Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/971381033

“Standing Against Derogatory Terms”
Presented by Howard Gibson

Every day or two, I check out Donald Trump’s Truth Social.  The site is scary, especially when you click on Trump’s messages and see how people are responding to them.  Facebook is not as ideologically pure as Truth Social, but the commentary is not much better.  Political discourse has coarsened over the last few years. 

I am fascinated at the graphics being posted on Truth Social.  Nobody seems to type messages in anymore. Do they create the graphics?  Do they download them from somewhere? Are we being played by some online robot?

There is way too much name-calling, and not enough commentary on political policy.  We need to make an addition to the traditional Reductio ad Hitlerum rules of discussion. When certain words are used, we need to stop listening and reading.

"sheeple" This is used by anti-authoritarian types to show their concept for the reader. Let's show our contempt for them by not reading further.

"fascist" Anybody who disagrees with Marxist Leninists (see below) is called a fascist. The word "Fascist" should be used exclusively to describe members of an Italian political party that was thoroughly discredited in 1943.

"libtard", "Hitlery", "Drumph" These are invective terms that do nothing more than indicate what tribe you belong to.

"orange" The word "orange" is valid in discussions of certain a type of citrus fruit, and about King William III of England (King Billy). In a political discussion, there should no discussion of someone's choice of tanning treatment, or of how they look in a mini-skirt.

"socialist" The right-wing media use this term as invective. The terminology is vague, and should be clearly defined if used.

There is no way I have not missed stuff.

What can be done to reform political discourse? What methods will be effective?

Discussion:

·       The list of terms is not complete.  What else should go on there?

·       How do we respond to people whose political discussion is nothing more than name-calling? Consider that the arguer may not respond to your reply, but others in the audience might.

·       Are we name-calling in our discussions?

·       How do we conduct civil discussions in general?

Notes:

1.     Here in Canada, the Communist Party of Canada was pro-USSR. The Communist Party of Canada Marxist Leninist claimed that they were the true Communist Party of Canada. Try to imagine how much anybody cares about this. The Marxist Leninists were pro-Communist China until the death of Mao. For a while there, they were in favour of that Communist Utopia, Albania. Everybody hates Trotskyists. I have no idea of what these parties are called in other countries, or of what they do in Canada now.

2.     Wikipedia has an article on Fascism, which is all about right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist parties, in Europe and elsewhere. When it came to race politics, economics, religion, and dealing with Damn Foreigners, they were all over the place. The Spanish had Falangists, the Germans had Nazis. The Croatians had the Ustaše. I cannot be bothered to look up what the Hungarians and Romanians had. Wikipedia does discuss the use of "fascist" as a pejorative. What would Benito Mussolini think of Donald Trump?

3.     Socialism is when governments run things, in preference to private entities. It is not a black and white condition. There is a continuum running from pure socialism to pure libertarianism. The government of the USA has all sorts of socialist programs. Socialism does not cause mass murder. Armed revolutions do.