Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
like arguing about it's use is a code for you guys.

No it's not. I'm a registered Libertarian who has voted both D and R in the past. I'm not one of "you guys." I'm a person who simply doesn't like bullshit branding tricks.

This isn't a D or an R issue. This is a matter of people calling a network onto the carpet for a reckless policy that damages our political discourse.

When the Ds practice similar propaganda by refusing to print or discuss stories about successes in Iraq they're just as culpable, and I would not accuse you of talking in "code" for criticizing them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The only one who has a strong feeling on this one is Sebby. The rest of us are just snickering at you.

Well you should have a strong feeling on this one. This sort of bullshit is a lot more damaging than you think. The level of political discourse is directly tied to the political health of the nation.

We've had a President who's succeeded in passing all sorts of wrongheaded policies by cleverly branding them as something other than what they were (often by branding them with names evoking images diametrically opposed to their aims).

You bitch about our President more than anyone here, but you give a pass to the propaganda mill? Here's a tip. The GOP isn't a pile of evil geniuses. The country's fucking stupid. That a network can get away with insidious shit like "homicide bomber" and DailyKos, Rush Limbaugh, Tonwhall and MoveOn are the biggest sources of political discussion proves it's only getting worse.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
like arguing about it's use is a code for you guys.

Not too bothered by it, really, and I don't argue with people who use it. It's actually pretty useful in that it saves time you might otherwise waste in a longer conversation before realizing that your interlocutor is an idiot.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Diane, I have to quibble with your second point about how we should side with the victims. But I think that's implied.

But the problem with "homicide bomber" is it sounds, generally speaking, stupid. It's as though Fox were too stupid to understand that "suicide bomber" is just a way of describing a certain type of bomber. It's a dumb knee-jerkresponse that assumes the word "suicide bomber" is some leftist term coined by CNN or Reuters to give gravitas to those bombers. It's clearly not. It's just a descriptive.

Now, Fox isn't stupid. But they know a lot of their audience is. So what they've done is play to the dim bastards who think "suicide bomber" is a Lefty term. Really, at the end of the day, its nothing more than a trick of branding. Fox is trying, cynically, to distinguish itself by purposefully misconstruing a vanilla, descriptive term. And it knows how idiotic "homicide bomber" sounds, yet it pushes the term anyway, because it knows that to a certain uneducated sector of our society, using "homicide bomber" looks like the network is "taking a stand against all them damned lefties."

The term "homicide bomber" doesn't offend me so much as it saddens me. We have a nation of people who can so easily be cowed with these slick propaganda tricks? It's upsetting.

I think you're saying that the term used by Fox News is reactionary and not original (it is a term inherently critical of the term "suicide bomber.") If so, I agree. But I don't think Fox viewers are bunch of toothless idiots, or that they are catering to stupidity. Unless you think those who vote Republican are all toothless idiots. I hear a lot of presumptions about red-staters being stupid and "simplistic" but I have never bought that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The only one who has a strong feeling on this one is Sebby. The rest of us are just snickering at you.

I know some people laughed at "suicide shopper."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
Not too bothered by it, really, and I don't argue with people who use it. It's actually pretty useful in that it saves time you might otherwise waste in a longer conversation before realizing that your interlocutor is an idiot.

maybe in Jersey bars using big words makes you seem smarter, but not so much here.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It called an absurdist example, and is intended to perhaps maske some rethink their earlier position relative to the phrase "homicide" bombers.

My basic position is that the semantics don't matter much. Call him whatever you wish if it makes you feel better, and God Bless You for it. Essentially all such bombers are murderers or attempted murderers.

I don't think the term "suicide bomber" was created out of some kind of sympathy for the bombers -- but to distinguish a certainly relatively new style of murderous attack which has come onto the scene in the past 20 years or so.

[Query: If a dude packs a car with explosives and detonates it by remote control, is he a "homicide bomber" or just a "bomber"? Does it depend on the casualties? Please don't waste too much time thinking about this.]

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Please don't waste too much time thinking about this.

if this thread ever ends can this be the next title? it will remind us all of perhaps the best advice all day today.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if this thread ever ends can this be the next title? it will remind us all of perhaps the best advice all day today.

I've never named a thread before, but it would be a good title.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I think you're saying that the term used by Fox News is reactionary and not original (it is a term inherently critical of the term "suicide bomber.") If so, I agree. But I don't think Fox viewers are bunch of toothless idiots, or that they are catering to stupidity. Unless you think those who vote Republican are all toothless idiots. I hear a lot of presumptions about red-staters being stupid and "simplistic" but I have never bought that.

Yes on the first point.

I don't think Fox viewers are toothless idiots either. Nor do I think red staters or Republicans are toothless idiots (having voted Republican, that would be an odd criticism). But there is a huge toothless idiot audience that term is targeted to appease, and a lot of it is located in red states.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
When they start killing people in malls, they call them homicide shoppers. Or so I hear.

Your jokes are much better than your politics.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Your jokes are much better than your politics.

umm, that was my joke, but thanks.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Any suggestions on appropriate adjectives for Fox commentators?

Generally speaking? Or compared with the competition at CNN?

If the latter, I'll go with "ethical" and "competent"

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
umm, that was my joke, but thanks.

But I expect you to be funny.

[whereas I don't expect you to be a whiny, pouty sissy - so stop]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that's not true. It is an attempt to emphasize their true intent, to address the fear that a "suicide bomber" will be seen as somehow on a higher plane than a guy blowing up people from a distance. even the dumbest red state guy knows that a "homicide bomber" is much harder to stop because he is the delivery system.

Look, in this simple context, bombing is synonymous with homicide.