- There are 229 accounts in Lemmy that have used the phrase “Democratic Party” more than once in the last 6 months or so.
- There are 188 that have used the phrase “Republican Party” more than once.
- There are 25 that have used the phrase “Democrat Party” more than once
Having “Democrat Party” (or similar constructions like “Democrat voters”) be unusual on Lemmy makes perfect sense. It’s something I pretty much never hear outside of conservative circles. It always sounds really weird to me and I don’t think it would ever occur to me to use it. It’s not surprising that it’s so rare on Lemmy.
What is unusual is that there’s quite a bit of overlap between accounts that use this unusual phrasing that’s pretty much only seen from conservatives, and accounts that claim to be opposing the Democrats from the left – giving reasons and arguments why Lemmy users should not vote for the Democrats, because they are not doing enough to advance a leftist agenda (or, that voting is not worthwhile, or similar things.)
The conclusion is left for the reader. I am, honestly, a little bit on the fence about listing the accounts or going into the data. I decided it would be drama-inducing to list accounts specifically; honestly, it’s useful and informative detail, but it would create some heat without light, probably, and there’s no reason to think that 100% of the accounts that are part of the overlap are what the obvious conclusion would be that a lot of them are. I’m going to simply state the conclusion, and anyone who wants to replicate the data for themselves is welcome to do so.
I did ask two of the accounts that were part of the overlap what was up with it, and neither of them answered me, although a third party did chime in with this explanation:
I’ve had various liberals tell me Democrat was a form of dog whistle or sign I’m a right winger. One person started to dig into my mutual aid info trying to figure out if I was a Russian bot because I said “Democrat” instead of Democratic. I’ve tried to Democratic as a noun, and it felt grammatically incorrect. “I’m running as a Democatic.” “The current majority in the house is with the Democratics.”
Personally I think “Democrat” works for both candidate, party, and voter. “Biden is the Democrat’s Nominee” vs “Biden is the Democratic nominee”.
I can’t speak for anyone else, nor would I pretend to, but I pretty much exclusively use “democrat” as both a noun and an adjective, for two reasons that have nothing at all to do with my political views (which, for record, are anarchist ideally and left libertarian practically).
First and by far most importantly, “democratic” is the adjective form of “democracy,” so IMO it’s confusing to also use it as the adjective form of “democrat.” On the other hand, “democrat” as the adjective form as well as the noun form, while it does bother some people for reasons that entirely elude me, is clear. There can be no confusion, when I use “democrat” as an adjective, that I’m referring to the political party rather than the system of government.
And second, “republican” is already, in its usage to refer to the party, a dual-use term - serving as either noun or adjective, and non-controversially. My (arguably compulsive) preference for clarity and consistency is satisfied by using “democrat” the same way.
And on a side note - every time I run across this idea, I’m reminded of an old guy I knew years ago who would buy laughably amateurish paintings at yard sales and second hand stores, then try to convince other people that they were actually Rembrandts, because look! See? Right there in that cloud! That’s an R! For Rembrandt!"
Speaking as a very logic person, I couldn’t agree more with how much sensible this makes.
That was actually a pretty witty attempt at a counter.
Shame that it didn’t actually correspond with the quoted bit, so ended up falling flat, but still - nice try.
Protip if you ever find yourself in this situation again - the only way that you can hope to illustrate the purported failings of claimed logic through analogy is if the subsituted terms have the same relationship to each other and the context as the original terms did and the underlying structure of the analogy matches that of the original. If you use terms with a different interrelationship and/or follow a different logic in the construction of your analogy, then you lose the relationship between the original and the analogy, so the illogic of the analogy is just left out there hanging on its own, having failed to demonstrate anything about the original.
Still though - it was promising. Keep trying and you might just get the hang of it.
Yeah. If later on I can think some adjectives I could use as nouns or vice versa, to make the point, I’ll keep all that stuff in mind.
Now that was a great response, since its earnest simplicity left me (deservedly) feeling like an asshole. Well done.