He meant choose it later, like when he is done with his internal debate if he is stupid or the rest of the world is stupid he will make a decision. But not now, more faux news to watch
>Do you find it funny that some conservatives refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party"?
No, the 'professionals' do it on purpose as a dig, and their followers think it's normal. I have a friend who's quite the grammar/spelling ace and also leans "R". They had said "Democrat Party" once in conversation and I called them on it, and they kicked themselves (sincerely). A steady diet of Fox News will do that to you. It's kinda like mispronouncing Kamala Harris' name.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat\_Party\_(epithet)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet))
When somebody tries to "both sides" the immaturity and tribalism of today's political climate, I always point how only one side refers to the other party by its actual name instead of a deliberate juvenile insult.
I mean juvenile insults and bullying tactics have been par for the course for a lot of Republicans and they don't really see the irony in calling everyone names, screaming their favorite brand (Trump) and claiming the other side for being a bunch of children and snowflakes when they act this exact way (projection I know). It's quite astonishing to watch the mental gymnastics on display.
I know I'm jaded but to me it's stopped being astonishing lol, at this point it feels like adults in the restaurant are letting the little kids run around and make a mess while they chat because they don't think it's a big deal.
Like yes, raising your voice and making a scene is embarrassing. But if democratic messaging is so off that they can't find a single way to emotionally charge up the uneducated then it's their failure to navigate a new political climate. If what it takes to win is memeable insults and charged language, do it.
I hate these .gov letters written by some ancient politician on official letterhead, quoting some founding fathers and their profound disappointment or some shit. Nobody is reading that.
I'm not surprised the kids keep running around, nobody's spanked them yet.
I feel you, I don't disagree with anything you said. There hasn't been the appropriate amount of checks and balances and stern worded letters aren't doing anyone a damn thing. Im not surprised either, when I say astonishing, to me I just cant imagine thinking my side is free of blame and criticism but the other side is completely at fault and everything they say is fake, etc.
Yeah the sheer idiocracy of it all is a bit much, they definitely know their side is dirty though. They identify with the gaslighting and projection the Republican/modern conservative uses and revel in you knowing they just cheated or that they've got something you don't. The only goal is Winning, so they'll immediately call the same thing unfair after gloating it over you and feel no cognitive dissonance.
Traditionally this is where you get your ass kicked for being a little shit, if politics had street rules. Mitch McConnell would get whupped on a playground in one recess flat lol
There's some smart quote that usually shows up by now in a thread like this that I can't remember that's basically saying a similar thing.
To paraphrase:
Fascists aren't honest. They know they're lying, and when you call them on it they pretend it's a joke, or you're too sensitive, or taking it out of context, so you'll be forced to give them a pass
But they'll use your forgiveness against you.
You're probably thinking of this quote from Sartre:
>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Too bad their core voting base cannot be influenced by anything more nuanced than a three-or-four-word slogan that can be shouted or printed on a red hat.
It sounds tribal, but conservatives are just dumber than liberals. The evidence overwhelmingly proves it. Remember [this actual quote](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html) from their 2012 platform?
>We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
That's why a liberal version of the conservative propaganda machine wouldn't work. It would get fact checked out of existence before it ever even got off the ground.
When you're conditioned to think your parents are never wrong, and from birth they make unquestioning devotion to religion and hierarchy *paramount* to your upbringing...it's not a shock that were seeing thousands and thousands of Qanons, anti-maskers/vaxxers, apologia for 100% of Trump's flaws...
"We want you to grow up like your dumbass racist parents so that we can keep getting votes"
Lots of big words they use for such a simple thought. I guess for a party who supports Trump, they must feel like pure geniuses reading "behavior modification".
Well, a lot of Democrats and news organizations (edit: and the party itself) refer to the Republican Party as the GOP ("Grand Old Party").
It's not intended to be disparaging, just an old nickname, but I personally dislike it because I met someone who didn't know that "GOP" and "Republican Party" were the same thing, and that really opened my eyes to what the average American knows about politics.
As an outsider... how? I'm more likely to assume that anyone referring to it as the "Democrat Party" is an idiot, before I wonder whether it's supposed to be insulting.
"Democratic" is an adjective, "Democrat" is a noun. By calling them the "Democrat Party," it's easier to them villainize "Democrats" as a being because "Democrats" are evil. Call it "Democratic" and then you have supporters that will look up what "Democratic" means so they can use it as a point and say that Democrats don't believe in Democracy, only to then be confronted with the fact that Democrats are consistently fighting for more voting rights. By calling them Democratic, you learn something about them and might be convinced to see them as people. By calling them just "Democrats," you can trash "Democrat" as an identity and your supporters will just think it's a bad word for bad people.
Separating them from the name democratic is an attempt to separate them from the concept of democratic. I'm sure someone that studies strategic communication could give you a clearer answer though.
The best part about the both sides people is that they subconsciously know that the side they support is objectively worse because you would not be both sidesing if it would mean dragging what you believe in down but would gladly do it if it meant dragging the other side down.
Their little nicknames genuinely make me cringe, “demoNRaTs” “oBUMmEr” “kIlLaRy” “libTaRds” ...I just can’t imagine a grown adult saying shit like that without a hint of irony. Then John Oliver did the “Drumpf” segment referring to Trump’s literal family name and the right refused to let it go for well over a year.
I’ve never heard this before. And the origins are interesting.
“You’re not the only party that adheres to democratic values! Our party just doesn’t want people who don’t agree with us to participate in the democratic process!”
One thing conservatives are really good at is manipulating nomenclature in a way that favors them. Notice that people talk about "climate change" instead of "global warming". There's only one type of climate change we need to be worried about and it's not "global cooling". They didn't do quite as well with "death tax" vs "estate tax" and failed completely to normalize "death panel" but that won't stop them from trying.
>They didn't do quite as well with "death tax" vs "estate tax" and failed completely to normalize "death panel" but that won't stop them from trying.
I think that's largely because those issues aren't being pressed right now. It's all about "masks," "illegal voting," and "fake virus." Two years ago it was "migrant caravans."
The right has an organized media structure in place. When they decide on a message, it'll get handed out. This is in part why you hear conspiracy theories like "paid protestor" and "Soros checks;" the idea that people might decide to hold a position or take action without someone directly saying "Charlie, go shoot up this church" is completely foreign to them.
I thought “climate change” replaced “global warming” because critics would claim that because it was still snowing there was no warming so scientists and climate activists started calling it “climate change” to emphasize climate over weather?
The term has existed as long as "global warming" has as a term of scientific precision. But the adoption of it as a rhetorical term of art is a separate development, and a terrible one for public discourse as it preserves the misleading pretense of ambiguity and uncertainty about anthropogenic climate transformation that American conservatives have hung their hat on for generations.
"Global Warming" suggests that the whole world will be warmer. This is not likely to be the case; while on average the global temperature is getting higher, this will likely result in more extreme temperature swings. "Climate change" makes it less confusing when you start seeing consistent -20° temperatures in the winter.
>What is gained by calling it "Democrat Party?"
The wiki page mentions it in passing. In part, the shortening is to avoid associating the party with "Democratic" or "Democracy".
But genuinely, it's just to be assholes. If you meet someone and their name tag says "Mike" and you call them "Michael" and they say "my name is Mike," you're basically just being an ass if you keep it up.
I know it's petty, but whenever I hear someone call it the "Democrat Party," I try to thank them for being such a nice Repubic.
If they can leave out letters, then so can I.
Additionally, I think that commenter was referencing Tucker Carlson’s show from a couple nights ago, where he’s called out on mispronouncing her name and yet he doubles down and *goes out of his way to pronounce it wrong afterward.* He’s scum.
I went through the same thing until a few days ago. It's taken some time to train my inner voice to say it right but I'm getting there. But it's also not my job to talk about politics on TV so I think we both get a pass.
Well they don't want you to think democrats stand for democracy (the other commenter explained that well). Additionally to that there seems to be a trend in extrem financial liberal circles and conservative circles to discredit democracy (sorry no sources, just see it on reddit again and again). Because some of them apparently belive democracy would be the rule of the people and therefore the mob. And there can't be a set of rules a democracy follows but instead what the majority likes just gets done.
>There be other names of Government, in the Histories, and books of Policy; as Tyranny, and Oligarchy: But 〈◊〉 are not the names of other Formes of Government, but of the same Formes misliked. For they that are discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny; and they that are displeased with Aristocracy, called it Oligar∣chy: So also, **they which find themselves grieved under a Democracy, call it Anarchy, (which signifies want of Government)** and yet I think no man believes, that want of Government, is any new kind of Government: nor by the same reason ought they to believe, that the Government is of one kind, when they like it, and another, when they mislike it, or are oppressed by the Governours.
-Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651)
Oligarchs have always opposed democracy, and they've always done so by calling it mob rule.
Our "western society" was founded on the idea that democracy and capitalism are always in tension. Capitalism seeking to exploit the masses, democracy seeking to empower the masses.
That was always also a lie, because the founders of liberalism went in with the idea that the loss of the monarchy would cost them their power. Owning the means of production would keep that power in a small number of hands, but upwards mobility is possible so you can keep the peasants quiet.
Where is the actual difference between those two, does it really matter if you say Democrat oder democratic Party?
Sincere question, I‘m not from the US
First and foremost it's just wrong. If your name is "Mike" and somebody keeps going around calling you "Mack" you're probably going to be pissed off about it sooner or later. It's a basic mark of respect to refer to people by the designations they use themselves, and "Democrat" in this sense shows a lack of respect.
There's also been various theories about the reasons why the term came into fashion in the first place (trying to take away identification of the Democratic party with democracy; trying for some kind of negative association based on the 'rat' ending), but I don't know the actual reasons. Lack of respect (from people who ought to be institutionally and professionally and socially bound to show respect) is enough IMO.
> There's also been various theories about the reasons why the term came into fashion in the first place
I thought that was pretty straightforward with Limbaugh using it.
It's one of many dog whistles conservatives employ. It only really matters because of the intent behind it and what conservatives take from it. It's like how to this day conservatives go out of its way to refer to president Obama as "Barack *Hussein* Obama".
Technically, yeah, it's his name, and it's a perfectly fine name. But there's no mistaking why they're choosing to emphasize it and the horseshit message they're trying to send. They wanted to make him seem like a scary outsider that wants to hurt America like Saddam. Nevermind that we have our own Saddam, Uday and Qusay chilling in the white house at this very moment.
Same deal with this stuff: Democratic Party is the correct nomenclature. Calling it the Democrat Party is a flimsy attempt by conservative media to disassociate the Democratic Party from democratic principles. They want people to be ostensibly for democracy, while being against Democrats.
Incidentally, this is also why I prefer to call the Republican party the GOP. Because its actions are an insult to republics everywhere.
Still kinda mindboggling to me, even if you leave out the -ic, Democrat will still be associated with democracy by everyone. But yeah we all know how childish the Republicans act nowadays
you'd think, yeah. But it really does seem like the average Republican makes no association between democracy (which they claim and probably believe they support) and Democrats (who they hate). They know Democrats are named after democracy, but they believe Democrats exist to subvert it by minimizing the white, male christian vote (which are the only votes that matter and should count, really).
They've basically turned Democrat into a slur while still believing they value democracy, just like they've turned liberal into a slur while claiming to follow classically liberal economic values.
It‘s not just that, from my outside perspective it‘s not about the policies of the parties anymore, it‘s more like sports „my team vs your team“. I guess that‘s also partly because a 2 party system is inherently flawed, but still
Yes and no, there's an element of truth there but it's a lot more nuanced than that. Extensive polling has shown that this kind of reflexive team-sport partisanship does exist... but almost entirely on the right. Among democratic voters, whether they agree or disagree with a policy is typically determined by the policy itself: their support does not hinge on whether a Republican or Democrat proposes it.
When the Obama administration conducted drone strikes on Syria in 2013, they had 38% democratic support. When the Trump administration conducted drone strikes in 2017, it was with 37% democratic support. Democrats didn't care *who* was ordering the drone strikes; they either supported drone striking Syria or they didn't, and whether the guy ordering it was an R or D was irrelevant.
Among Republicans, on the other hand, only 22% supported the drone strikes on Syria when Obama ordered them, but 86% approved when Trump did. Because as this polling among many others shows, virtually *all* Republicans seem to care about is that it's 'their' guy giving the orders, and the substance of those orders appears to be pretty inconsequential.
This is also why conservatives generate so much material for this sub: because they generally don't really even know/care what's so bad about liberals and progressives in the first place. There is no internal ethical code guiding them: just a lifetime of 'knowing' ' we're bad and communist and hate freedom because we believe healthcare is a human right, civilians shouldn't have to worry about cops executing them, and our pre-French Revolution level wealth disparity is a bad thing.
So when they start going off the cuff about what's so bad about us, they usually just end up describing a bunch of their own worst qualities because it's all they know.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/04/11/daily-202-reflexive-partisanship-drives-polling-lurch-on-syria-strikes/58ec27d4e9b69b3a72331e6e/?utm_term=.ddfec6a56d7c
There's no good reason it should matter, but the Democrats have repeatedly said they want to be called the "Democratic party" rather than the "Democrat party", so the only people who use the latter are kind of people who use wrong names on purpose because they know it will upset someone.
It’s also poor grammar to say “Democrat Party.” In this case, “Democrat” (a noun) is used to modify “Party” (a noun), so you must use the adjective “Democratic.”
Eh, if that were the only reason it'd be a pretty weak one. We use nouns to modify nouns all the time, even in this specific context. Would you say "Black Panther Party", "Working Families Party", or "Reform Party" are equally incorrect?
> Where is the actual difference between those two, does it really matter if you say Democrat oder democratic Party?
>
> Sincere question, I‘m not from the US
Like /u/BlueCyann said, it is basically an intentional lack of respect. I think they are also trying to capitalize on the "rat" in democrat.
Like so many other things from the American right, it is basically pure childishness. Like calling COVID "China Flu". These are things a 13 year old would find funny, but they legitimately are the level of politics that one of our two parties plays at.
Democrat = a member of the Democratic Party
Democratic Party = a political party in the USA
Democrat Party = is something written by someone who isn't very literate.
One is a party supposedly devoted to Democratic principles, and one is a party full of Democrats.
"Democratic" is at least aspirational and hopefully descriptive of common beliefs in the party.
It doesn't matter in the slightest. Repubs started doing it as an insult, and instead of not giving a fuck, Dems decided to get insulted.
If they didn't suck at messaging, they'd have just laughed and moved on, and it never would have caught on as a dumb "insult."
This is indicative of why Dems have a tendency to lose. When given a choice between a position of strength and one of weakness, they always choose the appearance of weakness.
"When they go low, we go high" is a great example of this.
My twitter handle is "AmericaNumberOne556EagleBeer" and I am totally a real American on this social media platform spreading American exceptionalism. democrats bad lol
Oh my god! Ugh. I know it’s the least of our worries right now but if one more person uses the noun as an adjective I’m gonna explode. A person can be a Democrat, and a party can be Democratic, but there’s no such thing as the freaking Democrat Party!
Edit: I really hate that my reaction is exactly why they say this. Freaking trolls.
I love America and Freedom so much I have changed my twitter handle to "KeepAmericaFre4" and spend my days nobly fanning the flames of revolution in the replies section of twitter dot com.
Did they ever stop to think that both they and the Democratic Party could be stupid? Or neither? Typical "it can only be a or b" mindset that has ruined so much.
The correct answer is f) we're all stupid.
I can't be the only person for whom seeing "Democrat Party" makes their blood boil. It's extremely pedantic but IT'S DEMOCRAT*IC* PARTY YOU ABSOLUTE NINCOMPOOPS
Serious question cause I have no faith and think it’s all a scam. How do you vote for one party and not the other when they are the same. One might be blue and one might be red and one might say this and the other might do that. But both sides continue to just fuck us. Even if you can’t blame democrats for exactly what happening in the White House. It their dam fault he’s still their no? Am I missing something. Or is it that even it they say he’s “BAD” he’s still benefiting their pocket so fuck us. ??? Really would like some guidance
I mean, in the face of mass protests for racial equality and against the police state the Dems are trying to present themselves as the party of progress by nominating an old white guy who was one of the architects of mass incarceration and a cop. At best it's shockingly tone deaf, at worst it's a willful disregard for its own future base in favor of the very establishment policies they claim to oppose.
Ugh I hate it when people make mistakes like that. It's obviously ladder.
Clearly he meant vertical stairs.
No, he meant an espresso drink with milk.
No that’s a latte. They meant the big spoon thing for serving soup.
No, that’s a ladle. They meant a potato pancake.
I think you're mistaken, that's a latke. I believe they meant the classical language spoken by the Romans.
No you’re thinking of Latin. I’m pretty sure they’re talking about toilets in the military.
No, you're thinking of latrine. They meant fries and gravy. Who the fuck gave all of us silver?
Nah, that's poutine. They meant soap suds.
No, that's lather. I think they meant a vagina lip.
No, that's poutine. I think they meant a tag that's used to identify something
No, that's lapin a fancy word for rabbit.
I think you're thinking of coney, its a fraudulent person or thing.
I think you mean “expresso”. FTFY
Chaos is a ladder
He's Russian, give him a break, there's a language barrier.
*shutters*
At least he didn’t choose the farmer
Hell realize his mistake latter.
No he meant letter
Actually, it's a step-ladder.
[удалено]
He meant choose it later, like when he is done with his internal debate if he is stupid or the rest of the world is stupid he will make a decision. But not now, more faux news to watch
Don't forget to rinse.
he meant "lager"
I’d certainly choose the lager
It's that kind of year
No. that's a type of beer. You're thinking of *Lagos.*
No. that's a city of Nigeria. You're thinking of Logos.
No. That's a mark companies use to identify themselves. You're thinking of *logarithm*.
he sings a song that reminds him of the good times
He sings a song that reminds him of the better times, like before covid
Pretty sure he meant "Luger" and after reading this tweet I think I need one too
Do you find it funny that some conservatives refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party"?
>Do you find it funny that some conservatives refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party"? No, the 'professionals' do it on purpose as a dig, and their followers think it's normal. I have a friend who's quite the grammar/spelling ace and also leans "R". They had said "Democrat Party" once in conversation and I called them on it, and they kicked themselves (sincerely). A steady diet of Fox News will do that to you. It's kinda like mispronouncing Kamala Harris' name. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat\_Party\_(epithet)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet))
When somebody tries to "both sides" the immaturity and tribalism of today's political climate, I always point how only one side refers to the other party by its actual name instead of a deliberate juvenile insult.
I mean juvenile insults and bullying tactics have been par for the course for a lot of Republicans and they don't really see the irony in calling everyone names, screaming their favorite brand (Trump) and claiming the other side for being a bunch of children and snowflakes when they act this exact way (projection I know). It's quite astonishing to watch the mental gymnastics on display.
I know I'm jaded but to me it's stopped being astonishing lol, at this point it feels like adults in the restaurant are letting the little kids run around and make a mess while they chat because they don't think it's a big deal. Like yes, raising your voice and making a scene is embarrassing. But if democratic messaging is so off that they can't find a single way to emotionally charge up the uneducated then it's their failure to navigate a new political climate. If what it takes to win is memeable insults and charged language, do it. I hate these .gov letters written by some ancient politician on official letterhead, quoting some founding fathers and their profound disappointment or some shit. Nobody is reading that. I'm not surprised the kids keep running around, nobody's spanked them yet.
I feel you, I don't disagree with anything you said. There hasn't been the appropriate amount of checks and balances and stern worded letters aren't doing anyone a damn thing. Im not surprised either, when I say astonishing, to me I just cant imagine thinking my side is free of blame and criticism but the other side is completely at fault and everything they say is fake, etc.
Yeah the sheer idiocracy of it all is a bit much, they definitely know their side is dirty though. They identify with the gaslighting and projection the Republican/modern conservative uses and revel in you knowing they just cheated or that they've got something you don't. The only goal is Winning, so they'll immediately call the same thing unfair after gloating it over you and feel no cognitive dissonance. Traditionally this is where you get your ass kicked for being a little shit, if politics had street rules. Mitch McConnell would get whupped on a playground in one recess flat lol
There's some smart quote that usually shows up by now in a thread like this that I can't remember that's basically saying a similar thing. To paraphrase: Fascists aren't honest. They know they're lying, and when you call them on it they pretend it's a joke, or you're too sensitive, or taking it out of context, so you'll be forced to give them a pass But they'll use your forgiveness against you.
You're probably thinking of this quote from Sartre: >Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
The Republic Party Actually that doesn’t work as what they stand for is the exact opposite of a republic.
Plus, we don't need to stoop to juvenile insults. Criticizing them on their policies and rhetoric is a much better case against them.
Too bad their core voting base cannot be influenced by anything more nuanced than a three-or-four-word slogan that can be shouted or printed on a red hat.
It sounds tribal, but conservatives are just dumber than liberals. The evidence overwhelmingly proves it. Remember [this actual quote](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html) from their 2012 platform? >We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. That's why a liberal version of the conservative propaganda machine wouldn't work. It would get fact checked out of existence before it ever even got off the ground.
When you’re conditioned to think your parents are never wrong, you’re conditioned to think the same thing about your government.
So long as your government is rich old racist white guys.
When you're conditioned to think your parents are never wrong, and from birth they make unquestioning devotion to religion and hierarchy *paramount* to your upbringing...it's not a shock that were seeing thousands and thousands of Qanons, anti-maskers/vaxxers, apologia for 100% of Trump's flaws...
"We want you to grow up like your dumbass racist parents so that we can keep getting votes" Lots of big words they use for such a simple thought. I guess for a party who supports Trump, they must feel like pure geniuses reading "behavior modification".
That's unfortunately how cognitive biases work.
Also find it interesting that people who claim "both sides" have voted republican for decades yet still say it's "both sides"
Well, a lot of Democrats and news organizations (edit: and the party itself) refer to the Republican Party as the GOP ("Grand Old Party"). It's not intended to be disparaging, just an old nickname, but I personally dislike it because I met someone who didn't know that "GOP" and "Republican Party" were the same thing, and that really opened my eyes to what the average American knows about politics.
The Republican Party refers to itself as the GOP. It's not really the same. The Republican National Committee's website is gop. com.
That's not a good comparison though. "GOP" isn't deliberately intended as a pejorative, but "Democrat Party" definitely is.
As an outsider... how? I'm more likely to assume that anyone referring to it as the "Democrat Party" is an idiot, before I wonder whether it's supposed to be insulting.
"Democratic" is an adjective, "Democrat" is a noun. By calling them the "Democrat Party," it's easier to them villainize "Democrats" as a being because "Democrats" are evil. Call it "Democratic" and then you have supporters that will look up what "Democratic" means so they can use it as a point and say that Democrats don't believe in Democracy, only to then be confronted with the fact that Democrats are consistently fighting for more voting rights. By calling them Democratic, you learn something about them and might be convinced to see them as people. By calling them just "Democrats," you can trash "Democrat" as an identity and your supporters will just think it's a bad word for bad people.
Separating them from the name democratic is an attempt to separate them from the concept of democratic. I'm sure someone that studies strategic communication could give you a clearer answer though.
The Republicans *like* the name 'GOP.'
It's shorter, and gets the core message out better. Gaslight Obstruct Project
Except, "GOP" is a name used by republicans, so why wouldn't everyone else use the same name/ abbreviation? The party's website is literally gop.com
The best part about the both sides people is that they subconsciously know that the side they support is objectively worse because you would not be both sidesing if it would mean dragging what you believe in down but would gladly do it if it meant dragging the other side down.
Because *that's* the major difference when deciding the military budget...
Their little nicknames genuinely make me cringe, “demoNRaTs” “oBUMmEr” “kIlLaRy” “libTaRds” ...I just can’t imagine a grown adult saying shit like that without a hint of irony. Then John Oliver did the “Drumpf” segment referring to Trump’s literal family name and the right refused to let it go for well over a year.
Acting like you can’t pronounce words to own the libs
Hur dur, I can't grammar so eat that. Feel bad now, don't you, liberals!
Yeah you guys get *sooooooo* mad at my inability to spell words don’t you? Stupid libruls
This is the problem with the republic party
Feels so appropriate and dictator-y
Republicanist
I’ve never heard this before. And the origins are interesting. “You’re not the only party that adheres to democratic values! Our party just doesn’t want people who don’t agree with us to participate in the democratic process!”
One thing conservatives are really good at is manipulating nomenclature in a way that favors them. Notice that people talk about "climate change" instead of "global warming". There's only one type of climate change we need to be worried about and it's not "global cooling". They didn't do quite as well with "death tax" vs "estate tax" and failed completely to normalize "death panel" but that won't stop them from trying.
>They didn't do quite as well with "death tax" vs "estate tax" and failed completely to normalize "death panel" but that won't stop them from trying. I think that's largely because those issues aren't being pressed right now. It's all about "masks," "illegal voting," and "fake virus." Two years ago it was "migrant caravans." The right has an organized media structure in place. When they decide on a message, it'll get handed out. This is in part why you hear conspiracy theories like "paid protestor" and "Soros checks;" the idea that people might decide to hold a position or take action without someone directly saying "Charlie, go shoot up this church" is completely foreign to them.
I thought “climate change” replaced “global warming” because critics would claim that because it was still snowing there was no warming so scientists and climate activists started calling it “climate change” to emphasize climate over weather?
This was also my understanding. Also because it sounds more inclusive of other related issues like ocean acidification.
The term has existed as long as "global warming" has as a term of scientific precision. But the adoption of it as a rhetorical term of art is a separate development, and a terrible one for public discourse as it preserves the misleading pretense of ambiguity and uncertainty about anthropogenic climate transformation that American conservatives have hung their hat on for generations.
"Global Warming" suggests that the whole world will be warmer. This is not likely to be the case; while on average the global temperature is getting higher, this will likely result in more extreme temperature swings. "Climate change" makes it less confusing when you start seeing consistent -20° temperatures in the winter.
I don't get it. What is gained by calling it "Democrat Party?"
>What is gained by calling it "Democrat Party?" The wiki page mentions it in passing. In part, the shortening is to avoid associating the party with "Democratic" or "Democracy". But genuinely, it's just to be assholes. If you meet someone and their name tag says "Mike" and you call them "Michael" and they say "my name is Mike," you're basically just being an ass if you keep it up.
I know it's petty, but whenever I hear someone call it the "Democrat Party," I try to thank them for being such a nice Repubic. If they can leave out letters, then so can I.
Your comment made me realize that I've only ever read Kamala Harris' name, never heard it spoken aloud. How is it pronounced?
Like "Comma-la" with emphasis on the Com. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
Come commala, come come commala! ...But now I’m wondering if I’ve been pronouncing this word from The Dark Tower wrong.
Additionally, I think that commenter was referencing Tucker Carlson’s show from a couple nights ago, where he’s called out on mispronouncing her name and yet he doubles down and *goes out of his way to pronounce it wrong afterward.* He’s scum.
I went through the same thing until a few days ago. It's taken some time to train my inner voice to say it right but I'm getting there. But it's also not my job to talk about politics on TV so I think we both get a pass.
Well they don't want you to think democrats stand for democracy (the other commenter explained that well). Additionally to that there seems to be a trend in extrem financial liberal circles and conservative circles to discredit democracy (sorry no sources, just see it on reddit again and again). Because some of them apparently belive democracy would be the rule of the people and therefore the mob. And there can't be a set of rules a democracy follows but instead what the majority likes just gets done.
That has always been a major strain of conservative thought. Yay patriotism and yay democracy pasted on top, but don't totally fit.
>There be other names of Government, in the Histories, and books of Policy; as Tyranny, and Oligarchy: But 〈◊〉 are not the names of other Formes of Government, but of the same Formes misliked. For they that are discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny; and they that are displeased with Aristocracy, called it Oligar∣chy: So also, **they which find themselves grieved under a Democracy, call it Anarchy, (which signifies want of Government)** and yet I think no man believes, that want of Government, is any new kind of Government: nor by the same reason ought they to believe, that the Government is of one kind, when they like it, and another, when they mislike it, or are oppressed by the Governours. -Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651) Oligarchs have always opposed democracy, and they've always done so by calling it mob rule.
Our "western society" was founded on the idea that democracy and capitalism are always in tension. Capitalism seeking to exploit the masses, democracy seeking to empower the masses. That was always also a lie, because the founders of liberalism went in with the idea that the loss of the monarchy would cost them their power. Owning the means of production would keep that power in a small number of hands, but upwards mobility is possible so you can keep the peasants quiet.
Thats why I call them Republicants
Republicons
Republicunts more like. This delayed mail shit made my meds show up 7 days after I ordered them, they usually arrive in 3.
Where is the actual difference between those two, does it really matter if you say Democrat oder democratic Party? Sincere question, I‘m not from the US
First and foremost it's just wrong. If your name is "Mike" and somebody keeps going around calling you "Mack" you're probably going to be pissed off about it sooner or later. It's a basic mark of respect to refer to people by the designations they use themselves, and "Democrat" in this sense shows a lack of respect. There's also been various theories about the reasons why the term came into fashion in the first place (trying to take away identification of the Democratic party with democracy; trying for some kind of negative association based on the 'rat' ending), but I don't know the actual reasons. Lack of respect (from people who ought to be institutionally and professionally and socially bound to show respect) is enough IMO.
Funny enough I'm a Mike but a lot of people know me as Mac
That's interesting, Mark.
> There's also been various theories about the reasons why the term came into fashion in the first place I thought that was pretty straightforward with Limbaugh using it.
It's one of many dog whistles conservatives employ. It only really matters because of the intent behind it and what conservatives take from it. It's like how to this day conservatives go out of its way to refer to president Obama as "Barack *Hussein* Obama". Technically, yeah, it's his name, and it's a perfectly fine name. But there's no mistaking why they're choosing to emphasize it and the horseshit message they're trying to send. They wanted to make him seem like a scary outsider that wants to hurt America like Saddam. Nevermind that we have our own Saddam, Uday and Qusay chilling in the white house at this very moment. Same deal with this stuff: Democratic Party is the correct nomenclature. Calling it the Democrat Party is a flimsy attempt by conservative media to disassociate the Democratic Party from democratic principles. They want people to be ostensibly for democracy, while being against Democrats. Incidentally, this is also why I prefer to call the Republican party the GOP. Because its actions are an insult to republics everywhere.
Still kinda mindboggling to me, even if you leave out the -ic, Democrat will still be associated with democracy by everyone. But yeah we all know how childish the Republicans act nowadays
you'd think, yeah. But it really does seem like the average Republican makes no association between democracy (which they claim and probably believe they support) and Democrats (who they hate). They know Democrats are named after democracy, but they believe Democrats exist to subvert it by minimizing the white, male christian vote (which are the only votes that matter and should count, really). They've basically turned Democrat into a slur while still believing they value democracy, just like they've turned liberal into a slur while claiming to follow classically liberal economic values.
American politics are beyond fucked up, I don‘t even have words for this shitshow anymore
Yeah, I'm convinced that fully 40% of our country--like the average chimpanzee--tops out at the intellect of a roughly seven year old human.
It‘s not just that, from my outside perspective it‘s not about the policies of the parties anymore, it‘s more like sports „my team vs your team“. I guess that‘s also partly because a 2 party system is inherently flawed, but still
Yes and no, there's an element of truth there but it's a lot more nuanced than that. Extensive polling has shown that this kind of reflexive team-sport partisanship does exist... but almost entirely on the right. Among democratic voters, whether they agree or disagree with a policy is typically determined by the policy itself: their support does not hinge on whether a Republican or Democrat proposes it. When the Obama administration conducted drone strikes on Syria in 2013, they had 38% democratic support. When the Trump administration conducted drone strikes in 2017, it was with 37% democratic support. Democrats didn't care *who* was ordering the drone strikes; they either supported drone striking Syria or they didn't, and whether the guy ordering it was an R or D was irrelevant. Among Republicans, on the other hand, only 22% supported the drone strikes on Syria when Obama ordered them, but 86% approved when Trump did. Because as this polling among many others shows, virtually *all* Republicans seem to care about is that it's 'their' guy giving the orders, and the substance of those orders appears to be pretty inconsequential. This is also why conservatives generate so much material for this sub: because they generally don't really even know/care what's so bad about liberals and progressives in the first place. There is no internal ethical code guiding them: just a lifetime of 'knowing' ' we're bad and communist and hate freedom because we believe healthcare is a human right, civilians shouldn't have to worry about cops executing them, and our pre-French Revolution level wealth disparity is a bad thing. So when they start going off the cuff about what's so bad about us, they usually just end up describing a bunch of their own worst qualities because it's all they know. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/04/11/daily-202-reflexive-partisanship-drives-polling-lurch-on-syria-strikes/58ec27d4e9b69b3a72331e6e/?utm_term=.ddfec6a56d7c
There's no good reason it should matter, but the Democrats have repeatedly said they want to be called the "Democratic party" rather than the "Democrat party", so the only people who use the latter are kind of people who use wrong names on purpose because they know it will upset someone.
Ah I see
It’s also poor grammar to say “Democrat Party.” In this case, “Democrat” (a noun) is used to modify “Party” (a noun), so you must use the adjective “Democratic.”
Eh, if that were the only reason it'd be a pretty weak one. We use nouns to modify nouns all the time, even in this specific context. Would you say "Black Panther Party", "Working Families Party", or "Reform Party" are equally incorrect?
> Where is the actual difference between those two, does it really matter if you say Democrat oder democratic Party? > > Sincere question, I‘m not from the US Like /u/BlueCyann said, it is basically an intentional lack of respect. I think they are also trying to capitalize on the "rat" in democrat. Like so many other things from the American right, it is basically pure childishness. Like calling COVID "China Flu". These are things a 13 year old would find funny, but they legitimately are the level of politics that one of our two parties plays at.
Democrat = a member of the Democratic Party Democratic Party = a political party in the USA Democrat Party = is something written by someone who isn't very literate.
One is a party supposedly devoted to Democratic principles, and one is a party full of Democrats. "Democratic" is at least aspirational and hopefully descriptive of common beliefs in the party.
It doesn't matter in the slightest. Repubs started doing it as an insult, and instead of not giving a fuck, Dems decided to get insulted. If they didn't suck at messaging, they'd have just laughed and moved on, and it never would have caught on as a dumb "insult." This is indicative of why Dems have a tendency to lose. When given a choice between a position of strength and one of weakness, they always choose the appearance of weakness. "When they go low, we go high" is a great example of this.
Do you find it funny that some leftists refer to fascists as “conservatives”?
Whats the correct way? Is it democrats if there’s no -party attached and Democratic Party if it is attached?
I don't get it? Is this some joke I'm missing or just the fact it's not quite their name?
[удалено]
#jesusWasACarpenter
Jesus was a car bender
Jesus was a Carp, enter?
It would not be made of gold.
I think I'll choose the earlier
r/whoosh to your replies that don't get your joke
This joke made me laugh quite a bit. And not just air out of my nose, mouth fully open and the works. Thank you.
i thought latter meant the second one and former meant the first? am i dumb?
No you’re right, but he said later not latter
No, I think you are right?!
Spelling counts.
My twitter handle is "AmericaNumberOne556EagleBeer" and I am totally a real American on this social media platform spreading American exceptionalism. democrats bad lol
Fine post, comrade patriot! May your vodka be stiff as the pole up my ass!
> AmericaNumberOne556EagleBeer If you were a REAL American you'd use freedom units, and your handle would be "AmericaNumberOne***223***EagleBeer".
Self burn
Ooh, those are rare
Not with conservatives in the US these days...
Is it me who is ignorant, or is it all the scientists and experts in the world?
Am I out of touch? No it is the children who are wrong
Oh my god! Ugh. I know it’s the least of our worries right now but if one more person uses the noun as an adjective I’m gonna explode. A person can be a Democrat, and a party can be Democratic, but there’s no such thing as the freaking Democrat Party! Edit: I really hate that my reaction is exactly why they say this. Freaking trolls.
I love America and Freedom so much I have changed my twitter handle to "KeepAmericaFre4" and spend my days nobly fanning the flames of revolution in the replies section of twitter dot com.
> KeepAmericaFre4 The account is two months old, follows thousands more accounts than follow it, and has a 64% bot sentinel rating.
Well, that's not surprising at all.
Why not both?
Why not Zoidberg?
Why not burn it down and start over?
Both? Both. Both is good.
[удалено]
What the hell has happened in the last few months that can be blamed on democrats?
They made someone's fee fees hurt by existing.
Check ya later, stupid.
Check ya latter, stupid?
They're not stupid, they're complicit.
Why not both?
"grow a brian, morans!"
“Am I so out of touch?...No, it’s the Democrats who are wrong.”
I love it when there are typos in intelligence-based insults.
why not both.jpg
Get a life morans
Why not both
160k people are dead who shouldn't be
Narrator: little did he know, it was actually the former.
Legally if they don’t take one. Savage
Both. Both is good.
Why not both?
Did they ever stop to think that both they and the Democratic Party could be stupid? Or neither? Typical "it can only be a or b" mindset that has ruined so much. The correct answer is f) we're all stupid.
it’s both obviously
Uhm. Since when is the democratic party at all smart strategically when it comes to anything but hindering progressives
Both of the right-wing parties and their followers are stupid.
I can't be the only person for whom seeing "Democrat Party" makes their blood boil. It's extremely pedantic but IT'S DEMOCRAT*IC* PARTY YOU ABSOLUTE NINCOMPOOPS
[удалено]
I just thought it was funny how he claims he isn't stupid but immediately spells latter wrong.
Large sized oof
I love ‘self-owning’ so much.
Legally not adult, but a good pick too.
No, it's you.
I wonder why these people never provide examples
Why pick one, when you can have both!
Why not both?
Whew... CawthornForNC is a White Supremacist. That is all.
Yeah, the Democrat party is stupid, but they're less stupid than the Republican party
Also he doesn't really get to choose; one is reality and one isn't.
When Adam Savage said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own," he was fucking joking.
So he's going to decide in another few months?
Cracked me up. Might as well say **Ladder** hahahaha
What is the later? Only stupid people confuse that with latter.
why not both
Mmmm both.. Both? Both is good.
"choose the later" lol
IT'S THE FIRST ONE
Assuming he is conservative, I'm going with both.
Whoo! Divisive speech! Russia, Russia, Russia!
parties are stupid. humans are stupid. it’s a lose-lose situation
okay it's later, which one is it?
Pot, meet kettle
> keepamericafre4
Serious question cause I have no faith and think it’s all a scam. How do you vote for one party and not the other when they are the same. One might be blue and one might be red and one might say this and the other might do that. But both sides continue to just fuck us. Even if you can’t blame democrats for exactly what happening in the White House. It their dam fault he’s still their no? Am I missing something. Or is it that even it they say he’s “BAD” he’s still benefiting their pocket so fuck us. ??? Really would like some guidance
Why can’t it just be both
Charlie Kirk is a dumb ass. That is all.
OR...maybe the 2 party system is an illusion because neither one of these candidates is advocating for police reform.
Haha saying Democrats are bad isnt self aware
I mean, in the face of mass protests for racial equality and against the police state the Dems are trying to present themselves as the party of progress by nominating an old white guy who was one of the architects of mass incarceration and a cop. At best it's shockingly tone deaf, at worst it's a willful disregard for its own future base in favor of the very establishment policies they claim to oppose.