Liberal vs Conservative -- semantic and historical approach

[Muse]

Ooooh tap dancing with semantics. I love it. Correct ALWAYS means correct, no matter who says it and how it is said. So when President Trump says correct it means the same thing as when Occupy Wall Street says correct.

Well, if everybody has their own ideas on what words mean, how do you achieve agreement, consensus, meaning? Fuget it, let's go tap dancing, mate. I said in the OP, "semantics." Semantics allowed here. You want to dance?

Correct is not correct? That's what's at issue here. In school we got a C for correct or a check mark for incorrect. Is there a better word? Words change meaning over time, that's been noted here. How correct has morphed into incorrect boggles my mind, however. It stinks, it's putrid. To celebrate being politically incorrect strikes me as a very dangerous trend.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Well, if everybody has their own ideas on what words mean, how do you achieve agreement, consensus, meaning? Fuget it, let's go tap dancing, mate. I said in the OP, "semantics." Semantics allowed here. You want to dance?

Correct is not correct? That's what's at issue here. In school we got a C for correct or a check mark for incorrect. Is there a better word? Words change meaning over time, that's been noted here. How correct has morphed into incorrect boggles my mind, however. It stinks, it's putrid. To celebrate being politically incorrect strikes me as a very dangerous trend.

You are the one that said "Politically condoned would be a better term. Correct is correct. "
Politically correct isn't "correct" it's a political misnomer of the 1st rank, it's language fascism.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/politically-correct
"
politically correctadjective
US /pəˈlɪt̬·ɪ·kli kəˈrekt/ abbreviation PC
avoiding language or behavior that any particulargroup of people might feel is unkind or offensive:

The politically correct term "firefighter" is used instead of "fireman." "

 

[pmv]

Well that is a rather shallow analysis. Christianity is absolutely authoritarian.

It's interesting how many different shades of opinion and political allegiances there are on here. You strike me as being of the Dawkins school (correct me if I'm wrong). And even though I really don't much care for religion, I don't think I agree with you either. Dawkins' brand of anti-theism always seems to have a very unpleasant element of snobbery to it, as well as being absurdly idealist (in the philosophical sense of the term)

I'd go more with Marx's "opium of the masses" line. (A remark that is often misinterpreted as opium wasn't just a recreational drug, it was a pain-killer). Christianity isn't always and necessarily authoritarian, and religion will probably never go away (because life will always be painful), and I reckon it will only become less toxic when material conditions change.

On the other hand, you do seem to have some particularly toxic strains of Christianity over there, so I guess that's why US atheists often seem so much less laid back about it than the ones I know.

I recall studies have found the biggest single predictor of religiosity in a society is not poverty as such, but economic inequality. The two correlate pretty well, it and makes sense, that you would tend to turn to religion and religious organisations for support if you are in a country where you can fall a long way when things go wrong.

And I can't help but notice that China seems to be seeing a growth of religion at the same time as it embraces that inequality. I thought I had a handle on it with that theory, but then again, apparently religion is slowly declining in the US now, even though its hardly becoming more equitable. So that seems to mess things up again.

Meanwhile I suspect the UK (historically with some of the most tepid and least aggressive forms of religion in the world - my experience is that nobody really cares much about it either way, and politicians actively avoid ever 'doing God') is going to slowly become more religious, thanks both to immigration from more religious countries and increasing inequality. It worries me a bit.

 

[agent00f]

The word is essentially meaningless when you bring in pre-20th century history.

You can go back to things like religious fundamentalism where basically any modern view would count as 'liberal'.

In my opinion: the word has a modern meaning: it's one side in the plutocracy/anti-plutocracy war that is the issue for civilization today.

People who try to introduce alternate/historical definitions are wittingly or unwittingly trying to sabotage that side with distraction.

It's not really the same today, but it's interesting to note how John F. Kennedy addressed this issue. He was running on the 'right' side of the Democratic Party, not aligned with the 'liberal wing' - but he was nominated by the 'liberal party', analogous to the 'Bernie Sanders wing'.

Here's an excerpt from his acceptance speech. He rarely called himself a liberal, but he sort of had to for this speech, and here's how he defined things for that purpose - calling himself a liberal while trying to stay on the right of the party.

For example, he was not a fan of the previous Democratic nominee who was more to the left, Adlai Stevenson. He was under pressure to appoint him Secretary of State, but didn't (making him UN Ambassador), but he complimented him in this speech.

Note how he calls himself 'liberal' here but his definition is awfully vague and not at all far to the left.\\

In fact, in this speech to declare himself a liberal to the Liberal Party, he's attacking federal spending and waste, and arguing for a strong anti-communism. Not unlike how FDR ran against big government when he won in 1932. But I've bolded a key passage below.

No, liberalism was reasonably well defined by the OG enlightenment liberal thinkers, and the democratic party stated ideals aren't too far off post civil rights all things considered. Just because propagandists prefer to differ doesn't mean they carry any value.

 

[OWR88]

Hardcore right wingers are sounding like retards.

 

[FFFF]

Please stop trying to redefine/misuse the term 'neo-liberalism'. Ronald Reagan was a neo-liberal, as are most of the Republicans (except perhaps for some of the paleo-conservatives). Trump is one even though he pretends not to be.

Americans have already messed with the meaning of the word 'liberal' to a degree that confuses the rest of the world. Stop trying to make it worse.

PS the rest of what you say is also codswallop, but it's too tiring to engage with it. But changing the meaning of terms is just too much.

That's why I used the term modern neo-liberalism to refer to today's liberalism that has made political correctness into something reprehensible and used it as a way to suppress others, dum-dum.

 

[agent00f]

That's why I used the term modern neo-liberalism to refer to today's liberalism that has made political correctness into something reprehensible and used 8yas a way to suppress others, dum-dum.

Yeah, first it was it you can't shit on blacks and the gays, what's next, other ethnic minorities or lgbt? A slippery slope.

 

[pmv]

Some further discussions points of your examples:

• Blacks can't be racists. - Double-standard I suppose. Although a black person can definitely be a racist, it's unlikely that the word is being used correctly. I would suggest that you look up the definition and stop listening to how some politicians and talk show hosts are trying to label things. Simply calling something what it is not does not make it so. Seriously, google the definition and apply it to whatever you are referring to here.

I know these are just examples bu they are some pretty interesting topics. Facts and definitions are important. Lies are NOT "alternative facts" and you can't redefine words because you don't like them.

Engaging with the first one only - the obvious definition, based on reality not what dictionaries claim, is that racism is prejudice backed up with power.

The thing is, this is often given as a kind of theoretical PC abstraction, but honestly it occurred to me independently as kind of obvious long before I heard it formalised like that. Even as a child I remember wondering why hearing talk of 'honkies' or reading about the NOI's fascinating theories about white people being the results of cross-breeding experiments with dogs, didn't really upset me or bother me all that much. Not compared to how black people I knew would feel about the use of racist epithets or theories about their alleged inferiority. The glaringly obvious explanation as to why I felt able to shrug it off was that it didn't really have any larger threat behind it.

(I'm not entirely 'white' by heritage, but I am white enough to be treated as such except by the most full-on white supremacist, so in practice I am)

It seems quite obvious that prejudicial language and such is going to have far more effect if its in a context where those subject to it are materially in a more vulnerable situation.

But I would say it is sometimes not wrong to call black-on-white hatred 'racism', as imbalances of power can be reversed in local situations - e.g. if you are ambushed in a allyway by a gang who hate you for your skin colour it doesn't much help you if you have greater social power in general. And hate-crime laws at least here certainly allow for that.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to note it isn't at all symmetrical in general, especially when it comes to words.

 

[pmv]

That's why I used the term modern neo-liberalism to refer to today's liberalism that has made political correctness into something reprehensible and used it as a way to suppress others, dum-dum.

Dum dum yourself - neo-liberalism has an existing meaning (the belief that supposed free markets are the best means of organising society), and has done since the late 80s at least. You'll have to come up with another term.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are the one that said "Politically condoned would be a better term. Correct is correct. "
Politically correct isn't "correct" it's a political misnomer of the 1st rank, it's language fascism.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/politically-correct
"
politically correctadjective
US /pəˈlɪt̬·ɪ·kli kəˈrekt/ abbreviation PC
avoiding language or behavior that any particulargroup of people might feel is unkind or offensive:

The politically correct term "firefighter" is used instead of "fireman." "

Conserva-tears are so delicious... particularly when they've over something so petty as fireman vs fire fighter.

The right wing version of PC is even more amusing. Nazis & White Supremacists are obviously... free speech advocates! But only as long as they're out of power, of course.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hardcore right wingers are sounding like retards.

Willfully ignorant is the PC way to say it... They hate that even more because it implies that they could do better...

 

[pmv]

Conserva-tears are so delicious... particularly when they've over something so petty a fireman vs fire fighter.

The right wing version of PC is even more amusing. Nazis & White Supremacists are obviously... free speech advocates! But only as long as they're out of power, of course.

Firefighter is just plain better than fireman.

It's both more precise (describes what they do in relation to fire - a fireman might start fires, as in Fahrenheit 451 or stoke them as on steam engines) and more accurate (a firefighter doesn't _have_ to be male).

Of course there's a possible argument as to what the real root of the '-man' suffix is (male person or manus for hand?) but in the real world people hear 'man' and think 'male'. Firefighter is just an improvement, only those fixated on right-wing ideology would object to it.

 

[FFFF]

Dum dum yourself - neo-liberalism has an existing meaning (the belief that supposed free markets are the best means of organising society), and has done since the late 80s at least. You'll have to come up with another term.

You're doing it right now dum-dum, trying to control my language to fit your narrative and ignore the realities of PC culture. Sorry, but these language police shenanigans won't work on me.

 

[pmv]

You're doing it right now dum-dum, trying to control my language to fit your narrative and ignore the realities of PC culture. Sorry, but these language police shenanigans won't work on me.

Well carry on making up words and meanings as you go, while ignoring what the wider language community understands by the terms. But you just sound all the more ignorant and become all the more ineffectual. Feel free to descend into gibberish, by all means.

 

[digiram]

Here's my take on Liberal vs. Conservative growing up as an immigrant in America.

I got to see two sides of the coin here.

To me, American conservative is pretty liberal compared to conservatism from other cultures. I'll tell you this, I was raised in a pretty conservative SE asian family, but truly embrace American liberalism.

My household and most of my beliefs follows a pretty conservative model. I go to work, my wife stays home and raises the kids, do all the household chores, etc. I do not believe in abortion. I think adultry is wrong, etc.

Here's the difference between me and the average american conservative though. All of this is by choice, I don't want my beliefs and the way I choose to live to be the rule of law. I love that I can choose to do this, and everyone else can choose to do or believe what ever the hell they want.

 

[FFFF]

Well carry on making up words and meanings as you go, while ignoring what the wider language community understands by the terms. But you just sound all the more ignorant and become all the more ineffectual. Feel free to descend into gibberish, by all means.

Ok, you carry on the flag of hypocrisy like the good little drone you are.

 

[Jhhnn]

It was just a small example, you're just in favor of political correctness because it echos your authoritarian belief system.

It was the best you could come up with- complete & utter bullshit.

Not to mention that people who denounce Fascists, Nazis & White Supremacists in no uncertain terms are the real authoritarians...

 

[woolfe9998]

It's interesting how many different shades of opinion and political allegiances there are on here. You strike me as being of the Dawkins school (correct me if I'm wrong). And even though I really don't much care for religion, I don't think I agree with you either. Dawkins' brand of anti-theism always seems to have a very unpleasant element of snobbery to it, as well as being absurdly idealist (in the philosophical sense of the term)

I'd go more with Marx's "opium of the masses" line. (A remark that is often misinterpreted as opium wasn't just a recreational drug, it was a pain-killer). Christianity isn't always and necessarily authoritarian, and religion will probably never go away (because life will always be painful), and I reckon it will only become less toxic when material conditions change.

On the other hand, you do seem to have some particularly toxic strains of Christianity over there, so I guess that's why US atheists often seem so much less laid back about it than the ones I know.

IIRC Bshole was raised by Christian fundies, and has departed from it as an adult. I assume those life experiences have informed his opinion about Christianity and authoritarianism. Much like "born again" people, who go from no religion to religion, tend to be among the most fanatically religious, I assume that people who go in the opposite direction are among the most anti-religious. Still, I wouldn't discount their personal experiences with it.

 

[justoh]

It has always been a risk that, in fighting, people lose themselves and even vote for a party without sharing many of the values. Then they go forth and threaten others... thereby alienating independents who would, upon education, support the values. Except they cannot reach that stage, or even begin the process if they are under assault and barriers have gone up everywhere.
.

Regressives don't understand liberal values. People aren't taught how to think in US schools. It's all about the memes.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're doing it right now dum-dum, trying to control my language to fit your narrative and ignore the realities of PC culture. Sorry, but these language police shenanigans won't work on me.

"The realities of PC culture" means what, exactly?

 

[hal2kilo]

This is very incorrect. That's not what open minded means. But you should understand both sides right or wrong.

In fact, the tendency of people to say this is taken advantage of and they are manipulated.

One technique for doing so is called 'moving the goalposts'. What that means is, if people think one thing is 'in the middle' between two sides, they move the goalpost further so the new 'middle' is where the goalpost used to be. Repeat and what was radical is now the center.

Another is the 'big lie'. It was Hitler who noted, people easily catch small lies - but they fall for really big ones.

You might be reluctant to look at 'one of the two parties' and say they're hugely, massively wrong. They're counting on that.

But if they are - they are.

Getting more educated about this helps you not make the mistake of thinking both sides need to have some merit. Not always.

Let me give you a thought experiment.

The topic: What is 2+2?

Now, if one side says "2" and the other side says "6", your thinking both sides have merit - the answer is in the middle.

But what if one side says "2" and the other says "8000"? Your centrism says, 'well it should be around 4000 - no way it can be close to 2'.

Another part of 'the big lie' - the key part - is repetition. That's HOW the big lie gets accepted. The way the brain works, if it hers the big lie over and over and over, it tends to eventually accept it - and literally 'turns off' the part of the brain that would challenge the lie.

Studies show, if you show someone who is partisan names and pictures of things they're partisan about, the part of the brain with emotion activates in response, but the part of the brain that says 'is that true' doesn't activate. Their mind is made up.

This is a science, and there is big money that uses the science to influence public opinion. And they love to hear you say that both sides need to have some merit.

This is why, back when I had a sig here, it said "Ideology is the enemy." Now to be clear, I'm making two different points here - one is that both sides don't need to have merit, and the other is that you should question both.

This is why money is so corrupting in our system - a wrong and harmful conclusion has millions to spend to lie to the public, and there's little to no budget for the other side. There's a lot more spent to say 'climate change is fake' in the US than that 'climate change is real', for example.

And what do people say? Both sides have merit, right?

He's alive!

 

[agent00f]

Regressives don't understand liberal values. People aren't taught how to think in US schools. It's all about the memes.

Apt from the guy with a meme avatar and never understands anything.

 

[pmv]

Ok, you carry on the flag of hypocrisy like the good little drone you are.

Conservatives seem to really fear life without their bodyarmour of ignorance. It's not going to work out well in the end, you know that, right? At some level you do.

Edited to remove the adjective 'American', in the interests of fairness. Even though I still think its a _slightly_ more defining feature of the breed in the US.

 

[bshole]

Hey, recognition is the first step to change. On that matter, you're coming ahead of many members on these boards.

I wish you good luck and may one day be free of your social programming.

Isn't it funny how we all want others to believe as we do? That we all think less of those that don't?

It's interesting how many different shades of opinion and political allegiances there are on here. You strike me as being of the Dawkins school (correct me if I'm wrong). And even though I really don't much care for religion, I don't think I agree with you either. Dawkins' brand of anti-theism always seems to have a very unpleasant element of snobbery to it, as well as being absurdly idealist (in the philosophical sense of the term)

.

Nah I don't hate religion, I just like getting vitriolic. I see all religion as a reflection of the human condition and our evolutionary past. I suspect that the magical thinking, scape goating, fear and tribalism that is part and parcel of religion is what will cause the extinction of humanity. It seems inevitable.

Look at the atheist movement, it has broken into bitter factions exactly as religion has. Look on this board, the absolute and bitter hatred the various factions have for each other is off the scales. Many people on here would have no problem if people with a different ideology from them were wiped from the earth, not the ideology per se but the actual people.. How big a step is it to go from wishing for certain segments of society to just go away to allowing it to happen? On a global scale with nuclear weapons, this is suicide.

The funny part of this is, I know how broken my own thinking is and all of this rant could be just my own raving paranoia.

 

[FFFF]

Hey, recognition is the first step to change. On that matter, you're coming ahead of many members on these boards.

I wish you good luck and may one day be free of your social programming.

Isn't it funny how we all want others to believe as we do? That we all think less of those that don't?

So you're saying being a hypocrite is something positive now? These mental gymnastics are just incredible. You can believe in whatever you want, just don't be proud of your hipocrisy like you appear to be.

Like I said, there's still hope for you yet since you can recognize your own hipocrisy.