The Language of Politics (moved from who sucks?)

[Magic Poriferan]

She used an unusually high number of Republican words and a low number of Democratic words. I found that discomforting.

The whole speech itself was just incredibly generic. Perhaps extraordinary only in how ordinary it is. As someone that almost always wants the Democrats to win, Pelosi frequently makes me go .

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

She used an unusually high number of Republican words and a low number of Democratic words. I found that discomforting.

The whole speech itself was just incredibly generic. Perhaps extraordinary only in how ordinary it is. As someone that almost always wants the Democrats to win, Pelosi frequently makes me go .

"Barack Obama was RIGHT, John McCain was WRONG!" It's like she was trying to drill the points into the skulls of stupid children. I guess 50-60% of the group there for the convention would qualify, but I don't. It annoyed the hell out of me. She (kind of like the late William F. Buckley, Jr.) is also the rare American who pronounces the "t" sound in words like "liberty" and "writer", etc. That is strange to hear sometimes.

P.S. Which words are Republican, and which are Democratic?

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by pure_mercury

P.S. Which words are Republican, and which are Democratic?

Haha. I'm not sure that I can provide a list off hand. You might want to look up George Lakoff, as he was the guy that started compiling the frequency with which certain words were used by either party.

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

Haha. I'm not sure that I can provide a list off hand. You might want to look up George Lakoff, as he was the guy that started compiling the frequency with which certain words were used by either party.

Hmmm. . . I am not familiar with his work, but I do find linguistics fascinating. I just wish eminent linguists would stop thinking that they are somehow eminent sociopolitical theorists (*cough* Chomsky *cough*). His "strict father" vs. "nurturant parent" concept seems pretty flimsy to me. Of course, I am a libertarian, and I don't really see the government as anything approaching a parent, anyway. I happen to LIKE my parents.

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by pure_mercury

Hmmm. . . I am not familiar with his work, but I do find linguistics fascinating. I just wish eminent linguists would stop thinking that they are somehow eminent sociopolitical theorists (*cough* Chomsky *cough*). His "strict father" vs. "nurturant parent" concept seems pretty flimsy to me. Of course, I am a libertarian, and I don't really see the government as anything approaching a parent, anyway. I happen to LIKE my parents.

My opinion on this will probably insult you to at least a minor extent, but my experience/observation has been that Libertarians are not very good with sociology. My theory for this is that the very concept of sociology might bother Libertarians, since it is based on taking a collective look at human behavior. The Libertarian individualist streak probably wouldn't want to give to much credit to anything a sociologist says.

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

My opinion on this will probably insult you to at least a minor extent, but my experience/observation has been that Libertarians are not very good with sociology. My theory for this is that the very concept of sociology might bother Libertarians, since it is based on taking a collective look at human behavior. The Libertarian individualist streak probably wouldn't want to give to much credit to anything a sociologist says.

Yeah, that's a little insulting, especially with Sociology having been one of the subjects I studied in college (and I also think that you still have some misconceptions about libertarianism and its followers, too). I don't disagree that libertarians are underrepresented in sociology, but there are a few prominent libertarians who should be considered sociologists (even if something else is their primary concern). Mancur Olson would be one major one. Murray Rothbard was an Austrian economist, but his work also covered history, sociology, and political science. Robert Nozick was more of a philosopher and political scientist, but he touched upon sociological concepts in his work. Chris Michael Sciabarra writes about sociology from a Randian/Ohjectivist perspective, too. I don't think that libertarians are allergic to looking at collective behavior (believe me, I've spoken to Libertarian Party organizers who know all too well about collective behavior in regards to U.S. elections). I just think that a lot of the people whom it attracts tend to come from the applied sciences or "hard" social sciences, like economics, poli sci, and history, rather than the "soft" social sciences and the humanities. Personally, I straddle the categories, and I've actually found some worthwhile things in classes like American Ethnicity and Sociology of Race and Racism. I was certainly the most vocal person in the class, along with one or two African-American classmates. I think it was very interesting. I really enjoyed Anthropology, as well.

[Jack Flak]

Yeah +1 merc, maybe sociologists are not very good with history. Free markets and free people drive economies into the stratosphere.

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

Yeah +1 merc, maybe sociologists are not very good with history. Free markets and free people drive economies into the stratosphere.

I think that sociologists often start out with a result in mind, and then use research to support them, instead of doing research to figure out what the results are. Plus, as sweet as my sociology professors were, they were absolutely illiterate about economics, science, even popular culture sometimes. Most of their departments within the universities are very closed-off from the real world and utterly political.

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by pure_mercury

Most of their departments within the universities are very closed-off from the real world and utterly political.

This applies to a great deal of the college protocol. Very detached, ethereal, Ivory Tower mentality.

"College sucks."

[Magic Poriferan]

Well, maybe sociologists don't know history, but then who's defining history? There's supposedly a disproportionate number of left-wingers among historians. That would reinforce the notion that there is a bias.

That being said, there's also supposedly a disproportionate number of right-wingers among economists. So, which one do we believe?

My observation is that libertarians are most often economists or law students. On the other hand, socialists(in the, as oppose to libertarianism, sense) tend to be sociologists or psych students. Annnnd, I've found that debates between the two sides often break down those lines.

Of course there are exceptions, but these are the trends that I see.



EDIT: *sigh*, where's Zergling when you need him?