We keep telling you that Al Sharpton, Henry Gates, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, and the rest of the grand poo-bahs of the Race Industry in this country may be disgusting, self-promoting, America-hating slugs, but they are damn good at what they do. No one on Earth can grievance monger or fudge their diapers better than these “men”. What they are MOST adroit at is weaponizing certain words, or magically making other words RAAACIST! that were never intended to be…whatever serves their grievance mongering at the moment. They can race-charge just about anything, and believe every fourth word out of anyone’s mouth is “race code”.
We need to learn from the Race Industry and start using their tactics for our own good — and to further the interests, in particular, of women we support like Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, two women who are routinely attacked with the code word “polarizing” by the MSM.
At the risk of being blunt, “polarizing” is what the MSM writes when it wants to tell the public they think a woman is “a f***ing b****”. This really is code word play, unlike all the times the Race Industry reads too much into things (or, if you are Maureen Dowd working in service of the Race Industry, just makes up quotes that aren’t real and imagines hearing words never said). When the media calls a woman “polarizing” they are telling Americans to “hate that b****”.
“Polarizing” should, thus, be taken as a misogynistic, sexist, pejorative…because that is certainly how it is meant, as weaponized as it is against women.
Today’s question, or challenge, of the day is to think of ways we can beat back against this. Whether you support Hillary or Palin or you’re a fan of Sue Lowden, Meg Whitman, Barbara Mikulski, or, Hera forbid, Claire Bear McCaskill, you have to remember instances when these women were all called “polarizing” in efforts by the MSM to diminish, degrade, downplay, and marginalize them.
Concern trolls, in particular, gleefully employ this word: ”Oh, you know I like Hillary and everything, but she’s just so polarizing. She’ll never win a general election”. That’s what the Utopians were spreading around Iowa before the caucus…claiming Hillary was “polarizing”, which gave haters an excuse to lash out at her under that pejorative. We see this being done to Palin now that the Left deems her a legitimate and likely 2012 threat (and we think, the only person on the field who can beat Dr. Utopia in the general election…though there’s also a certain woman we love who could whip his effeminate butt in the primaries).
How do we stop it?
How do we, Race Industry style, hit back at the MSM and the liberal journalists and force them to stop using the word “polarizing”?
The Race Industry has the ultimate liberal kryptonite: shouts of RAAACISM! There is no more certain way to stop a liberal in his tracks than to call him a RAAACIST. Perseus was less effective holding Medusa’s acid-dripping severed head up to enemies, turning them instantly to stone. Call a liberal a RAAACIST and not only freeze him in place, but kill his soul a little too, and possibly make him wet his pants.
Calling liberals misogynists, sexists, or homophones doesn’t have the same weight or punch. They might not even know what those words mean.
But, we are throwing this out there because “polarizing” has to be taken out of their arsenal, though we don’t, yet, know how to do it.
What think you?
December 8, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Maybe if we turned it on it’s head? Make it a GOOD thing? “Oh my gosh, she is so polarizing!” US: “I know! It’s GREAT! isn’t it? I mean, it’s wonderful that she can get so many people fired up!! So few people can do that!”
December 8, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Two potential approaches – one is Angela’s in comment 1, and I love that. “YES! She has principles and she sticks to them! Isn’t that great?”
Or, in combination with, what you fellows said – call them out on it. Say, “Oh, that’s liberal code for any woman who stands up for what she believes in. I’m surprised that you’re so sexist . . . .”
December 8, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Excellent points. Simply put:
They say, “She’s so polarizing.”
Reply, “Well, that’s a sexist thing to say!”
December 8, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Or “Yeah, I much prefer boring politicians who have about as much passion as an 80 year old Victorian spinster. That really gets people out to the polls, huh?”
December 8, 2009 at 1:38 pm
What you all said.
BTW, the principle of polarizing means equal opposition or weights.
But often, when the term is used it’s more “The Media” versus “All the Rest of Us”
December 8, 2009 at 1:40 pm
We should start calling male politicians “polarizing” whenever it applies. Then the word will become more gender neutral.
December 8, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Perhaps asking what a given person (particularly in the media) means by the term “polarizing” would force the person using it to go beyond the buzz word. If the response is that Hillary or Sarah causes folks to line up solidly for or against her, then ask how that differs from Barack Hussein Obama–mmm mmm mmm.
December 8, 2009 at 1:58 pm
You mean, such as ask them to please paraphrase and use another work instead of polarizing since that is such a nebulous term meaning nothing anymore do to its, er, uh, polarizing usage by the MSM?
December 8, 2009 at 1:58 pm
word
December 8, 2009 at 1:59 pm
due
December 8, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I guess my suggestion really would not produce any results. If the media were in the pursuit of the truth, letting the chips fall where they may, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. The media would be using precise words precisely.
December 8, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Yes, I’ve noticed sometimes if you ask a person to explain what they mean after they use a buzz word or talking points, they can’t. For example a few weeks ago, one of my co workers said Sarah Palin was crazy. I asked him why and his only response was to roll his eyes.
December 8, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Same when the day she’s stupid “Please explain exactly what makes her stupid?”
December 8, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I was meeting an old friend of mine for the first time in about four years in October 2008, and she said that Sarah Palin was “scary.” I asked why she was scary and my friend verbally stumbled around for a while with “Well, she’s kind of…she seems like…I think she’s sort of…” and never came to any kind of answer.
December 8, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Is the MSM telling Polar Land jokes again?
That’s not nice!
Polarizing jokes are racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 8, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Of course it is only the MSM, GOP, and Dems who do polarizing now.
They LIE!
December 8, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Perhaps a good method could be forcing them out of their nebulous use of the term and confronting them upfront about its actual meaning?
As in, show them how it can be used to describe pretty much anyone: people on Hillary’s side in the primaries AND Republicans disliked Obama. Did that make him polarizing? More than half of the country disapproves of his policies right now. Does that make him polarizing? More importantly, does that make him unqualified for the presidency? (Never mind all the OTHER stuff that makes him unqualified, concentrate on the ‘polarizing’ aspect to force them to admit that being ‘polarizing’ doesn’t really take away from someone’s eligibility.)
Oh, and turning the term into a good thing like you said might work too!
December 8, 2009 at 3:49 pm
There’s another p-word I hate that also cuts off all useful discussion: partisan. It means essentially the same thing as “polarizing,” except that it lops off a different portion of the citizenry. (Dems who claim that a Republican criticism is “partisanship” will refuse to discuss it any further. Dems or Repubs who find a woman politician “polarizing” will refuse to listen to any facts about her or any quotations from her.)
What these words do is ban any discussion about the merits of whoever or whatever is brought up.
We have to smack down both of these gambits and force the would-be censor to address the issue, not permit him or her to essentially say “She’s a poopyface and I don’t want to talk about her, nyah nyah.”
December 8, 2009 at 3:50 pm
At the risk of being a bore/boor, I wanted to repost this post, which I put at the end of one of yesterday’s threads:
Here’s a huge step in the right direction: Stanley Fish, the thinking/reality-based person’s academic, has posted an enthusiastic review of Sarah’s book in the NYT!
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/sarah-palin-is-coming-to-town/
December 8, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“Polar-izing” has to be embraced as a positive thing. I’m thinking in terms of Palin here, we need to emphasize the Polar aspect of it, LOL.
You’re darn right we’re polarizing, that means standing up for what you believe in. The alternative is to be spineless, something really frustrating that the Democrats have done for years. Riding the Unity Pony hasn’t been much fun. People are going to eventually embrace and respect the concept of being polarizing, one way or another.
December 8, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Hillary was always called the most polarizing person in the country. Now Sarah, and Michelle Bachman are polarizing too.
The lefty loons are great at name calling…
Hillary supporters are deadenders that need to get ‘over it’. Racist bitter clingers who are voting with their vaginas.
Tea party patriots are swastika carrying racists teabaggers.
Those who believe climate change is a hoax are ‘flat-earthers’
Those of us against healthcare takeover are wanna be slave owners.
And every single person on this planet who sees Barry as a total loser is racist. When Sarah talked about the haters in her interview with O’Rielly she couldn’t have been more correct.
The dem party has become so hateful, I’m ashamed that I ever felt they were a good group. Let’s keep the ‘hater’ word alive when referring to libs. Everytime they say anything it is full of hate, and it will be their demise as a party. Thanks to Barry the dems are dead in the water. He has now become the most polarizing person in America now.
December 8, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Some folks call it “polarizing”; we just need to start using the phrase “Poll A-rising” – as in what Sarah’s poll numbers are doing…..
Also, “polarizing” could be construed as being magnetic – after all, isn’t that what it’s called when they give a “charge” to iron? In that connotation, it’s not a bad thing; the MSM is just using a different definition of the word.
You can counter someone’s argument of someone being so “polarizing” by saying, “Why, yes, I guess you’re right – they sure do have a magnetic personality!”.
Just my $.02 worth……
“Sarah Palin: She’s Poll A-Rising!”
December 9, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Perfect, Teresa! I was thinking the same thing – “Oh, yes, she is so polarizing! What a magnetic personality!”