Philosophy and Politics

[Suburbanite]

Politics are obviously failing. People are getting hurt and killed, worlds are colliding, governments crumbling, wars, diplomacy, etc. This is the philosophy forum. Lets be PROACTIVE! Lets all work together to point out and establish some of the flaws in the political vocabulary and offer alternate solutions for talking about politics.
I'd like to start off with one of my own:
I think politicians use too many clever metaphors for death, and especially murder. I think a vocabulary where we all agree that a murder is a murder and not "shock and awe" or other metaphors is a good start. Instead of using terms like insurgents, how about we call them humans. So sentences like "removing the insugents" will actually read "killing the humans."

[Jack]

Enhanced interrogation techniques=torture
Anti-domestic terrorism operations=warrantless spying on citizens

[Suburbanite]

Peace=War
Freedom=Slavery
2+2=5

[Milton Bradley]

NeoDemocrat = socialist authoritarian

NeoConservative = fascist authoritarian

Bipartisan = a mix of both

[ryanatau]

Anything that George Lakoff comes up with or talks about!

[Suburbanite]

There are so many well places memes in our culture. Fox News loves the one about how "No one covers news stories like this in Iraq, but today an Iraqi girl played with a kitten".

[im6under]

murder is a murder and not "shock and awe" or other metaphors is a good start.

murder is a murder I agree but "shock and awe" referred to the state of mind a witness would likely experience.

Instead of using terms like insurgents, how about we call them humans.

Humans is assumed, what type of humans needed describing. An insurgent in this context is a non governmental sanctioned political person/fighter. If they win they are called revolutionaries.

So sentences like "removing the insugents" will actually read "killing the humans."

Removing could mean capturing or killing if they choose to fight to the death. Over all, you are making your point in a very undiplomatic way which causes your argument to lose credence.

Our troops btw are not guilty of murder which is the unlawful taking of life. The president ordered there actions and the congress sanctioned it. Though we may need a new president or even one charged with war crimes, the soldier is not guilty in the eyes of the law.

Colorful metaphors are not poison pills, they instead broaden communication as descriptors much like adding the use of light to a painting can seemingly transform two dimensions into three dimensions.

[Vee]

You left out

libertarian = anarchist = famine and pestilence

[Derach]

im6under - i agree ... there is a context into which should be read those sentences.

'removing insurgents' = murder like murder = evolution (ie survival of the fittest) ... it is an oversimplification ... but it is still fun!!

How about ...

'no child left behind' = extortion of cities and towns by fed govt

'insurance' = legalized extortion of individuals by corporate America w/ gov't blessing

Politics = poly (many) + tics (bloodsuckers)

[Jack]

Politics = poly (many) + tics (bloodsuckers)

Expert (as pronounced, not spelled)=ex (former) + spurt (a drip under pressure)

So political experts would be many bloodsuckers who are former drips under pressure.

It's all beginning to come together.

[Mr. Big]

spreading democracy = cultural imperialism
family values = do it the Christian way

[Mr. Big]

prolife = we're only for killing doctors
a woman's right to chose = we're only for killing babies

[Jack]

Has anyone seen that commercial in which the workers at a company play Bingo based on the "techy" terms used in a speech by the CEO? Sometimes I feel like doing that during the debates and interviews with the candidates. Maybe I could turn this into a game folks could play during the lead-up to the next election.

[Compugasm]

debt = money

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: im6under Our troops btw are not guilty of murder which is the unlawful taking of life. The president ordered there actions and the congress sanctioned it. Though we may need a new president or even one charged with war crimes, the soldier is not guilty in the eyes of the law.

Never meant to say he was, and your definition of murder is very particular to the judicial system.
the reason we call them insurgence is not to make is not for the clarity or wistfulness of our language. The unite states government uses specific words to help to dehumanize the enemy to make killing them easier, thats all there is to it. We might not have to call insurgents humans, maybe thats making it too gory, about about calling them soldiers? Well, you can't, that would liken them to you, you would think they're soldiers just like I am, not they're insurgents what that hell is that?

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Mr. Big spreading democracy = cultural imperialism family values = do it the Christian way

nice ones!
"cowboy" = mass murderer

[Suburbanite]

african american - black guy who might get mad if i call him black (stereotypical angry black man)

[nerdvincent]

Nice methaphors indeed. But it's not the main problem.
The problem is, in my opinion, conservative political position. Our world evolved since last century, but politics are still wearing the same 19th century black suit with a tie and shining shoes. And the same ideas. Got the picture?
Add greedy egoism, cultural anthropocentrism, silly patriotism and you've got a nation under a god. What's ''good values''? Just like Mr Big said, do it the christian way. Or the Muslim way, if you live in Iran.
Call me post-extreme left winged hippi dummy, but we have to take the society from the very begening, to trade the '' 'cause it's like that'' values for the ''cause it's useful'' ones.
I'm for naturism, direct democraty, polygamy, ecological developement, against capitalism, against war even if attacked, against patriotism, and I'm even thinking about my own economic system, a kind of communism based stuff (in progress). I'm rolling on a bike instead of a car, all that stuff.
But people are lazy. When we're young we want to change the world, until we win 80 000 buck a year, weighting 300 pound and yelling because fuel is expensive.
Enjoy the real American Dream.

[Athena]

I was so excited to see a thread about political philosophy.

Focus of political concern: Communitarianism vs. Individualism. This axis is often considered perpendicular to the left-right axis in popular multi-axis charts (often rendered "populism" vs. "libertarianism"), but is a legitimate axis in itself, comparing a focus on the community vs. a focus on the individual. This language is preferred to the prejudiced language of "totalitarianism" (anti-freedom) vs. "libertarianism" (pro-freedom), because one can have a political focus on the community without being totalitarian and undemocratic (see the Nolan chart below). Christian Democracy is a political philosophy that would be counted as communitarian on this axis, but is not totalitarian or undemocratic. Role of the church: Clericalism vs. Anti-clericalism. This axis is less significant in the United States (where views of the role of religion tend to be subsumed into the general left-right axis) than in Europe (where clericalism versus anti-clericalism is much less correlated with the left-right spectrum). Urban vs. Rural: This axis may be the most useful and significant today in European as well as Australian and Canadian politics. The Urban vs. Rural axis was equally prominent in the United States' political past, but its importance is debatable at present. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, it would have been described as the conflict between Hamiltonian Federalists vs. Jeffersonian Democrats. Foreign policy: interventionism (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. non-interventionism (the nation should keep to its own affairs); similarly, multilateralism (coordination of policies with other countries) vs. isolationism and unilateralism Relations with individual states or groups of states may also be vital to party politics. During the Cold War, parties often had to choose a position on a scale between pro-American and pro-Soviet, although this could at times closely match a left-right spectrum. At other times in history relations with other powerful states has been important. In early Canadian history relations with Britain were a central theme, although this was not "foreign policy" but a debate over the proper place of Canada within the British Empire. Political violence: pacifism (political views should not be imposed by violent force) vs. militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression). In North America, holders of these views are often referred to as "doves" and "hawks", respectively. Foreign trade: globalization (world economic markets should become integrated and interdependent) vs. autarky (the nation or polity should strive for economic independence). During the early history of the Commonwealth of Australia, this was the major political continuum. At that time it was called Free trade vs. Protectionism. Trade Freedom vs. Trade Equity: Free trade (businesses should be able trade across borders without regulations) vs. Fair trade (international trade should be regulated on behalf of social justice). Diversity: multiculturalism (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. assimilationism or nationalism (the nation should primarily represent, or forge, a majority culture) Participation: Democracy (rule of the majority, or mob rule) vs. Aristocracy (rule by the enlightened) vs. Tyranny (total degradation of Aristocracy, ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle recognized tyranny as a state in which the tyrant is ruled by utter passion, and not reason like the philosopher, resulting in the tyrant pursuing his own desires rather than the common good.) Freedom: Positive liberty (having rights which impose an obligation on others) vs. Negative liberty (having rights which prohibit interference by others) Social Power: Fascism vs. Anarchy (Control vs. No Control) Analyzes the fundamental political interaction between people, and between individuals and their environment. Often posits the existence of a 'moderate' system as existing between the two extremes. Change: radicals (who believe in rapid change) and progressives (who believe in measured , incremental change) vs. reactionaries (who believe in changing things to the way they were) and conservatives (who believe in minimal or cautious change). Origin of state authority: popular sovereignty (the state as a creation of the people, with enumerated, delegated powers) vs. various forms of absolutism and organic state philosophy (the state as an original and essential authority) International action: Multilateralism (states should cooperate and compromise) versus Unilateralism (states have a strong, even unconditional, right to make their own decisions). Levels of sovereignty: for example unionism vs. federalism vs. separatism; or centralism vs. regionalism. Especially important in societies where strong regional or ethnic identities are political issues.

[nerdvincent]

Very nice. But what's the problem with politics?