dough560 on February 21, 2010, 04:24:37 am
Perceptions Matter, is a trite expression.  But perceptions do matter when they effect personal interactions.  Most members of a government are "statists".  There are exceptions who work from the inside, to roll back the interference and regulations.  We're rare, but we do exist.

Teabaggers are members of  a movement to limit or repeal taxes and limit government spending.  Their stated goal is to limit the power and size of government.  This movement proudly identifies with the Boston Tea Party.  These people believe in a strong central government.  They are "statists".  While TransProgs use the term "Teabaggers" with derision.  Teabaggers carry their name with pride.

TransProgs (or Tranzies) (shorthand for: Trans-National Progressives. Also known here in the the states as "Progressives") believe in government.  They believe government control is the be all and end all of human existence and interaction.  The goal of the movement, is total governmental control of the individual and thought.   As a result, Civil Liberties and Property rights would not  exist.  Persons espousing this philosophy are in control of both major political parties.

The primary goal of the recent climate change summit in Europe, was to establish a defacto  and punitive world government with police powers.  The current U.N. Small Arms Conference is another attempt at world government.  Much of their funding comes from people like George Soros and Michael Bloomburg.  The Capping Trade and Health Care Reform Bills currently before Congress are other attempts to establish total governmental individual control.

Rhetoric and Logic.  Please  explain a TransProg's ethics, logic and rhetoric with the use of terms:  Assault Weapons, Plastic Guns, Cop Killer Bullets, One Gun a Month Laws, Registration, Special Taxes, Saturday Night Special, and Gun Free Zones.

MacFall on March 17, 2010, 01:52:35 pm
I propose that we don't use any collective labels at all in discussions, and instead describe the specific principles we hold or oppose. It's okay to use labels when you and those with whom you are speaking know exactly what you mean; otherwise they are worthless. And when you are having a discussion with someone who is not of like mind with yourself, that person will almost certainly misunderstand the labels you use, and vice-versa.
Government is not, as is often believed, a "necessary evil". Rather, it is a plain evil of such power that it has been able to convince people of its necessity.

dough560 on March 18, 2010, 12:38:59 pm
MacFall,  In a perfect world your idea would not even have to be brought up. 

Ask yourself.  How did the term "Progressive" came into common usage?  Additionally, TransProgs "identify" opposition in negative terms they initiated. 

Please reread my earlier post concerning perceptions and how people opposing a TransProg's views are at a disadvantage. 

It's past time to change this.  Yes I have to explain the definition of "TransProg" and my reason for using the term.  Yes, I hear the same doubts expressed here.  Used consistently and politely, it will spread.  As it spreads, we will remove the elite perception, "Progressive" spreads.

Scalping_Elmo on March 18, 2010, 12:48:26 pm
We already have a word for these folks, and it covers every single flavor of political ideology that stands in opposition to freedom. Heinlein succinctly elucidated that there are only two types, essentially those who wish to control others and those who do not.

So, if we accept that there are only two types, they divide into statists and individualists.

AnonymousOne on March 20, 2010, 01:19:57 am
So, if we accept that there are only two types, they divide into statists and individualists.

Yes but getting that premise to fly with "normal" people in a discussion of political and economic philosophy is a mighty big task.

I'm just tired of the same things being thrown at me in discussions:  corporatism, monopoly this/monopoly that, anarchy/minarchy = chaos, murder in the streets, etc.

The Economist's Cookbook - Recipes For A More Free Society
http://economistscookbook.blogspot.com/

wdg3rd on March 20, 2010, 02:56:29 am
So, if we accept that there are only two types, they divide into statists and individualists.

Yes but getting that premise to fly with "normal" people in a discussion of political and economic philosophy is a mighty big task.

I'm just tired of the same things being thrown at me in discussions:  corporatism, monopoly this/monopoly that, anarchy/minarchy = chaos, murder in the streets, etc.

Learn to ignore the idiots.  Works for me.  Who gives a fuck about "normal" people?  They'll still vote the straight party ticket, whichever half of the Boot-on-your-Neck Party their parents brought them up in or the other half they chose when they "revolted" against their parents.  "Normal" people resist any chance at freedom for themselves or anyone else.  I've given up on conversion.  It took me most of a decade to convince one person (that I was living with and have now been married to for over a decade) that freedom was the best choice.  She's now willing to move to New Hampshire once I can convince her we can live better up there than here in New Jersey where I'm stuck in a dead-end job because I have a medical plan that almost keeps her healthy, where we "own" a house that we can only afford to pay the property taxes on when we rent out the first floor and our current tenant is two months behind in the rent (and it will cost us many hundreds of dollars to get rid of the asshole, because if we fail to pay the property tax, the town can evict us in a week, but to get rid of this guy who doesn't pay rent so we can pay those taxes will take months, despite the numerous police complaints from the neighbors about the noise the asshole makes).

I did another paragraph.  Way off-topic.  I'll post it later, somewhere.  I guess I should go to sleep.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

MacFall on March 23, 2010, 01:21:30 am
MacFall,  In a perfect world your idea would not even have to be brought up. 

Ask yourself.  How did the term "Progressive" came into common usage?  Additionally, TransProgs "identify" opposition in negative terms they initiated. 

Please reread my earlier post concerning perceptions and how people opposing a TransProg's views are at a disadvantage. 

It's past time to change this.  Yes I have to explain the definition of "TransProg" and my reason for using the term.  Yes, I hear the same doubts expressed here.  Used consistently and politely, it will spread.  As it spreads, we will remove the elite perception, "Progressive" spreads.

Any time somebody uses a political label in my presence, I have to ask them what they mean to avoid confusion. Thus political labels serve no constructive linguistic function; rather, they get in the way of productive discussion. The best thing you can do to achieve your apparent goal of undermining the propaganistic functions of labels such as "Progressive" is to ignore them entirely. Coming up with your own only prolongs the process.
Government is not, as is often believed, a "necessary evil". Rather, it is a plain evil of such power that it has been able to convince people of its necessity.

dough560 on March 23, 2010, 06:24:34 am
Yes, it is a process.  One where the TransProgs set the rules.  We can refuse to play, take our ball and go home.  The TransProgs win by default.

We live and work with "labels" every day.  A form of shorthand for the parties of the discussion.  I'm simply using a term intended to level the field.  Not one initiated  by someone seeking to place me at a disadvantage.

MacFall on March 23, 2010, 12:17:27 pm
If you use collective labels, you are placing YOURSELF at a disadvantage by obfuscating your meaning. Collective labels are a tool of the people you oppose. You cannot turn them to your own advantage. Skip the name-calling and go straight to your point, because if you don't you'll end up having to explain yourself anyway, but also having lowered your position by calling your opponent names. Intelligent people ought to be above inventing new words to name old concepts, which I repeat, they must then go back and explain anyway.

And besides, as someone else said earlier quoting Heinlein, all this is just a roundabout way of saying (or possibly a way of trying to avoid saying) that there are two types of people: those who want to control others, and those who have no such desire. Anything else is useless, obfuscatory, ambiguous, and basically just name-calling.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2010, 12:21:57 pm by MacFall »
Government is not, as is often believed, a "necessary evil". Rather, it is a plain evil of such power that it has been able to convince people of its necessity.

dough560 on March 24, 2010, 08:27:11 am
We'll have to agree to disagree.  Labels and perceptions do matter to the uninformed.  I didn't start this game, but I intend to win it.

MacFall on March 24, 2010, 10:44:41 am
Well, it seems to me like trying to beat an arsonist by burning your house down first, but good luck.
Government is not, as is often believed, a "necessary evil". Rather, it is a plain evil of such power that it has been able to convince people of its necessity.

terry_freeman on March 24, 2010, 11:40:43 am
Why not put the "progressives" and "moderates" and "socialists" and ask them to explain what they mean? Ask them to justify the use of coercion to deprive people of freedom of choice. Let them explain the consequences of their actions - being unable to defend oneself, unable to teach one's children, being deprived of funds to support one's chosen activities, in order to support wealthy insurance companies and teachers' unions, etc.

BMeph on March 25, 2010, 03:15:40 am
Perceptions Matter, is a trite expression.  But perceptions do matter when they effect personal interactions.  Most members of a government are "statists".  There are exceptions who work from the inside, to roll back the interference and regulations.  We're rare, but we do exist.

Teabaggers are members of  a movement to limit or repeal taxes and limit government spending.  Their stated goal is to limit the power and size of government.  This movement proudly identifies with the Boston Tea Party.  These people believe in a strong central government.  They are "statists".  While TransProgs use the term "Teabaggers" with derision.  Teabaggers carry their name with pride.

TransProgs (or Tranzies) (shorthand for: Trans-National Progressives. Also known here in the the states as "Progressives") believe in government.  They believe government control is the be all and end all of human existence and interaction.  The goal of the movement, is total governmental control of the individual and thought.   As a result, Civil Liberties and Property rights would not  exist.  Persons espousing this philosophy are in control of both major political parties.

The primary goal of the recent climate change summit in Europe, was to establish a defacto  and punitive world government with police powers.  The current U.N. Small Arms Conference is another attempt at world government.  Much of their funding comes from people like George Soros and Michael Bloomburg.  The Capping Trade and Health Care Reform Bills currently before Congress are other attempts to establish total governmental individual control.

Rhetoric and Logic.  Please  explain a TransProg's ethics, logic and rhetoric with the use of terms:  Assault Weapons, Plastic Guns, Cop Killer Bullets, One Gun a Month Laws, Registration, Special Taxes, Saturday Night Special, and Gun Free Zones.


...and by "government," we all agree that it's political government, right? Because, we all know that if you can't order someone in a uniform to shoot or arrest someone, then you're not a government, you're just a "club" - er, club as in "country", not as in "obsidian," heh-heh.  :P

Heinlein Libertarian on March 25, 2010, 04:33:00 am
I prefer "Tranzis." I like the double impact you get from a word that sounds like both "Nazi" and "crazy."

(Credit to John Ringo and Tom Kratman, or to whomever they heard it from.)

On the general topic: Words have power. Would you rather eat feces-farmed fungus or mushrooms?  I love mushrooms, but I get queasy when I think about what they are grown in. It's tough to think about anything else when i hear "feces-farmed fungus." Would you rather be an "illegal alien" or an "undocumented immigrant?" One is probably from Mars and about to experiment on your children, while the other person just for their wallet in the car. Anyway, who cares about the paperwork? This is America! Even if you know what people are doing, as in advertising, the words used to describe something can change the way you think about by focusing on a different aspect of the thing or by conditioning you to feel something when you see it.

For a recent practical example look at Joe the Plumber. By forcing Obama to explain just what he wanted to do to America, and using a different and unfavorable term for it, he managed to grab the attention of a lot of Americans. That re-framed the debate, and made people think about what Obama was actually proposing. All it took was somebody saying the magic word to start a trend. Plenty of Republicans quickly pointed out that if you omitted questions of race/religion, there was no difference between the Nazi Party platform and the Democrat platform.

It works in advertising, too. People who bought Marlboros knew that the Marlboro Man was an attempt to get them to feel manly and rugged when they smoked them, but they kept on buying them because Marlboro had successfully created an image. Of course, "Cowboy Killers" was an effective image, too. In advertising, we know that people are trying to create images and perpetuate self-serving myths and ideas. It doesn't mean we don't have a gut/emotion/subliminal reaction to what they say, and that we don't learn to associate the two things (product and emotional reaction,) over time.


dough560 on March 25, 2010, 06:16:30 am
Tranzis.  Short, simple and to the point. Do you remember what context Ringo and Kratman used it and where?