Is agenda a bad word? Is an ideologue a bad person?

[just_me]

I've been listening in on some of the conversations around the media networks and also in some posts here. I can also say that I've unfortunately have also used both of these phrases, passive aggressively against people who I assumed were thoughtless marionettes.

I'm not sure wither these words reflect the validity of the arguments of those these words are used against or the arguments of the user themselves.

[steve_bank]

Everybody has an agenda. On the media FOX is blatant, CNN is more subtle. It is a neutral

Ideologue is a pejorative. It refers to one whose thinking is rigid and inflexible limited to a narrow rigid doctrine or ideology. The new democratic progressives and the conservatives on the far right are ideologues. The Catholic church is run by ideologues.

[Tigers!]

Agenda is a bad word if you really mean agendum.

[Politesse]

A professor once yelled at me that I was "playing the ideologue", among various other secularish insults. His dean made him apologize to me a few days later (not my doing, it was a small school and word had got round) but I was quite satisfied with myself at the time, reckoning I had made a solid point.

[Tom Sawyer]

I think it depends. If you believe that you are right (and it would be kind of weird for somebody to be making an argument if that wasn't the case), then it would be odd to NOT proceed forward based on the assumption that your position is correct.

You're not in a brainstorming session where you're trying to gather data to come to a conclusion, you've already arrived at the conclusion and you're passing that conclusion on, so why hedge your comments?

[ronburgundy]

"Having an agenda" and "being an ideologue" is a negative when the goal is rational objective analysis on matters of fact. It suggests, that the person has no interest in honestly considering the relevant facts and reaching in accurate conclusion, but rather in pushing a predetermined conclusion whether or not it is valid or supported by the facts. IOW, it implies intellectual dishonesty.

That doesn't make agendas in themselves a bad thing. Any goal is an "agenda" in a broad sense. And goals are what motivate all behavior, good and bad. But one can have a goal without dishonestly trying to distort all facts and understanding of reality to be coherent with it.

For example, one could have a goal of wanting to increase minority representation among college students without denying the fact that using race as a factor in admission decisions is an act of racial discrimination that harms innocent individuals and contradicts core principles of respecting people as individuals. Denying those facts simply b/c they make it harder to use easy shortcuts to achieve one's goal would be an example of "having an agenda" or "being an ideologue".

Likewise, one can have a goal of wanting to admit college students without consideration of their race, but without denying the fact such an approach will lead to under-representation of some groups as a result of the indirect effects of centuries of racism.

IOW, one can acknowledge all the relevant realities and problems with one's position or preferred solution/policy, but still hold it as preferable to the alternatives b/c it does less harm to broader or more long term goals.

[steve_bank]

Trump
s personal agenda istoxic.

Bill Gates' agenda with hs foundation to help the world is good for many people.

[fast]

I've been listening in on some of the conversations around the media networks and also in some posts here. I can also say that I've unfortunately have also used both of these phrases, passive aggressively against people who I assumed were thoughtless marionettes.

I'm not sure wither these words reflect the validity of the arguments of those these words are used against or the arguments of the user themselves.

The word, “agenda” is not a bad word, but like many words that carry context dependent connotations, there are many instances where “agenda” suggests something bad—or good depending on context. There is nothing bad about (oh say) inquiring to a group about the specifics of an agenda. There is negativity conveyed when suggesting someone has a hidden agenda with nefarious purposes.

One can be an ideologue and a good person. They are not mutually exclusive. Dave Ramsey is a popular personal finance guru that is stubbornly against the merits of having a good credit score, but the intent and consequences both have praiseworthy merit.

[jab]

originally the full negative term was "hidden agenda". an open agenda that is forced on unwilling participants is also negative, but not so much as a hidden one. A mutually agreed upon, open agenda is usually a good, or useful thing.
ideologue always has some negative effluvia.

[jab]

A professor once yelled at me that I was "playing the ideologue", among various other secularish insults. His dean made him apologize to me a few days later (not my doing, it was a small school and word had got round) but I was quite satisfied with myself at the time, reckoning I had made a solid point.

um, do you mean you weren't playing?