The derogatory use of the word ''Liberals''

[bhsup]

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.

I don't know that it is understanding that we expect as much as just acknowledgement. If you guys would just admit that we have a different definition and accept that fact instead of berating us for it, we'd be good to go. Kind of like our guns. Just accept that we're pistol packin' nutballs and we're not going to change and that would do wonders for our relations.

 

[philippe]

I don't know that it is understanding that we expect as much as just acknowledgement. If you guys would just admit that we have a different definition and accept that fact instead of berating us for it, we'd be good to go. Kind of like our guns. Just accept that we're pistol packin' nutballs and we're not going to change and that would do wonders for our relations.

well yeah, i can understand your position and normally i would accept it in some kind of way but then again, it's the same as with your guns: berate negatively on it and of course you will be defensive on the issue.

Here is a deal:

you can have your definition of liberal and in return don't use it as a smear and don't claim "socialism:evil" and connate all progressives with hippies (and where the hell did you get that pic.. )

 

[Gogf]

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.

Life would be better if a word changed meaning? That seems like a stretch to me.

Words have different meanings in different places. In America, a liberal is someone to the left of our political center. It's as simple as that.

 

[Gogf]

When a definition for a concept so fundamental to human thinking is obfuscated so as to slander that concept and all who believe in it, I see it as not only right but obligatory to correct it.

Oh pleeeeeeease.

Nobody changed the meaning of the word to obfuscate anything, and the word in its current context was not created to slander Democrats by some sort of right-wing cabal. It's a descriptor of left-wing politics in America, just as conservative is a descriptor of right-wing politics. Both of those words have different meanings in Europe, because the European political center is decidedly to the left of ours. That's fine... be careful when using the words liberal and conservative on an online forum because you might confuse someone; but neither definition is "wrong."

The connection between liberal and the classical definition of liberalism has long since gone. Political liberalism means something else entirely in American politics.

I'm actually really surprised by this. You'd think leftists would want to claim a word with an etymology like liberal as their own.

 

[bhsup]

you can have your definition of liberal and in return don't use it as a smear and don't claim "socialism:evil" and connate all progressives with hippies (and where the hell did you get that pic.. )

Personally, I tend to use leftist/leftie/pinko/etc as the smear, but I admit I've on occasion slipped and used liberal as well. But per my first post in the thread, I prefer to think of liberals as those I can respect but disagree with.

Regarding the socialism<>evil thing, I fear the closest I can agree to is to say that if you guys want it over there, more power to you, that's fine. Different strokes for different folks.

I don't recall where I found that picture, sorry.

 

[Gogf]

And I'm sick of you stealing our words and making them... dirty...

Why don't you make a word of your own to describe Democrats you don't like?

See, this is why this whole conversation is laughable. "Liberal" is a bad word because people mocked Democrats for a long time, and Democrats are liberal. It has nothing to do with someone "stealing" a word and changing the definition.

 

[philippe]

Personally, I tend to use leftist/leftie/pinko/etc as the smear, but I admit I've on occasion slipped and used liberal as well. But per my first post in the thread, I prefer to think of liberals as those I can respect but disagree with.

Regarding the socialism<>evil thing, I fear the closest I can agree to is to say that if you guys want it over there, more power to you, that's fine. Different strokes for different folks.

ok, good enough.

I don't recall where I found that picture, sorry.

i'm not sure what you are implying here, and honestly, I don't want to know.

 

[Hygro]

Hippies ruined the word. /thread

Hippies were good for America. People's hatred of them was not.

 

[MobBoss]

I want one of those Michael Savage t-shirts: "Liberalism is a mental disorder'.

 

[scy12]

So .... What do Hippies have to do with Liberals and why are Hippies bad and conservatives or more precisely neocons /Hawks like Patroclos are not?

 

[Patroklos]

That's, I think, largely right wing propaganda. I seriously doubt that majority of the New Deal Democrats other liberals looked like hippies.

The use as the word as a derogatory does not date from those days, it is a far more recent thing and as far as I can tell a post Vietnam invention.

And I already said the majority of liberals don't look like that, but a good number of the more flamboyant and radically different and thus memorable ones plastered on the most amazing revolutioary media source of the 60s sure did.

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 word "liberal" is never used by anyone to describe the working class.

The other perception is the "liberal elitism" of the "east coast elites" and "west coast elites" and "liberal hollywood elite".

This is a valid point. These were also probably the smae people driving VW busses in mumus playing the guitar badly in the 60s.

In right-wing culture, the working population is seen as vulgar and uncivilized, a threat to stability and profits.

Ummm, the "right wing" is made up of huge swaths of the working population. You fail.

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.

You have no point, as I never conflated hippies and civil rights and social security movements. Hippies might have believed in those, but not everyone who believed in those were hippies.

Actually, to more you type the more you prove my point, please continue.

So .... What do Hippies have to do with Liberals and why are Hippies bad and conservatives or more precisely neocons /Hawks like Patroclos are not?

It has nothing to do with whether hippies are bad or not, only with what they were which was lazy drug addicted pacifists that are universally annoying. Unfortunetly for serious liberals, these people were politically alligned with them and were way more media exposed and sensational creating an often undeserved steriotype of the entire group.

The exact same thing is true for nutty conservative religious evangicals. I am not overtly religious, not even protestant, but somehow because I am conservative people assume I am out to evangalize.

N

 

[Princeps]

The use as the word as a derogatory does not date from those days, it is a far more recent thing and as far as I can tell a post Vietnam invention.

Yes, invention as in 'propaganda'.

The word "liberal" is never used by anyone to describe the working class.

No, but that's because liberal rhymes well with "elite". But that doesn't mean that there's no working class left.

Ummm, the "right wing" is made up of huge swaths of the working population. You fail.

The core of right wing ideology is elitist and favours concentrated private interests, the privileged. Because right-wing ideology is so harmful to the interests of the working class, it's sold through half-truth propaganda and sloganeering and rabblerousing propagandists like Rush Limbaugh, because it can't be sold per se, on an issue basis (at least, not honestly).

The point is that these right-wingers at the core of the movement, the privileged, the snobbish corporatist right, view the most of the population as rabble and dangerous mass, which must be disciplined with free market doctrines (social spending cuts) and must be made to accept "labour market flexibility" (job insecurity), diminished wages and almost totalitarian discipline at working places. This is universal right wing opinion, whether that right is American right, Stalinist right in China or Russia, or the snobbish tories in the UK.

 

[AngryZealot]

Liberal most definitely is used as a derogatory word. I've heard much ado about the "liberal agenda", and though no one has ever given me specifics, I'm pretty sure it has to do with communism and the end of the world.

 

[lovett]

Yeah, basically. And it is right. America and the UK have different definitions for the word liberal. Just like we mean different things when we say chips, jam, jelly, biscuits, bonnet, and all sorts of things. Same words, different meanings.

Other homonyms are fairly innocuous. You can see the similarities in different uses of the same word (Jam and Jell-O are both sweet sticky foodstuffs, for example). But the UK and US meanings of 'liberal' are polar opposites, it's just perverse. And the context of the English language makes the American usage simply absurd. Firstly there's the fact that the etymology (Liber:Free) so obviously supports the British meaning. More importantly, the language is still replete with words with almost identical etymologies that still share their original meaning. Liberate, liberty, libertarian, libertine, liberation come to mind. Which makes the the US definition asinine.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, so what? It's our definition and we can have an asinine one if we want. It's the 21st century and you still have a monarch.

 

[Gogf]

Liberal most definitely is used as a derogatory word.

So is "neocon." Deal with it.

 

[MobBoss]

So is "neocon." Deal with it.

So is conservative. It just depends on what social circle you hang out in.

 

[lovett]

Yeah, so what? It's our definition and we can have an asinine one if we want. It's the 21st century and you still have a monarch.

Touché

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

In my experience 'liberal' has a negative connotation that the word 'conservative' does not. However, as others have noted, 'right-winger' and 'neocon' has a similar connotation for those on the other side of the political spectrum.

One of the reasons for this is that 'liberal wiener' really rolls of the tongue just like 'right-wing nutjob' while the word 'conservative' really doesn't combine well with much.

 

[scy12]

It has nothing to do with whether hippies are bad or not, only with what they were which was lazy drug addicted pacifists that are universally annoying. Unfortunetly for serious liberals, these people were politically alligned with them and were way more media exposed and sensational creating an often undeserved steriotype of the entire group.

The exact same thing is true for nutty conservative religious evangicals. I am not overtly religious, not even protestant, but somehow because I am conservative people assume I am out to evangalize.

So Hippies was an undeserved stereotype of the same level as nutty conservative religious evangicals ?

So the Hippies movement was perceived as related with Insanity and Stupidity ?

While i understand how the media can make them appear as total social failures , my opinions of the NeoCons is extremely low as well.

But i figure that they are not perceived as social failures .

So i understand now better what exactly you mean.