nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

When did "Liberal" become a bad word?

TheIrishGrover

In the US (And increasingly here) the term "Liberal" is bandied about as a bad word. As if it is a bad thing to be a "Liberal". I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT US PARTIES: Democrat and Republican. I'm talking about liberal thinking versus conservative thinking.

In my opinion (Which is of value only to me and nobody else. Just the same as other's opinions) conservative thinking is about maintaining the current situation: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Some think maybe some things need to be rolled back.

But liberal thinking is what progresses us as a people. Ireland would originally have been considered a very conservative country (especially in relation to mainland Europe) and is still, in many ways still considered so.

But here's the thing: Liberal thinking gave women the vote; allowed equal rights for people regardless of gender, race, creed or sexual orientation (In theory anyway); the ability for people to marry who they want; freed the slaves; improved living standards etc....

I mean what is "wrong" about that? Again, I am NOT talking US Party politics as, in the US, many of these acts were implemented under Republican legislation.

Again, in my OPINION ONLY, staying put, not thinking outside the box is, while not "wrong", not advancing us as a people. Is not opening us up to new ways of thinking.

Now, I know this thread is probably going to descend into name calling and general nastiness on both sides but can someone explain it to me why liberalism is "wrong" in their eyes?

And please PLEASE try to keep it civil. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone's opinion is just as valid and important to them as yours is to you.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

fxotoole

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

marieholmfan wrote: »

Trinity certainly resembles the USSR. A wild expanse of snowy Taiga the solitude broken only by tiny shepherd's huts.

NO SORRY I MEANT NUIM[/QUOTE]

Now. Now. NUIM has changed a lot since the 1990's when I was there.
They now have Lidl there :eek:

It’s actually an Aldi but do go on.

Diversity for Hire

For me around NYE 2015 in Germany when it became obvious that liberal politicians care more about their insane EU project and importation of Third World migrants than Europeans themselves.

Calhoun

Lux23 wrote: »

At the very least, libertarianism is essentially a school of thought that legitimises behaving disrespectfully towards different groups in society. Freedom of speech so I can refer to gay people as pansies, women as pussy and much, much worse.

What's wrong with that? Why do we need sacred cows or tiers of victimhood?

Harry Palmr

The middle ground is being emptied out - the British used to have One Nation Tories now they have the spawn of Thatchers generation - ideological dingbats, the Labour party (which has enjoyed some interesting diversions down the years) is now a cult with no challenge being brooked by Corbyn's Praetorian guard. The Lib-Dems are just too small to make a difference and they blotted their copy books by propping up Cameron anyway.

super_furry

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The middle ground is being emptied out - the British used to have One Nation Tories now they have the spawn of Thatchers generation - ideological dingbats, the Labour party (which has enjoyed some interesting diversions down the years) is now a cult with no challenge being brooked by Corbyn's Praetorian guard. The Lib-Dems are just too small to make a difference and they blotted their copy books by propping up Cameron anyway.

Grand here though, and the weather is cracking.

Captain Obvious

Calhoun wrote: »

What's wrong with that? Why do we need sacred cows or tiers of victimhood?

Because people should be allowed go about their daily lives without being subjected to unprovoked abuse or harassment just because of an aspect of themselves they cannot change. Like it or not, rights sometimes compete with each other.

Calhoun

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Because people should be allowed go about their daily lives without being subjected to unprovoked abuse or harassment just because of an aspect of themselves they cannot change. Like it or not, rights sometimes compete with each other.

So should people who meet certain victim criteria, have more of a say than those who don't?

The Catholic Church used the same mentality above to get away with some abuse over the years.

Captain Obvious

Calhoun wrote: »

So should people who meet certain victim criteria, have more of a say than those who don't?

That's some serious verbal gymnastics to get that out of what I said. It's not about who you are, it's about what right you want to enjoy. If two people want to go about their daily lives that's fines. If one of those people decide that their daily lives involve abusing or harassing the other that is not fine.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The problem is that it's used as an adjective by complete and utter idiots who can't form an argument. Liberal this, liberal that; but no examples of that they mean, when it's been highlighted that their view point is flawed and their ideas are short-sighted and badly planned.

Think about it: if someone were to use the phrase "conservative" something as an insult, you'd wonder what they were talking about.

Calhoun

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's some serious verbal gymnastics to get that out of what I said. It's not about who you are, it's about what right you want to enjoy. If two people want to go about their daily lives that's fines. If one of those people decide that their daily lives involve abusing or harassing the other that is not fine.

Well what your saying is that the more extreme left form of liberalism that has protected groups is ok as people should be ok to live their lives they way they want?

However why people see liberal as a bad word is that it doesn't stop there and essentially its developed into a totem pole of victimization.

The older model of liberalism was all about tackling inequality and not being afraid to challenge the status quo.

Calhoun

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The problem is that it's used as an adjective by complete and utter idiots who can't form an argument. Liberal this, liberal that; but no examples of that they mean, when it's been highlighted that their view point is flawed and their ideas are short-sighted and badly planned.

Think about it: if someone were to use the phrase "conservative" something as an insult, you'd wonder what they were talking about.

In Ireland and on these forums they don't use conservative they use alt-right as the label to insult.

odyssey06

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The problem is that it's used as an adjective by complete and utter idiots who can't form an argument. Liberal this, liberal that; but no examples of that they mean, when it's been highlighted that their view point is flawed and their ideas are short-sighted and badly planned.

Think about it: if someone were to use the phrase "conservative" something as an insult, you'd wonder what they were talking about.

And nobody ever used neoconservative as an insult?
Or neoliberal? Which is actually just a term for conservative economics.
What about racist? Fascist? Nazi? Thatcherite?

I think you need to take some blinkers off.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's some serious verbal gymnastics to get that out of what I said. It's not about who you are, it's about what right you want to enjoy. If two people want to go about their daily lives that's fines. If one of those people decide that their daily lives involve abusing or harassing the other that is not fine.

That’s street harassment. I think. Political debate is another matter.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Calhoun wrote: »

In Ireland and on these forums they don't use conservative they use alt-right as the label to insult.

Alt-right is not the same as conservative, and I specifcially said when used as an adjective.

odyssey06 wrote: »

And nobody ever used neoconservative as an insult?
Or neoliberal? Which is actually just a term for conservative economics.
What about racist? Fascist? Nazi? Thatcherite?

I think you need to take some blinkers off.

Bit of a slippery slope here. Neoliberal and anarchist are not the same as liberal and fascist and nazi are not the same as conservative.

Case in point: you here people moan about and blame things on liberal media, when did you last read someone blame things on neoliberal meida?

If the only why you can deal with my argument is by exaggerating it, then you've kind of missed the point.

---

I'd consider myself liberal on most things, probably centre-left politically, but that doesnt make me neo-anything.

odyssey06

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Bit of a slippery slope here. Neoliberal and anarchist are not the same as liberal and fascist and nazi are not the same as conservative.
If the only why you can deal with my argument is by exaggerating it, then you've kind of missed the point.

What's your opinion of "Liberals" who use the fascist and nazi and alt-right and conservative as synonymous? Who shout "no free speech for fascists" at conservatives whose ideas they don't even try to understand'?
Are they "complete and utter idiots who can't form an argument" too?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

odyssey06 wrote: »

What's your opinion of "Liberals" who use the fascist and nazi and alt-right and conservative as synonymous? Who shout "no free speech for fascists" at conservatives whose ideas they don't even try to understand'?
Are they "complete and utter idiots who can't form an argument" too?

Oh, absolutely.

But AGAIN: calling someone a nazi is using the word as a noun. I'm refering to the use of the word liberal as an adjective.

Also, you're comparing calling someone an extremist as an insult with calling something as a much milder political stance as an insult.

Would you say that nazi and liberal are the same distance from centre on the political spectrum?

Ipso

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Oh, absolutely.

But AGAIN: calling someone a nazi is using the word as a noun. I'm refering to the use of the word liberal as an adjective.

Also, you're comparing calling someone an extremist with calling something as a much milder political stance.

It's down to guilt by association. It's an attempt to discredit people to lump them in with the crazies on their side of the spectrum.
When people say someone is right wing, more often than not it's a way of saying Nazi without going full Godwin.

Einstrahlung50

Calhoun wrote: »

In Ireland and on these forums they don't use conservative they use alt-right as the label to insult.

Ask them how the alternative right differs from the right and they haven't a clue.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ipso wrote: »

It's down to guilt by association. It's an attempt to discredit people to lump them in with the crazies on their side of the spectrum.
When people say someone is right wing, more often than not it's a way of saying Nazi without going full Godwin.

That happens on both sides (although admittedly more to the right, as you highlight) - someone immediately exaggerated liberal to neoliberal at the top of that page.

But we ARE talking about the use of the word "liberal" according to the title; and it does get used as an insult a lot, by people who have no idea what the word actually means and can not give any examples fo what they mean.

odyssey06

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Oh, absolutely.
But AGAIN: calling someone a nazi is using the word as a noun. I'm refering to the use of the word liberal as an adjective.
Also, you're comparing calling someone an extremist as an insult with calling something as a much milder political stance as an insult.
Would you say that nazi and liberal are the same distance from centre on the political spectrum?

That would depend on how large the L in the liberal is

I have definitely seen and heard thatcherite, neoconservative and neoliberal used in that way, as an adjective implying opprobrium, used by those on the 'left' towards those on the 'right', in economics and foreign policy. I don't think the 'adjective' approach is a tactic exclusively of the right in any country.

ps I think you have misunderstood my reference to neoliberal, it's actually used by those on the left to refer to reagan style economics

Gbear

Ipso wrote: »

But aren't conservatives agin the government telling people what to do, but many want to tell married people what they should do.
Not having a go at conservatives specifically, but I think labels are thrown around too easily (not meant in a self help type way).
Every topic is now broken down into to different areas; left/right, liberal/conservative.
There is no nuance or grey areas anymore, every single complicated topic can only be approached from one of two ways.

There might be a few exceptions, but I think conservatism is by its nature incompatible with liberalism and libertarianism.

It's puzzling to me that they've managed to become intermingled in the US scene, because if you want to maintain the status quo, you can only really do it through the authoritarian apparatus of the state

The Christian Right in particular, but broadly speaking the Right in general in the US, and also in the UK and Ireland, seek to maintain or introduce prohibitions at governmental level to curb behaviour they see as sinful, or immoral.

Their position generally doesn't concern itself with human rights but, rather, moral absolutism in the pursuit of a virtuous society. There's a certain degree of collectivism in that, with society possessing a sort of pseudo-personhood giving it rights that need to be defended, rather than the liberal position which sees society as an abstract of the individuals within it.

The horshoe theory, of left and right being similar at the extremes, is down to that sense off collectivism, IMO, because they both attempt to impose norms to 'fix' society in general, even at the expense of the individual.

I say I'm puzzled by the conflation of libertarian and conservative, but it's not that big a mystery. There's pseudo-fascist, corporatist elements in the US that espouse the low-regulation, low-tax elements of libertarianism and pay lip-service to the idea of freedom off the back of that, however it's all completely hollow when their position is enabled by a powerful state for their money to influence, and they're perfectly fine with big government when it's facilitating state monopolies or sabotaging the free market in areas such as renewable energy.

Actual libertarians are hitching themselves to this horse but long term, I think they'd be better off sticking with the left and the Democrats, because although they overtly espouse a certain degree of authoritarianism in the pursuit of equality, I think they'd likely create a society with a much healthier and educated population, and a less corrupt political system. I think you can go from that towards libertarianism, but I don't think you can with the sort of neo-feudalism being pursued by the Republicans or Conservatives.

[Deleted User]

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That happens on both sides (although admittedly more to the right, as you highlight) - someone immediately exaggerated liberal to neoliberal at the top of that page.

I'd have to disagree. Both sides (Left/Right) are equally quick to assign labels to anyone who disagrees with them. They tend to deal in absolutes and people are not really allowed to be a mixture of the two. If you support capital punishment, then you automatically support every other part of being "right winged". and Viceversa.

But we ARE talking about the use of the word "liberal" according to the title; and it does get used as an insult a lot, by people who have no idea what the word actually means and can not give any examples fo what they mean.

The meaning of the word has changed many times over the last two decades, and really comes down to the perception of those involved. And the lack of examples, is a mass generalisation.

When I was a teen/20s I was conservative with liberal leanings on certain issues. However, due to the way things have swung, I'd be perceived as being pure conservative. I'd also be considered on the right. It doesn't matter that I support a variety of issues from both perspectives, and I think anyone who goes extreme on either side is a muppet, but I will be thrown into a particular camp. It also doesn't matter that I'm essentially non-political but I'll be dumped in with political groups on the right nonetheless.

Being Liberal is not the same as it was twenty or thirty years ago. TBH I suspect nobody really knows what it means anymore, and that it doesn't really matter in the slightest. People are just going to dismiss your opinions as long as you oppose theirs.

Ipso

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd have to disagree. Both sides (Left/Right) are equally quick to assign labels to anyone who disagrees with them. They tend to deal in absolutes and people are not really allowed to be a mixture of the two. If you support capital punishment, then you automatically support every other part of being "right winged". and Viceversa.

The meaning of the word has changed many times over the last two decades, and really comes down to the perception of those involved. And the lack of examples, is a mass generalisation.

When I was a teen/20s I was conservative with liberal leanings on certain issues. However, due to the way things have swung, I'd be perceived as being pure conservative. I'd also be considered on the right. It doesn't matter that I support a variety of issues from both perspectives, and I think anyone who goes extreme on either side is a muppet, but I will be thrown into a particular camp. It also doesn't matter that I'm essentially non-political but I'll be dumped in with political groups on the right nonetheless.

Being Liberal is not the same as it was twenty or thirty years ago. TBH I suspect nobody really knows what it means anymore, and that it doesn't really matter in the slightest. People are just going to dismiss your opinions as long as you oppose theirs.

Tribalism is what it is. Just make people who disagree with you the “other” and they are pariahs.

Billy86

Einstrahlung50 wrote: »

Ask them how the alternative right differs from the right and they haven't a clue.

It's been covered many, many times - the alt-right is a rebranding of white supremacism, the founder of which is banned from all of Schengen on account of his organising neo Nazi rallies in Hungary. The rebranding was initially successful and until their masks kept slipping.

'The right' are conservatives of all forms, which would include the alt-right as a subset (just as groups like communists would be a subset of 'the left'). It's pretty basic stuff.

WinnyThePoo

anti-intellectualism should be considered bad

FunLover18

From my experience on social media and the internet in general, 'liberal' is used as a bad word or a jibe by those who bemoan the censorship of free speech and (again from MY OWN EXPERIENCE) many of them, when they say 'free speech' they mean 'free speech without consequence', they are referring to their apparent right to use hateful and discriminatory language without the being called out on it. Not only this but they believe that everyone should have the right to broadcast their opinions to the world and their views should not only be tolerated but go unchallenged. When someone does challenge them, they are the first to cry 'Snowflake' or 'Social justice warrior' (a term which I assume they use ironically).

This is just my experience of course and I should state that I agree both sides of the conservative/liberal divide can be deeply hypocritical and downright nasty. I agree with previous posters that's far too much resorting to name calling and there needs to be nuance in political discourse as well as more discourse.

Calhoun

FunLover18 wrote: »

From my experience on social media and the internet in general, 'liberal' is used as a bad word or a jibe by those who bemoan the censorship of free speech and (again from MY OWN EXPERIENCE) many of them, when they say 'free speech' they mean 'free speech without consequence', they are referring to their apparent right to use hateful and discriminatory language without the being called out on it. Not only this but they believe that everyone should have the right to broadcast their opinions to the world and their views should not only be tolerated but go unchallenged. When someone does challenge them, they are the first to cry 'Snowflake' or 'Social justice warrior' (a term which I assume they use ironically).

This is just my experience of course and I should state that I agree both sides of the conservative/liberal divide can be deeply hypocritical and downright nasty. I agree with previous posters that's far too much resorting to name calling and there needs to be nuance in political discourse as well as more discourse.

Yet at the same time from the other side we see exactly the same behavior, except alt-right, Nazi, Facist is seeing as been used.

I think for the most part both are now using labels to discredit the other but its something i see as starting on the left and with the more liberal minded folks to shut others down.

Liberals on the other hand seem to believe in a hierarchy of victimhood (can't remember the official name for it) and depending on where you fall on the hierarchy you have more credibility in what you say.

That is equally as dangerous as someone who feels they can say what they want regardless of who they hurt.

Einstrahlung50

Billy86 wrote: »

It's been covered many, many times - the alt-right is a rebranding of white supremacism, the founder of which is banned from all of Schengen on account of his organising neo Nazi rallies in Hungary. The rebranding was initially successful and until their masks kept slipping.

'The right' are conservatives of all forms, which would include the alt-right as a subset (just as groups like communists would be a subset of 'the left'). It's pretty basic stuff.

Strange then that so many people who use the term can't answer the question.

rossie1977

When I think of liberal I think of the Dutch.

The word liberal has been so muddled by the right in America so much that anyone slightly left of Ted Cruz is now labeled liberal. Liberal/socialist/communist I see used hand in hand to describe same thing.

Hillary Clinton, Obama would be considered moderate conservative corporatists in Western Europe.

Sweetemotion

rossie1977 wrote: »

When I think of liberal I think of the Dutch.

The word liberal has been so muddled by the right in America so much that anyone slightly left of Ted Cruz is now labeled liberal. Liberal/socialist/communist I see used hand in hand to describe same thing.

Hillary Clinton, Obama would be considered moderate conservative corporatists in Western Europe.

What muddled the word liberal was the race to see who was the most liberalist of them all.