiver rather than a negative connotation in an example such as the one here.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 07:05 PM

democrat majority/democratic majority

what's the big deal?

.....maybe there should be a prize for the most tenuous JREF segueway into a bush bashing :D
How about a prize for all the posts where the whole point of the thread is missed?

hgc

26th January 2007, 07:09 PM

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 07:24 PM

I don't doubt it. I'm a true believer. George Bush will use his mental powers to bend the world's will to his. yep.

You are getting seepy, very seepy. When I clap my hands you will wet your pants.

GeneWhy not read sonething educational about mentalists (http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/JREF?q=mentalist&q=-intitle%3AForums&q=-intitle%3AForum&sa=Go!)? It might expand your vocabulary if nothing else.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 07:29 PM

How about an education instead? Read the chart on page 17 of this (http://www.ausa.org/pdfdocs/TB_SecReport2.pdf) logistics white paper.
How about you just post the quote, that site is one of those computer freezers.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 07:41 PM

Yeah I do - "insignificant".

Sorry, I've just never heard it referred to as anything else. Don't mean to be offensive. "Democrat" party, the "Democrats"... etc. Seems easier to say and just sort of rolls off the tongue.

Bush may have been the only one in the room who was not head down reading or asleep though...

This seems more like a branding issue than a conspiracy to make us think that the Democrats are somehow not Democratic - which seems a silly argument btw: In what ways are Democrats more Democratic than Republicans? That seems designed to be a little offensive to Republicans.

If the Democrats are so upset about this affront, it would be good to stand up and defend their honor and chosen label - oh, starting about 60 years ago.
Perhaps I should make a "you missed the point" template.

The purposeful choice of a word with a negative connotation hardly rises to the claim of a conspiracy. Perhaps you've been in the CT thread too long.

There have been several posts like this one. Tunnel vision. If Bush or Republicans are mentioned, it must be about politics. If an action that was intended to be a bit sneaky is noted, it must be about a conspiracy. If an example of something is given, the example must be all there is.

President Bush

26th January 2007, 07:47 PM

How about a prize for all the posts where the whole point of the thread is missed?
Too much bandwidth.

And before one of Colbert's writers steals the pronunciation Gonza-lues (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2287924#post2287924), let me make the joke clear: Gonza-lues (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4206).

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 07:48 PM

Wait a second, we're talking about George W. Bush here right? Not the smartest linguist around, right?

President Bush

26th January 2007, 07:59 PM

Wait a second, we're talking about George W. Bush here right? Not the smartest linguist around, right?
Until Chuck Hagel breaks down the door of the Oval Office and kicks my disconsolate ass, I believe that I am correctly referred to as President Bush.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 08:00 PM

If you are going to discuss language and precision of its use, please learn the correct words.

A "gaff" is "an iron hook with a handle for landing large fish." (http://dictionary.reference.com) There are other definitions, but this is the most common.

A "gaffe" is a "social blunder; faux pas." Same source. (Note: "gaff" is given by the American Heritage Dictionary as an alternate spelling of "gaffe," but most educated people won't understand "gaff" used in place of "gaffe." They will want to know why the President was hooking fish in the middle of the State of the Union message.) Spell check is NOT your friend. All it does is check to see if a group of letters forms a real word or not. If you mean "beef" or "been" or "beet" or "beep" or "bees" and you type "beer," spell check won't do a thing for you because "beer" is just as legitimate a word as any of those others.While I do appreciate the correction, I am not discussing precision of language. I'm discussing purposeful manipulation of language to be precise.

That said, I'm not sure how saying "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" is a "social blunder." It may be imprecise usage, but is hardly the equivalent of tripping over the tea table and landing with your face in the Queen's lap.

Last, what is the problem? What if W. did say "Democrat" instead of "Democratic"? He says "nucular." (So did Jimmy Carter.) People have been complaining about how he talks since he was elected. What's the big deal here?

I'm sorry to be snarky, but I get so TIRED of sloppy English.I doubt a lack of awareness 'gaff' was a homonym really qualifies as sloppy English.

And, this thread is neither about social blunders, nor Bush's vocabulary deficiencies.

The thread is about persuasion and marketing. I did note if Bush chose to mis-speak intentionally it indicated disingenuousness on his part. But the main point was about the intentional use of negative and positive words to influence belief, the fact marketing is a science, and the fact the Republicans and other anti-science groups are very good at using the scientific process to develop persuasion techniques while the pro-science folks often don't even recognize the science of communication, marketing and persuasion.

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 08:04 PM

And what about his 'nucular'? Is that also subliminal for something?

Nuke 'em
Nuke 'em
Nuke 'em

andyandy

26th January 2007, 08:05 PM

How about a prize for all the posts where the whole point of the thread is missed?

sure, you can have that one too if you like :)

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 08:05 PM

"Democratic" and/or "democratic" are adjectives. Oddly enough, "Republican" can be either noun or adjective.

BPSCG, in English, adjectives derived from proper nouns are capitalized: America (proper noun) / American (adjective); Mexico (proper noun) / Mexican (adjective); China (proper noun) / Chinese (adjective); Democrat (proper noun) / Democratic (adjective); Darwin (noun) / Darwinian (adjective).So is 'United States' a proper noun or an adjective/noun combination? In case you think it's the latter, it isn't.

Funny some people are forgetting the adjective form of democratic while some are forgetting the noun form when Democratic Party is the usage.

BTW American is a noun when it refers to a person and when it is part of a proper name, but an adjective when used like, "as American as apple pie". Same with your other examples.

You aren't even thinking this through. Why would Republican in Republican Party be a noun while in Democratic Party, Democratic be an adjective just because the noun form of Republican didn't change while the noun form of Democratic did change?

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 08:09 PM

The thread is about persuasion and marketing.

That's your assumption.

I did note if Bush chose to mis-speak intentionally it indicated disingenuousness on his part.

But if he didn't?

But the main point was about the intentional use of negative and positive words to influence belief

That's your assumption.

the fact marketing is a science, and the fact the Republicans and other anti-science groups are very good at using the scientific process to develop persuasion techniques while the pro-science folks often don't even recognize the science of communication, marketing and persuasion.

Marketing is a science? I think you're (deliberately?) confusing social sciences with natural sciences (to make a political point).

Kopji

26th January 2007, 08:26 PM

Perhaps I should make a "you missed the point" template.

If you do so, perhaps you should consider using fewer words to make your points.

And I think I got your point.

My point would be that Bush is an idiot, and you would have me believe him to be some kind of master language marketing strategian.

The purposeful choice of a word with a negative connotation hardly rises to the claim of a conspiracy. Perhaps you've been in the CT thread too long.

There have been several posts like this one. Tunnel vision. If Bush or Republicans are mentioned, it must be about politics. If an action that was intended to be a bit sneaky is noted, it must be about a conspiracy. If an example of something is given, the example must be all there is.

Tell us in what way you are not promoting that there is some kind of intentional, systematic process going on? If you are not, then what is the gripe here? Are you complaining about is that language is fairly fluid and changes over time? That people use words in a sloppy manner? That words are easily misunderstood?

Use of 'marketing', sure sounds intentional to me. Or perhaps you are talking about some new kind of marketing that is not intentional. Ah ha! people's personal biases influence how they say things and so we should be suspicious of motivations. Ok, I'll make a point to file that new idea.

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 08:41 PM

Who cares why.

Can you say, focus group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_group) test results? That's the bottom line, not why the perception is what it is.

I don't get it, do you have any proof that the Republicans studied the effects of the use of the word "Democrat" in a study group?

Expressions like "bottom line", your relentless search for insignificant details and anomalies and the dismissal of both Ockham's and Hanlon's Razors remind me of the conspiracy theorist mindset.

Darth Rotor

26th January 2007, 08:42 PM

You underestimate the role persuasion technique plays in our world.
Skeptibimbo, propaganda is not just used by people who you,Skeptibimbo, disagree with. I had the opportunity to work in an information warfare cell about ten years ago. I am keenly aware of what the manipulation, abuse, misuse, and use of words and symbols is all about. When I first heard the "Shock and Awe" soundbyte being used, and the pounded into the airwaves, I was disgusted.

Amateurs.

My disagreeing with you has to do with your parroting someone else's thoughts, again, in your troll post, and has nothing to do with my understanding of the information war.

Inability to understand two sides of a matter is a sign of someone very susceptible to propaganda. Skeptibimbo, your membership in the club of easy targets is confirmed. You don't seem to know you've been targeted.

DR

Darth Rotor

26th January 2007, 08:45 PM

How about an education instead? Read the chart on page 17 of this (http://www.ausa.org/pdfdocs/TB_SecReport2.pdf) logistics white paper.
Cylinder, logistics is for professionals. She's an amateur. Pearls before swine.

DR

Darth Rotor

26th January 2007, 08:47 PM

[url=http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1013-31.htm]

My neighbor is still buying the image, Bush good, Kerry bad. More than a few forum members still buy the image over the reality of the poor job this guy has done.

Have you considered that another permutation is Bush bad, Kerry bad? Does that penetrate the granite skull of skeptibimbo?

DR

Darth Rotor

26th January 2007, 08:50 PM

From my perspective, I'm disgusted we are electing people because they manipulate beliefs
Your cause and effect is broken. Can you tell me why? You don't even have the vocabulary correct.

DR

hgc

26th January 2007, 09:06 PM

My point would be that Bush is an idiot, and you would have me believe him to be some kind of master language marketing strategian.
Huh? Why? Bush doesn't have to be any kind of genius to say "Democrat majority" with a sense of understanding it's a negative connotation. As a matter of fact, with his bully-boy instincts, I think it would come quite easily. Even he can do it.

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 09:11 PM

Bush doesn't have to be any kind of genius to say "Democrat majority" with a sense of understanding it's a negative connotation.

How is it negative?

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 09:15 PM

That's your assumption.

But if he didn't?

That's your assumption.

Marketing is a science? I think you're (deliberately?) confusing social sciences with natural sciences (to make a political point).

Should I assume this is a serious post or a joke?

Assuming the former, I started the thread so I can draw conclusions about my own intent.

You are confusing research methods with what is science and what is science and what is not science. You make the same mistake as many people do who are more well versed in the natural sciences than in 'other' sciences which you call social science here. For Pete's sake, you even called it science!

The scientific process can be used to look at anything (I won't get into the god and morals question here so leave that out for the moment, you can find my discussion of those elsewhere.) Why do you think one cannot use the scientific process to investigate hypotheses about methods of marketing and persuasion? And if one uses the scientific process, it's science, fer crying out loud!

Maybe this is one reason so many skeptics have overlooked the science of communication and persuasion.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 09:22 PM

If you do so, perhaps you should consider using fewer words to make your points. [/.quote]I think you'll find a variety of my posts from short to long, over-simplified to very detailed.

[QUOTE=Kopji;2290350]And I think I got your point. Maybe but the following misses a lot.

My point would be that Bush is an idiot, and you would have me believe him to be some kind of master language marketing strategian. This has been discussed multiple times. Try Snide, post #51: My take: The guy is dimwitted on both ends. He speaks poorly off the cuff, and over-enunciates off a teleprompter, like a reasonably bright 10th grader would in a speech contest.

Tell us in what way you are not promoting that there is some kind of intentional, systematic process going on? If you are not, then what is the gripe here? Are you complaining about is that language is fairly fluid and changes over time? That people use words in a sloppy manner? That words are easily misunderstood?

Use of 'marketing', sure sounds intentional to me. Or perhaps you are talking about some new kind of marketing that is not intentional. Ah ha! people's personal biases influence how they say things and so we should be suspicious of motivations. Ok, I'll make a point to file that new idea.So are you using the word conspiracy to apply to anything that is planned and purposeful?

Elizabeth I

26th January 2007, 09:22 PM

So is 'United States' a proper noun or an adjective/noun combination? In case you think it's the latter, it isn't.

Funny some people are forgetting the adjective form of democratic while some are forgetting the noun form when Democratic Party is the usage.

BTW American is a noun when it refers to a person and when it is part of a proper name, but an adjective when used like, "as American as apple pie". Same with your other examples.

You aren't even thinking this through. Why would Republican in Republican Party be a noun while in Democratic Party, Democratic be an adjective just because the noun form of Republican didn't change while the noun form of Democratic did change?

What ARE you talking about? "United States" is a proper noun, the name of a country. I never said "American" could not also be a noun. My point (to BPSCG) was that a word is not a noun just because it is capitalized. In English (a proper noun, for those of you keeping score), adjectives formed from proper nouns are capitalized.

"Democratic" is NEVER a noun, only an adjective. Nobody ever says, "I am a Democratic." They say, "I am a Democrat." They might say, "I am a member of the Democratic Party," but in that case, "Democratic" is an adjective modifying "party." It is not the same as "United States."

dem·o·crat·ic
–adjective 1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.
2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
3. advocating or upholding democracy.
4. (initial capital letter) Politics. a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party.
b. of, pertaining to, or belonging to the Democratic-Republican party.
http://dictionary.reference.com

"Republican," as I mentioned, can be either a noun ("I am a Republican") or an adjective ("I am a member of the Republican Party.") I didn't make up the language, I am merely noting how it works.

Just out of curiosity, do you get this upset when "Democrats" is abbreviated as "Dems" in newspaper headlines ("Dems Now Hold Majority in House")?

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 09:25 PM

The scientific process can be used to look at anything (I won't get into the god and morals question here so leave that out for the moment, you can find my discussion of those elsewhere.) Why do you think one cannot use the scientific process to investigate hypotheses about methods of marketing and persuasion? And if one uses the scientific process, it's science, fer crying out loud!

No skeptigirl, your post:

the fact marketing is a science, and the fact the Republicans and other anti-science groups are very good at using the scientific process to develop persuasion techniques while the pro-science folks often don't even recognize the science of communication, marketing and persuasion.

You clearly wanted to make a point about the Bush administration using scientific methods while being "anti-science", because your beef against them is because they have a conservative stance on natural sciences such as stem cell research. Are they also anti-social sciences?

Somehow you are trying to link this to your pseudo scientific babble about marketing and it doesn't work.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 09:27 PM

I don't get it, do you have any proof that the Republicans studied the effects of the use of the word "Democrat" in a study group?Try the citations in the first post for starters. Doesn't anyone look at the supporting documentation here? There is a lot of it throughout the thread.

Expressions like "bottom line", your relentless search for insignificant details and anomalies and the dismissal of both Ockham's and Hanlon's Razors remind me of the conspiracy theorist mindset.If you would take the time to actually read what I have posted it might clear things up a bit.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 09:30 PM

You're losing it DR. Resorting to insults is not the least bit intimidating to me. If anything it's one less person I need reply to.

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 09:32 PM

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 09:33 PM

What ARE you talking about? "United States" is a proper noun, ...And so is Democratic Party. Why are you saying the word Democratic in Democratic Party is an adjective?

You better take a minute to think about this before you look any more foolish.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 09:46 PM

I've read your links BTW and it doesn't say that the word "Democrat" was studied in focus groups and determined to be perceived as "negative" when used in a gramatically improper way.

Maybe you can post the link if I missed it.

Also, are you implying that the Republicans have connived to use the word "democrat" to influence the American public?
This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001 (http://samueljscott.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/democratic-or-democrat-party/)

This topic is in the news, on the Daily Show, on Al Frankin/Air America, in a number of blogs, it's been around in the past,

http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/21745

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/hagel-buzz-words/

For you to claim you can't find any evidence is very odd to say the least.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 09:47 PM

I've read your links BTW and it doesn't say that the word "Democrat" was studied in focus groups and determined to be perceived as "negative" when used in a gramatically improper way.

Maybe you can post the link if I missed it.

Also, are you implying that the Republicans have connived to use the word "democrat" to influence the American public?In a word, YES!

This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001... (http://samueljscott.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/democratic-or-democrat-party/)

This topic is in the news, on the Daily Show, on Al Frankin/Air America, in a number of blogs, it's been around in the past,

http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/21745

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/hagel-buzz-words/

For you to claim you can't find any evidence is very odd to say the least.

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 09:50 PM

I must be blind, but I don't see anything about focus groups studying the word "Democrat" here.

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 10:11 PM

The only mention of a "focus group" is :

who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party.

Highly partisan, as in "die hard-very touchy" Democrats?

Do you have a link to his study?

(sorry but I don't take the word of a blog)

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 10:14 PM

Blind, or verbally challenged, Pard. "road tested the adjectival" is a reference to the focus group. You need to read more.

On another note:
Surge ready status and planning (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/frp.htm) is apparently an existing military term. So we'll see if it was appropriately applied in the current escalation in Iraq. The bottom line is going to be which term was more appropriate for the actual action taken, escalation or surge.

Elizabeth I

26th January 2007, 10:19 PM

And so is Democratic Party. Why are you saying the word Democratic in Democratic Party is an adjective?

You better take a minute to think about this before you look any more foolish.
"Democratic Party" is a noun phrase, composed of a noun ("party") and an adjective ("Democratic") which modifies the noun. I apologize for not being more specific in my earlier post, but it really didn't occur to me that it would be that difficult a concept.

For that matter, "United" doesn't make much sense without "States" following it, does it? I am a native American, but if someone asks me where I am from, I don't say "United." I have to say, "United States," a phrase in which "United" modifies "States."

Would you like to hear from another dictionary? Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary:

"democratic adj (1602) 1: of, relating to, or favoring democracy 2
often cap: of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism." Note that nowhere around "often cap" is "noun" mentioned.

You seem very concerned about the danger of language being misused to manipulate the public. May I suggest that those most likely to be manipulated are those who really do not understand the basic elements of the language?

If you can produce a single dictionary that says "democratic" (small "d" or large "D") is a noun, you can call me foolish. Otherwise, perhaps you should demand your money back from your English teachers.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 10:20 PM

The only mention of a "focus group" is :

Highly partisan, as in "die hard-very touchy" Democrats?

Do you have a link to his study?

(sorry but I don't take the word of a blog)I didn't expect you to.

I need to take a break for a bit because I am frustrated you are having such a hard time here. And I do apologize if you are just young or something.

The citation is in the first link and I put the reference right in my post.

"This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001..".

How much clearer can I get?

The blog links followed:

"This topic is in the news, on the Daily Show, on Al Frankin/Air America, in a number of blogs, it's been around in the past,"

The use of the word was discussed at length everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The blogs are examples!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 10:22 PM

Again, you forgot the last portion of your quote:

who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party.

So in other words, the most touchy Democrats get offended, not the general public.

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 10:30 PM

Can you prove that this was deliberate?

Otherwise you're just as deluded as the conspiracy theorists.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 10:32 PM

"Democratic Party" is a noun phrase, composed of a noun ("party") and an adjective ("Democratic") which modifies the noun. I apologize for not being more specific in my earlier post, but it really didn't occur to me that it would be that difficult a concept.

For that matter, "United" doesn't make much sense without "States" following it, does it? I am a native American, but if someone asks me where I am from, I don't say "United." I have to say, "United States," a phrase in which "United" modifies "States."

Would you like to hear from another dictionary? Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary:

"democratic adj (1602) 1: of, relating to, or favoring democracy 2
often cap: of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism." Note that nowhere around "often cap" is "noun" mentioned.

You seem very concerned about the danger of language being misused to manipulate the public. May I suggest that those most likely to be manipulated are those who really do not understand the basic elements of the language?

If you can produce a single dictionary that says "democratic" (small "d" or large "D") is a noun, you can call me foolish. Otherwise, perhaps you should demand your money back from your English teachers.Emphasis mine.

I told you you should think about this more. But you insisted:

Democratic Party
n. (http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-party)

One of the two major political parties in the United States, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828.

Noun 1. Democratic Party (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Democratic+Party)
Democratic Party - the older of two major political parties in the United States

Noun: Democratic Party (http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=democratic+party)

1. The older of two major political parties in the United StatesShall I go on?

Here's your own link but with a proper search for the proper noun. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democratic%20party)

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 10:37 PM

"Democratic Party" is the noun, not "Democratic".

davefoc

26th January 2007, 10:50 PM

Can you prove that this was deliberate?

Otherwise you're just as deluded as the conspiracy theorists.

That seems a little bit of a stretch there Pardalis. skeptigirl doesn't need to prove something to be reasonable when she suggests the possibility of something. If skeptigirl had claimed that she could prove that Bush had intended an insult by his use of the words Democrat Party then there might be a basis for your comment. Could you show where in this thread skeptigirl said that she could prove that Bush intended an insult?

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 11:00 PM

Could you show where in this thread skeptigirl said that she could prove that Bush intended an insult?

She doesn't say she can prove it, she's stating this as if it was a fact. That's the problem.

davefoc

26th January 2007, 11:04 PM

On the "Democratic Party" is a noun thing.

I think we've just entered the semantic zone here.

In looking up the word noun I saw quite a few references to the idea that a noun was a particular kind of word. Is "Democratic Party" a word? Arguably not. It looks like two words to me.

On the other hand, based on some of the citations it is characterized as a noun in some dictionaries. So are the dictionaries wrong? They seem a little conflicted here. Maybe they just don't think it's worthwhile to make a distinction between a noun and a noun phrase?

"Democratic" is absolutely used as an adjective as in Democratic committee, Democratic Senator, etc. So I am not sure exactly what was meant by implications that "Democratic" isn't an adjective.

davefoc

26th January 2007, 11:13 PM

She doesn't say she can prove it, she's stating this as if it was a fact. That's the problem.

FWIW, if somebody makes a claim like this I think there is an implication by its nature of the claim that the claimant did not mean he could prove the claim. Unless the claim is accompanied with words to the effect that the claimant has very specialized knowledge of the speakers intent I think it is reasonable to assume that their claim is along the lines of "I think there's a good chance" that this is true.

But of course, the way I take something is not really an indication that that is the most usual or most reasonable interpretation of what was meant by the claimant, so perhaps we should ask the claimant what her intent was?

Let me try:

skeptigirl, did you mean to claim either that you were certain that Bush intended an insult or that you could prove that Bush intended an insult when he used the words, "Democrat Party", in his recent speech?

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 11:17 PM

"Democratic Party" is the noun, not "Democratic".
Yes, Pard, that's what the discussion was about. Did you read any of the discussion?

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 11:24 PM

I have an hypothesis:

Like the term "nucular", the expression "Democrat Party" is not proper English but it has become somewhat customary usage for those less literate Republicans. It's sort of became a bad habit over the years, something they aren't even aware of anymore.

So, I believe that the current US President didn't mean to insult the Democrats by using that expression.

Only the most touchy-feely rabid Democrats noticed it and got irritated to the point of labelling him conspiratoid intentions to win the American public's mind by clever mentalist-like subliminal propaganda.

Is that a reasonable hypothesis Skeptigirl?

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 11:39 PM

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 11:41 PM

...

Just out of curiosity, do you get this upset when "Democrats" is abbreviated as "Dems" in newspaper headlines ("Dems Now Hold Majority in House")?No, and I use 'Dems' myself as shorthand in posts.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 11:43 PM

...
You clearly wanted to make a point about the Bush administration using scientific methods while being "anti-science", because your beef against them is because they have a conservative stance on natural sciences such as stem cell research. Are they also anti-social sciences?

Somehow you are trying to link this to your pseudo scientific babble about marketing and it doesn't work.This is rather twisted.

You and D R have some very odd thought processes.

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 11:44 PM

So why bring the Republican anti-science angle to this?

Kopji

26th January 2007, 11:46 PM

That seems a little bit of a stretch there Pardalis. skeptigirl doesn't need to prove something to be reasonable when she suggests the possibility of something. If skeptigirl had claimed that she could prove that Bush had intended an insult by his use of the words Democrat Party then there might be a basis for your comment. Could you show where in this thread skeptigirl said that she could prove that Bush intended an insult?

Hi davedoc,
Not that I enjoy siding with the jref far right, but in the OP, skeptigirl asserts this:

A Bush gaff, what else is new, or he probably uses the label all the time and just slipped. As carefully as he pronounces words in his speeches, as if he had to practice a foreign language, I don't buy it. The transcripts offer a convenient excuse from culpability.

Check out the "mentalist" magic James Randi discloses and you'll see just how small of a subtle suggestion will make you pick a certain card or envelope on a table. The choice to slip Democrat majority in the speech shows Bush's claim of wanting a new bipartisan working relationship is phony, which I guess is no surprise.

So I don't think I'm too far out of line in comparing this to CT. It seems at least made of the same whole cloth. I'm a little insulted by the implication that despite all his actions I'm going to be fooled by an obscure choice of words.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 11:50 PM

Pardalis

26th January 2007, 11:51 PM

No, it is not a reasonable hypothesis. Are you drunk by chance? Your words seem a little slurred.

Why is it not reasonable?

I'm not drunk, I'm French Canadian. ;)

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 12:03 AM

So why bring the Republican anti-science angle to this?

Well, lets see...

There was the attempt to censor NASA from mentioning the Big Bang because it contradicted Genesis (but then it turned out the hired censor had lied on his resume so he got canned).

There is the book that is for sale at the Grand Canyon claiming the canyon was formed in Noah's flood which while it is in the Inspirational section in one of the stores, the other two don't have sections so it appears in with the science books on the canyon.

There are all the attempts to stifle any public disclosure of global warming research any government research project reported.

There is the closing of the EPA library to public environmental researchers.

There is the stand on stem cell research.

There are the appointments of federal judges which hold more radical beliefs like Creationism including beliefs that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools (though Bush also appointed some federal judges as political favors and fortunately the one who presided over the Dover trial turned out to be a good choice.)

Perhaps others can add to the list.

Evangelicals who believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and Creationism are also using the scientific process they otherwise reject to research persuasion tactics as well.

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 12:05 AM

Why is it not reasonable?

...There is no basis in fact for it.

Pardalis

27th January 2007, 12:06 AM

Well well well! You do have a political point to make!

Guess I wasn't so "twisted" after all. :rolleyes:

Now care to explain to me how my hypothesis is less reasonable than your "mentalist-mind-control-marketing-propaganda" hypothesis?

Pardalis

27th January 2007, 12:08 AM

There is no basis in fact for it.

Is your hypothesis based on fact? I must have missed it.

Pardalis

27th January 2007, 12:18 AM

BTW, the examples you posted in post #162 are all natural sciences, not social sciences like "marketing".

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 12:24 AM

Hi davedoc,
Not that I enjoy siding with the jref far right, but in the OP, skeptigirl asserts this:

So I don't think I'm too far out of line in comparing this to CT. It seems at least made of the same whole cloth. I'm a little insulted by the implication that despite all his actions I'm going to be fooled by an obscure choice of words.You are out of line but I would think it is because of your lack of awareness on how pervasive the marketing really is. And maybe a little because you just don't know me very well.

First off, the matters of which I speak are all very well documented. And they are being discussed in many places as I already mentioned. The discussions are not in CT circles, they are very mainstream.

But if you think you are not influenced, have you stopped to think how much money is being invested in this marketing? And would such huge sums be spent if there weren't fruitful results for the effort?

Are you aware that since taking office in 2000, the Republican controlled government increased PR funding by huge sums over previous administrations.

I'll be starting another thread soon on that. It might get buried in this thread. But perhaps you recall the scandal when the "No Child Left Behind" legislation was being promoted out of the federal education budget when the law prohibited such practices. It wasn't a matter of a little PR for a program mind you. It was the education department funds being used to campaign for legislation that had not yet passed and was controversial.

When I was looking into fake news in the form of Video News Releases I found the Bush government was making them fairly often. And from there I saw how much money was budgeted for these PR videos and it was a huge amount, tens of millions per year just to sell the government to you and me.

Anyway, my point about underestimating the impact is that marketing is very effective. But the more educated a person is about marketing techniques, the less effective it is. Marketing is not some conspiracy theory. One look around you should be evidence of that.

davefoc

27th January 2007, 12:28 AM

Hi davedoc,

So I don't think I'm too far out of line in comparing this to CT. It seems at least made of the same whole cloth. I'm a little insulted by the implication that despite all his actions I'm going to be fooled by an obscure choice of words.

I see your point and "...The choice to slip Democrat majority in the speech shows Bush's claim of wanting a new bipartisan working relationship is phony, which I guess is no surprise." does seem a little over the top (which was sort of what I and others alluded to in previous posts). Still without specific evidence, I do not believe that skeptigirl meant to imply that she was certain of Bush's intent to insult.

AgingYoung

27th January 2007, 12:31 AM

So why bring the Republican anti-science angle to this?

Subtle marketing ploy?

Gene

Pardalis

27th January 2007, 12:31 AM

(post #167) What on Earth does that have to do with Bush and his alledged intentional use of the expression "Democrat party"??

Ah, I'm tired of your petty politics Skeptigirl, we call that "politicailleries" here.

I do hope the Dems win the next elections though. :)

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 12:34 AM

Pardalis

27th January 2007, 12:41 AM

Pard, if you make an effort to read and comprehend what I already posted we can have a discussion. But continually asking me to point out to you where I have already posted several pages supporting my statements isn't something I have the time to do. I showed you the focus group link, I even posted the sentence you could have read on your own but didn't. Despite that effort you claimed you couldn't see it so I had to post it again with bold type. Enough is enough.

I did read that quote Skeptigirl, and did you notice at the end of it it mentioned that only "highly partisan'' Democrats thought that the expression "Democrat Party" was offensive? And what does that say about your hypothesis that Bush deliberately used it to subliminally slur the Democrats during his speech?

As Kopji mentionned, this is close to CT thinking. You're trying awfully hard to push your political ideas, and there are far more obvious flaws in the Bush administration's policies you can focus on (see your post #162) instead of this absurd theory of yours.

AgingYoung

27th January 2007, 12:41 AM

Pardalis,

I hope the demrats loose in spades but that's just me. You know how obstinate us unscientific republi*rats can be.

Gene

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 12:58 AM

I see your point and "...The choice to slip Democrat majority in the speech shows Bush's claim of wanting a new bipartisan working relationship is phony, which I guess is no surprise." does seem a little over the top (which was sort of what I and others alluded to in previous posts). Still without specific evidence, I do not believe that skeptigirl meant to imply that she was certain of Bush's intent to insult.I do believe I said IF it was purposeful...

Personally, I think it was purposeful but I have to allow for the possibility he slipped because he uses the term regularly. But then there is still the chance even if that were the case it shows his claim to be reaching out for bipartisanship to be phony.

Why do I think it was purposeful?

Snide said it best:How is it inconsistent to suggest the guy can't speak extemporaneously, yet has his written speeches deliberately geared to a specific goal?

My take: The guy is dimwitted on both ends. He speaks poorly off the cuff, and over-enunciates off a teleprompter, like a reasonably bright 10th grader would in a speech contest.....In interviews he makes unbelievable errors. But in speeches he indeed over enunciates in a way that seems so practiced it's almost as ignorant appearing. If Rove or Cheney said to use Democrat majority, I'm sure Bush could have purposefully done so.

The other evidence is from someone who saw the speech. I have yet to see for myself. When Bush used the term Democrat majority my friend reported his facial expression gave that little smirk which suggested he was aware of what he said. But I'll have to see for myself on that one.

Pardalis

27th January 2007, 01:03 AM

Is it possible that your "highly partisan" brain of yours is making you see things that are not there, making you perceive patterns of deception where there are none?

rikzilla

27th January 2007, 05:39 AM

Is it possible that your "highly partisan" brain of yours is making you see things that are not there, making you perceive patterns of deception where there are none?

Hey duuude, like she's just asking questions ya know?

-z

Jekyll

27th January 2007, 06:01 AM

Perhaps you should read the BBC. They indeed to use "Democratic" for the adjective.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6291229.stm

Yes, but as a modifier of the word Democrat, not as an abbreviation for Democratic party.

Look at this search for the phrase "democratic party" on the BBC website:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=8H8&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=democratic+party&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=bbc.co.uk+&as_rights=&safe=images

Two hits on the first page. One returning the history of the Democratic party and the other a false positive that doesn't contain the phrase. On the second page there is one link talking about the behavior of the Democratic party under the new deal in the 1930's.

Let's try again with "the Democrats":
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&as_qdr=all&q=+%22the+democrats%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk&btnG=Search&meta=

There is clearly an editorial policy to refer to the US Democratic Party as ... the Democrats.

andyandy

27th January 2007, 06:12 AM

as a point of interest, in the UK we have the Liberal Democrat party - so no one this side of the pond is going to draw any specific negative connotations from "The Democrat party".....

Jekyll

27th January 2007, 06:33 AM

BPSCG

27th January 2007, 07:27 AM

Are you even reading the thread? All of it, except for the rambling, feverish, disjointed, incoherent, paranoid screed of an OP, which...

Oops. Sorry. :blush:

BPSCG

27th January 2007, 07:32 AM

"Democratic Party" is a noun phrase, composed of a noun ("party") and an adjective ("Democratic") which modifies the noun. What is the name (i.e., proper noun) of the party that a Democrat belongs to?

I am a native American, Hey, so am I! :D

My parents came from France, but I was born in New York City, so if I'm not a native American, what country am I a native of?

BPSCG

27th January 2007, 07:34 AM

On second thought, I see where the confusion is. While Hillary is a Democrat and the Democratic Party is a proper name, handling a matter in a democratic way makes democratic an adjective.Correct. Correct. Correct.

BPSCG

27th January 2007, 07:39 AM

I'm sorry to be snarky, but I get so TIRED of sloppy English.Me I, too.

Kil

27th January 2007, 08:11 AM

I happen to think skeptigirl is correct in bringing up the way words can be manipulated for making even subtle points. And it’s probably easier to do than manipulating statistics, which is done all the time, because it is harder to quantify.

Does anyone here actually believe focus groups are not used to refine a desired message in politics? Why on earth would politicians and their operatives not take advantage of a proven method for selling soup or whatever?

As for the words themselves, calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party leaves out the part of the word that most Americans are warm to. Democratic has an intrinsically positive ring to it. But Democrat only refers to a member or members of a political party. Calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party shifts the message or platform of the party as a whole, along with a positive word, to individuals in the party. Again, we all like the word Democratic, but some people have problems with some or all Democrats. The change is subtle but noteworthy. And it is most certainly calculated.

The larger issue is the practice of word manipulation by politicians in general and the use of focus groups to hone a message to be as derisive as possible without tipping the hand of the users. The words “cut and run” were used extensively by this administration and Fox news even though many other options were being considered. “Cut and run” has a very negative connotation and so they ran with it. Not as subtle as Democrat Party, but just as calculated.

And I am not saying that the Democrats don’t do the same thing. They are just not as good at it…

What we need to do is look very closely at the language politician’s use. They often make old time snake oil salesman look like rank armatures by comparison. And as skeptics, we do seem to care about snake oil salesmen…

If I have repeated anything that has already been said in this thread, I apologies. I didn’t read every page of the thread.

Darth Rotor

27th January 2007, 08:41 AM

And I am not saying that the Democrats don’t do the same thing. They are just not as good at it…

Consider that "they" might be pretty decent at it, since you don't seem to notice their practice of this device.

Your remark that most politicians do it I agree with fully.

DR

BPSCG

27th January 2007, 08:44 AM

Consider that "they" might be pretty decent at it, since you don't seem to notice their practice of this device.

Your remark that most politicians do it I agree with fully.

DRRemember Al Gore's characterization of Bush's Social Security reform ideas as a "scheme," with all of that word's sinister connotations?

Darth Rotor

27th January 2007, 08:48 AM

Remember Al Gore's characterization of Bush's Social Security reform ideas as a "scheme," with all of that word's sinister connotations?
I also recall the "regime change" sound bytes applied to Pres Bush as the war was looming and just beginning.

DR

Pardalis

27th January 2007, 09:04 AM

Just check out Worldcantwait.com and you'll see some pretty loaded words.

WildCat

27th January 2007, 09:11 AM

The Democrats apparently never realized that the more you squeal and cry when someone calls you a name you don't like, the more they will call you it. Most people have learned this by 3rd grade, but these are politicians we're talking about.

What makes it all the more humorous is that this comes after 6 years of Shrub, Chimpresident, baby Bush, etc etc. by Dems and their fan base, w/ nary a peep of complaint from Bush. Get a thicker skin, Democrat Party. :D

Pardalis

27th January 2007, 09:14 AM

The Democrats apparently never realized that the more you squeal and cry when someone calls you a name you don't like *snip*

Especially when that word is Democrat. :boggled:

Kil

27th January 2007, 09:35 AM

Consider that "they" might be pretty decent at it, since you don't seem to notice their practice of this device.

Your remark that most politicians do it I agree with fully.

DRI would love to think that the Democratic Party is as together as the Republican Party is, at least at getting out a message. But you may be right. I dunno…

Elizabeth I

27th January 2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:
Democratic Party
n.

One of the two major political parties in the United States, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828.

Quote:
Noun 1. Democratic Party
Democratic Party - the older of two major political parties in the United States

Quote:
Noun: Democratic Party

1. The older of two major political parties in the United States
Oh, dear. She can't read either. I have already said that "Democratic Party" is a noun phrase, in which "Democratic" is the adjective that modifies the noun "party." I asked you to show me a dictionary that says "Democratic" - the word by itself - is a noun. So far you have missed the target.

Again, in case you missed it the last several times I said it, "Democratic Party" is indeed a noun phrase, containing one noun ("party") and one adjective ("Democratic"). Please do not tell me again that "Democratic" by itself is a noun because it appears in a noun phrase. Would you say that "red" (excuse me, would you rather I use "blue"?) in the phrase "the red [or blue] car" is a noun simply because it appears with "car"?

Did you ever learn to diagram or parse a sentence? Take this one: "The Democratic Party won control of the House of Representatives in the last election." Stripped to its bones, this sentence says, "party (noun - who or what) won (verb - what the subject did) control (direct object of the verb - the result of the action)." All the other words in the sentence modify those basic parts, fleshing out the thought and making it complete.

If you will stop for just a minute and think about how you actually speak or write, you will understand what I am saying. You might say, "Yippee! My party won the House this year." You would NEVER (at least I assume not) say, "Yippee! My Democratic won the House this year." You might say, "Yippee! The Democratic Party won the House this year." You would never say (again, I am assuming), "Yippee! The Democratic won the House this year." You might say, "Yippee! The Democrats won the House this year." You would not (assuming for the last time - and if I am giving you too much credit, please do let me know) say, "Yippee! The Democratics won the House this year." The point is that unless "Democratic" can carry the weight of serving as the subject of a sentence all by itself, without the word "party" added, it cannot be a noun.

ETA: This will be my last post (hold the cheers, all you innocent bystanders) on this topic. I am not going to continue to beat my head against a wall trying to explain English grammar and construction to someone who will not grasp it.

andyandy

27th January 2007, 11:24 AM

Just check out Worldcantwait.com and you'll see some pretty loaded words.

no.....

Bushitler and republicanazi are fine....

but democrat party? woah! Don't get me started! :D

Kil

27th January 2007, 11:46 AM

I see that the discussion on this thread has become somewhat partisan. And of course, the examples that skeptigirl uses comes from the right. But putting all that aside, there is the bigger issue of manipulation through language by politicians that is worth examining more closely. And I do believe that is really where skeptigirl is coming from.

We all know that a politician must be persuasive or jobless. But is there an ethical line that has been crossed when that politician resorts to subterfuge?

And how do we know when it’s happening, or, if it’s happening?

As in all other areas of critical thinking, we need to learn how to recognize the baloney in advancing an argument, not with the use of facts and persuasion but through manipulative political speak that actually serves to deflect attention away from the real issues. Misdirection and slight of hand while pretending that real stuff is being addressed is no more kosher in politics than it is when Uri Geller does it and claims that it’s a psychic ability.

Baloney is baloney. And we need to know how to recognize it no matter what direction it’s coming from…

The problem with politics is we are sometimes so biased that we tend to love our liars and hate theirs. We cherry pick and we rationalize. And when we do that, as critical thinkers, we become just as blind as some woo buying a homeopathic cancer cure.

davefoc

27th January 2007, 12:22 PM

I see that the discussion on this thread has become somewhat partisan. And of course, the examples that skeptigirl uses comes from the right. But putting all that aside, there is the bigger issue of manipulation through language by politicians that is worth examining more closely. And I do believe that is really where skeptigirl is coming from.

I think that is exactly right. Besides some acrimony of questionable utility this thread also as struggled a bit because of the weakness of the particular example that skeptigirl chose to use, IMHO.

The problems with skeptigirl's example include:
1. While plausible, it (has as been noted several times) isn't even clear that Bush did it intentionally or even as the result of a habit picked up by others who do it.
2. It was a really big stretch to see it as an indicator that it signalled the intent of Bush not to engage in bipartisan efforts. He might have done it just because he enjoyed the irony of mildly insulting the Democrats while he was congratulating them.

My suspicion is, given my fairly low opinion of the motivation of Bushco, that Bushco has no intention of abandoning the political maneuvering that has dominated this administration and that anything done in a bipartisan way will be done so strictly for their own self interest. I don't find skeptigirl's example remotely probative with respect to that issue though.

andyandy

27th January 2007, 01:00 PM

Just check out Worldcantwait.com and you'll see some pretty loaded words.

just for reference, this is how worldcan'twait refers to the Republicans/Bush........

Q: Well, you have some good points, but I think you go too far. This reference to Hitler in your Call - things aren't that bad yet, and you're going to lose people. It's too strident.

A: After enumerating the many crimes and criminal policies of the Bush Regime, our Call notes that "people look at all this and think of Hitler -- and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, for generations to come."

The question is, is that true or not? Are people thinking of Hitler? Yes, they are. Who hasn't heard that analogy come up in conversation? Are they wrong to do so? Is it wrong to sound the alarm - to point to the ways in which Bush has actually begun to remake society in, yes, a fascist direction, to point to the speed of this, and to point to the logical conclusion of the whole thing - unless stopped?http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2160&Itemid=2

is this OK skepticgirl? But "democrat party" is not?

which would you regard as a greater attempt to attribute negative connotations to a chosen political party? Do you think do as i say, not as i do bluster is productive?

(only a relevant question because of skepticgirl's strident defence of WCW on JREF)

robinson

27th January 2007, 01:05 PM

San Francisco: The President started off right with his classy acknowledgment of Nancy Pelosi as the first female Speaker of the House, then immediately insulted the Democratic Party by referring to the "Democrat" majority. Typical Bush "bipartisanship."

Robert Kaiser: I noticed this too. I guess this is an in-group thing for "the base." It really is the Democratic Party, that is its name -- I don't think even a president has the power to re-name the opposition party, at least not officially. But he does have the freedom to call it what he wants to, obviously.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/19/DI2007011901392.html

BPSCG

27th January 2007, 02:05 PM

We should really rename this thread "The Seinfeld Thread." Going on 200 posts about... nothing.

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 02:36 PM

Yes, but as a modifier of the word Democrat, not as an abbreviation for Democratic party.

Might you bother to read the exchanges before chiming in? The question was, is the word Democratic within the proper name, Democratic Party, a proper noun or an adjective? For whatever reason Elizabeth II was saying the word United within the proper name, United States, was a proper noun but the word Democratic within the proper name, Democratic Party, was not a proper noun. I think it was just one of those blind spots we all experience from time to time. I don't think it really means she is a fool.

I'll address the rest of your post later, got to run.

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 04:45 PM

as a point of interest, in the UK we have the Liberal Democrat party - so no one this side of the pond is going to draw any specific negative connotations from "The Democrat party".....Actually, they might be using a name with a negative connotation and not be aware of it.

More than a few people here are missing the point. The word itself isn't about insulting anyone. The use of it might be done as an insult, but I am not saying Democrat Party is an insult.

What I am talking about is negative connotation. An insult and negative connotation are completely different things. Some of you may not get the difference but there is one.

And while I'm clarifying yet another thing for those here who are seeing all this from a defensive mind frame, I haven't said Republicans are the only ones to use marketing. That is insane. All these politicians use marketing to varying extents in their campaigns. The Republicans have, however, taken persuasion to new limits.

On the one hand I wish Democrats were using marketing more effectively. My presentation at TAM was about scientists needing to use marketing more effectively. But on the other hand, what is preferable to me ethically is to make the public including skeptics more aware of the influence marketing has and especially more aware of the techniques so they are recognized when they are used.

James Randi is all about exposing the fraud, the charlatans and especially, the tricks they use to fool people and mislead them. I see equally damaging 'tricks' used by these marketing and persuasion techniques. Exposing the tricks renders them ineffective. Rather than adopt the same deceitful manipulative techniques, I prefer to expose them.

[Warning, the following is another political reference. Suspend your your defensive reaction until you finish the rest of the post. Otherwise you'll be reacting to the first part making you miss the whole point which is in the second part. This isn't about one party manipulating and the other not. They both do it.]

The United States was led into a war by people who thought they knew better than the people they were supposed to represent. A majority of people, including many Bush supporters now believe the reasons we were presented with as a public for going to war were not fully and honestly disclosed. Why is that? Why did the Bush administration manipulate information given to the American public about why we needed to invade Iraq?

You were not being informed, you were being manipulated. You were not being persuaded based on reason and logic, you were being persuaded based on distorted and false information.

While going to war was most egregious, you are being persuaded based on distorted and false information almost constantly by all marketers and all politicians. The difference is in stepping over the line. When you write a resume you are going to list your positives and leave out the negatives. Fine. But falsifying claims Iraq had WMDs would be way over the line. There is a continuum in between and drawing the line of OK and not OK is not practical for the most part.

So before anyone launches into a tirade about the continued insistence the WMD claim was an error not a lie, or the minority version the WMDs were in Iraq but they were shipped to Jordan, it doesn't matter. What matters is educating people to better evaluate information. Then regardless of who is right and who isn't, more people will be determining this based on valid information, not based on persuasion techniques.

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 04:57 PM

...
There is clearly an editorial policy to refer to the US Democratic Party as ... the Democrats.Democrats may or may not have a negative connotation. But the name as stated is correct. The issue here is Democrat Party. The proper name is Democratic Party. Using Democrat Party was part of Newt Gingrich's talking points plan to have all the Republican talking heads use as many positive words as possible when discussing Republicans and to use as many negative words as possible when discussing Democrats. The positive or negative connotation is an emotional response. The reactions to various words were determined using the scientific process. Republicans conducted research using focus groups.

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 05:04 PM

Oh, dear. She can't read either. I have already said that "Democratic Party" is a noun phrase, in which "Democratic" is the adjective that modifies the noun "party." I asked you to show me a dictionary that says "Democratic" - the word by itself - is a noun. So far you have missed the target.

Again, in case you missed it the last several times I said it, "Democratic Party" is indeed a noun phrase, containing one noun ("party") and one adjective ("Democratic"). Please do not tell me again that "Democratic" by itself is a noun because it appears in a noun phrase. Would you say that "red" (excuse me, would you rather I use "blue"?) in the phrase "the red [or blue] car" is a noun simply because it appears with "car"?

Did you ever learn to diagram or parse a sentence? Take this one: "The Democratic Party won control of the House of Representatives in the last election." Stripped to its bones, this sentence says, "party (noun - who or what) won (verb - what the subject did) control (direct object of the verb - the result of the action)." All the other words in the sentence modify those basic parts, fleshing out the thought and making it complete.

If you will stop for just a minute and think about how you actually speak or write, you will understand what I am saying. You might say, "Yippee! My party won the House this year." You would NEVER (at least I assume not) say, "Yippee! My Democratic won the House this year." You might say, "Yippee! The Democratic Party won the House this year." You would never say (again, I am assuming), "Yippee! The Democratic won the House this year." You might say, "Yippee! The Democrats won the House this year." You would not (assuming for the last time - and if I am giving you too much credit, please do let me know) say, "Yippee! The Democratics won the House this year." The point is that unless "Democratic" can carry the weight of serving as the subject of a sentence all by itself, without the word "party" added, it cannot be a noun.

ETA: This will be my last post (hold the cheers, all you innocent bystanders) on this topic. I am not going to continue to beat my head against a wall trying to explain English grammar and construction to someone who will not grasp it.Now you are being too defensive to think clearly.

Guess I have to take back the, "just a blind spot comment". This is absurd. You're ignoring reality now. Proper names are NAMES. Names are nouns. Names are not phrases. Find me a dictionary entry that breaks any proper name down into the parts of speech of each word and calls the name a proper name phrase or any equivalent as opposed to a name.

I'm not surprised it's your last post. Finding any English reference calling a proper name a "noun phrase" either in a dictionary or in a grammar reference is not an easy task.

If you were going to find a citation explaining your logic here that United in United States was a noun while Democratic in Democratic Party was an adjective (or a noun phrase) I would think it should be under a heading such as Proper adjective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_adjective). But in Wiki, it isn't there, nor is it under attributive nouns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective), nor does Wiki's entry for noun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun) single out any proper nouns as containing adjectives as part of their names.

Wiki's entry for Proper noun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun) coincidentally includes Democratic Party as an example.
A proper noun is a noun that picks out a unique entity. This sets proper nouns apart from common nouns, which pick out classes of entities. Examples of proper nouns include:

1. John
2. Democratic Party
3. Mississippi River
4. Paris While we all know Wiki isn't the authority on anything, I think this entry will mirror any other entry on English.

Even if the words in a proper noun were labeled as separate parts of speech, you would have a hard time justifying your logic that United differed from Democratic. That part of your claim is the most foolish.

And for those of you thinking this is getting ridiculous, it is. But the exchange started with Elizabeth I telling me how stupid I was to not know gaff had a homonym, gaffe.

andyandy

27th January 2007, 05:18 PM

Actually, they might be using a name with a negative connotation and not be aware of it.

but they're not - in the uk at least. But seeing as "liberal" is rather a dirty word stateside, "liberal democrat" must have moms (:) ) rushing to cover their kids' poor sensitive ears....:D

More than a few people here are missing the point. The word itself isn't about insulting anyone. The use of it might be done as an insult, but I am not saying Democrat Party is an insult.

What I am talking about is negative connotation. An insult and negative connotation are completely different things. Some of you may not get the difference but there is one.

yes. you're talking about negative connotation. so am i - straight from the WCW website. Is equating Bush to Hitler an acceptable negative connotation but equating the Dems to the "democrat party" not? You seem to be very vocal in one direction, but rather more muted in the other.....double standards perhaps? :)

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 05:57 PM

..but they're not - in the uk at least... How do you know that? Have any focus groups or equivalent research been done to test it? People can pick names with negative connotations inadvertently. I don't know in your example but I don't think anyone can say unless it is tested in some way.

..yes. you're talking about negative connotation. so am i - straight from the WCW website. Is equating Bush to Hitler an acceptable negative connotation but equating the Dems to the "democrat party" not? You seem to be very vocal in one direction, but rather more muted in the other.....double standards perhaps? :)Now you're off on an apples and oranges issue.

Apples: An insult and a negative connotation are two different things.

Oranges: Republicans are not the only people using words with negative connotations on purpose.

true and true

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 06:19 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/01/19/DI2007011901392.htmlI knew there were people reading the thread that had a clue what it was all about. Thanks, rob for the link.

Mangafranga

27th January 2007, 06:49 PM

"Democratic Party" is a noun phrase, composed of a noun ("party") and an adjective ("Democratic") which modifies the noun.

"Democratic Party" is also a proper noun. I believe the rule here is actually NP->PN. I am not aware of any analysis which breaks down a PN into parts.

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 09:24 PM

Sorry, this is just so petty of me, I admit it. But sometimes it's important to remind people, we should be able to point things out to each other without calling each other stupid, something I am not claiming to be innocent of. I have learned a few lessons watching some people post condescendingly to someone only to find out later the person being criticized was either a non-native speaker or a young person. I have also learned to be a bit careful being critical because it can backfire if you are wrong.

After Elizabeth-I posted her illogical interpretation of a proper noun being a noun phrase, it dawned on me I had taken her word for it that a social gaff was never spelled without an e on the end.
If you are going to discuss language and precision of its use, please learn the correct words.

A "gaff" is "an iron hook with a handle for landing large fish." (http://dictionary.reference.com) There are other definitions, but this is the most common.

A "gaffe" is a "social blunder; faux pas." Same source. (Note: "gaff" is given by the American Heritage Dictionary as an alternate spelling of "gaffe," but most educated people won't understand "gaff" used in place of "gaffe." They will want to know why the President was hooking fish in the middle of the State of the Union message.) Spell check is NOT your friend. All it does is check to see if a group of letters forms a real word or not. If you mean "beef" or "been" or "beet" or "beep" or "bees" and you type "beer," spell check won't do a thing for you because "beer" is just as legitimate a word as any of those others.

That said, I'm not sure how saying "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" is a "social blunder." It may be imprecise usage, but is hardly the equivalent of tripping over the tea table and landing with your face in the Queen's lap.

Last, what is the problem? What if W. did say "Democrat" instead of "Democratic"? He says "nucular." (So did Jimmy Carter.) People have been complaining about how he talks since he was elected. What's the big deal here?

I'm sorry to be snarky, but I get so TIRED of sloppy English.
Unfortunately for Elizabeth-I, had she merely looked further down the page of her own citation under gaff she would have found:
gaff (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gaff)3 (găf) pronunciation
n.

Variant of gaffe.and under gaffe she would have found:
gaffe (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gaffe) also gaff (găf) pronunciation
n.

1. A clumsy social error; a faux pas: “The excursion had in his eyes been a monstrous gaffe, a breach of sensibility and good taste” (Mary McCarthy).
2. A blatant mistake or misjudgment.

[French, from Old French, hook. See gaff1.]
It appears that the origin of gaffe may have had something to do with a gaff though it is hard to see a connection. Here we had a rather condescending post about gaff vs gaffe, and low and behold, either spelling was correct.

I suppose it's asking too much for an admission of errors?

davefoc

27th January 2007, 10:00 PM

Well, skeptigirl I don't think I disagreed in writing with you on this but I did think it was likely that you were wrong. For the vast majority of my 57 years I have assumed that a noun was a single word. Some of the dictionary definitions that I looked up suggested that it was.

Based on a little internet research, it appears that view is wrong. Proper nouns routinely consist of more than one word as for instance, "Democratic Party", but even common nouns can consist of more than one word. "Coffee shop", was given as example in one source I looked at.

I did learn one interesting (to me at least) fact as the result of reading about this stuff , in German, all nouns are capitalized and that used to be the practice in English according to the Wikipedia article I read.

There is still the possibility that both you and Elizabeth I were somewhat right on this. It seems still possible that "Democratic Party" might be considered a noun phrase even if it is a proper noun. I don't think I read anything that would preclude that possibility.

robinson

27th January 2007, 10:18 PM

What matters is educating people to better evaluate information. Then regardless of who is right and who isn't, more people will be determining this based on valid information, not based on persuasion techniques.

Well stated.

That would seem self evident, and yet, a core fact of human beings, especially ones raised in an atmosphere of lies, duplicity, and outright deception, is that inability to see the blind spot. To be unaware that they are unaware. Attempts to show someone something they simply can't see, (or don't want to see), is met with extreme resistance, even violence. This seems to be true of religion, as well as politics.

Skeptics are not immune to this, and can suffer the same fate as religious zealots, in that they assume to know it all, so nothing can be learned.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005

democrat party or democrat primary or democrat candidate or democrat strategy or democrat strategist or democrat response or democrat lawmaker or democrat congress! or democrat representative or democrat senat! or democrat member or democrat caucus or democrat house or democrat proposal or democrat bill or democrat politic! or democrat plan or democrat legislat! or democrat tactic or democrat ploy or democrat statement or democrat press or democrat release or democrat claim or democrat agenda or democrat talking point or democrat nomin!

Kil

27th January 2007, 11:53 PM

... Attempts to show someone something they simply can't see, (or don't want to see), is met with extreme resistance, even violence. This seems to be true of religion, as well as politics.

Skeptics are not immune to this, and can suffer the same fate as religious zealots, in that they assume to know it all, so nothing can be learned.
Bingo!

hgc

28th January 2007, 12:50 AM

There is still the possibility that both you and Elizabeth I were somewhat right on this. It seems still possible that "Democratic Party" might be considered a noun phrase even if it is a proper noun. I don't think I read anything that would preclude that possibility.
Certainly it's both. As a phrase, "Democratic Party" is a noun. Within this phrase, "Democratic" is an adjective modifying "Party," just as "Democratic" is an adjective modfying "majority" or "candidate" or whatever. Sometimes people change this adjective to "Democrat," the practice which is the subject of this thread. But "Democrat" is a also a noun. Democrats are less likely to change the adjective "Democratic" to "Democrat" than Republicans are. There is also "democratic," which is an adjective that describes a form of government (along with other definitions), and for which the Democratic Party is named. Same goes for "Republican"/"republican" as adjectives.

That explains the grammar. Now back to the marketing and politics.

Mangafranga

28th January 2007, 12:56 AM

After Elizabeth-I posted her illogical interpretation of a proper noun being a noun phrase...

It seems still possible that "Democratic Party" might be considered a noun phrase even if it is a proper noun.

This is my understanding of the issue. There are multiple ways in which a noun phrase may be constituted. Without analysis here are some examples of noun phrases-
"the guy who mowed the lawn"
"the guy who mowed the lawn on tuesday with a ride on lawn mower"
"John"
"John Smith"
This is my interpretation of the analysis Elizabeth-I gave to "Democratic Party".

Noun Phrase
____|_________
| |
Adjective Noun
| |
Democratic Party

This is the alternative analysis I gave. This analysis works according to the rule that a noun phrase may be constituted entirely by a proper noun, and that futher analysis of the proper noun is not necessary.

Noun Phrase
|
Proper Noun
|
Democratic Party

According to this analysis the fact that "Democratic" is an adjective is not relevent. This analysis treats "Democratic Party" as a proper noun, and doesn't treat "Democratic" and "Party" separately.

Search for ""noun phrase" "proper noun" "phrase structure"" or ""noun phrase" "proper noun" syntax" for more information.

andyandy

28th January 2007, 01:04 AM

How do you know that? Have any focus groups or equivalent research been done to test it? People can pick names with negative connotations inadvertently. I don't know in your example but I don't think anyone can say unless it is tested in some way.

goodness! Do we need a focus group to tell us the connotations of every word in English?

but if you want some media guff to tell you how to think, here's the results from a Times/Populus september opinon poll

A Populus poll for The Times this week asked about what people think of the parties and found that the Liberal Democrats are for the many and not the few, understand the way people live their lives and care about the problems ordinary people have to face compared to the other parties.

• 'Is for the many, not just the few' - Liberal Democrats lead (49%, against 47% for Labour and 34% for the Tories)

• 'Party that understands the way people live their lives in today's Britain' - Liberal Democrats lead (43% against 35% for both other parties)

• 'Cares about the problems ordinary people have to deal with' - Liberal Democrats lead (50% against 40% for Labour and 36% for Tories)

• 'Honest and principled' - Liberal Democrats lead (41% against 31% for the Tories and 23% for Labour)

• 'Shares my values' - Liberal Democrats lead jointly (level with Tories on 38%, with Labour on 30%)

• More than half the public (51%) think that the Liberal Democrats 'are now a credible alternative to Labour because of their policies to redistribute wealth and on green issues'

• Liberal Democrats are seen as the best party on tackling the problem of global warming

• Sir Menzies Campbell is seen as closer to the political centre than either Tony Blair or David Cameronhttp://www.greenwich.libdems.org.uk/news/000076.html

it would appear Liberal Democrat has some rather positive connotations :)

*although of course you can find equally positive guff about all political parties without too much difficulty :D *

Now you're off on an apples and oranges issue.

Apples: An insult and a negative connotation are two different things.

Oranges: Republicans are not the only people using words with negative connotations on purpose.

true and true

using nazi terminonlogy in such a way is a powerful emotive tool to attatch very negative connotations to whichever word or words you desire. But that's ok -apples and oranges! It's relevant because WCW who you stridently defend use words with extremely negative connotations, as you say "on purpose", and then you start a thread bemoaning this very practise. I just find that a little hypocritical.....

Skeptic Ginger

28th January 2007, 01:28 AM

This is my understanding of the issue. There are multiple ways in which a noun phrase may be constituted. ...
..Manga has a background of some kind in linguistics and from a previous thread I have confidence in (his?) expertise.

First, we all know what Elizabeth is saying. And if you wanted to dissect a name, then your first diagram applies. I believe everyone recognized what an adjective was and why she was insistent.

However, skipping political/social correctness/politeness and absolute literal meanings such as specifically analyzing the parts in a name for a minute, what is the norm? You have already commented on the error of Elizabeth's position which is Democratic in Democratic Party is never a noun. That was the statement she made earlier.

I could not find any English or grammatical references that spit any proper nouns up into parts.

I'm sure that except for a little rivalry here, this really doesn't matter much, outside of a small circle of friends. It started, as I said, after a condescending post claiming the spelling of gaff was gaffe and I should not use "sloppy English" etc. I don't know why people post like that. A simple correction needn't be a snobfest. Especially when the correction isn't even correct.

gtc

28th January 2007, 02:02 AM

I'm sure that except for a little rivalry here, this really doesn't matter much, outside of a small circle of friends. It started, as I said, after a condescending post claiming the spelling of gaff was gaffe and I should not use "sloppy English" etc. I don't know why people post like that. A simple correction needn't be a snobfest. Especially when the correction isn't even correct.

Me thinks the skeptilady doth protest too much.

In this post you are complaining about the way people treat you yet in this thread you have accussed your opponents of being drunk and of being too young.

The Painter

28th January 2007, 03:48 AM

Maybe it’s just that I don’t care. In the big picture, it’s not important.

What a surprise, Republicans don’t like Democratics, and Democratics don’t like Republicans. Go figure.

Kil

28th January 2007, 07:09 AM

Maybe it’s just that I don’t care. In the big picture, it’s not important.

What a surprise, Republicans don’t like Democratics, and Democratics don’t like Republicans. Go figure.
That was not the point of this thread. The thread was supposed to be about the manipulation of language by politicians to persuade without seeming to be doing anything out of the ordinary. It was about political subterfuge using language and how to recognize it. It was about being tricked which should be of some concern to skeptics.

Don’t care? Not important? Yeesh!!!

Pardalis

28th January 2007, 08:22 AM

Elizabeth I

28th January 2007, 09:17 AM

and under gaffe she would have found:
It appears that the origin of gaffe may have had something to do with a gaff though it is hard to see a connection. Here we had a rather condescending post about gaff vs gaffe, and low and behold, either spelling was correct.

Can you not read or DO you not read?

(Note: "gaff" is given by the American Heritage Dictionary as an alternate spelling of "gaffe," but most educated people won't understand "gaff" used in place of "gaffe." They will want to know why the President was hooking fish in the middle of the State of the Union message.)

And DO you say, "Yippee! The Democrat[B]ICS won control of the House"? You probably do. I have seldom met with such determined ignorance as yours.

robinson

28th January 2007, 09:37 AM

ETA: This will be my last post (hold the cheers, all you innocent bystanders) on this topic.

:hb:

Kil

28th January 2007, 09:39 AM

I'm sorry but this thread is about Bush subliminally sluring the Dems in his State of the Union speech, which is a claim, a wild speculative claim, and it is absurd.

ETA: also, is there any other words in Bush's speech that is also subliminal, besides "Democrat Party" (which she hasn't substanciated with satisfactory proof that it is indeed a subliminally pejorative expression)?
Since the current use of the words “Democrat Party” by Republicans, is well documented as a way to shift the emphasis away from Democratic and the meaning that word has, I don’t think the claim is wild or absurd. It’s a bit speculative perhaps since none of us were in Bush’s head at the time.

But again, you miss the bigger point and that is the use of manipulative language by politicians.

And it seems that there is nothing that can be said in this thread that will cause people to focus on that. Oh well…

varwoche

28th January 2007, 10:08 AM

You're losing it DR. Resorting to insults is not the least bit intimidating to me. If anything it's one less person I need reply to. First of all... My .02 is along the lines of what Davefoc and others have expressed: (1) I don't see a significant difference between Democrat and Democratic in terms of messaging, (2) these are subtleties that are beyond Bush's linguistic grasp in any case (true though, they are probably not beyond his speech writers), and (3) there are bigger fish to fry, even within the topic of manipulative language.

But my .02 is not the reason I decided to post. I want to commend you for your dignified responses to DR's infantile and thread/self-degrading taunts.

robinson

28th January 2007, 10:10 AM

I'm sorry but this thread is about Bush subliminally sluring[sic] the Dems[sic] in his State of the Union speech, which is a claim, a wild speculative claim, and it is absurd.

ETA: also, is there any other words in Bush's speech that is also subliminal, besides "Democrat Party" (which she hasn't substanciated[sic] with satisfactory proof that it is indeed a subliminally pejorative expression)?

More off topic semantic hammering? Or a great way to make a point? Its rare to see such a fine example as this.

robinson

28th January 2007, 10:29 AM

While it might not help at all, I'm going to point it out again, just because. Your opponent in an idealogical battle will simply not read the data. This is just human nature. It is understandable when you consider the obverse, as in someone claiming some religious "truth", then quoting the bible, or worse, linking to some long webpage with bible quotes and reasoning based on the same.

I won't read it. And I won't discuss it, because the source has been dismissed. Once you make a decision that any information backing up an invalid claim, is also invalid, there is no discussion possible. And it is easy to say, "I see no evidence to back up your claim." Because it is true, I didn't even look at the cite. I don't care.

When it comes to defending your "God", be it a mythical man in the sky, or your man in office, people act like zealots, not skeptics. Even a hard nosed skeptic can tell, if they actually do some research, that language, and control of it, is one of the most important weapons any group has. It isn't just words, it is ideas and perceptions, it is how we think, how thoughts are transmitted, how we view reality, that language control is concerned with.

But the clearest expression of Gingrich's philosophy of media came in a GOPAC memo entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control." Distributed to GOP candidates across the country, the memo's list of words for Democrats and words for Republicans was endorsed by Gingrich in a cover letter: "The words in that paper are tested language from a recent series of focus groups where we actually tested ideas and language."

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We Are a Majority," Langauage is listed as akey mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates, we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

That takes years of practice. But we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that, like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used....

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0094LY

See? But if you don't actually read anything, there is no ability to discuss anything, because you just can say, "I see no evidence to back up your wild claims."

Or that you sound like a crank, a nutjob, a conspiracy theorist. These are also potent weapons in the war of words. Once you characterize your enemy that way, you can dismiss everything they say. You win!

Skeptic Ginger

28th January 2007, 01:10 PM

Me thinks the skeptilady doth protest too much.

In this post you are complaining about the way people treat you yet in this thread you have accussed your opponents of being drunk and of being too young.You should re-read my posts for better accuracy. Your statement here is false.

Ryan O'Dine

28th January 2007, 01:16 PM

The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that, like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used....
From robinson's quote above. To which I would add, "... or if they are recognized by the public for what they are." Which, I believe, is one of the main points of skeptigirl's plea.

Skeptic Ginger

28th January 2007, 01:23 PM

Thanks again, rob and Kil, for bringing the thread back on track. I was about to post something along the lines of what robinson posted to again point out the claim of negativity of the Bush statement came from research, not opinion (unless you are referring to the opinions expressed in the focus groups), and the single incident is an example of the issue, not the issue itself. The issue is recognizing the widespread purposeful use of subtle or subliminal meanings in words. There are similar issues with non-purposefully chosen words containing subtle or subliminal meanings as well but that's another topic.

Skeptic Ginger

28th January 2007, 01:34 PM

From robinson's quote above. To which I would add, "... or if they are recognized by the public for what they are." Which, I believe, is one of the main points of skeptigirl's plea.Exactly. Exposing these manipulative tactics renders them less effective.

Recognizing the tactics is also part of critical thinking.

Skeptic Ginger

28th January 2007, 02:11 PM

Can you not read or DO you not read?...Actually when a post starts out as yours did with the condescending phrase, If you are going to discuss language and precision of its use, please learn the correct words. containsSpell check is NOT your friend. All it does is check to see if a group of letters forms a real word or not. If you mean "beef" or "been" or "beet" or "beep" or "bees" and you type "beer," spell check won't do a thing for you because "beer" is just as legitimate a word as any of those others.
in the middle as if you were speaking to a 2nd grader, and ends with,I get so TIRED of sloppy English I tend not to spend a lot of time on it.

And all that just because in your opinion...most educated people won't understand "gaff" used in place of "gaffe."Really? Do you really think an educated person doesn't read a word in context? You've got to be kidding. :rolleyes:

I'd bet a few bucks not another person on this thread cared if that 'e' was there or not and certainly none of them thought of a fishing instrument except you upon seeing 'gaff' sans 'e'. Using mute when the correct word was moot is an error worth pointing out. I made that error once and was very glad someone pointed it out. Giving a s@#t that someone used the correct but uncommon spelling of a word, now that's a waste of a post if I ever saw one.

----

It's almost as bad as the time wasted in this thread over the inclusion of all words in a proper noun when referring to it as a noun rather than a 'noun phrase'. However, being the fanatical Internet explorer that I am, I made use of that wasted time and learned something new. :)

I found an interesting avenue of knowledge over these proper noun phrases. It turns out the fact we use these noun phrases as nouns works fine when the human brain is interpreting language. But the proper noun phrases become problematic when one writes computer programs that interpret or use actual language such as foreign language translation.

Automatic Classification of Previously Unseen Proper Noun Phrases into Semantic Categories Using an N-Gram Letter Model (http://nlp.stanford.edu/courses/cs224n/2001/jsmarr/NGramWordClassifier.pdf)

Acquisition of Translation Knowledge of Syntactically Ambiguous Named Entity (http://www.springerlink.com/content/mxwcff72k1qu7u70/)

The Artificial Librarian A Database Dialogue System (http://www.cs.lth.se/EDA171/Reports/2002/mattias_jonas.pdf)

INTERPRETATION OF PROPER NOUNS FOR INFORMATION RETRIEVAL (http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/H/H93/H93-1062.pdf)

CATEGORIZING AND STANDARDIZING PROPER NOUNS FOR EFFICIENT INFORMATION RETRIEVAL (http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/W/W93/W93-0114.pdf)

I have learned so much about language and grammar (language concepts and the field of study, not the rules) between this thread and the two where we were discussing teaching (or not) human language skills to non-human primates and other animals.

It just goes to show, if you care more about learning than winning an argument, you might just do both. ;)

Or it could be a draw and I'll be forgetting all about it the next time we post in the same thread. :)

luchog

28th January 2007, 04:40 PM

Is there a rule that all parties have to be "The Noun Party" or they incorrectly named themselves?

Where does this put the Green Party?

Names are always proper nouns, regardless of what parts of speech are used in their construction. Although the Green Party uses both an adjective and a noun, the entire phrase "Green Party" or "Silly Party" or Monster Raving Looney Party (which contains a noun, two nouns used as adjectives -- one improperly -- and an adverb) constitutes a specific name, and is therefore single compound proper noun by the rules of English grammar.

gtc

28th January 2007, 05:23 PM

You should re-read my posts for better accuracy. Your statement here is false.

I need to take a break for a bit because I am frustrated you are having such a hard time here. And I do apologize if you are just young or something.

No, it is not a reasonable hypothesis. Are you drunk by chance? Your words seem a little slurred.

You complain about how others treat you and yet you throw insults around willy nilly.

Pardalis

28th January 2007, 05:42 PM

While it might not help at all, I'm going to point it out again, just because. Your opponent in an idealogical battle will simply not read the data. This is just human nature. It is understandable when you consider the obverse, as in someone claiming some religious "truth", then quoting the bible, or worse, linking to some long webpage with bible quotes and reasoning based on the same.

I won't read it. And I won't discuss it, because the source has been dismissed. Once you make a decision that any information backing up an invalid claim, is also invalid, there is no discussion possible. And it is easy to say, "I see no evidence to back up your claim." Because it is true, I didn't even look at the cite. I don't care.

When it comes to defending your "God", be it a mythical man in the sky, or your man in office, people act like zealots, not skeptics. Even a hard nosed skeptic can tell, if they actually do some research, that language, and control of it, is one of the most important weapons any group has. It isn't just words, it is ideas and perceptions, it is how we think, how thoughts are transmitted, how we view reality, that language control is concerned with.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0094LY

See? But if you don't actually read anything, there is no ability to discuss anything, because you just can say, "I see no evidence to back up your wild claims."

Or that you sound like a crank, a nutjob, a conspiracy theorist. These are also potent weapons in the war of words. Once you characterize your enemy that way, you can dismiss everything they say. You win!

And what does this have to do with Bush's latest speech????

Please explain how that specific speech is in any way subliminal.

Bush's State of the Union speech is the topic of this thread is it not?

"Democrat Party" has shown to be completely bunk, so what else in that speech is subliminally offensive to democrats?

ETA: BTW, I did read every link that was posted, and I still don't see how this relates to Bush's State of the Union, unless you are able to give specific examples of subliminal meanings. And until you can do that, I'll have to agree with BPSCG that this thread is about nothing.

Pardalis

28th January 2007, 06:02 PM

Since the current use of the words “Democrat Party” by Republicans, is well documented as a way to shift the emphasis away from Democratic and the meaning that word has, I don’t think the claim is wild or absurd.

Well documented? How so? The only things I saw about it were written by over sensitive Democrats, not what I would call unbiased documentation.

Pardalis

28th January 2007, 06:26 PM

Exactly. Exposing these manipulative tactics renders them less effective.

Recognizing the tactics is also part of critical thinking.

You have to prove that these tactics were used in the first place. Please show me in the latest State of the Union adress specifically where these tactics were used.

As far as I know, critical thinking is also about seeing through the BS of political fixation.

ETA: I don't like Bush all that much, I know he is wrong most of the time, but I do tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on some issues, from time to time. You on the other hand seem to trully believe he is the Devil, and therefore whatever he does or say, even the most insignificant error in language, is seen as malicious intent and part of an evil plot.

That is not critical thinking.

gtc

28th January 2007, 07:38 PM

You have to prove that these tactics were used in the first place.

It would also be nice to see some evidence that refferring to the Democrat Party will have any effect on the vote.

Kil

28th January 2007, 09:16 PM

And what does this have to do with Bush's latest speech????

Please explain how that specific speech is in any way subliminal.

Bush's State of the Union speech is the topic of this thread is it not?

"Democrat Party" has shown to be completely bunk, so what else in that speech is subliminally offensive to democrats?

ETA: BTW, I did read every link that was posted, and I still don't see how this relates to Bush's State of the Union, unless you are able to give specific examples of subliminal meanings. And until you can do that, I'll have to agree with BPSCG that this thread is about nothing.
So, you do not think it’s the least bit odd that Republicans and media persons on the right are the only ones calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party?

And who would notice such a thing? Only over sensitive Democrats, and they have a bias. So even though only Republicans are calling the party by the wrong name, you need some sort if unbiased documentation demonstrating that they are doing it intentionally, or doing it at all. Oh, and the fact that the Gingrich/GOPAC memo entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" is only being discussed by over sensitive Democrats means there is a bias so those sources can be dismissed.

You see nothing out of the ordinary.

But forget all of that. We must stick to the title of this thread and prove to you that Bush intentionally used the phrase, as if that could be done. Forget any larger issues that the title might imply. Stick to the exact wording of the title!

“Bunk” you say. Okay...? I think that pretty much sums up your position.

Interesting…

Pardalis

28th January 2007, 09:39 PM

So, you do not think it’s the least bit odd that Republicans and media persons on the right are the only ones calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party?

I'm sorry but I really don't see a pattern here that would lead me to believe that there's a consorted effort by the Republicans to use this expression for some political motive. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough ;) (just joking)

And who would notice such a thing? Only over sensitive Democrats, and they have a bias. So even though only Republicans are calling the party by the wrong name, you need some sort if unbiased documentation demonstrating that they are doing it intentionally, or doing it at all. Oh, and the fact that the Gingrich/GOPAC memo entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" is only being discussed by over sensitive Democrats means there is a bias so those sources can be dismissed.

I understand your point, and maybe my language was a little colourful and I apologize, but I would have to see more corroborating views on that specific expression. All I see here is Democrats lashing it out against Republicans. I fail to see an objective view on this specific expression.

You see nothing out of the ordinary.

No, but I am a Quebecer, so maybe there's something I'm missing. But then again, my outside view may be more objective.

But forget all of that. We must stick to the title of this thread and prove to you that Bush intentionally used the phrase, as if that could be done. Forget any larger issues that the title might imply. Stick to the exact wording of the title!

"Bush subliminally slurs Dems in State of the Union speech"

To me, that's a claim, and I don't know why I am criticized for wanting to stick to that claim which hasn't been substantiated.

As for the more global issue of politicians carefully choosing their words when they speak, well, I guess that's true. So what?

gtc

28th January 2007, 09:59 PM

So, you do not think it’s the least bit odd that Republicans and media persons on the right are the only ones calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party?

Not true.

A 30 second google search of www.democrats.org found at least two examples of Democrats using the term (here (http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/07/weekly_radio_ad.php) and here (http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/namnguyen/C3WC)). I am sure there are many more cases of Democrats using the term.

Kil

28th January 2007, 10:42 PM

Not true.

A 30 second google search of www.democrats.org found at least two examples of Democrats using the term (here (http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/07/weekly_radio_ad.php) and here (http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/namnguyen/C3WC)). I am sure there are many more cases of Democrats using the term.
I couldn’t find the reference in your first link. The second link had it, and that’s a shame. Still, I stand corrected.

That does not change my thinking about the manipulation of language in politics however. To me it suggests a success by one party, to at least in part, gain control of the language.

And as I said many posts back, both parties’ do it. And I think it’s a problem.

gtc

28th January 2007, 10:47 PM

gtc

28th January 2007, 11:15 PM

That does not change my thinking about the manipulation of language in politics however. To me it suggests a success by one party, to at least in part, gain control of the language.

There may be a Republican attempt to always refer to 'Democrat Party' in preference to 'Democratic Party' so as not to appear to suggest that the Democrats are more democratic.

However, Democrat Party is snappier than Democratic Party and appears to be in line with Republican/Republican Party, so it is likely to occur naturally anyway.

Furthermore, while the Democrats have a right to call themselves anything they like, I can't see how Democrat Party is a vote loser. At worst it seems to deny the Democrats the ability to appear more democratic than the Republicans. Pretending you are more democratic than the Republicans seems like cheating to me (or like the Republicans pretending the Democrats are in thrall to the British Crown :) ). Certainly I would like to see evidence that it pick up enough votes to be worth the effort of the Republicans trying to impose 'Democrat Party'. Perhaps there is a conspiracy by the Republicans to tweak the noses of those Democrats who care about the term!

As an aside in Australia we have

The Australian Democrat Party (http://www.democrats.org.au/speeches/index.htm?speech_id=1913&display=1) (minor party slightly left of centre);
The Christian Democratic Party (http://www.cdp.org.au/) (very minor socially conservative party); and
The Liberal Democratic Party (http://www.elections.act.gov.au/PartyRevSt.htm) (Libertarian Micro Party);

It doesn't appear to affect voters either way.

P.S. The first reference is in the comments.

Skeptic Ginger

29th January 2007, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl:
You [gtc] should re-read my posts for better accuracy. Your statement here is false.
Originally Posted by skeptigirl:
I need to take a break for a bit because I am frustrated you are having such a hard time here. And I do apologize IF you are just young or something.
Originally Posted by skeptigirl:
No, it is not a reasonable hypothesis. Are you drunk by chance? Your words seem a little slurred.You complain about how others treat you and yet you throw insults around willy nilly.

If you read the post in question, the words were slurred. I asked if the person was young or intoxicated based on what was posted. This was not "willy nilly" as you seem to think. And I believe I admitted to being guilty of posting reactive statements in the post you speak of. I don't claim to never get mad. I just think sometimes people post rude things way more often than called for.

Skeptic Ginger

29th January 2007, 12:18 AM

You have to prove that these tactics were used in the first place. Please show me in the latest State of the Union adress specifically where these tactics were used.

As far as I know, critical thinking is also about seeing through the BS of political fixation.

ETA: I don't like Bush all that much, I know he is wrong most of the time, but I do tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on some issues, from time to time. You on the other hand seem to trully believe he is the Devil, and therefore whatever he does or say, even the most insignificant error in language, is seen as malicious intent and part of an evil plot.

That is not critical thinking.Pardalis, the problem here is you are asking for people to explain things to you which are already clear in the thread. I just don't have the time or patience to repeat everything and point everything out to you. If you made some effort to grasp what was being said, I would. But you literally are asking people to review everything in the thread for you. And even then you claim you can't see it. I suggest if your questions are serious rather than just irritated rants, then start at the beginning of the thread and read it.

Skeptic Ginger

29th January 2007, 12:20 AM

It would also be nice to see some evidence that refferring to the Democrat Party will have any effect on the vote.Have you looked for any evidence? Have you read the citations?

Try this, just go page by page and read the links you find. There is all the documentation you are requesting already posted.

Skeptic Ginger

29th January 2007, 12:32 AM

I couldn’t find the reference in your first link. The second link had it, and that’s a shame. ...It isn't on the first link and on the second, it was noticed:

Sure. The Democrat Party should.......
Reply
By FreedomOfSpeechFor....... Jan 17th 2007 at 1:35 am EST
Now the DEMOCRATIC Party is another story. We will be electing John Edwards and Barack Obama.It could have been a typo but more than likely it was a person influenced by the campaign to use the term repeatedly.

Again, the term had a negative connotation in a focus group. That doesn't mean the term is negative to everyone, it doesn't mean it is a bad word, it doesn't mean it is a recognized insult. It was one of many words the Republicans have on a list to use intentionally for their negative connotation. The fact it's on this blog has no significance.

Skeptic Ginger

29th January 2007, 12:50 AM

I have also found instances of Democrat being used incorrectly on:

The Kansas Democatic Party Website (http://www.ksdp.org/) (at least 5 times);
The Ohio Democratic Party Website (http://www.paintohioblue.com) (three (http://www.paintohioblue.com/index.php?page=blog&sub=2&topic=19) times in (http://www.paintohioblue.com/index.php?page=news&full=120) all (http://www.paintohioblue.com/index.php?page=blog&full=121));
Michigan Democratic Party (two (http://www.michigandems.com/getlocal/midmi.html) times (http://www.michigandems.com/youngdems.html));

Its not just confined to actual Democrats.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (not known for its slavish adherence to Republican talking points) has used 'Democrat Party' on at least three occasions (here (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s605397.htm), here (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s206942.htm) and here (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s849531.htm)).

Media Matters reports on numerous instances of its usage by reporters (http://www.democraticpartyofgeorgia.org/blogs/latestnews/2006/03/reed_should_wave_statute_of_li.html).

I only found one instance on your D Party links, She and the new Democrat Majority will put families first by raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans, broadening the types of stem cell research allowed and paying down the deficit. and another that referred to Democrat club which is not quite the same. I don't know what you are looking at but it isn't the noun Democrat that is at issue. And the above quote may have followed Bush's speech sarcastically.

I didn't bother with the Aussie sites since they aren't relevant. I already said re the Brits having a Democrat Party, it doesn't mean they haven't chosen a negative name inadvertently. And you say the Aussies have a Democrat party.

Re Media Matters, if you bothered to read the OP and the citations you would have found the use of the term by Republicans led to newscasters using it as well. The Republicans were overjoyed at having influenced the media to use the negative terms.

Once again, the point is not the evil name, Democrat Party. The point is using such terms for the negative effect one believes they have. Something about this concept continues to be missed by a few folks here that can't get past being defensive about Bush.

It must be tough having backed such a crappy choice. (Hey, if you weren't listening to the thread anyway, I might as well post something you think the thread is about.)

andyandy

29th January 2007, 01:42 AM

Once again, the point is not the evil name, Democrat Party. The point is using such terms for the negative effect one believes they have. Something about this concept continues to be missed by a few folks here that can't get past being defensive about Bush.

It must be tough having backed such a crappy choice. (Hey, if you weren't listening to the thread anyway, I might as well post something you think the thread is about.)

like tying nazi terminology to republican terms for the negative effects it has? :)

It's quite funny that despite bemoaning that lack of bipartisan politics, you yourself can't get beyond the whole partisan politics hangup - ie. everyone who disagrees with your opinions must be a right wing, Bush-loving apologist......

if i think your posts partisan and your conclusions overblown, does that make me a republican?

Pardalis

29th January 2007, 05:35 AM

It was one of many words the Republicans have on a list to use intentionally for their negative connotation.

Could you substantiate this claim with proof please.

Pardalis

29th January 2007, 05:55 AM

I'm missing the article I read years back about the specific focus group where Democrat was tested. I'll post it when/if I find it, but the first article discussing the use of the term by Republicans followed by newscasters who may have unconsciously started using it after Newt's little talking points campaign should be supportive evidence the slur is a slur and it has been used intentionally.

Found that link yet?

Is this (http://samueljscott.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/democratic-or-democrat-party/) all you got?

Ryan O'Dine

29th January 2007, 06:35 AM

Could you substantiate this claim with proof please.

I’m trying to understand how the evidence skeptigirl already presented isn’t proof. From a link ( http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0094LY) in the OP...

But the clearest expression of Gingrich's philosophy of media came in a GOPAC memo entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control." Distributed to GOP candidates across the country, the memo's list of words for Democrats and words for Republicans was endorsed by Gingrich in a cover letter: "The words in that paper are tested language from a recent series of focus groups where we actually tested ideas and language."

And from the GOPAC memo ( http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~condrey/RHE306/gingrichgopac.htm) linked in the OP...

Contrasting Words

Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

* abuse of power
* anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
* betray
* bizarre
* bosses
* bureaucracy
* cheat
* coercion
* "compassion" is not enough
* collapse(ing)
* consequences
* corrupt
* corruption
* criminal rights
* crisis
* cynicism
* decay
* deeper
* destroy
* destructive
* devour
* disgrace
* endanger
* excuses
* failure (fail)
* greed
* hypocrisy
* ideological
* impose
* incompetent
* insecure
* insensitive

I cut it short for brevity’s sake. They use the term “contrast,” which is undoubtedly a very carefully chosen term itself. (“Incompetent,” is used for contrast? Yeesh.)

So I’m wondering how this list of words with “contrast” doesn’t constitute a list of words “to use intentionally for their negative connotation.”