ForumGarden

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=liberal

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal



1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

2.

1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.

4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

5.

1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.

2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

This bugs the life out of me I just don't get it. I even did a web search to find an american dictionary, liberal ostensibly means the same in the US as it does in the UK i.e. a liberal is someone who believes in indivdual freedom, the kind of principles that formed the US constitution and underpin most of the westerm demopcracies. America is a liberal democracy, you are supposedly fighting a war to defend liberal values.

Seriously guys, why is the term liberal used as an insult. What has it come to mean? If someone says to me you are a liberal my inclination is to point out that as someone who values individual liberty I am by definition a holder of liberal views. Personally I can't understand anyone who does not value freedom of the individual. Like most epople I am right wing in some things left in others.

I have seen the term liberal socialist used in one forum-which makes no sense to me as the two are mutually exclusive i.e. you cannot be a socialist and a liberal at the same time as the very nature of socialism militates against freedom of the individual-social reform is another matter.

It's almost like the newspeak of 1984-if you change the meanings of words then you can alter the nature of dissent, good becomes bad and bad good etc etc.

So if you are not liberal and don't value individual freedom as a principle what does liberal mean in a us context? If not a liberal democracy then what is america?

“England and America are two countries separated by the same language”

”George Bernard Shaw

“England and America are two countries separated by the Atlantic Ocean”

”Eddie Izzard

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master–that's all.”

”Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

Ah, sometimes the dictionary confuses more than it elucidates! Here in the UK it`s even worse, for example, the Liberal Party used to be the `centrist` party between right-wing Tories and left-wing Labour. Now the use of the word `liberal` is almost derided as being `almost too left-wing to be believable` and they are to the left of the Labour Party in many policy matters, eg, only Liberal want to let off first-time offenders and decriminalise cannabis in total. Hence presumably the derogatory phrase, `nambypamby left-wing bleeding heart liberals` !!!!!

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.



American politics uses labels as weapons. The definition #1 cannot apply to American Liberals (capital L) because bigotry against anything heralded by Conservatives is required. The same goes the other way. If you ever see any hint of tolerance from either side, it is purely coincidence.

I think it is natural evolution. The two sides are becoming more and more polarized until pretty soon they will both implode (or explode, or just plode). Whoever is left will pick up the useful pieces and try to clean up the mess. History will make up a new name for it and file it away with the British Empire and Rome.

john8pies wrote: Ah, sometimes the dictionary confuses more than it elucidates! Here in the UK it`s even worse, for example, the Liberal Party used to be the `centrist` party between right-wing Tories and left-wing Labour. Now the use of the word `liberal` is almost derided as being `almost too left-wing to be believable` and they are to the left of the Labour Party in many policy matters, eg, only Liberal want to let off first-time offenders and decriminalise cannabis in total. Hence presumably the derogatory phrase, `nambypamby left-wing bleeding heart liberals` !!!!!Liberalism in the US died with Lyndon Johnson in the late 60's. The term is widely used now to describe anyone that isn't a Christian conservative.

gmc wrote:

This bugs the life out of me I just don't get it. I even did a web search to find an american dictionary, liberal ostensibly means the same in the US as it does in the UK i.e. a liberal is someone who believes in indivdual freedom, the kind of principles that formed the US constitution and underpin most of the westerm demopcracies. America is a liberal democracy, you are supposedly fighting a war to defend liberal values.america is not a liberal democracy, if we're going to be accurate about things. the united states is a federal republic. that has a specific meaning, that describes the structure of our government. our political system has aspects and underpinnings of democracy, but thankfully, it is NOT a true democracy. true democracy revels in the tyranny of the majority, and *does not work* as a political system.





Seriously guys, why is the term liberal used as an insult. What has it come to mean?someone who believes social change is best performed by the government, through taxation. take the earnings of those who don't 'deserve' what they earned, and redistribute it to those who ostensibly do. create unelected bodies to control local government - planning commissions that lock down the ability to build new homes to prevent 'overcrowding' - which works great if you want to drive the value of your property through the roof.





I have seen the term liberal socialist used in one forum-which makes no sense to me as the two are mutually exclusive i.e. you cannot be a socialist and a liberal at the same time as the very nature of socialism militates against freedom of the individual-social reform is another matter.liberalism has morphed into socialism. it came about as a melding of the far leftist creeds of "social justice" (is there any other kind of justice, pray?) and redistribution of wealth. in this sense, 'liberal' means 'being liberal with The People's money'. so it's rather the particular senses noted --



1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.



rather than liberal based upon liberty, but liberal based upon giving generously (from the public coffers).





It's almost like the newspeak of 1984-if you change the meanings of words then you can alter the nature of dissent, good becomes bad and bad good etc etc.however, i think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. it's not that those who are not liberals are the ones who changed the meaning of the term - its those who took the term 'liberal' and usurped it in the name of entirely different aims. the ones who are using newspeak are the current neoliberals. they believe that 'liberalism' means giving greater power to the government to decide what's best for the people. it is an elitist creed. it's the classic 'NIMBY' - Not In My Back Yard.





So if you are not liberal and don't value individual freedom as a principle what does liberal mean in a us context? If not a liberal democracy then what is america?as above, a federal republic. perhaps what's needed is a new term, as i tossed out above - neolib, to go up against neocon. i feel my beliefs are very close to those of a classical liberal - less government power, less government intrusion, more individual liberty. that's what liberalism *used to mean*. but it's been turned on its head by the neolibs. they want to tell people what to do, and how to live their lives - just like the worst of the christian conservatives.



the funny thing is how much the far right and far left have in common. they both believe they have the moral high ground, and want to cram it down people's throats.

anastrophe wrote: america is not a liberal democracy, if we're going to be accurate about things. the united states is a federal republic. that has a specific meaning, that describes the structure of our government. our political system has aspects and underpinnings of democracy, but thankfully, it is NOT a true democracy. true democracy revels in the tyranny of the majority, and *does not work* as a political system.





someone who believes social change is best performed by the government, through taxation. take the earnings of those who don't 'deserve' what they earned, and redistribute it to those who ostensibly do. create unelected bodies to control local government - planning commissions that lock down the ability to build new homes to prevent 'overcrowding' - which works great if you want to drive the value of your property through the roof.





liberalism has morphed into socialism. it came about as a melding of the far leftist creeds of "social justice" (is there any other kind of justice, pray?) and redistribution of wealth. in this sense, 'liberal' means 'being liberal with The People's money'. so it's rather the particular senses noted --



1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.



rather than liberal based upon liberty, but liberal based upon giving generously (from the public coffers).





however, i think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. it's not that those who are not liberals are the ones who changed the meaning of the term - its those who took the term 'liberal' and usurped it in the name of entirely different aims. the ones who are using newspeak are the current neoliberals. they believe that 'liberalism' means giving greater power to the government to decide what's best for the people. it is an elitist creed. it's the classic 'NIMBY' - Not In My Back Yard.





as above, a federal republic. perhaps what's needed is a new term, as i tossed out above - neolib, to go up against neocon. i feel my beliefs are very close to those of a classical liberal - less government power, less government intrusion, more individual liberty. that's what liberalism *used to mean*. but it's been turned on its head by the neolibs. they want to tell people what to do, and how to live their lives - just like the worst of the christian conservatives.



the funny thing is how much in common the far right and far left have in common. they both believe they have the moral high ground, and want to cram it down people's throats.The far right is most assuredly guilty of your last paragraph. The left in the US is so watered down no one spits it back at them! I say "Take Off the Gloves!"

David813 wrote: The far right is most assuredly guilty of your last paragraph. The left in the US is so watered down no one spits it back at them! I say "Take Off the Gloves!"
don't kid yourself. liberals are the one's who'd prefer you not have the right to say 'XYZ are evil, hateful people' or whatever. that's "Hate Speech", don't you know old friend, and according to them you have no first amendment right to it.



i can't stand it when you say that stuff. and i'll take you to task every time you say it. but i'll also defend to the death your right to say it.

anastrophe wrote: don't kid yourself. liberals are the one's who'd prefer you not have the right to say 'XYZ are evil, hateful people' or whatever. that's "Hate Speech", don't you know old friend, and according to them you have no first amendment right to it.



i can't stand it when you say that stuff. and i'll take you to task every time you say it. but i'll also defend to the death your right to say it.I disagree with your view. I would absolutely deny free speech rights to Nazis and Klansmen! Fred Phelps and David Duke! Plus I am not a liberal. There is nothing liberal about the far left.

David813 wrote: I disagree with your view. I would absolutely deny free speech rights to Nazis and Klansmen! Fred Phelps and David Duke! Plus I am not a liberal. There is nothing liberal about the far left.
well, we disagree. muting those on the fringes is bad. it prevents people from seeing just how 'fringe' they really are. i *want* nazis and klansmen and fred phelps and david duke to have free speech, the more people who hear these nutcases, the better. they dig their own grave with their rhetoric. once you silence them, you're only a few steps from forgetting them. and that's more dangerous than a handful of whackos letting everyone know how whacko they are.

anastrophe wrote: well, we disagree. muting those on the fringes is bad. it prevents people from seeing just how 'fringe' they really are. i *want* nazis and klansmen and fred phelps and david duke to have free speech, the more people who hear these nutcases, the better. they dig their own grave with their rhetoric. once you silence them, you're only a few steps from forgetting them. and that's more dangerous than a handful of whackos letting everyone know how whacko they are.
to add one more thought - silencing evil people doesn't make them disappear. it only makes them stronger.

Jiperly wrote: Ironically enough, according to the Political Compass, the Canadian Liberals are......Right Wing...




yeah, but just barely. i'd call them centrist.

posted by john8pies

Ah, sometimes the dictionary confuses more than it elucidates! Here in the UK it`s even worse, for example, the Liberal Party used to be the `centrist` party between right-wing Tories and left-wing Labour. Now the use of the word `liberal` is almost derided as being `almost too left-wing to be believable` and they are to the left of the Labour Party in many policy matters, eg, only Liberal want to let off first-time offenders and decriminalise cannabis in total. Hence presumably the derogatory phrase, `nambypamby left-wing bleeding heart liberals` !!!!!


Same kind of thing that seems to be happening here as in america, let's not bother thinking about it use a label to end the discussion. Historically those of a liberal disposition are anyhing but namby pamby, oftentimes it was a highly dangerous point of view to express. Rather than liberals moving to the left it's more a case that new labour has moved to the right taking on thatcherite clothing in a chamelion like change to get power. Leave TB to it I would be willing to bet labour will disintegrate like the tories did after thatcher.

I think something important has gone out of british politics, now it is just sound bite grandstanding for the cameras with marionette like, carefully trained body language to cover up the fact that even the speaker thinks he's spouting a load of rubbish disparage the opposition and treat them with contempt even if thay have a point. How often have you seen a politician asked a question by a commentator answer the one he wants to be asked rather than the one he was?

posted by anastrophe

as above, a federal republic. perhaps what's needed is a new term, as i tossed out above - neolib, to go up against neocon. i feel my beliefs are very close to those of a classical liberal - less government power, less government intrusion, more individual liberty. that's what liberalism *used to mean*. but it's been turned on its head by the neolibs. they want to tell people what to do, and how to live their lives - just like the worst of the christian conservatives.

the funny thing is how much the far right and far left have in common. they both believe they have the moral high ground, and want to cram it down people's throats.


i feel my beliefs are very close to those of a classical liberal - less government power, less government intrusion, more individual liberty. that's what liberalism *used to mean*.

Kind of in shock here but I find myself broadly in agreement with you except would possibly differ on social reform.

Maybe it's because socialist was such a dirty word in the US and became synonymous with revolutionary communism that those who would have been labelled as socialist and espoused such views cloth themselves in liberal garb instead and the disapprobation switched from one to the other so the differences merged polarising dabate in to black and white.

the funny thing is how much the far right and far left have in common. they both believe they have the moral high ground, and want to cram it down people's throats


Ditto except the more subtle want to stop you thinking at all, if you use labels very few tyrn round asnd ask why do you think that.

Left wing used to be those in favour of giving power to the people right wing those that wanted to keep power with the monarch except nowadays large corporations are where the power is and many don't want their right to do what they want questioned- a right to make profit doesn't always lead on to accepting others have a right to fair treatment. protagonists change the conflict is the same.

posted by david813

I disagree with your view. I would absolutely deny free speech rights to Nazis and Klansmen! Fred Phelps and David Duke! Plus I am not a liberal. There is nothing liberal about the far left.


That's precisely why I got fed up with far left politics, canting hypocrites who want power for themselves, one of the reasons that revolutionary communism never really got a grip in the UK was too many well educated working people saw clearly that it would be swopping one set of masters for another. Interesting that in Russia it succeeded with a largely illiterate population. The more you read and debate the more you appreciate you don't need some moron to tell you what to believe.

(Interesting side note, Gordon Brown's constituency was one of the few that sent a communist to the house of commons as their MP, Willie Gallagher, one of the worthies of the scottish communist party. well I find it interestin)

Most of the far left adherents I know (and I'm not having a dig at you so please don't take it that way) are more akin to fundamentalist christians in that they have found something to latch on to and dare not let it go, anything or anyone suggesting alternatives is met with hostility for the same reason, that they are frightened to quuestion their faith. If you are so convinced you have the right of it why crush dissension?

posted by anastrophe

don't kid yourself. liberals are the one's who'd prefer you not have the right to say 'XYZ are evil, hateful people' or whatever. that's "Hate Speech", don't you know old friend, and according to them you have no first amendment right to it


Can see the rational behind it but political correctness does get rather absurd and ridiculous at times.

Accountable wrote: 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.







American politics uses labels as weapons. The definition #1 cannot apply to American Liberals (capital L) because bigotry against anything heralded by Conservatives is required. The same goes the other way. If you ever see any hint of tolerance from either side, it is purely coincidence.



I think it is natural evolution. The two sides are becoming more and more polarized until pretty soon they will both implode (or explode, or just plode). Whoever is left will pick up the useful pieces and try to clean up the mess. History will make up a new name for it and file it away with the British Empire and Rome.
Accountable I agree with you. And I see the schism already happening - with a large portion of us somewhere in the center of both extremes. For the moment, I'll take the label of Moderate (if I must be labeled at all, politically).



As soon as people realize the question/answer is not between black and white (or liberal and conservative), then we'll be making some serious progress. Perhaps we can toast marshmellows over the bonfires when the extremists explode. LOL

"Liberal" is also the name of two towns in the United States: Liberal, Kansas and Liberal, Missouri.

Yeah, BTS, and I prefer liberal amounts of vodka with my orange juice.

gmc wrote: Rather than liberals moving to the left it's more a case that new labour has moved to the right taking on thatcherite clothing in a chamelion like change to get power.


:yh_clap And that, ladies and gentlemen is the issue in a nutshell. The politicians who have joined up under one or another label may or may not have originally believed in that definition, but the definition has become irrelevant. Winning is the thing. The more negatively they can change the definition of opponent's label, the more likely they are to win the election/the majority/the power. I (naively?) believe most politicians entered politics with an ideal, but have lost focus in the fight. Now the only purpose after the win is to keep the trophy. If good happens as collateral consequence, so much the better.

posted by accountable

And that, ladies and gentlemen is the issue in a nutshell. The politicians who have joined up under one or another label may or may not have originally believed in that definition, but the definition has become irrelevant. Winning is the thing. The more negatively they can change the definition of opponent's label, the more likely they are to win the election/the majority/the power. I (naively?) believe most politicians entered politics with an ideal, but have lost focus in the fight. Now the only purpose after the win is to keep the trophy. If good happens as collateral consequence, so much the better.


Except people are showing signs of getting fed up, the absurdity in the UK of a govt that gets back to power with the lowest percentage of the popular vote is raising the ussue of electoral reform, France and Holland just stuck two fingers up at their "political elite" and an eec that goes blindly it's own way.

The g8 summit has a five mile exclusion zone around Gleneagles-it's not about terrorism they just want to ignore protesters and pretend they are the great unwashed rather than a wide cross section of society.

Must admit i am rather ambivalent about 1,000,000

people coming to Edinburgh, I have to work there. It's bad enough at festival time.

posted by a karenina

Accountable I agree with you. And I see the schism already happening - with a large portion of us somewhere in the center of both extremes. For the moment, I'll take the label of Moderate (if I must be labeled at all, politically).

As soon as people realize the question/answer is not between black and white (or liberal and conservative), then we'll be making some serious progress. Perhaps we can toast marshmellows over the bonfires when the extremists explode. LOL


Can't make out american politics-it seems incredibly polarised with no one in the middle-not so much love/hate as hate/hate. for such a diverse country it can't be that simple. No offence but I;m glad I don't live there.

We do in this country seem more disposed to blow raspberries at politicians "get back under your stone ye wee s((*" is one of the funnier heckles I've heard recently. It's no fun when people listen respectfully to politicians is it?

Jiperly wrote: Ironically enough, according to the Political Compass, the Canadian Liberals are......Right Wing...



Jiperly, This is one of the most interesting and informative political maps of Canada I have ever seen! Fantastic!

David813 wrote: Jiperly, This is one of the most interesting and informative political maps of Canada I have ever seen! Fantastic!
if you like that, you'll love this:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

anastrophe wrote: if you like that, you'll love this:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/Thank You A!! I LOVE this stuff!!!!!!!

my numbers come up slightly to the right of center, and a little bit more down towards the libertarian - Economic Left/Right: 2.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44

about what i expected. i feel that anything within four or five points away from the center qualifies as center/moderate. the various leanings within that circle are small. plus, many of the questions are ambiguous, or contrarily don't allow any ambiguity where there could rightly be some.



but then, i guess that's part of the point - forcing you to choose one way or the other can reveal the underlying tendency.

anastrophe wrote: my numbers come up slightly to the right of center, and a little bit more down towards the libertarian - Economic Left/Right: 2.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44



about what i expected. i feel that anything within four or five points away from the center qualifies as center/moderate. the various leanings within that circle are small. plus, many of the questions are ambiguous, or contrarily don't allow any ambiguity where there could rightly be some.



but then, i guess that's part of the point - forcing you to choose one way or the other can reveal the underlying tendency.:yh_clap At last we have something in common anastrophe. Cheers Paul

The Political Compass says BTS is............





Economic Left/Right: 2.25

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.23





And I like it right there..........

OK - I came up as authoritarian right. What does that mean?

Finally got a chance to take the Political Compass Test: On Economic Left/Right I am -9.63. On Social Libertarian/Authoritarian I am -6.15. VERY interesting! I'm near some fascinating historical personalities! RIGHT where I want to be and right where Jesus WANTS us!!!!

nvalleyvee wrote: OK - I came up as authoritarian right. What does that mean?That means you are a Christian Fundamentalist!:eek:

nvalleyvee wrote: OK - I came up as authoritarian right. What does that mean?


I was +1.25 on the right top axis here.

nvalleyvee wrote: I was +1.25 on the right top axis here.I'm on the lower furthest left line near the bottom. Not sure how to post the results!!!! But Nvalley, I think we'd likely not be a good match for The Amazing Race!!!!

David813 wrote: That means you are a Christian Fundamentalist!:eek:
So Gerhard Schroder is a Christian Fundamentalist!:eek: too?

That is where she lies on graph..........

Can you give me your reasoning?

My results were

Economic L/R= -5.63

Social Libertarian/Authoritian= -2.77

Rigth next to Gandhi and Nelson Mandela how cool!

BTS wrote: So Gerhard Schroder is a Christian Fundamentalist!:eek: too?

That is where she lies on graph..........

Can you give me your reasoning?I'm actually having trouble figuring out how to post the results right, or understand them! I assumed that since Valley said she had placed on Authoritarian Right she'd be snuggled up next to Pat Robertson! Schroeder? Really? I need a guidebook to make out the results!!!

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politic ... chasms.php



Here is a quiz off same site:

Iconochasms



KNOW YOUR HEROES, HEROINES - AND HISTORY.

Hopefully, you're happy with the personalities that The Political Compass has placed you closest to; but how well do you really know the famous figures that you love or love to hate?

This little wrap-up quiz offers some important facts that were barely, if ever, reported. It may raise your eyebrows and adjust the pedestals on which you placed some of your favourite icons. The chasm may be greater than you'd imagined.

David813 wrote: I'm on the lower furthest left line near the bottom. Not sure how to post the results!!!! But Nvalley, I think we'd likely not be a good match for The Amazing Race!!!!


I doubt we'd make it to the first station without me taking your F**king head off.

LMFAO

my results on the political compass test were;

economic L/R -3.88

social lib/auth -3.59

not surprized, i guess i do consider myself centre-moderate.

nvalleyvee wrote: I doubt we'd make it to the first station without me taking your F**king head off.



LMFAOSomething tells me you're right!:eek:

David813 wrote: Something tells me you're right!:eek:u r

Your Welcome! I love the graph you sent!

This is a much more accurate chart of the Liberal Party. As they deftly adopt any party's policy if it's popular, and then claim it to be their own long-standing position, I prefer to think of them as"shape-shifters"!! :wah:

Attached files

economic left/right: -60

Social libertarian/Authoritarian: -5,74

So I'd respect you as a person but make you re-cycle your rubbish.

economic left/right: -60

Social libertarian/Authoritarian: -5,74

So I'd respect you as a person but make you re-cycle your rubbish.

Had to look up ayn rand-not someone I had heard of until recently looks like a secular cult.

posted by jiperly

Glad to see my posting that image helped to rape this thread.


Glad you posted it, my intention was to spark of discussion-sad git that I am i find this kind of thing interesting.

Economic Left/Right: 1.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.15

About what I would of expected.

Economic Left/Right: 5.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59

Kind of strange, since the first test in this thread said I might be a Liberal!

My thoughts about the use of "liberal" as a derogatory term led me to wonder...if Thomas Edison was a "Liberal" (who cares if he was or wasn't this is only a rhetorical question) would anti-Liberals refuse to use lightbulbs? I doubt it. So why should the ideas and statements of any person be thrown out the window because they are a "Liberal"? It is nothing more than name calling to defeat an arguement the person can not refute on more reasonable grounds.

Like any other term that becomes derogatory, if you got rid of it there would just be a new one invented to replace it. I don't think being called a liberal is that bad a deal. I've been called worse.

koan wrote: My thoughts about the use of "liberal" as a derogatory term led me to wonder...if Thomas Edison was a "Liberal" (who cares if he was or wasn't this is only a rhetorical question) would anti-Liberals refuse to use lightbulbs? I doubt it. So why should the ideas and statements of any person be thrown out the window because they are a "Liberal"? It is nothing more than name calling to defeat an arguement the person can not refute on more reasonable grounds.


henry ford was a rabid anti-semite. on that basis, i would refuse to buy a ford motor vehicle....not refuse to drive a car. edison didn't invent the lightbulb, he perfected the manufacture of it. ford didn't invent the automobile, he perfected the manufacture of it.



on the other hand, there's a ton of musical groups i love whose politics i absolutely loathe. when i listen to them, my justification is that it's not their politics i want to listen to, it's their music.



so, in a nutshell, i have no idea what i'm trying to say.

I actually distance myself as much as possible from labelling anyone, with terms such as liberal, right wing , left wing, etc. They are mainly used to pigeonhole individuals into blindly opposing, black & white camps. The inevitable result is a self-identiity reflecting the party line, wasting time attacking the 'left' and defending the 'right' , or the opposite.

turbonium wrote: I actually distance myself as much as possible from labelling anyone, with terms such as liberal, right wing , left wing, etc. They are mainly used to pigeonhole individuals into blindly opposing, black & white camps. The inevitable result is a self-identiity reflecting the party line, wasting time attacking the 'left' and defending the 'right' , or the opposite.


I put it this way to my leadership students: The brain is a computer. We have a database for people and since we are basically lazy, the database has defaults for almost all the fields. We fill these defaults based on the way a person dresses, walks, talks, etc.

We need to use these defaults as a basis to start conversation so that we can verify their accuracy or change them to be more accurate. In this way we can find positives about anyone to enhance our own lives. :yh_hugs

Unfortunately, we too often take one piece of information and accept all the resulting defaults as fact., using them as weapons (reasons) to exclude them from possible friendship, etc. because it is simply easier to deal with smaller groups.:yh_loser

Just as in art, food, or fine clothing, often it is the more difficult way that yields the best quality. :yh_star