Synomyms to "sheeple"

[RCA]

I'm trying to think of a phrase that best explains people who evangelically follow the governments doctrines without questions while at the same time claim to be a realist. The term sheeple is too much of an insult to use in everyday conversation.

Let me give you an example. My dad and brother both point out the straw-man flaws of Jesus freaks due to them "not living in reality", yet they both are unaware of their own addiction to government Kool-Aid. Anytime they are shown that they are in fact drinking government Kool-Aid, they call you a conspiracy theorist and group you in with the Jesus freak crowd, even though it's them that are government freaks, yet proudly claim to be the rationalists.

I would like to let them know in the future (indirectly) what they are, but I don't want to say the word "sheeple" since the mere tone of the word will cause them to tighten up even if used in a hypothetical scenario. I've called them loyalists before and I got grouped with the terrorists for talking about guns. In other words, I'm looking for a term that is truthful, yet not offensive. I'm thinking of something along the lines of "evangelically loyal to the State aparatus", but that's too lengthy and slightly offensive.

[coyote_sprit]

Blind in one eye.

[RCA]

That's true, but again, too offensive.

[Young Paleocon]

Naive, apathetic, blinded, ignorant...Not really sure if theres a way to sugar coat it, just tell them to pull their head out of their ass and wipe the shit from their eyes.

[CUnknown]

Statist?

[Young Paleocon]

Mole? Lemming? Some other rodent?

[coyote_sprit]

Almost anything you say involving this subject will be offensive, sometimes the best way to piss someone off is to get them steaming so they will try to disprove you. However unlike with the Jesus freaks they can't disprove a truth.

[mczerone]

proletariat

[mczerone]

Tory

[NYgs23]

H L Mencken's term: the Booboisie.

[Nate K]

submissive
too trusting of authority

[BuddyRey]

My favorite, taken from George Orwell's 1984, is "Proles", a shortening for proletariat. In the book, proles are presented simultaneously as extremely intellectually lazy, watching cheap, disposable entertainment known as "prolefeed" (think reality TV and celebrity gossip magazines) and blindly obeying the Ministry of Truth propoganda; yet they are also, in the eyes of the protagonist Winston Smith, the only real possible catalyst for revolution. That's the way I think of the U.S. populace. Most of them are asleep, brainwashed, and totally inculcated; but we won't get anywhere until we wake them up!

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

The spoon-fed.

[Bruno]

You said it in your first sentence - followers

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sheeple (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sheeple)

[Carole]

Name-calling/labeling is the wrong approach. This is a form of collectivism, not individualism.

You need to take the long route and use reason and facts from history.

Example: Re stimulus

Even Fed Chairman Morganthau during FDR in 1939 advised that all the excessive spending programs during FDR's New Deal did not alleiviate unemployment, but increased unemployment. Additionally, not only were we left with heavier unemployment, but a huge debt to boot! And the depression was prolonged by years, as a result of such policies. (Note repetition of "unemployment".)

Cite Japan's lost decade. Cite Carter's mistakes and cite Reagan's solutions.

Cite the Constitution as the test of all legislation and philosophy of government.

Only reason and facts should be used to debate the ideas of others. Leave the labeling/name-calling to those who have no philosophy of government. Name-calling and attack is what THEY do when they have no argument. It gains nothing to stoop to their level.

Good luck.

[Truth Warrior]

Name-calling/labeling is the wrong approach. This is a form of collectivism, not individualism.

You need to take the long route and use reason and facts from history.

Example: Re stimulus

Even Fed Chairman Morganthau during FDR in 1939 advised that all the excessive spending programs during FDR's New Deal did not alleiviate unemployment, but increased unemployment. Additionally, not only were we left with heavier unemployment, but a huge debt to boot! And the depression was prolonged by years, as a result of such policies. (Note repetition of "unemployment".)

Cite Japan's lost decade. Cite Carter's mistakes and cite Reagan's solutions.

Cite the Constitution as the test of all legislation and philosophy of government.

Only reason and facts should be used to debate the ideas of others. Leave the labeling/name-calling to those who have no philosophy of government. Name-calling and attack is what THEY do when they have no argument. It gains nothing to stoop to their level.

Good luck.

Without labels, HOW do you know WHAT things are? :rolleyes:

[dude58677]

Government buffs!

[pacelli]

Citizens

[heavenlyboy34]

I like your solution best. :) +1


Name-calling/labeling is the wrong approach. This is a form of collectivism, not individualism.

You need to take the long route and use reason and facts from history.

Example: Re stimulus

Even Fed Chairman Morganthau during FDR in 1939 advised that all the excessive spending programs during FDR's New Deal did not alleiviate unemployment, but increased unemployment. Additionally, not only were we left with heavier unemployment, but a huge debt to boot! And the depression was prolonged by years, as a result of such policies. (Note repetition of "unemployment".)

Cite Japan's lost decade. Cite Carter's mistakes and cite Reagan's solutions.

Cite the Constitution as the test of all legislation and philosophy of government.

Only reason and facts should be used to debate the ideas of others. Leave the labeling/name-calling to those who have no philosophy of government. Name-calling and attack is what THEY do when they have no argument. It gains nothing to stoop to their level.

Good luck.

[Carole]

Without labels, HOW do you know WHAT things are? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :D (as he teases me)

Of course you need labels for material/physical "things" such as cans of corn, peas, etc.

Politically speaking, however, labels were invented in order to divide and conquer (Americans in this case, but just as easily worldwide). This is why Americans (a label, BTW :)) should only describe people who are citizens of America/United States fo America.

Labels used to describe "groups" of people within the United States serve only to polarize and divide as a means toward achieving an agenda, or in reality, a whole bunch of special interest agendas. Part of the "plan" of the PTB has always been to keep us in strife among ourselves and among a myriad of diverse groups, such that chaos results and collective laws that respect the rights of one group, often disrepect and trample the rights of another group.

If a debate cannot be waged between or among people with differing opinions without the use of labels, then it cannot rise to a level of legitimacy. Only reason and facts should guide debate about our differences.

We should always think of every person as a valuable individual and argue on merits our differences in philosophies and ideas. Each individual's value has viable weight, whereas collective groups weights can be skewed by their numbers. This is why democracy failed in Greece, is it not? Mobocracy prevailed.

Just my humble opinion. :) :D

[Carole]

Thank you. :D

[raystone]

Statist?


my favorite

[Truth Warrior]

:rolleyes: :D (as he teases me)

Of course you need labels for material/physical "things" such as cans of corn, peas, etc.

Politically speaking, however, labels were invented in order to divide and conquer (Americans in this case, but just as easily worldwide). This is why Americans (a label, BTW :)) should only describe people who are citizens of America/United States fo America.

Labels used to describe "groups" of people within the United States serve only to polarize and divide as a means toward achieving an agenda, or in reality, a whole bunch of special interest agendas. Part of the "plan" of the PTB has always been to keep us in strife among ourselves and among a myriad of diverse groups, such that chaos results and collective laws that respect the rights of one group, often disrepect and trample the rights of another group.

If a debate cannot be waged between or among people with differing opinions without the use of labels, then it cannot rise to a level of legitimacy. Only reason and facts should guide debate about our differences.

We should always think of every person as a valuable individual and argue on merits our differences in philosophies and ideas. Each individual's value has viable weight, whereas collective groups weights can be skewed by their numbers. This is why democracy failed in Greece, is it not? Mobocracy prevailed.

Just my humble opinion. :) :D Nope, no tease. :)

What would you CHOOSE to call those individuals that voluntarily CHOOSE to self-label, self-identify, derive meaning and definition from association with some "named group label" ( "flock" :D )?

Thanks! :)

[Carole]

Nope, no tease. :)

What would you CHOOSE to call those individuals that voluntarily CHOOSE to self-label, self-identify, derive meaning and definition from association with some "named group label" ( "flock" :D )?

Thanks! :)

I defer to your better answer. :) Actually "flock" is not bad; it does not sound derisive and is a legitimate term for a "collection" of geese, sheep, etc. :)

However, I maintain my personal philosophy. :D

[Truth Warrior]

I defer to your better answer. :) Actually "flock" is not bad; it does not sound derisive and is a legitimate term for a "collection" of geese, sheep, etc. :)

However, I maintain my personal philosophy. :D I'd call the individual human "flock" members "sheeple, it even comes complete with 'shepherds' ( leaders)". BAAAAAAAAAAAH! ;)

As do I. :D

[RonPaulCentral]

Neighbors

[Bontemps]

how about Fascist

[lucius]

Joe/jane six-pack...


I'm trying to think of a phrase that best explains people who evangelically follow the governments doctrines without questions while at the same time claim to be a realist. The term sheeple is too much of an insult to use in everyday conversation.

Let me give you an example. My dad and brother both point out the straw-man flaws of Jesus freaks due to them "not living in reality", yet they both are unaware of their own addiction to government Kool-Aid. Anytime they are shown that they are in fact drinking government Kool-Aid, they call you a conspiracy theorist and group you in with the Jesus freak crowd, even though it's them that are government freaks, yet proudly claim to be the rationalists.

I would like to let them know in the future (indirectly) what they are, but I don't want to say the word "sheeple" since the mere tone of the word will cause them to tighten up even if used in a hypothetical scenario. I've called them loyalists before and I got grouped with the terrorists for talking about guns. In other words, I'm looking for a term that is truthful, yet not offensive. I'm thinking of something along the lines of "evangelically loyal to the State aparatus", but that's too lengthy and slightly offensive.

[Matt Collins]

Just watch the movie "Idiocracy" and you'll have all the info that you need!

[Truth Warrior]

Joe/jane six-pack... I thought it was Joe Six-pack and Susie Soccer-mom. Where'd Jane come from? :D

[idiom]

It is very similar to stockholm syndrome.


Loyalty to a more powerful abuser – in spite of the danger that this loyalty puts the victim in – is common among victims of domestic abuse, battered partners and child abuse (dependent children). In many instances the victims choose to remain loyal to their abuser, and choose not to leave him or her, even when they are offered a safe placement in foster homes or safe houses. This mental phenomenon is also known as Trauma-Bonding or Bonding-to-the-Perpetrator.

I would refer to such people as Battered Citizens. They defend taxation, incarceration, inflation, wars, etc.

Just tell them:


Its okay. You have battered citizen syndrome. No matter how much the government abuses you, you still look up to it.

[constituent]

Almost anything you say involving this subject will be offensive, sometimes the best way to piss someone off is to get them steaming so they will try to disprove you. However unlike with the Jesus freaks they can't disprove a truth.

indeed.

work your conversation in these situations knowing that the best possible outcome is your talk ending w/ the other walking away muttering, "i'm gunna prove that sumbitch wrong, just you watch me do it too!"

[constituent]

My favorite, taken from George Orwell's 1984, is "Proles", a shortening for proletariat. In the book, proles are presented simultaneously as extremely intellectually lazy, watching cheap, disposable entertainment known as "prolefeed" (think reality TV and celebrity gossip magazines) and blindly obeying the Ministry of Truth propoganda; yet they are also, in the eyes of the protagonist Winston Smith, the only real possible catalyst for revolution. That's the way I think of the U.S. populace. Most of them are asleep, brainwashed, and totally inculcated; but we won't get anywhere until we wake them up!

So what does Winston Smith say about us?

[wowabunga]

Its okay. You have battered citizen syndrome. No matter how much the government abuses you, you still look up to it.

Oh that's funny. We need to call it BCS.

I personally have HDS. I tell gals on our first date that I have HDS and sit back and wait to see how responsive they are to my medical condition. If a woman takes the time to ask about my condition I know then that she is a caring person. A really bold gal will ask more questions about this said "HDS" condition and that's when I really "lay it on thick" with my symtoms ranging from lack of sleep, too much sleep, depression, watering eyes, etc.

After a while, and when I can't hide the truth inside anymore and I'm ready to burst with laughter... I tense up, and in a very serious tone announce that I suffer from Hug Deficiency Syndrome. The song and dance always works and is gaurnteed for at least one good hug ;)

[MelissaCato]

cancer

[Thor]

Well
Intentioned
Misinformed
Believer
In
Government
Salvation

Wimbigs for plural, Wimbig for singular

[mczerone]

So what does Winston Smith say about us?

I took my lesson from 1984 as: Winston is the problem, the person who lets the power of the state rule him, both before he accepts it and after his willingness is 'given' to him. He was a sad, miserable man knowing the tyranny that he lived with, and it didn't help him personally, nor did it change the tyranny.

So, to counter Winston, I took as a lesson from 1984:

(1) Be happy everyday - there is nothing that being despondent will help. Winston sitting with his drink, happy, could have happened before Room 101, but Winston internalized the unjust world around him and tortured himself with his hatred.

(2) Don't trust the flirtatious, well meaning, Statist tool that understands everything you say but goes crawling back to the government master with an eager smile.

(3) You're better off trying to lead those around you by example than by a rhetoric of reason - if people have already been indoctrinated into the state, they will not be open to logical reasoning about why they should rethink their positions. Instead, they must see the great benefits from living a free life to question for themselves why the State doesn't provide it for them.

(4) Don't live in an apartment building where every tenant and their kids will be an agent looking to rat on you for whatever they are being told is a crime today.

[nobody's_hero]

Well, there's water-buffaloples, geeseples, duckples, school-of-fishples, penguinples, cattleples, gazelleples.

(Sorry, I just can't help but chuckle at the prospect that 233 years ago, someone was probably starting a public reading on why the term "tory" might be considered offensive.)

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

brother, sister

[constituent]

I took my lesson from 1984 as: Winston is the problem, the person who lets the power of the state rule him, both before he accepts it and after his willingness is 'given' to him. He was a sad, miserable man knowing the tyranny that he lived with, and it didn't help him personally, nor did it change the tyranny.

So, to counter Winston, I took as a lesson from 1984:

(1) Be happy everyday - there is nothing that being despondent will help. Winston sitting with his drink, happy, could have happened before Room 101, but Winston internalized the unjust world around him and tortured himself with his hatred.

(2) Don't trust the flirtatious, well meaning, Statist tool that understands everything you say but goes crawling back to the government master with an eager smile.

(3) You're better off trying to lead those around you by example than by a rhetoric of reason - if people have already been indoctrinated into the state, they will not be open to logical reasoning about why they should rethink their positions. Instead, they must see the great benefits from living a free life to question for themselves why the State doesn't provide it for them.

(4) Don't live in an apartment building where every tenant and their kids will be an agent looking to rat on you for whatever they are being told is a crime today.

Right answer!