NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it just me or is there WAY to much Political Jargan (Sorry for mispelling) going on today?

Well this is a Libritarial move to.....

Well the Republicans thoughts are....

Well the Democrats are just....


I mean I can't understand 75% of the news I hear becase of all this jargan based on politics.

Is it just me or is this getting a bit crazy?

Do you have any other examples? If you have trouble with 'democrat' and 'republican' I would definitely say you could do with a Politics class...

let me guess American right?

I think there's too much political jargon, but not becaue it's hard to understand - just that we're way too much in the habit of labeling everything and then assigning blame to those labeled groups. Ever think that some Democrats, some Republicans, and plenty of Independents might ALSO agree with that "Libertarian move"? People are individuals, not subparticles inseparable from their groups.

I don't like the way 'liberal' and 'conservative' are used in the US. In most cases the label is just false, as economic conservatism often goes along with social liberalism, and vice versa. Here in NZ we tend to say left or right, which is often too vague to be useful but is at least fairly accurate.

Deep in this long blogsphere discussion of the press http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/08/19/ab_rlfwd.html I came across the following gem:That said, the "groupthink" accusation is accurate, though I still wonder why media critics apply this to only to simplified left-right bias discussions and not to larger, more damaging issues. The "groupthink" in the media is responsible for how issues are framed, regardless of alleged ideology (i.e., they're framed the same way on Fox as they are on CNN or in the NYT). Today's journalists frame issues in terms of whether or not the Democrats or Republicans gain. Usually, that's not the point. But we've reduced political coverage to team-sports, horse-race coverage.

I'm not sure if I agree with it, but it does raise some interesting thoughts on the nature of the press and goes some ways towards explaining your problem.

Is it just me or is this getting a bit crazy?
It's just you.

Do you have any other examples? If you have trouble with 'democrat' and 'republican' I would definitely say you could do with a Politics class...

Agreed, these are kind of par for the course in the US these days.

Although, I am having a little trouble placing 'Libritarial.'

Agreed, these are kind of par for the course in the US these days.

Although, I am having a little trouble placing 'Libritarial.'

They're neo-fascist feminist librans, watch out for them!

They're neo-fascist feminist librans, watch out for them!

Ooooh, scary!

Just watch the news more often, man. Those are some of the most basic terms out there.

I think that the presence of some of these words causes people to constrict their veiws in order to fit into particular categories. (or by simply sharing FEW chracteristics with one party, a person my be automatically categorized as a supporter of said party)

Then again this happens with many words, over time and after much (correct and incorrect) usage their meaning becomes insignificant. ('watered down' if you will)

example:
if i were to say 'hi, i am a sdnflkjgsndfgn' (i am a person, female, brown hair, who strongly believes that fries can only be eaten with syrup)
another person: "well... I like fries in syrup too! therefore i am a sdnflkjgsndfgn also!" (this is a person, female, red hair, who likes fries in syrup)
by the addition of person2 to the sdnflkjgsndfgn list the definition of a 'sdnflkjgsndfgn' must be changed to encompass people with redhair that only moderately like fries in syrup! thus changing the definition to 'persons that are female that like fries with syrup'
i would be pissed off because they just made my word 'sdnflkjgsndfgn' drop 50% of its meaning due to ignorant misuse! :mad: