Question: what does "talking point" mean?

[Tina H]

It seems to be a term of derision, but I am not sure what the criticism is supposed to be.

Related questions: are all "talking points" right wing, or are there centrist and left wing "talking points" too? If there are left wing "talking points" are these considered to be: good arguments or somehow inarticulate arguments?

[displacedtexan]

1. Everyone has talking points.

It's an outline of info you want to get out of your mouth on each issue (or a list of issues) in the shortest amount of time possible.

The reason you hear repukes repeating the same mantra day after day is because they get blast faxes from the White House (talking points), which BushCo wants them to get out to the public on each issue.

The best analogy I can think of is a teacher's lesson plan outline.

On edit: check out the talking points (righthand column) here:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=3456

[onecitizen]

19. You might like this.........

from a DUer:

http://dug.seattleactivist.org/

a DU dictionary :)

[Tina H]

21. Book-en-markin' thanks n/t

[liveoaktx]

2. Not derogatory, one of the best websites out there (Josh Marshall)

is talkingpointsmemo.com - I also like the terminology, having an outline of points to make on various arguments framing a debate are important, and thus, talking points. The problem with media, I think, is that they don't use these *talking points* for further discussion but to shoot out a quickie slogan.

[Jacobin]

4. lol. we posted at the same time

:hi:

[Tina H]

5. so if someone says:

"that is just a RW talking point" then all they mean is"

"that is a right wing argument?"

The reason I ask is replies that say "that is a right wing talking point" seldom bother to go ahead and refute the argument. I guess here on DU, right wing arguments are not acceptable so they don't need to be refuted on DU. Sort of makes sense.

Clarification: I have not been accused of RW talking points; I am just trying to get the jargon down.

[supernova]

6. More like..

you're going to hear virtually the same sentence from:

the WH,
from Bob Novak,
from Sean Hannity,
from FOX News,
from Bill O'Reilly,

and who knows how many more people get the WH fax every day.

As for refuting it, we spend hours here on DU disecting what is put out for public consumption v what they really mean v what the real truth may be.

[Tina H]

8. If we hear the same (democratic) sentence from several sources

during the Kerry administration, will this be considered a problem?

In other words, is "same sentence" a problem independent of partisan politics?

[supernova]

11. "Same sentence" only becomes

a problem if people pass it on unthinkingly,until by sheer repitition, idiocy becomes truth.

Kinda like the "Iraq had something to do with 9/11" meme.

[Tina H]

12. I doubt that progressives would ever become unthinking in their repetition

at least I hope not.

Still, I would hate to be discussing politics with somebody and have them say "that is just a progressive talking point -- end of discussion." Hope we are not closing down dialogue in a way that could come back to bite us in our bottoms.

[supernova]

16. I would hope not either

and most progressives I know, myself included, like to do their own research, make up their own minds about the issues. Whoever is in the WH has little to do with a terminally curious nature. ;-)

[leftistagitator]

9. The reason we bitch about right wing talking points

is that for some news channels they make up the entire news summary of the day. When you allow your opponent to so completely control the terms of the debate, you are in an extremely weak political position. We dissect the hell out of these arguments, I doubt there's a single right wing argument that we haven't torn apart and found the flaw in at some point

For an example of right wing talking points in Action watch FOX news. Roger Ailes sends out a daily briefing telling his subordinates what phases to use, what positions to attack, and which politicians to go after in a document simply called "the Memo". That's why no matter what show you watch on FOX news, they all talk about the same thing and make the exact same arguments. A wider example of right wing talking points was the systematic media distortion campaign to present Gore as a "serial liar".

[Tina H]

14. when I say:

"send the troops home to avoid further casualities and Arab hostility" (which I say often) -- is this a talking point?

This statement has been uttered and attempted to be refuted many times by many others. I still think it is a valid thing to say, talking point or not.

[leftistagitator]

17. Yes that is a talking point

The fact that something is a talking point doesn't refute it's truthfulness. The fact that some media sources pump nothing but rightwind talking points does refute the idea that they are "fair and balanced". Of course, it's better to address why an argument is wrong than just to write it off as a talking point, but it's easier to remember that you can't trust a Republican to tell you the right time of day and assume any talking point coming from them is a distortion of some kind. Chances are, the issues already been discussed ad nausea, and people are just being lazy by not answering the question outright.

[Tina H]

18. my least favorite left wing talking point:

"it's just sex"

I would have preferred:

"it's just sexual harrassment"

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

24. Hey leftistagitator, has anyone ever posted one of these RW talking

point "Memos" or Faxes or Emails online? Since there must be so many of them, both from RNC and FOX, it can't be that hard to find one floating around but I can never find it through Googling. Surely someone must have left these lying around at some point or fished one out of the trash before shredding?

[Tina H]

27. In my short time lurking and posting ...

I have had the same experience with talking points and GOOGLE, and the same question as you do.

I just didn't post this because I have only tried this a couple times.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

29. Tina, your question is good. I don't for a minute doubt the reality

of RW talking points faxes or emails or memos that are disseminated throughout various media outlets (not to mention the various allied politicians), because its been too often that you see not only the same argument repeated, but often even the EXACT SAME PHRASEOLOGY used from MULTIPLE different sources, often appearing in the same day. I just want some documentation. I would imagine that there would be a strong discipline to destroy these after reading, but how complete could this discipline be? I mean we must be talking dozens if not hundreds of these floating around each day. Surely someone could get their hands on one or some.

Any enterprising DUers working at a RW TV or radio affiliate?

Example: Shortly after the Spain election, and the RW dismay over the repudiation of the Spanish government ("they've capitulated to the terrorists!"), there was within a one day period a discussion over whether elections should be suspended in the event of a terrorist attack in the US around election time, that appeared in MULTIPLE RW media outlets such as the Sean Hannity show, as well as from one of the administration mouthpieces. I'm talking about within a day. It's natural for discussion of the Spanish election and its meaning to occur at this time, but for the subject that "maybe we should suspend elections in the event of a terror attack" to appear in multiple sources in a one day period is WAY TOO MUCH to be coincidence, raising a concern for me that the administration was floating a "trial balloon" talking point to gauge public outrage (or lack thereof) over this idea, to see whether they might be bold enough to actually try it...

According to some who post here, Bill O'Reilly at Fox News actually acknowledged (on the air) receiving RNC faxes at his show, if only to brag about how independent he was from using such a crude instrument. But I can find no documentation/transcript for this. Most of all I'd like to find copies of the actual memos and read and post them.

John Stewart on The Daily Show demonstrated this phenomenon within the Bush administration where he had an video clip intercutting Scott McLellan and Condi Rice (and I think one other person) using the EXACT SAME PHRASEOLOGY about some topic related to Clarke's 9/11 commission testimony--I remember the clip was set to the tune "Who let the dogs out" (i.e. admin attack dogs vs. Clarke) and had intercut clips of McLellan/Rice saying the SAME DAMN SENTENCE like "the map rolled out on the table was of Afghanistan, not Iraq" or something like that (clip no longer online).

[leftistagitator]

30. I'm not sure

This was leaked half a year ago, and with the transitory nature of the internet it can be hard to find old news. Much of what we know came from Charlie Reina, a former Fox News employee who leaked contents of some of the memos and a behind the scenes view of FOX news. Here's a link to a story about the leak, but I couldn't find an actual copy of the memo itself.
http://www.poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo

I also found this, for those who still don't believe the GOP uses cookie cutter editorial and fax campaigns to have a standardized message across outlets.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2077553/

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

32. Thanks, I've bookmarked these now, but I find it hard to believe

that actual copies of these aren't out there. How disciplined can people be when these must be (at least the RNC ones) disseminated to so many stations? Oh well I'll keep on looking I guess.

[Tina H]

35. Just to clarify

I am also sure that RW talking points, in the limited sense you describe so evocatively, do, in fact, exist.

It is just that the "RW talking points" identified on DU that I happened to research on GOOGLE didn't seem to show up. Maybe some DU'ers are using the term incorrectly and I happened to run across the mistakes.

[Tina H]

36. For a textbook example of the "mistakes" I am referring to:

check out reply #24 in this DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1511922

[leftistagitator]

37. I don't know if they send out talking point bulletins to all the networks

All I've ever heard of was the Ailes memo, which is pretty incriminating for FOX. There does appear to be some collusion between the various conservative organs, at least it seems odd how they pick up the same phases and argue in a similar method. To a degree this can be explained by the fact that they have the same position on the same issue, but that seems an insufficient answer to me. Most people I meet argue in a unique fashion dictated by their individual tendencies. Rarely do I meet two people who argue in the exact same way.

It seems most likely to me that the RNC has a few favored outlets who they work closely with. Rush Limbaugh is extremely close to the White House, Cheney calls into his shows and he's personally met with the Bushes several times. Ailes also has a close relationship with the White House, Bush's cousin announced the 2000 election and Cheney recently stated that FOX is all the news he watches. Robert Novak obviously has sources in the White House. The RNC uses outlets like these to get its "talking points" out there, and other conservative groups echo them. It's basic advertising really, the more times a person hears a slogan or phrase the more it is ingrained into their mind, subtly influencing them. So it pays if you can get all of your supporters to argue in unison. The sick part is when the "mainstream" media picks up on it and starts trumpeting it as well. The RNC got the media to pick up on the "Gore claims he invented the internet" crap, and by the end of that election half of America was convinced Gore needed to be in a mental institution. If we don't hit the media back hard when they go ballistic on Kerry, they will do to him what they did to Gore. So we adopt the tactics of the Right, when the media attacks us, we scream media bias toward them until they back off. It would be unfair if the Right wasn't doing it first.

[dpibel]

38. That would be a textbook example how?

You disagree that it is a common Republican allegation that Democrats are anti-Christian?

[Tina H]

41. Good question!

The stuff in the linked thread may very well be Right Wing, but it is not a "talking point" because that stuff is clearly not out there word-for-word, distributed by multiple, high profile media outlets (as quotes, op/ed statements, etc, etc). The responses on this thread have made it abundantly clear that the subject matter of reply #24 in the linked thread is not a "talking point," regardless of whether it is RW-oriented or not.

Yet, reply #24 incorrectly said "talking point" and basically went on to say that the issue would not be mutually discussed because it was a "talking point." This is wrong.

I would not have a problem if the poster said, your arguments seem to be "Right Wing" arguments, so I won't discuss them on DU because it is not a RW board. Better still, the poster could have made no reply, but merely alerted the mods with her fear that RW arguments were inappropriately being bandied about on DU.

But, again, reply #24 just said "talking point -- no discussion." That is confusing to newbies like me when a "talking point" isn't really involved.

[dpibel]

40. It's not some big secret

I suspect you can find what you're looking for on the RNC website. This is not some black-ops thing--both sides send out press releases all the time.

The thing is, the press has gotten so lazy--not to mention the quasi-press like Hannity and Limbaugh--that they don't even bother to try to individualize the stuff. They just spew it verbatim, which leads to eerie echoes from mouth to mouth.

For some interesting work tracking the life of Republican talking points, check out the archives in The Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com). Somersby has done a good job of identifying first use and subsequent appearances of some of the bigger lies. You'll have to do some mining in the site, but it's worth it.

Just for an interesting exercise, next time you run across the same words coming from the lips of several press whores, google the specific phrase you're hearing. It just might turn up on the RNC website.

[SemperEadem]

23. I think that's the equivalent

of RWers who call any refutation to their talking points "you're just liberal"

[Jacobin]

3. Speaking of which......

There's a great little blog you might find interesting called:

talkingpointsmemo.com

I look at it every couple of days. Lots of good political analysis.

[DAGDA56]

7. The negative part of the term "talking point"...

...is that it defies coincidence hearing the same exact phrasing repeated verbatim by Rush, Sean, Bill, Karl, Dick and every ditto head who's comfortable with a phone or keyboard. As a result, it often takes the place of original thought. When people accuse you of just spouting "talking points" they are saying they prefer to hear what YOU really believe, and not something you may have heard from somebody else.

[FeebMaster]

10. It's commonly used by people who don't want to

argue the issues.

They'll say something like "Weah. That's an NRA talking point." So they can dismiss your argument out of hand while at the same time pasting you with the old standby of Guilt by Association.

[supernova]

13. Maybe because the NRA

doesn't say enough valid things to make up for the invalid statements they make. :shrug:

[Tina H]

15. I guess better an NRA talking point than . . .

an NRA exploding point (munition).

[FeebMaster]

34. It was just an example.

Generally, whatever organization the person claims the talking point comes from, NRA or otherwise, wouldn't even make the statement. It's just a way to try and dismiss someone through guilt by association without addressing the actual issue.

[bigbillhaywood]

20. Your post is a right-wing Republican NRA talking point. You are

obviously a Freeper infiltrator trying to seed chaos at DU. Your arguments are right-wing talking points, therefore everyone should dismiss your argument (sarcasm).

[Tina H]

22. you scared me there for a sec

It's not nice to fool little newbies (lightning crashes)

:-)

[bigbillhaywood]

25. Sorry, welcome aboard. You will learn there are basically two

types of people here.

1. Those who have a sense of humor and can tolerate dissent from their line of thinking.

2. Those who don't and can't

Well, I guess there are some in between (like me), but the second group really drives me up a wall. I can argue all day, but not with dogmatic boneheads.

[Tina H]

26. Great band name: The Dogmatic Boneheads n/t

[bigbillhaywood]

28. I like it. Good for a hardcore punk band. Catch ya later, Tina. Gotta try

and salvage the rest of Saturday night before the board sucks me in even longer.

[John_H]

31. Easy. RW talking points are all bullshit. n/t

[Tina H]

33. I am with you, but . . .

I still think undecided voters are not impressed by just saying that its all "bullshit." In this sense your strategy may be counterproductive outside our DU enclave.

[dpibel]

39. Well, we're not outside "our" enclave here, are we

I suppose one might think that folks have no sense of context. Then again, one might figure out that people with enough brains to put together reasonably cogent arguments most of the time have enough brains to take a different approach when they're talking to undecided voters than they do when they're in an enclave. Think?

And sometimes--for example, when an argument is bullshit--a very clear, cogent response is, "Bullshit."

Similarly, if someone is spouting off tired lines they heard on the radio, mentioning that they're just regurgitating talking points is perfectly legitimate.

[Tina H]

42. Right, but I was attracted to DU

because I thought it could provide answers and arguments a bit more direct and detailed than merely reciting "bullshit" over and over and over and over and over again. Maybe my desires are inappropriate here?

Final thought: Can saying "bullshit" be considered as a DU talking point, then? It certainly gets repeated, and this thread has made it clear that that is the fundamental criterion for a "talking point." If so, I think it is a pretty inarticulate talking point.

[dpibel]

43. Do you suppose "received wisdom" would work better for you?

Can you tell me why you're so hung up on the term "talking point"? You want a precise definition, then you want to apply it punctiliously. You seem particularly interested in making sure that everybody's aware that progressives do it too. It almost seems as if your point in this thread is to say, "How can you possibly object to Republican propaganda as being talking points when you all use them, too?" Am I missing something here?

OK. Here's how transmission of fake information works: Some PR person develops the spin and presents it some form to the media. The media parrots it forth. People pick it up and repeat it as if it were the truth.

By the time it gets to become something "everybody knows," it's not going to appear verbatim. Thus, if you insist on latching on to the definition of talking point as verbatim repetition of some given press release, you won't find many once the information passes through the transmission process via Hannity, Limbaugh, and the major media.

No, "bullshit" is not a "DU talking point." "Bullshit" is a word. It describes a great many unthought-out arguments or iterations of fake "factoids." "The Democratic party is anti-christian," is both a right-wing talking point (it's been repeated so often that it becomes received wisdom) and bullshit. This is not really terribly complicated, unless you try very hard not to understand it.

Finally, as to the example that you provide in your post #36, I find it interesting indeed that you now are very sad to discover that perhaps DU does not "provide answers and arguments a bit more direct and detailed than merely reciting 'bullshit' over and over and over and over and over again." I read the thread, and the poster receives a great deal of direct and detailed response, including discussion and statistical charts. Yet you somehow zero in on one response and decide that it typifies DU. How did you miss all the other posts? How could you remotely characterize that thread as reciting bullshit over and over and over and over again? I absolutely defy you to find a thread on DU where the sole response is multiple repetitions of "bullshit." There are people on DU who have the patience to respond to even the most disingenuous allegations. Certainly, there will be people who call bullshit bullshit if the question is bullshit. But somebody will sit down and respond to even the trolliest assertion with some sort of factual or logical refutation.

If someone were really new to the "right wing is xtian, left wing is godless" argument (which you are not, having helpfully supplied, inter alia reference to Stalin and Hitler as good examples of the peril of secularism), they'd get plenty of information from that thread. Yet you choose a (perfectly correct) "BS/talking point" result and imply that it's representative of the DU response to a perfectly reasonable question. What's up with that?

So what is it that you're really looking for? An admission that yes, for all our vaunted open-mindedness, we're really just as closed-minded and dissmissive as Free Republic (please don't insult me by responding, "Gee! What's Free Republic????") I don't think you'll get that admission, because it would not be a true admission.

I'd suggest that this could be a difference between a talking point and an oft-repeated fact: if someone is stating something as fact, and you ask them, "Why do you believe that," and they say, "Hell, everybody knows that," you are dealing with a talking point. If someone states something as fact, and you ask them why they believe it, and they tell you why, it's not a talking point (as the term is used in the derogatory sense). "Talking point" is a fairly new term in the English lexicon. One thing about new entries in the lexicon is that they don't really have nailed-down-tight definitions. Hence, it is a rather meaningless exercise to say, "What's a talking point," and then apply whatever definitions you're given as some airtight point of proof about a group of people whose eyes you wish to open.

As I mentioned above, it's a term that is used around here as generally equivalent to no-think bullshit. If you want to play sophistical games and say, "But you all use 'bullshit' a lot, so it's one of your talking points," you might as well say, "Isn't 'the' a talking point? You all sure say it a lot."

Some of the things that get discussed here have been discussed a lot. There have been enormous threads on xtianity v. atheism and atheism v. xtianity and the propaganda use of xtianity by the right wing. Some who have been through all of that are a bit bored with it, and will simply use the direct approach: the right-wing claim to exclusive anointment by the xtian god is bullshit. That's what it is--if you get something special from saying I'm using a "progressive talking point" by saying that, get right after it. Just don't expect me to take the accusation very deeply to heart.

As I said: Sometimes bullshit is just bullshit, and calling it bullshit is all the respect it deserves. That's not right-wing, left-wing, commie, or neocon. It's just the facts. That's why we have terms in English like, "I'm calling bullshit on that."

Dig?

[Tina H]

44. two reasons I am hung up on "talking point"

1. I wasn't sure what the term meant (this thread helpfully cleared that issue up -- thanks to all who posted).

2. "Talking point" gets used incorrectly and counterproductively here on DU.

You go on and on about the fact that talking points exist, but I have already acknowledged and understand that. My problem only emerges when people apply the term to something that is not a talking point. This incorrect usage is what your post fails to acknowledge and understand.

Let me try again. I cited another DU thread at reply #24 (link above). Let's go through this one in detail so that you can finally appreciate what an incorrect use of "talking point" is and why it can be counterproductive.

INCORRECT USE

In this example, reply #24 in the other thread alleged the following as a GOP talking point:

"Give me a link showing that most Democrats are Christians
I'm in an argument now with someone claiming that the Democrats are the anti-Christian party and Kerry would appoint people to his cabinet that would carry out an anti-Christian agenda."

Now, I would hope that we can agree about several facts about this statement that should be obvious:

the GOP hasn't written anything closely resembling this

the GOP hasn't faxed this statement out

Faux News hasn't broadcast anything closely resembling this

if this Kerry-anti Christian statement is a talking point at all, it is the type of talking point that I would expect to be propagated (faxed, broadcast, printed) by fundamentalist television, fundamentalist churches and individual freepers -- it is not a "GOP talking point"

Now, and here is the important one, the GOP leadership probably does, in its black heart, want people to say Kerry-is-anti-Christian as a talking point, but they can't disseminate the talking point. Just look at the shock waves Orrin Hatch caused when he said that the Democratic party is anti-Christian. That statement has not been followed-up by GOP leaders with a more specific statement that Kerry-is-anti-Christian. They may think it, but they don't say it out loud in public.

COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

Now all of this would be an unuseful, arcane semantics debate, except that the misundertsanding of the term "talking point" has been counterproductive. In the other thread, ButterflyBlood (the original poster) said he was involved in a dialogue and wanted help. Reply #24 suggests that if something is a "talking point" you should not be dialoguing about it on DU. That is wrong. ButterflyBlood desrves our help. She (or he) is in a position where she may be able to win Kerry a vote.

Here is what a helpful response to Butterfly Blood would have looked like:

ButterflyBlood, what you should tell your friend is that you need to figure out what it means to be a good Christian politician and what it means to be anti-Christian.

If being a good Christian politician means taking directives from the Vatican, then Kerry is anti-Christian and should be proud of this because US presidents are not supposed to take orders from the pope. You may want to go on and point out that the Chimpster clashed much more strongly with the pope over the Iraq war and is therfore even *more* anti-Christian.

On the other hand, if being a good Christian politician means hearing the voice of God in your head and following the orders God gives, then Kerry is also anti-Christian because that is not how Kerry proposes to govern. There are politicians who do govern this way. However, this can lead to bad results because then critical US interests get ignored when you are "talking directly to God" rather than looking at what is really good for the US based on facts and observations about the real world. For example, the Chimpster went to war in Iraq because God told him to. It is now clear that this was not good for US interests, and the Chimpster would have known this if he had listened to objective foreign policy advisors instead of listening to God and then playing fast and loose with the facts (eg, Iraqi WMD's) to try to convince other people that God told him the correct thing. If the Chimpster did the Christian thing there, then Kerry should again be proud to be anti-Christian because then the US interests should be protected objectively and rationally, rather than arbitrarily and incompetently.

ButterflyBlood, if your friend says that the foregoing two examples are not really what she means by "anti-Christian," then ask her what she does mean. When you figure out what your friend means by "anti-Christian" you may want to come back to DU to post again and figure out: (1) if Kerry really would be considered "anti-Christian" under your friend's definition; and (2) how to further persuade your friend to vote for Kerry once her beliefs are known with more precision.

One final note, Butterfly Blood: do not tell your friend that her beliefs are a "GOP talking point" or "bullshit" -- at least not yet. In your discussions, she may say things that show she can't be persuaded. However, I don't think we are there yet based on what you told us so far. At this point in time, you have a potential Kerry voter there and you want to do your best to win that vote for our side. Good luck!

[dpibel]

46. So let me get this straight

You begin this thread by professing that you are without knowledge of what the term talking point means, and you now would like to lecture on the correct usage of the term.

Hokay. Whatever floats your boat. That's a short trip from student to professor.

Would you mind showing me where, especially in the post to which you are responding (but feel free to incorporate previous posts), I "go on and on about the fact that talking points exist." It's pretty perplexing to me, especially since I wrote the posts you are (I guess) building that characterization from, and I don't remember writing that. In fact, I can't find the part where I'm particularly insistent about the existence of same.

You say, "My problem only emerges when people apply the term to something that is not a talking point. This incorrect usage is what your post fails to acknowledge and understand." I think what my post acknowledges and understands is that "talking point" is a new and mushy term which really isn't subject to the sort of strict interpretation you insist upon. You seem not to acknowledge or understand that part of my post.

You have determined to your own satisfaction that the term "talking point" has a singular, restricted, precisely defined meaning, and, for some reason, it makes you very sad that others use the term without restricting it to the usage that you have chosen. Feel free to so restrict your usage. Feel free to explain to my why anyone else should follow your rules.

You say:

"Now, I would hope that we can agree about several facts about this statement that should be obvious:

the GOP hasn't written anything closely resembling this

the GOP hasn't faxed this statement out

Faux News hasn't broadcast anything closely resembling this"

You are free to hope that we can agree, and to find that your statements should be obvious. I hope you will grant me the freedom to disagree. As a matter of fact, regardless of the source, I think it's quite clear that the Republicans are very happy to forward this argument. I don't think anyone has to originate an idea, via fax in order to make it a talking point.

Would it make you feel better if the person had said "this is a right-wing talking point"? I doubt it, since you would require proof of fax transmittal.

Thing is, it is a talking point: it's a convenient soundbite, easily assimilated, easily regurgitated, and pretty much content-free. People who blithely repeat it are talking through their hats.

I have suggested that a reasonable alternative to "talking point" would be "received wisdom." You, having already gotten a definition that suited your needs, have completely ignored that point.

You also continue to be very sad that post #24 in your illustrative thread is but one post of 24, and that there were other posts that offered substantive information responsive to the initial query. It seems to me a bit disingenuous to extract one post not to your liking from a thread, ignoring all the other posts in the thread, and to then proceed to use it to prescribe a code of conduct.

Apparently, you would like to ban the use of the term "talking point" altogether, or to permit it only when the issue in question meets your stringent criteria. That's asking a bit much.

You've composed a lovely essay as a model for posters. What am I to take from this other than a statement that, if you're not willing to post a similar essay, you mustn't post at all?

I continue to be perplexed at why you find "talking points" so very troubling. It's shorthand. The person who infamously posted #24 to the thread that makes you sad didn't say, "Just tell the person you're talking to, 'shut up.'" That poster simply observed, correctly, that it's a talking point. It was one post in a thread. It was an observation in passing. It was short; not a great deal of your life energy was consumed in reading it. Why get all upset about it? Why am I continuing to respond? I do not know.

[Tina H]

50. I think your last paragraph hits the nail on the head

I keep seeing "talking point" used as a synonym for "everybody shut up, I don't want this argument discussed here on DU."

However, because of the residual ambiguity over the term "talking point" (thanks for explaining this ambiguity), it was not clear to me as newbie what these "talking point" posters were getting at.

Of course, if "talking point" posters expressed themselves clearly by just saying "shut up all my fellow DUers -- we shouldn't be discussing this issue," then they would lose credibility and people wouldn't listen to their nagging. So instead, they couch the "shut up" sentiment with a talismanic reference to talking points.

I had a suspicion that this was what was happening before I started this thread, but I wanted to confirm that there was not some special history, features or power of the phrase "talking point" that I was not aware of.

Thank you (to you and the others) who helped me work through this to my satisfaction.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. Context matters when considering the intent of someone's post

when accusing another of a "RW talking point."

For example, when I first began posting on DU, I as a lawyer saw many DU'ers arguing that "frivolous lawsuits" were ruining America. This was right about the time that Bush was taking up the insurance carriers mantras that they were losing money and had to raise rates due to "frivolous lawsuits"

It took a few months to slowly debunk the conventional wisdom such as "that greedy lady in the Mcdonald's coffee case" (she only asked for her medical bills to be paid originally, McDonald's hid evidence of over 700 similar complaints, lied in court and was punished), frivolous lawsuits hurt us all ( judges ferret out non meritorious suits and allow others to proceed where there is cause and insurance carriers always beg for reform right after they invest poorly and take a beating in the stock market) and tort reform will save us all money (according to several citizen advocacy orgs, the only time insurance rates have gone down and stayed down was when INSURANCE REFORM WAS PASSED not when people forfeited their right to sue...which is one of the few means left to the general public to keep corporations honest)

SO..sometimes you see that statement because the points HAVE been debated over and over here at DU. Some of us have bookmarked such threads and offer them up when stating one is using a talking point...other times...the talking point is blatantly obvious.

[Tina H]

53. Question

if posters don't feel like replying to a right wing argument, it seems to me like they have many better options besides "talking point alert -- everybody shut up." They can:

a. alert (if the post is framed to be sympathetic to a right wing argument it will be deleted)

b. do nothing (probably the best option for most people)

c. refer to bookmarked threads (thanks for the suggestion)

or

d. reply substantively (like you did just now on the frivolous lawsuit talking point)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. Right. Not sure what the question was

but in my view doing nothing when it is obvious is to allow people to play games with this site. If I search a posters remarks and it is obvious that that is what they are doing, I might comment. A perfect example would be a poster that has an excuse for everything Bush and his admin does who claims they are only being a devil's advocate, but a search of their posts indicates they are highly critical of all Democrats..at that point, I believe it is legitimate to take them to task for their posts. That is not attacking them, that is focusing on content.


When DU first came online, it was overrun with rightwingers...maybe fun for a while but it has become a sanctuary from the right wing attack on our nation.

I think at times posters get overzealous in seeing that it remain that, but there are a million places on the internet where people can debate right wingers so when it's obvious, I think people SHOULD take people to task for playing games as long as they do so within the rules.

When it comes down to it, we ALL post here at the pleasure of the admins and mods.

[Tina H]

55. There was no question

sorry about misleading title of previous reply.

I have heard before that there are lots of others boards where progressives and liberals discuss issues intelligently and calmly with / against right wingers. Still, I have never come across a board like that. If I did, I would probably spend less time on DU.

[dpibel]

56. I'm sorry:

You can't write as clearly as you do and be oblique as you are representing yourself to be. It just can't be done.

If you are taking satisfaction in your discovery that you have caught me saying that "talking point" means "shut up," read that last paragraph that makes you so happy. Then read it again. See if you can catch the part where I actually differentiate between talking point and shut up.

You still have failed over and over and over and over to address a really important question:

Why have you determined to characterize your example thread as consisting of a person telling other people to shut up when, in fact, the thread contains a rather helpful discussion of the very point at issue?

[Tina H]

57. Because, speaking as a newbie,

I quickly came across more than one thread where I wanted to respond, but was a bit nervous to do so because I really did suspect that there was some (written or unwritten) DU rule against discussing "talking points." I figured that there might be others in the same boat as me.

Ultimately, the standards for being tombstoned on this board are soft and subjective. During my lurking period, I saw that reasons for tombstoning are not given (even to the "disruptor"). Also, DU'ers are occasionally quite puzzled when some seemingly-progressive and seemingly-polite person gets tombstoned.

I hope it is clear from my posts that I am no right winger and don't like Bush at all. However, I had genuine concern that responding too often on "the wrong threads" -- even with the left answers -- might put me in jeopardy. Coming into this thread, I was confident that it was okay to dissect rw arguments on DU, but I wasn't sure about "RW talking points." That is a subtle distinction and it is the reason my intitial posts are so oblique. I was trying to get at something very specific.

As a result of this thread, I no longer will have my talking point fears -- so I am satisfied and grateful.

Final note: thanks for the compliment and the benefit of your experience.

After-the-final note: I now see that it is technically against the rules to even be criticizing reply #24 on the other thread, here in this thread. I do feel a little bad about that in that reply #24 just happened to come into my view at the right time. The concrete example really did help discussion here, though. Hopefully it is all okay because I think reply #24 person and I agree that Kerry is not anti-Christian in any of the bad senses of that word. That seems like the most important thing.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. That isn't the case. I think you are making assumptions

As someone who has posted here for a couple years allow me:

I quickly came across more than one thread where I wanted to respond, but was a bit nervous to do so because I really did suspect that there was some (written or unwritten) DU rule against discussing "talking points." I figured that there might be others in the same boat as me.

It may appear that way, but people can often get to hundreds of posts before they demonstrate their intentions to disrupt. It is the policy of admin to give everyone the benefit of the doubt unless they have developed a pattern.

Ultimately, the standards for being tombstoned on this board are soft and subjective. During my lurking period, I saw that reasons for tombstoning are not given (even to the "disruptor"). Also, DU'ers are occasionally quite puzzled when some seemingly-progressive and seemingly-polte person gets tombstoned.

Actually, they are not all that subjective. Reasons for tombstoning are not given to the community at large because that would be unfair to the tombstoned, but the tombstoned CAN write to admin to request their account be turned back on and be given a reason.

Some people may not APPEAR to you to be disruptors, but if they have been tombstoned, it is because they have broken a rule..usually more than once.

[Tina H]

59. Thanks, that helps, too

I wasn't trying to suggest that the board change any policies. I assume that the management does what it does for good reasons. I was just explaining my true feelings and impressions because one of the replies asked me a question where my feelings and impressions were relevant to the answer.

Sometimes secrecy and subjectivity are very "necessary evils" (for lack of a better term) in wise management. I appreciate that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

60. Oh I know and I didn't take it that way

and wasn't challenging your interpretation so much as offering up an alternative perspective after watching over time and hoping to shed light on the fact that admin actually goes out of their way to avoid appearing arbitrary and caprecious when tombstoning people...especially those that have posted for any legnth of time.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

47. Probably the most current prominent example of a RWTP

(Right Wing Talking Point) is: "Kerry is a Flip-Flopper".
We see this specific phrase used so frequently by all RWers, and echoed by mainstream media in reporting their RWTP's (and even on our own web forum here), that the phrase "takes hold" in the minds of the populace. Those who are RWers and are predisposed to support Bush have been fed this "ammunition" and will tend to mindlessly mouth "but Kerry is a Flip-Flopper, at least Bush is a straight shooter who doesn't change his mind all the time etc."

So if you are going to engage the battle, to refute this RWTP, you can demand that this statement be supported. Show me instances of "flip-flopping". If they can't then you can fairly say that the RWer has just mouthed RWTPs received through osmosis from Rush Limbaugh or Fox News etc. If they provide examples, you should be prepared to refute the validity of the examples or else perhaps he is a "flip-flopper".

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

49. Another pernicious RW Talking Point, is "Yes, Kerry served in Vietnam,

but his war protests afterwards were treasonous, so this doesn't matter." This is particularly pernicious, because it tries, in one quick sentence, to invalidate one of Kerry's big strength versus Bush, the fact that he VOLUNTEERED and served with valor in Vietnam, demonstrating great personal courage, and every indication was that Bush received a TANG slot through family influence and did not even serve with distinction or even show up for much of that duty.

This one is so easy to refute that I don't even want to get into it here. But whatever method or argument you choose to refute this one, you should in its course introduce the discussion and narrative of Kerry's VOLUNTEERING (as a child of privilege, yet), his service, in contrast to Bush's behavior as a young adult and since (and indeed, Bush's singularly undistinguished career as a student and businessman, despite the name schools he was admitted to through privilege), and what these respective narratives reveal about the characters of the men. This is the narrative the RWers are trying to keep their "flock" from hearing with this particular talking point. Trying to completely erase one of JK's biggest strengths.

[dansker]

45. Anyhting you want

A good writer can craft talking points to convince almost anyone of anything.

[Gloria]

48. One of the BEST BBC World Service shows is "Talking Point"

every Sunday morning....they take a topic/question and do an incredible job with interviews, on site reports,etc.

Their recent show about Iraq, complete with Iraqis in the street talking live, was incredible!!!!!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

51. Talking points are simply persuasive points used to argue

Some are valid some are not but the intent is to short cut discourse.


The right has an easier time than the left currently as the right depends more on prejudice and generalities in order to make their talking points, eg.:

You're either with us or against us.

Welfare queens take away from "productive" members of society.

Why should the government have a monopoly on services?


As to what liberals should do or how we fail with this operating principle, this article is a useful read even if I don't agree with all of his recommendations:

Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.

The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.

In 2000 Lakoff and seven other faculty members from Berkeley and UC Davis joined together to found the Rockridge Institute, one of the few progressive think tanks in existence in the U.S. The institute offers its expertise and research on a nonpartisan basis to help progressives understand how best to get their messages across. The Richard & Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor in the College of Letters & Science, Lakoff is the author of "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think," first published in 1997 and reissued in 2002, as well as several other books on how language affects our lives. He is taking a sabbatical this year to write three books — none about politics — and to work on several Rockridge Institute research projects.

In a long conversation over coffee at the Free Speech Movement Café, he told the NewsCenter's Bonnie Azab Powell why the Democrats "just don't get it," why Schwarzenegger won the recall election, and why conservatives will continue to define the issues up for debate for the foreseeable future.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml