Wordie: Words Against Bush (and::Or his administration): Comments

Comment by bernaun, about 1 year ago

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:51:39 +0000

uselessness,

Thank you for the encouraging words..

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:46:06 +0000

I like how you've incorporated buzzwords and phrases from Bush rhetoric. This is a great list!

It's important not to let others get you feeling jumpy about your own list. When I first joined Wordie I caught some flak for including global warming on my She Blinded Me With Pseudoscience list. I was accused of being a "right wing nut job" (which I'm not, but even if I was, is that a crime?). I ultimately caved to the pressure and removed the offending word.

Your lists are your own. Here's another list that raised some eyebrows not too long ago. It's a disgusting list. I don't want to ever look at it again. But I do support gmb's right to create/maintain it. On a site like this, there's no need for people-pleasing... or for us to try to silence others. You and I needn't worry about expressing opinions, whether we are in the majority or otherwise.

Thanks again to you both. I think I have a workable solution.

Fri, 02 Feb 2007 01:29:59 +0000

First, I corrected and shortened the titles of the lists (and kept them separate.
Next, I placed a warning message at the top that simple political bickering in the comments would be deleted with discussion.
Third, I returned the censored words except for one: murderer. Yes, "murderer" has probably been uttered by someone. But the nature of the usage of the word is similar to the other expletives because its utterance is intended to be inflammatory. It also does not contain any truth as far as I can tell in that one cannot convict a sitting president for murder by ordering troops to combat. I will check with a lawyer on this one, but I believe it is true. So, 1. No truth at all, and 2. Inflammatory or slanderous. If a word has a small bit of truth, or is true only in a slight context, I would consider keep for that reason. Words can go on the list by default. If someone objects, there should be some discussion, but based on accepted criteria and then either removed or retained.
Last, I added a lot of words to both lists, which take them in some new directions. I hope this helps to mitigate the sense of hate in the Against list.
Any thoughts..?
bernaun

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:47:20 +0000

I was just making an observation, you can do as you please with your lists. I think people, by nature, have great potential for mean-spiritedness -- it's not limited to the right or left. Where there is no unanimous agreement, that kind of speech will always arise in the opposition.

I think AbraxasZugzwang has some good points... but you don't need to feel like the victim of your creation either. You're not forced to add any and all possible words just because they "belong" on the list. You can mediate and censor to your heart's content. Do what you feel is right; it's still a good list.

Comment by AbraxasZugzwang, about 1 year ago

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:11:15 +0000

Here're my thoughts on the issue. I like that you combined both lists. It seemed the purpose of the list was to gather any and all terms used frequently in reference to Bush. Combining the lists evens the playing field, but removing words based on an individual (potential) taking umbrage at their presence doesn't make sense to me. I understand that this isn't scientific, but that's more reason to include all available terms, as far as I can see. Why attempt to play mediator? I think all you need is a disclaimer that the words don't necessarily represent your thoughts or feelings.

Now, a word like "asshole" would have no place in the list. That's mere name-calling and could branch off indefinitely. But "murderer," for instance, is a word often used is relation to the President, whether people like it or not.

uselessness, thank you, would you consider the following:

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:49:26 +0000

* first, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I have considered it at some length.
* ok, so I didn't want to make this a political debate as much as sort of a survey of the words chosen in a political debate. I had thought of this list (actually, both lists including the GOP list) as sort of saying something without saying something. In fact, I personally don't agree with some in the list.
* However, I think you are right, some of the words are indeed quite mean-spirited, if not simply name-calling. I think my tentative desire is to remain true in the collection and collect the words, no matter how harsh, but this is not a scientific activity. Therefore, it does not have any obligation to truth or purity (even if I could measure it, right?). So, in the spirit of making the list something someone could also show their child as an educational exercise, I decided to excise the more vitriolic entries.
* For good measure, I will make the jettisoned words available upon request.
* In addition, I will suggest a criterion for evaluating whether a word is appropriate or not: If the word does not address a specific characteristic of Bush or the administration, or its use is plainly intended to offend or berate or to smear... put more simply, if it would not be appropriate for a kind to learn the word, it will be removed. I hope you will send feedback on this criterion.
* Finally, to address the one part of your comment that I thought an attack on the Dems (ok, not really, maybe a mild attack on the Dems..). I don't think sour notes are unique to the Democrats as a group - I have heard much worse about Hillary Clinton uttered. However, following on your mention, I will also change the names of the lists both to represent more abstract groups.
* What do you think of these changes (and the edited list..?)
Thank you again!
bernaun

Comment by uselessness, about 1 year ago

Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:23:20 +0000

I'm not a fan of Bush or his policies (at all) but darn if most of these words aren't awfully mean-spirited. I say that, not directed at you, but as an observation of the "Dems" in general... seems to me that a little tact and a little less vitriol might help the liberals out. It just sounds like they're angry all the time, and most of it transcends politics to petty attacks on Bush himself, and how he's "stupid," or "looks like a monkey." Terribly misdirected rancor, if you ask me.

I'll criticize the administration plenty, but I try to stick to legitimate arguments over name-calling and outright rudeness.

all good ones.... thx!

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:32:52 +0000

Comment by AbraxasZugzwang, about 1 year ago

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 02:31:15 +0000

Here're some off the top of my head. Not limited to Dems, though: criminal, coward, war criminal, liar, ineffective, inactive, underestimated, profiteer, corrupt, cheat, zealot, murderer, scary, uninformed, misled, sucker, tool, illiterate, simpleton, likeable, principled, convinced.