Political YouTube Clips Thread

Remove all ads!

DR, again, I see hate as just a more sever expression of dislike, just like love is a more severe expression of like, and so forth. If you really, really disliked what I said, then you hated it. That doesn't mean you hated me, and that doesn't mean you were being irrational. I hate (yes, I HATE) the way the word 'hate' has been twisted in the modern poltical climate to nulify an arguement. "Person X just hates conservatives!" So what? Does that mean Person X doesn't have reason to hate conservatives (or more specifically conservative pundits like the speaker)? That hate may well be entirely justified.

 

Hmm. I guess that'll have to do then. I can't say it any other way.

 

Hate has come to mean "extreme prejudice" in todays society. Whether or not anyone agrees with the shift in definition is immaterial -- communication is about what others perceive you mean, not what you believe you are saying.

 

The problem there, though, is that nothing has come to mean what hate once did. Hate still means that, it's just associated with other things, too. If it had changed so that extreme prejudice was now hate and hate was now 'bjork', then I'd have no problem (except to question where on Earth 'bjork' came from). Instead, 'hate' is still the correct term for that feeling, but now it also implied an irrational prejudice, almost regardless of how it's used.

 

But of everyone in this thread, you and Snook seemed to be the only ones who viewed my saying "Michelle Malkin is cancerous to reasoned debate" as a statement of hate. No one else did. In fact, most of us were baffled by how anyone would consider that hate. I even went out of my way to state, emphatically, that I do not hate Michelle Malkin. Twice.

So I would say it's less a case of the definition shifting than it is perhaps you having a different concept or definition of 'hate' than is commonly accepted.

 

You're right, there is no replacement. But to continue to use the term as "how it used to mean" simply invites confusion and misunderstanding (and sometimes feelings of "extreme prejudice").

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 29 seconds later... ----------

I'd disagree with you on that one DR -- cancerous is such a derogatory term that it completely dismisses the person. I would consider the use of 'cancerous' when describing a person the equivalent of extreme prejudice. I know very few people who do not equate cancer with extremely negative, and powerful, feelings.

Cancerous = hate.

I wouldn't argue with your use of the term cancerous because I thought you did hate her (with a vengence even). Perhaps you don't hate her (as we used to say, you wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers) but you certainly show a hatred for her opinions and how she expresses them.

 

But I didn't say SHE was cancerous. I said she was cancerous to reasoned debate. As in, her presence in a debate is cancerous. As in, she shows up, civility breaks down, shouting starts, bad feelings spread, rational debate dies. That is what I have a problem with. She is cancerous to reasoned debate the way Paris Hilton is cancerous to the artistry of the acting profession. As in, we'd all be better off if she change careers entirely.

BIG difference.

Still NOT hate.

Edit (to your edit): I can see we're going in circles, so if you want to say I hate the kind of politics she trades in and represents, fine - I guess I do hate that. I don't see why anyone would not. I also hate that certain people think she's awesome and reasonable. I don't like using that word, but there it is.

Let's just move on.

 

In other words you hate her opinions and how she expresses them.

...but probably wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers....

 

I specifically picked him as an example that I thought all Americans would be familiar with. Terrel Owens (or TO as he is typically referred to) passes the Wife Test. The Wife Test is someone who is primarily famous for his exploits in some sport that my wife recognizes when he/she comes on the TV. My wife does not follow sports at all so if you are able to pass the Wife Test it puts you in rather exclusive company. Aside from people who transcend sports and are known around the world (people like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, David Beckam), it is the very next tier of famous athletes that pass the Wife Test. These are people like Peyton Manning, Derek Jeter, Dale Earnhardt JR., and yes, TO.

You may be the only man in American that knows less about sports than my wife.

Well, it certainly has a negative connotation to it, but I don't think it's to the extreme you describe. If you were familiar with TO (which I had assumed you were) you'd understand. Basically, TO was arguing with many of his teammates, and by the end of the year, no one on the team particularly liked him. The point of the example, was the person attaching the word "cancerous" was not saying they personally hated TO, but what the opinion of many of his teammates appeared to be, as an outsider looking into the situation. I hope that makes it more clear.

 

@ T2: I wouldn't kick her out of bed at all. She's a stunningly beautiful* woman, and I have an incurable case of yellow fever.

* Purely on the outside, though.

 

Actually, I don't think I ever said you hated her, just that your response was an expression of hate. Be that for her or for her politics or for the way she influences a discussion, I don't know. And I'll agree with you that hate-mongering is itself something to be hated.

You have to understand, my wife and I both dislike sports. With a passion, too. We turn the TV off when the sports news comes on, and if a sports figure makes it into the regular news, we usually talk more about how it's not newsworthy for Joe Schmoe to do it, but an athelete get's prime-time, rather than how it's so sad that person X did Y. We like it that way, too.

I know those guys, though that last one only because of a movie I casually caught on TV at one point. Didn't like the movie, but I remember the general premise.

Manning was baseball and Ernhardt was racing, right? I recognize the name Derek Jeter, but couldn't place it with a sport of any kind.

No, my wife knows even less than I do. I at least know the basic rules of football, baseball, soccer, basketball, and hockey.

It sounds to me like what your saying is people were saying his team mates thought he was "cancerous"? Maybe? I'm not sure I got that right.

 

Manning is football. Dale is racing. Jeter is baseball.

But unless your wife is a man, you may still qualify as "the only man in America who knows less about sports than my wife". I was under no impression that my wife's sports knowledge among other women would be particularly low.

Right. But the person making the statement was not placing any personal judgement on TO.

 

I spent my first 33 yrs living in Philly, bleeding Eagles green the whole time. Please, oh please don't bring T.O. into a conversation. My head aches thinking about his time with my beloved Birds. Cancerous was a vast understatement when it comes to what he projects. He is the All-Time #1 butt-hole athelete, ever! If ever an Eagles fan threw a wellguided iceball at another player, it should of been at him! Talk about a destroyer of team morale. I believe Mr. Romo would agree, at least deep down, even if he won't say it to the media. Garcia would also agree.

 

... I honestly read 'person' when I read your post. Anyway, I think my brother knows less than I do, and my father is iffy.

No, but the term was still being used in a context of severe dislike, it's just the person was referencing someone else expressing that opinion, rather than expressing it themselves.

 

NOG - I'm not sure about any of these people either. I thought he meant Jerry Garcia.

 

Kind of - they were basically saying that his outbursts were such that he was hurting the team efforts more than he was helping - even though he thought he was helping. I think this would apply equally to Malkin. She thinks she is contributing to the debate, when in fact she is hurting it more than helping.

And I was being sarcastic - I just couldn't resist the obvious comment there.

OK, I understand that the Texans are the local team and all, but there was a span for about a decade or so where the only Texas football team was Dallas. I find it very surprising that someone from Texas would not be familiar with some basic knowledge of the major players of the Cowboys. (People like TO and Romo who was also mentioned.) Garcia played all the way out in San Francisco, and McNabb is in Philly, so I have some understanding of you not being familiar with them.

 

Aldeth, you seem to be under the impression somehow that we care! Lmao, we're gamers! I'm wondering myself what you're doing knowing these things. I think I'll have to take a look at your Geek liscense, make sure it's still valid.

 

Romo is Tony Romo, the All-Pro QB from Dallas, he was dating Jessica Simpson. T.O. tried to say Romo and the Tight End Jason Witten were conspiring to not get him the ball. Garcia is Jeff Garcia, The QB in San Francisco that T.O. pointed out as "Gay".....

 

I'm sorry I even brought the example up. My point was only to try and draw an analogy with TO to Malkin. To show how it is possible to describe a person as a cancerous, venomous, angry, malcontent - but still not HATE that person. That's it. That it is possible to think someone is a jerk, talks out of his/her arse, and has at best a tenuous grip regarding the facts of a given issue (or even a grip on reality for that matter) and still not HATE that person.

I was under the apparently mistaken impression that there would be significant overlap in the percentage of gamers and sports fans - especially given that all involved in the discussion up to this point are men. While I know several women who aren't into sports, nearly every man I've ever met likes some sport - some go for baseball, some for basketabll, some like NASCAR, but by far the most popular American sport is football. Moreover, people in their teens, 20s, and 30s are much more into sports than people outside that group. (And I am aware that Chandos and T2 fall outside of that category, but I think every one else in this discussion qualifies.)

It never occurred to me that referencing a popular player in America's most popular sport would fall so flat. I am now left to wonder if people like Blades and I are more representative of the gamer population - in that we are fans of both gaming and sports, or if NOG and Chandos are more representative in that most gamers are NOT sports fans. I am still far more likely to believe the former is true than the latter.

 

I know alot of gamers, it's about 50/50 I think.