Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Is Obamacare a neutral term

  1. #11
    Jeannie's Avatar
    Jeannie is offline INCIIDer - A Community Creator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by augie View Post
    Were you equally offended by Hillarycare, Reaganomics, being Borked?

    From a *reputable* source:

    Mitt Romney on Romneycare
    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/18/m...omneycare.html

    Methinks it is this week's tempest in a teapot.
    The question wasn't whether the term is offensive. The question was whether the term is neutral. I don't find the term offensive in the least. But the term is not neutral because it was coined and is used by people who are critical of the legislation.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,975

    Default

    It's probably just right of neutral. The name Obamacare is a natural outgrowth as he was the one constantly in our face about it for so long.

    I don't see the term "health care reform" as neutral either, and I would guess your friends don't either. Many parts of the bill were a step backward or in the wrong direction, so I refuse to call it reform.

    Let's all be PC and from now on refer to it as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" which was amended by the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act" or at the very least just shorten it to H.R. 4872. Now that's the facts!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,975

    Default

    The OP's offense was an observation as she referred to her friends as fools for using a pretty benign word.

    [courtesy of ds: ]

  4. #14
    Jeannie's Avatar
    Jeannie is offline INCIIDer - A Community Creator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,395

    Default

    That's not what you said. You asked if the poster thought the term Romneycare or Reaganomics was offensive as well.

    In any event, the term "Obamacare" is not benign and the post never referred to her friends as "fools". She just said they weren't listening (perhaps deliberately) and it was frustrating to talk to them about the issue. I find nothing offensive about that either.

  5. #15
    novice5 is offline INCIIDer - A Community Creator
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    807

    Default

    Not neutral.
    To me it stands for people out there who have no clue what was in the healthcare bill, but have been convinced it must be bad solely and simply because the Government is involved. They do not know how or why or the details. They do not know the effect and ramifications of aspects of the law, some good, some not. Its use represents the height of simplistic thinking.

    The term Borked meant something specific and was known to fewer people. It was pejorative but users at least understood what it meant. The term Reaganomics I agree was not used the way Obamacare was used across the board. Advocates used it.
    And people who used it generally understood what it represented.

    The typical user of Obamacare has no idea what is in the law. Some do, but most do not.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeannie View Post
    . . . In any event, the term "Obamacare" is not benign and the post never referred to her friends as "fools". . .
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by freddy View Post
    ... that line of thinking just made me realize that I am overly sensitive regarding the word. I'm overly sensitive to my friends (who are mostly conservatives) using words that make them sound like fools.
    What is a truly neutral term that we should call it?

  7. #17
    Jeannie's Avatar
    Jeannie is offline INCIIDer - A Community Creator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,395

    Default

    ahhh missed that sorry

    We would all be better off referring to the law by its name

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Affordable Care Act for short

  8. #18
    freddy is offline INCIIDer - A Community Creator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by augie View Post
    The OP's offense was an observation as she referred to her friends as fools for using a pretty benign word.

    [courtesy of ds: ]
    Okay, I follow you now, and your reasoning in offering up other possible terms of offense.

    When my liberal bil used to send emails referring to bush as hitler, writing long paragraphs about this and that issue that he was passionate about... yes, I thought he sounded like a fool, and yes, he failed to get his point across to people who didn't already agree with him because of his use of biasing language. Once Hitler comes out of your mouth (fingers) whether it be referring to our previous pres or our current pres, I no longer think I have any reason to listen to what you're saying. You're foolish. (the general 'you').

    Obamacare does not rank quite as high as hitler on the list of biasing political terms. The healthcare reform bill doens't rank quite has high on the list as obamacare, because obamacare leans towards evoking the scary thoughts of socialism, whereas healthcare reform bill means you think its going to fix healthcare (and in that regard perhaps it makes you sound foolish as well, but I prefer to think of them as optimists). I think healthcare bill is sufficient.

    Do you not agree that passionate conservatives (or really, anyone who's passionate about something) are often made to look like fools because of their language? There is a way to speak and be persuasive without looking like a zealot. If we want people to hear us, and think about what we are saying, we must find a way to speak a language that will allow them to engage with us. If we only want to have little 'yeah, man, that's right' rallys with people we already agree with, then it doesn't matter what words we use.

  9. #19
    Jeannie's Avatar
    Jeannie is offline INCIIDer - A Community Creator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,395

    Default

    I so agree with this. In fact, I was just thinking about this the other day because a bunch of tea party nitwits keep setting up a display in front of our post office with a picture of Obama wearing a Hitler mustache. Some of my friends have tried to talk to them but I told them it's a waste of time. If the only way you can think of to get your point across is to draw funny mustaches on the president and display your ignorance about who Hitler was and what he did, then you are too stupid for anyone to waste any time listening to anything you have to say.

  10. #20
    ahava is offline INCIIDer - A Community Creator
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,503

    Default

    I would have to say though - many times ppl protesting are NOT trying to "convert" or engage in converationetc - they are simply "protesting" or trying to rally support of other like minded individuals.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •