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!

 

[[email protected]]

The spoon-fed.

 

[Bruno]

You said it in your first sentence - followers

 

[Truth Warrior]

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?

 

[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.