Difference between pages "Talk:Robert L. Gibbs" and "Mockery"

From Conservapedia
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
(unsourced opinion)
 
(External links: clean up & uniformity)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
== Un-Sourced Opinion ==
+
'''Mockery''' is a kind of [[jeer]]ing or showing [[contempt]] by [[derision]] or [[parody]], often in the form of a caricature of someone's style in a [[humor]]ous or [[satire|satirical]] way.  Mockery is characterized by its malicious intent; it seeks to harm its object.
  
This article makes the serious allegation that Gibb is anti semite with no citation to back it up. Unless one is provided I think the article should be rewritten to remove the un sourced opinion.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 09:06, 3 March 2009 (EST)
+
Mockery is not always a sign of a defect in its target. The tactic of mocking someone or their work is multi-pronged.  
:I provided sources that Liberal ideology is anti-semetic.  And the very fact that Gibbs, as a liberal public figure, repeatedly and false accused Hanity of being anti-semetic makes it appropriate for an article about him. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:55, 3 March 2009 (EST)
+
::Please don't accuse me of making an unsourced opinion of something that I and others have worked hard to carefully document.  Liberals and liberal Christians are well-known for Anti-Semetism. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:01, 3 March 2009 (EST)
+
:::So your source that Gibbs is anti-semetic is an article that you wrote that makes the assertion that all liberals are anti-semetic, based on a study done of "Christian Century" (a publication Gibbs has never been involved with as far as I'm aware) that concludes it is anti-semetic. I do not believe this is good enough. If an encyclopaedia article is to make a claim about Gibbs, it needs to provide a reliable source which shows Gibbs doing or say something anti-semetic.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 11:11, 3 March 2009 (EST)
+
::::No, my source is a well-referenced book written by an Israeli government official that carefully analyzes liberal policy and rhetoric and its results are that American liberalism (including much of American professors who discuss this topic) is anti-Semetic and often blame conservatives for what is in fact a liberal sin. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:14, 3 March 2009 (EST)
+
:::::No it isn't. Your source, provided in the article is [[Liberal Christianity#Liberal Christianity's Anti-Semitism]], an article which you wrote. This source then goes on to accuse all liberal Christians of being anti-Semites based on the book your mention above, (which incidently, isn't referenced properly in either article.)
+
:::::Anyway, I don't wish to edit war with you about this so I have done what we did last time and raised the issue with an Sysop. I hope this acceptable.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 11:26, 3 March 2009 (EST)
+
::::::I have not written that Gibbs is anti-Semitic as you claim I have done.  What I have done and written is the fact that Gibbs is blaming a conservative [[Hannity]] for being Anti-Semitic and then added the historical context of what other high-profile liberals like himself have also done along with analysis of such high-profile liberal comments and their ideology surrounding the matter. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:32, 3 March 2009 (EST)
+
:::::::The claim Gibbs is a hypocrite for calling Hannity anti-Semitic, along with the other visible references to anti-Semitism on the page make the article read like you are accusing Gibbs of anti-Semitism. This may not be how you wished it to read, in which case I suggest you rewrite it with more care.--[[User:JohnD|JohnD]] 11:38, 3 March 2009 (EST)
+
  
*'''ATTENTION!'''  The referenced video, which I saw live at the time, is indeed a good example of that sort of political smear, and Gibbs was trying to say by interviewing an anti Semite, he was himself one, and of course that is hooey. Same as saying a New York Times interview with Hitler, and them printing it, makes the Times antisemitic. If you two have time to squabble over the above, without adding one thing pertinent to Gibb's life, like where he was born, grew up, was educated, without adding one thing about his prior professional life.....that <u>might</u> make me believe you are ''both'' parodists, intending to introduce a poorly spelled inarticulate article about an important government official. You both now have my attention, so cooperate, and improve this, or I will take measures. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 14:34, 3 March 2009 (EST)
+
It is used to dismiss the person's work, so that others don't even take a look at it. It is often used as a political tactic to distract people from seeing the real [[fact]]s. It's a variant of [[ad hominem]], like saying [[scientist]]s who disagree with the  [[United Nations]] about [[global warming]] are "in the pay of Big Oil" or saying scientists who are not believers in evolution are not real scientists so their views can be discounted.
 +
 
 +
It is used to make the person lose confidence in what they are doing. "Ha, ha, you're [[stupid]]! Give up! You'll never succeed!" The idea is to bring someone down to one's own level, i.e., a "do nothing".  
 +
 
 +
Mockery is also used to create confusion. Each of the books on [[Bushism]]s published during the 2000 and 2004 election campaigns was a subtle blend of [[gaffe]]s and digs. The gaffes were just verbatim transcriptions of the sort of error any [[politics|politician]] makes when replying extemporaneously to a reporter's question. "One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." (Obviously by ''not be'' he meant ''is not'') There is no reason to collect and show these for one politician while never showing the same kind of error made by another politician, unless you are trying to make the '''false point''' that your candidate is infallible and your opponent is incompetent. The digs were [[grammar|grammatically]] correct statements of fact, which the author of the book simply disagree with. The point of including them among the [[malapropism]]s and slips of the tongue is to insinuate that these statements were indications of incompetence. Actually, they only reveal the [[prejudice]] of the author.
 +
 
 +
Ridicule is mockery, intended to demean its [[subject]].
 +
 
 +
==References==
 +
<references/>
 +
 
 +
==External links==
 +
*[http://www.answers.com/topic/mockery a dictionary definition] ''Scornfully contemptuous ridicule; derision.''
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Communication]]
 +
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Revision as of 21:37, June 27, 2016

Mockery is a kind of jeering or showing contempt by derision or parody, often in the form of a caricature of someone's style in a humorous or satirical way. Mockery is characterized by its malicious intent; it seeks to harm its object.

Mockery is not always a sign of a defect in its target. The tactic of mocking someone or their work is multi-pronged.

It is used to dismiss the person's work, so that others don't even take a look at it. It is often used as a political tactic to distract people from seeing the real facts. It's a variant of ad hominem, like saying scientists who disagree with the United Nations about global warming are "in the pay of Big Oil" or saying scientists who are not believers in evolution are not real scientists so their views can be discounted.

It is used to make the person lose confidence in what they are doing. "Ha, ha, you're stupid! Give up! You'll never succeed!" The idea is to bring someone down to one's own level, i.e., a "do nothing".

Mockery is also used to create confusion. Each of the books on Bushisms published during the 2000 and 2004 election campaigns was a subtle blend of gaffes and digs. The gaffes were just verbatim transcriptions of the sort of error any politician makes when replying extemporaneously to a reporter's question. "One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." (Obviously by not be he meant is not) There is no reason to collect and show these for one politician while never showing the same kind of error made by another politician, unless you are trying to make the false point that your candidate is infallible and your opponent is incompetent. The digs were grammatically correct statements of fact, which the author of the book simply disagree with. The point of including them among the malapropisms and slips of the tongue is to insinuate that these statements were indications of incompetence. Actually, they only reveal the prejudice of the author.

Ridicule is mockery, intended to demean its subject.

References


External links