Name Calling

.
Zionazi. Jewpropagandist.

This is the crap that Michele dealt with over at 'a small victory'. She pointed out two wildly different versions of the same story, one posted by Newsday, the other by Indymedia. She points out that the IM version seems to be lacking in credibility, not only because of the source and it’s obvious bias, but because of the lack of facts.

And as one commenter pointed out, she handled it as an adult, which meant that he could indulge in name-calling.

Hey, it’s only fair, right? I mean, they started it.

I think this is what bothers me the most about politics today. You have a great mass of people who are so politically correct that they cannot call a shovel a spade, but off to either side are groups who must label everyone who doesn’t agree with them with the most vile and juvenile terms they can come up with, and they happily revel in the slime. But at it's root it's the same problem, the true message is less clear because of intentional distortion.

Zionazi. Jewpropagandist.

Here’s two more:

Paleosimian. Colon Bowel.

Yep, both sides do it.

Hyperbole? Humor? Venting? Maybe, but there are others out there who use the same terminology, only they hate. I’m talking about that mad, incoherent, unthinking, genocide-is-possible, room-for-nothing-else hatred. They hate and they use words like that because it demeans and dehumanizes and belittles the object of their hate.

There are a few popular blogs that I don’t read because I don’t like the general attitude. A friend called it mean-spirited, and that’s as good a term for it as any. I’m not slamming personal style, because it’s exactly that – personal. I just don’t read them, and I probably miss out on some good stuff too. But at the same time, if you spend that much time calling someone clever names, your audience may miss the meaning of the message you’re trying to put across.

And isn’t conveying your message the whole point?