since when does name calling and insulting = political criticism?

[Sheepshank]

I assume we are trying to encourage policy change. Of course we show disappointment and frustration, it is often the impetus to make changes.

But why does anyone really think that anger and frustration manifested as insults and name calling is the way to affect policy change?

Du is being told over and over that name calling is actually the same thing as policy criticism. I'm not buying it.

eta....if anyone wants to call a politician names and insult them, go for it...but imho, don't pretend at a more noble cause. Sometimes name calling is what it is. Own it.

[frazzled]

1. Indeed ... especially when people don't even understand the policy

and therefore name call inappropriately.

So let's go over this again. All insurance policies have formularies--lists of drugs they do and do not cover. This includes the insurance from your workplace, private insurance, Medicare, the VA, and, yes ... even the British and Canadian health systems.

Here's how it works, in general, from Think Progress:

Under the law, insurers must offer drug benefits as part of 10 essential health care benefits, meaning that millions of uninsured Americans will now have drug coverage for the very first time. But the coverage won’t be limitless. Insurers will continue to rely on drug formularies — as they currently do in the private market and Medicare Part D — to decide which prescriptions are covered and which are not.

The ACA requires that issuers provide the greater of one drug from each category or class, or offer as many drugs in each category as are covered by a benchmark plan. The law allows states the choice of four different benchmarks, which Gottlieb helpfully lists in his article: 1) One of the three largest small group plans in the state by enrollment; 2) one of the three largest state employee health plans by enrollment; 3) one of the three largest federal employee health plan options by enrollment; or 4) the largest HMO plan offered in the state’s commercial market by enrollment.

States — not the federal government — select the benchmark and insurers then offer coverage for the drugs listed in those formularies. “What the vast majority of states have chosen is a common small business plan, so you know it’s saying what will be available in the exchanges and in the individual market generally is what’s popular among small businesses now and that seems like a reasonable place to start,” the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt explained.

But yes, there are certain limits: a formulary, for instance, may cover three drugs for treating a certain condition but not two others. Obamacare — like all insurers currently operating in the market — has a fix for that. ACA regulations demand that a health plan must have an “exceptions process” in place that allows patients to request and gain access to clinically appropriate drugs that aren’t covered by the health plan (in addition to internal and external appeal processes). So, if a health plan does not cover a particular drug that a patient absolutely needs, their doctor can certify medical necessity to extend coverage. Insurers have relied on drug formularies before the law went into effect and already have exceptions processes in place, meaning that most “will not have to implement significant changes.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/12/10/3042741/drugs-obamacare-coverage/

Restrictions on drugs have always existed. Ways to get around them have always existed. The ACA (and the President) did not change this in any way. And things were WORSE for the majority of previously uninsured, or privately insured, people before the ACA. Shit happens and will always happen. Often, you can fix the shit. Sometimes it's hard. The president is not responsible for everybody's shit, in every instance.

[Sheepshank]

2. Just read this on another thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4703134

and I think this is spot on. The attempt to normalize insults is the end result, it has nothing to do with trying to make a point of policy change or point out a policy shortcoming...the insult has it's own agenda, and trying to wrap it up in normalcy is the end game.

[Whisp]

16. yep. moving the bar lower and lower, bit by bit

It's a hostile takeover in slow motion. You don't even know it's happened, until it's too late.

[freshwest]

81. It's a way to make people think political discussion and sharing information is disgusting to turn

people off of getting involved and not voting. It leaves a taste in the mouth that makes one want to gag.

If not for an agenda as you say, it's a way of trolling other people who are trying to talk about things. It's crazy making and I call it abuse.

[pnwmom]

43. Actually, the ACA made a change -- a positive change.

They set up internal appeals and external appeals -- both with short time limits-- and a process for a doctor to request an exemption for a drug not on the formulary.

[KittyWampus]

54. I didn't know that. Ended up learning a bunch about forumularies.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. I Concur

In another thread, i posted that vitriol and anger are not the same thing.

[Sheepshank]

4. and yet, the dozen up dozens of recs for just that tenor of vitriol

makes one scratch their heads a little.

[msongs]

5. name calling on DU was great when it applied to bush nt

[JoePhilly]

8. Well ... Obama = Bush.

Apparently.

[Seeking Serenity]

20. Read my sig. Should explain.

It's a quote from George Orwell.

[Sheepshank]

37. Did I say name calling is never appropriate? No.

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

I said name calling is name calling and that is all it is. It isn't political criticism and pretending that it passes for political activitsm or as critical of policy, is a lie.

[arthritisR_US]

50. In those years,

it was one of my antidepressants and my sanity paired with laughter

[Mojorabbit]

90. Yep nt

[William769]

6. Kick & recommended.

[Logical]

7. How many of these do we have to have on the main page at the same time? n-t

[Capt. Obvious]

14. I wonder if I log out

how many more I would see.

[Logical]

18. At least you would stop posting then. n-t

[Capt. Obvious]

19. burn

[Control-Z]

38. You really are

Capt. Obvious. This is the first I've noticed. Heh!

[Capt. Obvious]

76. Thanks

[Sheepshank]

61. a logical burn lol

feelin' the heat? lol

[Capt. Obvious]

75. Double burn

[NYC_SKP]

65. If you have fingers, and if you have a keyboard, and if you have a clue...

...you can use the ignore, trash group, or hide thread features.

I'm kidding, I'm sure you have fingers and a keyboard!

.

.

.

.

And clues, those too!

[Democracyinkind]

9. Since the days of the Athenean Senate?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. I really want to one-up you by citing an even older example of political invective, but I don't know

of any, alas.

I'm sure there are some, though.

Somewhere out there, there is a cave with "Thog are mammoth-turd. Ug have big club! Ug for tribe leader!" painted on the wall.

[randome]

10. It shows no class and no style so any message is lost.

Up your game, people!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[cui bono]

11. How do you feel about name calling other DUers? n/t

[rhett o rick]

30. It's only ok if you are on the side of "goodness and righteousness."

[Sheepshank]

39. Been called plenty of names here on DU...especially by the Snowden is a hero crowd.

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 05:17 PM - Edit history (1)

most recently I was called a Cheney-bot, ignorant, a dunce....

[cui bono]

41. But how do you feel about it? The same as what you said in your OP?

[Sheepshank]

42. those people calling me names are not attempting a policy fix...clearly.

a personal attack doesn't do that.

[cui bono]

44. So name calling is fine if you're not trying to affect policy change?

Why is that okay?

I would be more than happy to rec your OP if it were about all name calling on DU, which is why I asked you to clarify.

[Sheepshank]

57. That is a whole separate discussion.

My OP was clearly limited to insults NOT be equal to policy or political criticism. I don't think I said it was "fine".

I think you have a good point for another thread....however, be prepared to get an overload that it's always ok to call policiticians names...at least that is the general trend I am reading.

It stings to be called names. Not sure if it acheives anything.

[cui bono]

66. That's why I was asking, thanks for the answer.

On name calling of politicians, do you think we should stop will all the name calling or just Dem politicians? And what about the cute nicknames that people use for politicians?

I think a lot of them are funny but I think it detracts from a point being taken seriously. I try to say Repubs or Republicans even though I would love to say Rethugs, but I figure if someone from outside is reading in here and are in the middle, it will turn them off. Personally, I think I go back and forth on using or not using them. I def use BushCo a lot. Overall though, I think it just adds to the divisiveness which is hurting our country.

[former9thward]

46. I have had exactly the opposite experience...

by the Snowden hating crowd.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. People here adore the Pope who says LGBT people are an attack on God's plan which

comes from Satan. Hate speech, not mere name calling, bigoted hate speech is considered acceptable by many. 'We love him' they say. 'He shows Democrats the way' they say about an anti choice gay baiter.
Rick Warren called us pedophiles, was instantly invited to pray at Inaugural. What about that? No apology has been offered by ANY of those who did that.
So first get your straight folks to stop the hate. Then complain about others.

[treestar]

13. I agree a lot of what passes for "criticism" here is not really that

It is not real political criticism, or is illogical and lame. Yet merely poking holes in it gets you insults like fanboy, etc.

[Whisp]

15. Ted Nugent would be proud of that post you refer to.

and so would his fan base.

[Sheepshank]

74. you're right! it DOES sound like a nugget from Nugent n/t

[Whisp]

77. apparently here it's called 'feet to the fire' protectin' da constitushun there

it's called fucking assholes saying fucking asshole things.

same words tho!

[alc]

17. at least since Carter

I have some memories of Nixon but my first real memories of this are Carter-era. I have read that Adam's and Jefferson each controlled newspapers that practiced "name calling and insulting" against the other. In fact, that was the reason for the Sedition Act.

If you're talking about DU, look at all the "intelligent criticism" there was of Bush. In truth, DU was a good place for criticism of Bush, and there is some intelligent criticism of Obama. But DU also serves the purpose of a place to rant and vent about politics and politicians with people who can sympathize when needed, and talk you down when needed, or tell you cut it out when you go to far.

[Control-Z]

35. This

sums up "that" entire thread.

"DU also serves the purpose of a place to rant and vent about politics and politicians with people who can sympathize when needed, and talk you down when needed, or tell you cut it out when you go to far."

I believe every single response, made directly to Will, was one of the above.

[Rex]

21. It was one of LBJ's favorite tactics.

Is this a continuation of fried_eggs thread?

[cui bono]

48. Bacon comes from pigs, not sheepshanks.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To anyone who takes offense to that, it was a simple joke about eggs & bacon, pigs and sheep. There was no underlying message, no jab, no nothing.

[seveneyes]

22. Similar to a calling out with no name mentioned

[LeftishBrit]

23. Since politics existed

'Begot by butchers
But by bishops bred.
How high his honour
Holds his haughty head'

(Anonymous rhyme about Cardinal Wolsey, 16th century)

And this is hardly the earliest example!

[Seeking Serenity]

28. I think you meant 16th century, didn't you?

Wolsey was long dead before the 1600's came around, wasn't he?

Or was it the rhyme that was 17th century based? If so, my apologies.

[LeftishBrit]

29. Yes, I did and have now changed it.

I had at first been about to quote a 17th century rhyme by the Earl of Rochester, and then found an earlier one, but failed to change the date.

I will quote the Rochester rhyme anyway. It is about King Charles II, so at least one can't accuse Rochester of being afraid to attack the powerful:

We have a pretty witty king,
Whose word no man relies on:
He never said a foolish thing,
And never did a wise one.

[Seeking Serenity]

31. LOL. I like that.

Y'all sure swang from one side of the pendulum to the other with the Restoration, didn't you? Charles II was quite the libertine, as I understand it, as compared to the Cromwell Lord Protectorate.

[LeftishBrit]

40. Very true - he had an amazing number of children, but no legitimate heirs!

Last edited Fri Nov 21, 2014, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Charles is said to have responded to Rochester's verse with 'My words are my own; my actions are my Ministers'!'

Another 17th century poem, this time about about Charles' Ministers (sometimes attributed to Dryden, but not with certainty), goes:

On the Young Statesmen

1 Clarendon had law and sense.
Clifford was fierce and brave.
Bennet's grave look was a pretence,
And Danby's matchless impudence
Helped to support the knave.

2 But Sunderland, Godolphin, Lory[42],
These will appear such chits in story,
'Twill turn all politics to jests,
To be repeated like John Dory,
When fiddlers sing at feasts.

3 Protect us, mighty Providence!
What would these madmen have?
First, they would bribe us without pence,
Deceive us without common sense,
And without power enslave.

4 Shall free-born men, in humble awe,
Submit to servile shame;
Who from consent and custom draw
The same right to be ruled by law,
Which kings pretend to reign?

5 The duke shall wield his conquering sword,
The chancellor make a speech,
The king shall pass his honest word,
The pawn'd revenue sums afford,
And then, come kiss my breech.

6 So have I seen a king on chess
(His rooks and knights withdrawn,
His queen and bishops in distress)
Shifting about, grow less and less,
With here and there a pawn.



During the Bush administration, and earlier during that of our very own Maggie Thatcher, I was frequently reminded of verses 3 and 4 of this poem, in particular.

[el_bryanto]

24. More or less accurate -

Obviously criticism can get quite heated, but just laying into someone isn't. That said, there are people who feel like we should do this and own it; because of course our political enemies have no such compunction.

Bryant

[mcar]

25. As long as the name calling is directed at the President

It's OK on DU. If it's directed at anyone else it's wrong and mean.

[Vashta Nerada]

26. Since when is GD meta?

It's pathetic to see 50 threads attacking someone because he was noticeably upset that his wife wasn't going to get medication for a horrible disease.

I thought being liberal meant having empathy.

[randome]

45. So maybe Ted Nugent is simply upset about something too personal to say?

That thread was no 'upset husband' thread. It was mean-spirited and vulgar. I could go off on a tirade about Vashta Nerada not paying me enough salary but you have absolutely nothing to do with that.

Same principle. I'm upset so I can go on a tirade against anyone I choose and not get called to account for it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vashta Nerada]

53. So you've never said anything before in the heat of the moment of being upset?

Gotcha.

You must be Jesus.

[Nine]

79. Can't have it both ways.

For every WP supporter saying that we need to be compassionate because of his circumstances, another WP supporter is defending his rant as valid political discourse.

If you want to give him a pass on saying something inappropriate, fine. If you want to argue that there was nothing inappropriate about what he said and that he was speaking truth to power, fine again. But you can't have it both ways. If he was serious about what he said, and it certainly seems like he was, then it's unfair to characterize those challenging his assertions as big meanies who don't care about his wife's problems.

[historylovr]

52. +1.

[Owl]

78. +2

[elleng]

27. Thanks.

[stg81]

32. [phone]

[JoeyT]

33. For a good while now.

Hater. Professional left. Paulite. Chavista. Putinista. The people that are terribly upset over someone calling the president names call others plenty of names.

So people should stop pretending like they're trying to raise the bar for political discussion or something. They think one politician is off limits and everyone else, including other members of DU are fair game. Own that.

[KurtNYC]

34. Name calling is very overrated.

Better to state your position. In the words of Bill Clinton, who had plenty of experience in this area, "Every time they attack you it gives you a chance to get your message out."

[Control-Z]

36. Love this:

"Every time they attack you it gives you a chance to get your message out." -Bill Clinton

[badtoworse]

47. Sometimes it just feels good to call someone an asshole, especially when they deserve it.

ETA: Holding political office doesn't get you a pass in my book.

[frazzled]

56. The problem is: it wasn't deserved.

Please read all the information so that you'll understand why the complaint was misplaced. The problem was real: the finger pointing was misinformed.

[badtoworse]

59. That whole thing about Will?

I was actually talking in general, not about Will specifically.

In any case. what Obama said when he was pitching the ACA is a matter of historical record. Apparently, Will's wife has MS that was pre-existing. She was "covered" for it, but the insurance company wouldn't pay for her medications. What kind of coverage is that? He's got a right to be pissed. I understand he did get some relief, but not from his insurance.

Let's be honest - what would the reaction here have been if this happened with a Republican in the White House? Everyone would be screaming about it using the same pajoratives that Will used.

[frazzled]

70. Read about formularies: he screamed before he understood

They existed before the ACA, and after (though they're better, in the individual market, under ACA rules). If you have Medicare, the same restrictions on drugs exists: not all drugs are covered by Medicare Part D plans. You have to know the drugs you need and pick a plan that covers them. Not even the national health plans in Britain or Canada are free of such limitations on available drugs.

Not all drugs available to treat a certain disease have to be covered in the formulary, but the ACA requires that the policy must cover some drugs for that disease. Each plan has a different formulary. It's wise to check, if a choice is available. Failing that, the law also has an expedited means for a patient's doctor to request that the insurance cover a drug that isn't on the list, and an expedited review is now required of that request. Or, you can go to the drug company, which he did and got what he wanted in a snap.

Had he engaged one bit of research or investigation, he would have known not to start screaming like a madman at the first impediment. Rage is not healthy. Calling people foul names is disgraceful.

I could get mean, but I won't.

[badtoworse]

84. Caring for your spouse who has MS is rough under any circumstances.

He went all-in on Obamacare; expected coverage but apparently got the same run around from insurance companies as before. In explaining this, you sound a lot like someone arguing that the banks were completely justified seizing all the homes they did when folks defaulted on their mortgages. Maybe you're right and his expectations were unreasonable, but I would cut him a lot more slack than many others on this board.

In any case, I followed the debate on Obamacare and there is no question in my mind that what was delivered fell far short of what a reasonable person would have expected based on the sales pitch. I can't help noticing that we don't call it Obamacare much anymore - now it's the ACA. Do you think that is a coincidence?

[Sheepshank]

58. That is a true statement...but doesn't apply to the OP

no passes, and call every asshole on the planet just that.

BUT to pretend that is it's for the purpose of being critical of policy is just not be being honest.

Call a person an asswipe when they are being an asswipe is perfectly honest.

[badtoworse]

62. Post 59 deals with your point

I read Will's posts and while his language was crude, his criticism was valid, at least in my opinion. People certainly pay more attention when you're polite, but Will was posting on an internet board where vulgar language is common and he was upset. He gets a pass from me. I expect he'd use a different tone if he was speaking to his senator or congressman.

I really hate hypocrisy and this whole matter reeks of it.

[LanternWaste]

49. The two are not equivalent when referencing one's own party

The two are not equivalent when referencing one's own party. However, when referencing another party, another philosophy, another religion, another "them", conflating the two is quite valid and is more often than not, considered a most noble and righteous activity on DU since 2001... especially when discussing Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, or (insert most vilified politician here).

[villager]

51. We are also being told that name-calling, insults, and snark are the same things as "replies"

...or even "conversation."

I don't get that, either.

[badtoworse]

55. Didn't you used to post a lot in the Gungeon?

Apologies if my memory is faulty, but I don't remember civility as being your strong suit.

[villager]

80. I guess your memory is quite faulty indeed

Since you've conveniently omitted the kinds of posts -- also posing as "conversation" -- that I was replying to

[badtoworse]

82. My recollection is that you were quite anti-RKBA and not tolerant of other views...

... but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. In any case, I like civil discourse, particularly in disagreement - it's a lot more interesting than just hurling insults. Apparently, so do you.

[villager]

83. So you see, we're in agreement after all.

At least on the rubrics/bounds of conversation and discourse.

Though I feel constrained to point out that being against gun proliferation is not ipso facto a form of hurling insults at someone.

Though most in the gungeon reacted that way, of course.

[badtoworse]

86. Excellent! I'll see you in the Gungeon!

[villager]

88. Eh, I prefer the Gun Control Reform Activism group now, mostly

Gungeon reactions to even the most common-sense proposals to reign in gun violence tend to be the usual bitter, corrosive posts.

But: You can buy me a beer sometime!

[reddread]

60. up until we qualified free speech n/t

[Sheepshank]

69. free speech all you want...not one is trying to stop that

...not sure what you are trying to say?

[reddread]

71. just answering the OP n/t

[Journeyman]

63. Since . . . always? . . .

[DebJ]

67. Perhaps DU could set up a name-calling forum, and we can all just not go there. n/t

[crimeariver1225]

68. since never

[Sivafae]

72. "Since when does name calling and insulting = political criticism?" Since Fox news. eom

[pscot]

73. All this whine and no cheese plate?

This place has gone all to hell.

[Skip Intro]

85. What name calling?

One thread is over and over?

Plenty of namecalling goes on at DU, but it is usually directed at anyone criticizing directly or indirectly anything related to Obama. This brings vile attacks from taunting wannabe bullies.

Some people don't go in for the hero worship and the blind faith, and realize politicians are absolutely to be questioned and judged by the people, rather than knelt before.

[Sheepshank]

87. *sigh*...nothing to do with hero worship

nuance may have passed you by...the OP referring to insults being just fine and dandy and all, but call them what they are, and that is insults. Sometimes it feels good to throw one or two out there. Just quit with the bull crap by calling it policy criticism or holding anyone's feet to the fire.

[Cha]

89. Since one long time poster thinks it's okay to ignorantly use the President as his personal

whipping post with language so vile it even got a hide ... and how Dare anyone disagree or they will be Shamed, Shamed, Shamed, I tell ya.. with Dripping Demagoguery made of so much straw it Fairly Flows outta the screen.

It's of course useless to ask for more civility in the criticism.. they smell blood in the water and it's a feeding frenzy.. The gop have thought they smelled blood many times.. "ACA is Obama's Waterloo".. to name one such infamous instance.

Thanks for the post, Sheepshank~