I agree with both of the above thoughts, but I think an even better slogan would just be "Stop Police Brutality" as there is plenty of that on people of all races, and presumably everyone should want the brutality on all races to stop.

The second idea is described well, but is too complicated to have a short slogan fit the idea.

I agree Black Lives Matter Too would have been a better slogan. But BLM was pretty effective. Anyone arguing that BLM as an organization sucks (due to the Marxist origins, grifting donations to buy houses, etc) ends up looking like they are arguing that black lives don't actually matter.

Defund the Police was just a really dumb idea that a lot of people latched onto at a very unique moment in time. The pivot to arguing it was about reallocating funds was an attempt to walk back how silly the idea was. If they really meant that in the first place they would have come up with a different slogan.

The New Deal was certainly successful. Of course, it was kind of a knockoff of the earlier Republican "Square Deal".

54 40 or Fight worked pretty well for Democrats also

I'm not sure conservatives are any better at this though. MAGA still grates on me (no pun intended). It's basically saying America isn't great now. I could see a slogan wanting to make America greater / better somehow. Most people don't even realize the slogan originally came from Reagan in 1980.

Getting slogans and naming products right is complicated. I recall reading an article how microsoft spent millions of dollars, researched word meanings in multiple languages, and held focus groups in multiple countries in order to come up with the name for its new search engine. After all of that, they came up with BING, which was supposed to be that sound going off like a light bulb in your head when you get an idea.

Immediately after its rollout, the internet mob proclaimed that BING stood for But Its Not Google.

I had no idea what Bing was supposed to mean, or the nickname. It's like when people aren't calling each other idiots and derps you learn stuff???

Lol. I was a psyoper. Words were my tools.

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest) how proud are you that you were a professional liar for a number of years?

Excellent point that I had never considered.

The Democrats should hire a top advertising firm to create their slogans.

"I'd walk a mile to vote for AOC!"

"You deserve a break today: Vote for Bernie!"

10

There are battles fought daily in the dark.

"Justice may be blind, but it can see in the dark."

Or the GOP version:

"You deserve a tax-break today: Vote for Rand Paul!"

so they banned all trump supporters, lmao


I just looked up why they banned smudger. what a f joke.


no wonder this forum is dead. just banned the other half of the discussion. lool

shhh... cant mention rand paul around here, thats like the voldemort in harry potter. lmao

I dont think BLM is the best example but for some the very idea is to provoke a response which allows the responder to be attacked as racist/etc. More importantly for them, the real target is anyone reasonable who is on the left/progressive side but defends (carries water) for those responders being attacked. It's a polarising demand for purity that takes some time to comprehend.

I have no idea who smudger is, and haven't banned anyone. So whoever this is, if he was banned recently, it wasn't related to this forum.

Fair enough. Create the cure and make the disease

he is the starter of the covid thread in politics.

I couldnt be wrong of course and he was banned for somehing else.
if you look at his last posts all you can can see that he was a trump supporter and nothing else. TD and KS were acually good at moderating so I doubt it was any of them for that reason.
was a bit exaggerating and kidding there to get the message across.


if they banned too many people this forum becomes dead. I read that message in the RTG, same setiments. if they dont ban enough for hard offences, same result I guess. so there should be a balance.

I'm not exactly sure what that last sentence means. But I will tell you that there is always a tension in the minds of military people as to the morality of what they do. From the basic "thou shall not kill...unless it's in the national security interests of the United States and they're bad guys...or maybe neutral or innocent guys who happen to be in the vicinity of bad guys when they get killed", to issues of deception, mis and disinformation used to create a desired behavior in the target audience, etc, etc.

So how does a democracy balance those types of security needs and the means to achieve them with the "peacetime" values that are generally held?

Here's a little thought exercise to consider. (hypothetical of course). Let's say there are highly classified programs going on. Within that level of classification there might be what are called "acknowledged programs" and "unacknowledged programs". In both cases, the actual details of an operation can only be discussed with people with the appropriate security clearances and have been read onto the program. But with an acknowledged program (let's say the name is purple puppy), if you are asked in the course of your duties if you are aware of a program called Purple Puppy, you can answer yes. You can acknowledge its existence. But you still cant discuss any details about it.

But let's say Purple Puppy is an unacknowledged program. In that case, should you be asked if you are aware of operation Purple Puppy, you would answer NO, even though you are. So far so good.

But now you are called to testify under oath to Congress. You are sworn in, and are asked if you are aware of the program Purple Puppy. How do you answer that? To acknowledge it would mean breaking laws concerning the handling of classified material and exposing the program to dozens of people without the appropriate clearances. To say no would mean lying to congress under oath. What is the poor, middle rank military officer to do?

As much as people like to think in terms of black and white, good vs evil type scenarios, the truth is the world is covered in a blanket of gray.

It's a sales adage. Establish the ends and justify the means, or regarding sales, create the demand to sell something. You haven't listened to your favorite band until you've heard it through a $7,500 home stereo system. Nobody needs a $7,500 stereo system until they've experienced it.

The congress example is interesting. Might as well lie to congress in that example.

I'm not a black and white thinker. Actually, I don't think there's enough white going around to get to grey. We're more in a maroon kind of world as I see it.

Just find it interested you gave yourself a perfect 10, but you're the professional

Just to be clear, the 10 was how proud I was/am of being part of the profession, not that I was a 10 in terms of my performance on that job.

I'm aware, and I'm sure those FBI Cointelpro agents would do the same

guys, will the term "guys" be cancelled?

should it be cancelled? some people think it is sexist as the author of the article on the bottom.

in this thread you can make a prediction by what year you cannot/ should not say guys anymore.

who is pro banning of the word "guys"

who is against it?


I think it's completely stupid to cancel this word. if they do the same with the Spanish language, good night Spanish language, because every other word is male oriented. i can't phrase this any better. people who know Spanish know what I mean.




'Why I’m finally convinced it's time to stop saying "you guys" '

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/11/876122...exism-language

It's more accurate to say that males are put into one category and females are put into another. Languages can have a lot more than two genders. Bantu is notorious for having more than a dozen different noun classes. Your own German has three which is why you have to use der/die/das depending on the noun. But you wouldn't say the das words are "neutral oriented".

TLDR-- just because we call a word "masculine" or "feminine" doesn't actually make a word one or the other. Those are just that terms we use because language is imprecise.

"You guys' is used because English lost its 2nd person plural pronouns. Much has been written on it, but the issue you're going to find when trying to replace it is that there aren't a lot of good replacement candidates. People aren't going to want to say "you all" or "y'all" because it's too Southern.

the thing is I watched the hunt yesterday, a great movie with Hillary Swank. and some elitist liberal group hunts and kills people for fun. and in one scene they just kill a "derp" right winger and the next moment talk about how they can't say, guys, as it is sexist.

now I googled it. non binary people or feminist can actually give you a real hard time when you say guys to them.
I remember hearing this before.

a guy is never a girl. in plural it is commonly used though for all sexes. but feminists might go nuts.

with the current trend you can't say guys in 2030, that's my guess, maybe 2035. as crazy as it sounds, I can see it happening.