june gloom on 8/10/2011 at 20:16
I've been getting on this even before Tocky's post. The problem lies with the little buzzwords and repeated catchphrases like "corporate overlords" (just as a mild example.) Those are emblematic of black/white thinking, but more to the point, they have a tendency to turn people off. You're right, it's all about audience -- and I've said before, the stuff I'm talking about is only useful for preaching to the choir, because most everyone else will just dismiss the speaker as a crackpot and move on. The speaker may or may not actually be a crackpot, but it certainly helps not to sound like one. And sometimes even the choir would like to hear a little less fluff and a little more stuff.
Tocky's original post here may be appropriate for TTLG, but it provided the perfect example for me to illustrate what I'm getting at.
Rug Burn Junky on 8/10/2011 at 21:14
But it's way more complex than that, because use and repetition of those phrases when "preaching to the choir" can make them acceptable to the point that you can use them to reframe the debate for a wider audience. This is easier to do on the conservative side, since there is generally a lower threshhold of correlation-to-reality necessary for the buzzwords to resonate (thus explaining the entire existence/career of Frank Luntz) - but when dealing with a population wide debate, the ability to send a message is dependent upon how compact you can make it. So it's necessary to distill concepts into buzzwords, even if they don't capture the fully fleshed out idea. To disregard this is to disarm one's self in the wider debate.
So "what you're getting at" is counterproductive. It may be an indicator that what one is saying has little behind it other than the phrase itself, but that in and of itself is not dispositive, and for you to pretend it is is pedantic and missing the forest for the trees. Buzzwords themselves are neither good nor bad. It's whether the idea that they represent - when the meaning is unpacked - is valid or not that determines whether the person using it is simply a crackpot.
june gloom on 9/10/2011 at 00:11
Except it's not about whether the person using them is a crackpot or not. I don't think Tocky's a crackpot, but that's because I know him. Is he being a bit of a childish asshole right now? Yeah. But he's not a crackpot.
It's about the perception from OTHER people. A lot of people could be shown a post like Tocky's, and even if they agree with the sentiment, they're not going to pay much attention to it, because it triggers something that tells the listener, "crackpot; ignore." You can't expect anyone to "unpack meaning" from buzzwords, because they've been confronted with enough conspiracy theorists, homeless people, and parodies thereof that using the same old, tired phrases that have been around for ages is counterproductive.
It's possible to compress the message and keep it readable. You don't have to sound like Forever420 when you're doing it.
Rug Burn Junky on 9/10/2011 at 00:33
OK, so you're happy hippy-punching Tocky for being Joe Tinfoil.
Oh wait, was that just a buzzword I used to describe your buzzword to describe his buzzword?
The only difference is you've got a bug up your ass about his word, because you subjectively have a certain reaction to it that you're trying to expand as a blanket criticism. You're ascribing potential perceptions of other people based on your own biases. Great. But that's an inherently hypocritical criticism, used to hide your own biases behind an attempt at universality: "I'm not saying you should stop ____, but other people will, so you should do it anyway."
Just because it induces eye-rolling with you, doesn't mean that that's the universal reaction, nor does it mean that that reaction will be constant as use and repetition change its receipt.
It's the same sort of bullshit thinking that says "If you're rude, no one will listen to your argument." Fuck that shit. I have no time for the cowardice of civility.
june gloom on 9/10/2011 at 01:37
Er, okay then.
Tocky on 9/10/2011 at 02:01
Heh. Anyway back to substance-
Quote Posted by demagogue
As for who the job-creators are -- I mean, who except the company executives are the horse's mouth on decisions like that on the large scale? It's not a mystical event that occurs "out there" somewhere. The executive officers do act on incentives, which happens in their brains looking at the environment around them, but that happens in such predictable ways it's a wonder people keep being surprised. That puts some onus on gov't policy and regulators to watch the incentives they can control, but even then there's only so much gov't can do to be effective: interest rates can only be dropped so low; only so much extra money can be printed... I'm happy that more people are becoming politically conscious about the issues, but I feel they just need to keep it all situated in the real world.
Who creates jobs? Small business mostly. Big business has been shipping them overseas. Obama has a tax credit in place for hiring as part of his first stimulus. My own boss took advantage of it but like most in my state is teeth grindingly obstinate for republicans who are stuck in trickle down mentality of the topmost layer. My kids took advantage of his tax credit for house purchase. He had lots of good things in the first stimulus. Most of the states that produced the republican field have taken advantage of his stimulus but conveniently forget to mention that when they tout their own states success.
I have lost all respect for the republican party and put little past them now that the finacial crisis has hit and they have been forced to show their hand as pro- corporation over the welfare of the country. I used to be an independent. Voting as a block to block a return to pre Bush tax cuts and fighting for deficit reduction solely on the backs of the poor by cutting programs which benefit them while remaining unmovable on closing corporate loopholes and doing so down to the wire sending markets down thus risking further deepening of the recession is reprehensible.
Any overture made by them is suspect. A sudden "we are with you OWS" makes me look for the ways in which they will seek to divide and obstruct its solidarity. Watch for the anti Obama remarks. Watch for a subtle shifting of blame from the very ones OWS protests against to all and then just to those who have been trying to help from the bottom up.
This movement has problems. People do have to pay for houses and education. That debt cannot be forgiven else how will construction workers and teachers make a living? Some of what they sound off about sounds as if they think it can. Reworking interest on those loans to avoid default could as long as mircles aren't expected. Banks and their employees have to be paid too. But the Citizens United decision was unadulterated atrocity for the greasing of corporate influence during the full election cycle. That they have right.
edit: Because of dethys dismissal and focus on a few words I went back over everything I said and it was not only coherent but cogent and fact laden. Matter of fact every single thing he accused me of was something he himself was guilty of and often while he was accusing. I found it strange. I really wouldn't have used corporepublicans had I known it would so upset someone that they could not focus on my message. I figure everyone can pick out facts from bombast if there are enough facts and so little bombast. I admit to being purposefully obtuse or colorful on occasion with a wink nudge but this was not one of those times. These were clear warnings based on clear established history. Most odd then that they could be so ignored for a word or two. He did most determinedly prove that it could be done and thus his point. I will not be so lax and playful in future political discussions.
Every day I have to decipher what the true meaning is in republican public pronouncements. For instance Florida candidate Cain proposed a 9-9-9 tax which was at first glance just a more unstable and variable tax rate but on closer inspection shifts corporate taxes to the public sector with it's drop to 9% on corporations and then added 9% sales tax on the public. Everything they do is for the rich and if you pay close attention you see it. If then people are capable of picking through such thick bullshit then my trifles of rhetoric are cake I used to assume. You know what they say about the word assume.
Starrfall on 11/10/2011 at 02:21
we're going to close our Wells Fargo accounts in favor of a local credit union on the fifth of November just in case it annoys dethy
june gloom on 11/10/2011 at 05:11
i don't give a shit, i use a local bank myself
CCCToad on 11/10/2011 at 07:32
Why wouldn't you use a local bank? For the most part they actually take care of their customers.
To Tocky: Your loyalty is admirable, but your argument that "we need to vote for my party no matter what" is one that's a dead horse. Its been covered extensively and frequently by political columnists, but the end result is simple. Unlike you, rich special interest groups WILL punish politicians for misbehavior. If one group will support you regardless and the other will only support you if you do what they want, it makes more sense to go with the latter group's agenda.
That factor is one of the key reasons that the Tea Party will continue to be more effective than any equivalent progressive movement. Unlike similar progressive movements, Tea Party activists aggressively target politicians from "their" party who break from the base ideologically from the base. Hell, they've already succeeded in removing entrenched GOP incumbents from Congress. As a result they've been fairly successful in pushing aspects of their agenda into government.
Unless progressives are willing to similarly punish Democratic politicians who support a pro-corporate agenda, no movement is going to have the same impact on the Democratic Party that the Tea Party had on the GOP. Instead those politicians are just going to laugh and keep doing what they do, knowing full well that they'll have your support regardless.
edit: what will I be doing? Not voting at all this year.
heywood on 11/10/2011 at 07:58
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Why wouldn't you use a local bank? For the most part they actually take care of their customers.
Three reasons to go with a big bank:
1. Easier to avoid ATM fees
2. Better online banking
3. Better fraud prevention & detection
I'd rather give my money to a community bank who lends it out to local businesses, but they generally don't fit my needs.
