The derogatory use of the word ''Liberals''
- Thread starter Shekwan
- Start date
Trajan12
Deity
Yes. I think life would be that much better if self-identified Liberals and Non-Liberals alike started using the original definition as the guideline for Liberalism.
What my beef was that that definition that some rightists defend was pretty much an intentional smear and more malignant than the misguided definition that "Liberals" themselves use.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
It is not anything the right wing is smearing them with, it is simply the legacy that has followed the self described "liberals" of the 60s/70s throughout the years. Perhaps if they had looked a little less ******** the steriotype wouldn't have stuck.
If "majority rules", then unfortunately it's you who lost, since, either by number of countries or by number or people, more use "liberalism" in its classical sense than in the American sense.
I was referring to Americans. I honestly couldn't care less what other countries definition for liberal is. As I said earlier, there are other words that mean different things in different English speaking countries. Why should liberal be expected to remain the same in all of them?
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
How is civil rights and the idea of social security "********"?
In other words, "I don't care if you think I'm right or not. What I say is right is right."
Anyone who actually uses the word as an insult obviously doesn't know whatever it is that they're talking about, or, it could be that they just hate freedom?
Because in American the word "liberalism" stands for the opposite of freedom, i.e. government control?
As ironic as it is, yes, that has been my impression of its usage in the US.
There is more than that. How did American sense turned 180 degree from its original meaning? It does not happen that often. The situation here is quite different from the words you listed. When we say "biscuits", we mean different things, but it's not like one of us is talking about a drink rather than solid food.
What is more curious is that even in America it did not denote social welfare from the start. It only became so in the early 20th century. What happened during that time? It's an interesting question.
Well now that is legitimate. It is indeed an interesting question how its current usage came about. But to suggest that our current definition is invalid because it isn't what the rest of the world thinks, that's wrong.
It's not so much as whether something is invalid as accepting it as it is without any enquiries that I was criticising.
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
Yes me too, but there's more to it for me: It's government control and socialism. But not any kind of "good" socialism. It's anti-capitalism socialism. Redistribution of wealth socialism. Bigger government socialism.
When I hear "liberal" that's what I hear.
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
yeah, you live in the country where "socialism=evil".
oh noes, socialism
As long as americans are going to use the word "librul" as smear and depict socialism as demonical, don't expect any understanding for the twisted definition in the USA.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
That's, I think, largely right wing propaganda. I seriously doubt that majority of the New Deal Democrats other liberals looked like hippies. Even the radical left had many people like, for example, Chomsky, who wore a tie and speaks in intellectual English.
But I think there's two seemingly conflicting perceptions here. The first is the typical rightist line about ********, unwashed and dangerous masses and nutcases (the working class and hippies). The other perception is the "liberal elitism" of the "east coast elites" and "west coast elites" and "liberal hollywood elite".
The first perception is common with all right-wing in every countries. The privileged elites always seek to demonize the population and popular organizations and cultures because they're connected to the "dangerous classes" (namely, rest of the population on whose neck the elites stand on). In right-wing culture, the working population is seen as vulgar and uncivilized, a threat to stability and profits.
The second perception of "liberal elitism" is more conspiratorial in nature and this view is sold to the working class conservatives in order to explain their misery. Everything is wrong because of the liberals at ACLU, or because of big govarmanth or something. Along with this, a form of viciously illiberal fundamentalism is also indoctornated into minds of the gullible and credulous working people. These fundamentalists charlatans are quick to blame everything, from 9/11 to natural disasters, on immoral behaviour that liberal organizations help to spread.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
"LOOKED" ********, unless you want to argue hippies don't look ********, an obviously losing position
Civil rights and social security movements =/= hippies. I'm happy you made this comparison though, it really highlights my point that you have a twisted view on the achievements of liberals.
And wasn't it McCain this election cycle campaiging to a bunch of long-haired anti-establishment types (Sturgis)?
