11
Sep
08

The Use of Incendiary Language

There is a lot of discussion in the blogosphere about the language we use and opinions we make regarding its benefits in attracting Independent and Undecided voters to our respective sides. I’d like to address this concern.

As a blogger who takes herself only slightly seriously, I have to address my growing use of incendiary language. Let me preface this by saying that my familial roots are in Southern Louisiana. We know how to have a good time and tell it like its (ahem, I mean “it is.”). I’m not especially diplomatic, meaning I don’t beat around the bush when I have something to say. This doesn’t mean I’m an ogre – I’m totally fun – but I don’t feel that need for the approval of others that inhibits we Americans in our thoughts and speech.

Basically, we fear offending people. This “Can’t we just get along?” and “Uniter” feelgood kumbayah stuff has infiltrated our culture almost to the point of paralyzing progress on a social and political scale – and this is having an effect on our democracy and our economy.

Democrats suffer from this condition in spades. Lefties tend to use temperate and inclusive language that is interpreted as mealy-mouthed and weak. Just turn on your television and watch Obama “fight” back against the attacks by McCain and Palin – many of which are ridiculous, false, even perverse and EASILY disputed. Yet Obama plods along on policy, which is great unless you’re trying to win a presidential election. Democrats across the country are shuddering with memories of Gore and Kerry as Obama “uhs” and “ahs” through the campaign trail.

Republicans on the other hand have introduced Sarah Palin, a completely lacking candidate picked with very little deliberation and consideration. This woman should be nowhere near the 3 a.m. phone call or the red button, but she’s got spunk and charisma and the voters are flocking to her like moths to that light that electrocutes and kills them.

Consider Rush Limbaugh – on the air 20 years, Ann Coulter – a regular on the bestseller lists, Bill O’Reilly – tricks people into forgetting about his own lack of credibility (he was the Inside Edition host) and enjoys healthy ratings. For the most part, these people are off their rocker. They could not be farther from their rocker. If their rocker was the pope, they are the chap-wearing transvestites at Brazil’s Carnival. Yet, seemingly against all logic and reason, these incendiary Right Wing commentators have a vast sea of fans and believers. Because of the language the use and the manner with which they use it.

Furthermore, too many times, we allow political correctness to guide are efforts to produce progress, causing us to fail. The Suffragettes didn’t care if they angered people with their opinion. Or, if they did care, they angered those sonsabitches anyway! The Civil Rights movement gained strength by being confrontational, shaking people out of their comfort zones. In today’s day and age, we give religion privilege to the detriment of our freedoms and the health of our democracy. It is time those of us who do not heed incredible tales of walking on water and the existence of Hell to voice our opinion and stand together against the domination of organized religion. To do that, we must make people uncomfortable with our honesty and refusal to keep politics and religion “out of the conversation.” We’re coming to a crossroads with people wanting to change our democracy into a theocracy – and I will not hold my tongue.

Now, I don’t think we should use incendiary language for the sake of gaining support. Much more reasonably-written blogs receive much more attention than this one. But four-letter words and calling a spade a spade come naturally to me. The lies hurled incessantly by Republicans need to be fought with strong words – especially by those of us who don’t have to fear losing their jobs for saying what they think (CareerBuilder just released a survey saying one in five bosses screen potential applicants through web searches about them).

If someone is being a jackass, I’m going to call them a jackass – but my words will not be empty. I will always have an informed opinion and be able to back up what I say. I invite intelligent debates, but will defend my views.

I’ve always appreciated the American culture of fake niceness so derided by Europeans. And in a restaurant or in a bookstore – you’ll get a different genuine friendliness we who live in Texas are famous for. But when it comes to public policy, the Cajun is coming out. We’ve allowed the Right Wing to dominate public opinion with lies and Christian Bullshit. I have bullshit repellent and I’m going to use it. And until the more moderate and liberal members of society stand up, take a stand, and have the courage to use words and tones that might be “uncomfortable” for them, we’re going to continue to cede the leadership and our rights to the Right Wing. And that ain’t no lie.

Take off the filter, bring on the honesty and start letting those four-letter words flow like your freedom of speech depends on it! Cause it does.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “The Use of Incendiary Language”


  1. 1 Paige
    September 11, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    Ummm, that light is called a “bug zapper.”

    While I prefer civilized, truthful discourse, it does seem that the state of politics and the common American mindset/intellect precludes that scenario. I’m really unhappy about this, because I can’t even have thoughtful discussions with my friends and neighbors about what is best for this country without being vilified or told I “suck.” (Almost a direct quote. She actually said, “Democrats suck!” She was too inebriated at the time to substantiate her argument.)
    Unfortunately, it seems as though civilized discourse on the issues at hand is bringing the Democrats down in the polls, so I say,

    LET’S LAY SOME SHIT DOWN! THE TRUTH, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS! AND HELL YEAH, A PIG IN LIPSTICK WOULD STILL BE A PIG, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT DOESN’T REFER TO PALIN, BUT TO MCSAME’S POLICIES! GOV. SWIFT, YOU STUPID, EFFING PIGSTICKER!

  2. September 12, 2008 at 8:43 am

    Hi Meredith,

    I got a few good chuckles from this post! Keep it coming!

    Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on important issues.

    Even on the question of whether women should vote!

    Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won votes for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.

    Suffragettes were opposed by many women who were what was known as ‘anti.’

    The most influential ‘anti’ lived in the White House. First Lady Edith Wilson was a Washington widow who married President Wilson in 1915, after the death of his pro-suffrage wife.

    The First Lady’s role in Wilson’s decision to jail and torture Alice Paul and hundreds of other suffragettes will never be fully known, but she was outraged that these women picketed her husband’s White House.

    I’d like to share a women’s history learning opportunity…

    “The Privilege of Voting” is a new free e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 – 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

    It’s a real-life soap opera about the suffragettes! And it’s ALL true!

    Powerful suffragettes Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with TWO gorgeous presidential mistresses, First Lady Edith Wilson, Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan and Alice Roosevelt.

    There are tons of heartache on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!

    Thanks to the success of the suffragettes, women have voices and choices!

    Exciting, sequential episodes are great to read on coffeebreaks, or anytime.

    I hope you will subscribe. It’s free at

    http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html

  3. September 12, 2008 at 9:35 am

    thanks, virginia – i subscribed this morning. can’t wait to read the episodes!

  4. 4 Rob
    September 12, 2008 at 10:39 am

    We need two versions of each politicians honest views, one on the major news stations, and their real thoughts complete with 4 letter bombs on HBO or Comedy Central, at least then we’d actually know where they stand vs. dancing around everything important all the time so as not to offend anyone anywhere…

  5. 5 Rob
    September 24, 2008 at 10:45 am

    “This woman should be nowhere near the 3 a.m. phone call or the red button, but she’s got spunk and charisma and the voters are flocking to her like moths to that light that electrocutes and kills them.”

    For a second there I thought you meant to type man – and were talking about Obama. Obama is where he is today because of his charisma and doesn’t have anywhere near the credentials I think a President needs.

  6. October 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    IN Obama’s case, if he gets too angry, lots of white folk will be turned off.

    Angry black people scare white people.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Scarlet Letter of Atheism

a

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Blog Stats

  • 95,315 hits
WordPress Political Blogger

Top Clicks

  • None

%d bloggers like this: