Not much for name calling

I’m not an advocate of name calling, but it can serve a purpose. Palin has her “haters” for everyone who disagrees with her. (The overly simple translation she makes is that I hate her, not just her ideas. That’s not necessarily true but some people are very narrow in their thinking about the connection between belief and believer.)

There are the “birthers”. That seems to quickly encompass the issue at hand and make people sound ludicrous at the same time. Convenient. It was ludicrous so that was justified.

To label those incapable of having a rational discussion of the issues, might we call these town hell criers the “shriekers”?

Is labeling a good thing?

Labels tend to lump lots of people into a big group without attention to the individual. It’s too easy to label someone who is not deserving of such a label. Easy to be served with a label – harder to shake it off.

However, I’m feeling favor towards dubbing these exhibitionists “shriekers” since this is a derogatory term that may discourage such behavior to continue. Plus, it’s pretty obvious to all if you are one or not.

I sure would like society to reject this kind of irrational, emotional, tantrum-throwing behavior over serious issues that affect us all. (Yo, buddy, it’s not just you paying taxes.) When I see shrieking, I immediately think, “Oh, this person has no reasonable opinion and is too easily swayed by emotion and fear-mongering.” I don’t trust their judgment. But, that’s just me. Apparently, Congress finds it intimidating. They want to grease the squeaky wheel and soothe their anger. That’s bullshit. It’s like giving a toddler the biggest lolly in the store for embarrassing the hell out of you with his hissy-fit. For a healthy, respectable, functioning society, it should not be tolerated.

About idoubtit

Fluent in science, animals, paranormal culture. Expert in weird news.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *