"Statists"

[AZRedhawk44]

I love that word.  I hate the people it applies to.

When I hear or read it, it's loaded with invective.  Burdened with scorn.  Saddled with disdain.

It's a dirty word, among those that dislike Autocracy or intrusive government.

I'd very much like for it to become as hated by people in the nooz, as "liberal" got to be in the late 90's and early 2000's.  Something people try to dodge and avoid.  Something one politician uses as a lever against an opponent.  Something that can be used against RINOs in a debate, that makes them sting in the polls afterwards.

I think we need to spread it around a bunch.  It's picking up in usage somewhat... but I find I still have to explain it to people in conversations, more often than they understand what it means already.

[zahc]

In my dialect, it ends up being heard as "sadist" whenever I say it outside a very narrow context.

I also think it's a good word; I have never liked using the word "liberal" because that word is practically meaningless.

[SADShooter]

If I use it, I have to explain it. In my universe, government involvement/intervention is understood as a matter of degree with an accepted threshold. Sad, and scary.

[longeyes]

It's a good term--pace Mark Levin--but it's a tad cerebral.  It's just a nice way of saying pro-tyrant after all.  We should cut to the chase.

[Waitone]

Keep using the term with a consistent definition.  Over time your definition will dominate public discourse.

A pretty good example--Alternative media shouts down any broach of the subject of civil disobedience.  Historically civil disobedience generates vision of Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King.  Today you mention civil disobedience and it engenders visions of nihilists and and anarchists busting window and burning cars in Seattle or Portland.  This is what happens when you declare certain language off limits in public debate.  Any discussion of civil disobedience is premised on the Seattle definition and not the MLK definition. 

Those who control the language control the debate.

[longeyes]

I like the term but it's academic, and the average person thinks it means something to do with these United States.

[Perd Hapley]

Keep using the term with a consistent definition.  Over time your definition will dominate public discourse.

A pretty good example--Alternative media shouts down any broach of the subject of civil disobedience.  Historically civil disobedience generates vision of Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King.  Today you mention civil disobedience and it engenders visions of nihilists and and anarchists busting window and burning cars in Seattle or Portland.  This is what happens when you declare certain language off limits in public debate.  Any discussion of civil disobedience is premised on the Seattle definition and not the MLK definition. 

Those who control the language control the debate.

I'm confused about your example. Do you like the fact that civil disobedience was redefined? Who redefined it?

[MicroBalrog]

Do you feel that a term cannot be redefined without a person or group of people issuing some kind of centralized edict to redefine it?

[MechAg94]

My only issue with statist is sometimes I see people who try to apply it to anyone who is not 100% rabid libertarian.  I think that waters down the term and renders it useless.

[Perd Hapley]

My only issue with statist is sometimes I see people who try to apply it to anyone who is not 100% rabid libertarian.  I think that waters down the term and renders it useless.

This.

[Waitone]

I'm confused about your example. Do you like the fact that civil disobedience was redefined? Who redefined it?

Whether or not I like it is irrelevant.  I am describing what is.  A large segment is abandoning a perfectly valid form of protest in the form of peaceful civil disobedience.  Meanwhile, the term is being actively used in the mainstream media and by some elements of the alternative media and the example being used is that of Seattle style mobery.  The actions of Seattle goons is being described as civil disobedience.  So when the day comes that Joe and Martha Sixpack have had it right up to the mud flaps and they have to physically express their opposition to the status quo, they will be described as engaging in civil disobedience; the definition of which implanted in the public's mind is that of Seattle style actions rather than peaceful protests a la MLK.

[Perd Hapley]

I now understand what you're saying, but I don't think the media's use of the term (with regards to Seattle) has been that widespread, or has had that much effect. But maybe you have evidence I haven't seen.

Also, I wasn't aware of any civil disobedience going on that has now been abandoned because of the term being redefined. Could you explain?

[AZRedhawk44]

The actions of Seattle Eugene, OR goons is being described as civil disobedience.  

Small nitpick, but those @$$hats that started and egged on the Seattle riots were a group of anarchists out of Eugene.

Not Seattle-ites.

ETA: here's a source.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1000411,00.html