# New Social Terminology



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I'm tired of hearing about "Liberals" who aren't liberal and "Conservatives" who are anything but conservative.

We have "Liberals" who express anger and deadly hatred at people who hold different beliefs from their own (witness the things that Democrats say they'd like to do to Sarah Palin), while the definition of "liberal" really has to do with an attitude of "live and let live" toleration.
We have "Conservatives" who consistently trash the Constitution and the "First Ten" in the name of "greater security and safety," while the definition of "conservative" is actually to conserve and protect the traditions and social constructs of the polity.

Further, many "Liberals" believe in conserving traditions and social constructs, and many "Conservatives" hold socially-liberal, tolerant beliefs, thus muddying the waters and making separating the two strains of political and social thought almost impossible.

Therefore, I suggest a new set of terms. Instead of "Liberal," I suggest substituting "_Idealist_," because so-called Liberals seem to believe that there are "social engineering" projects that, if successfully accomplished, would usher in a...ahem...Brave New World, an ideal utopia that will be free of poverty, crime, and angst.
Instead of "Conservative," I suggest "_Realist_," because most so-called conservatives seem to believe that no matter what sort of "social engineering" is attempted, realistically speaking there will always be aberrant, anti-social and asocial people who will refuse to be "civilized," and who will continue to try to bring the system down.

From now on, this committed Realist will use the new terms outlined here. I suggest that you might give them a try, too.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

I think we should just export all of our liberal and conservative politicians to China let them do their social engineering over there.

The moderates could then get a good nights sleep.

:numbchuck:


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

Well Steve, if there was ever any dubt in my mind that my wife and i are on differnt sides of the "realism" gap, you settled it. we are.:anim_lol:


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

I think any time you attempt to put a one size fits all label on a group of people, it usually doesn't fit very well. 

I also believe that the vast majority of liberals/conservatives, republican/democrats, etc. are good decent people who have the same goal - a better, stronger country and more opportunity for themselves and their neighbors to succeed. Their theories and methods for achieving these goals is different. 

Any time either side is dismissed out of hand because their philosophies align with one side or the other, everybody looses. That's one of the biggest reasons our country is so f***ed up right now. We've got a president, a senate and representatives who I assume are all trying to do the best they can for our country, but they're incapable of working together. 

I come from a science background, so I consider myself a realist. If I can't explain why something questionable happens, I tend not to believe it. Because of this, I have trouble understanding why a group of people who (I know I'm stereotyping the entire group, but I do so for dramatic effect) believe that "god" literally created everything in 7 days, and who believe that telling children not to have sex will result in lower teen pregnancies should be called "realists". And why people who believe that business people will put the good of society ahead of their personal bottom line as well as people who believe that halting communication with those with whom we have issues will fix the problem are not "idealist". 

And as a quick side note, I work and socialize with a pretty diverse group of people, including many with left leaning tendencies. I don't recall hearing anyone making any comment that they'd like to do anything resembling "anger and deadly hatred" to Sarah Palin. In fact, anything I've heard from either the left or the right concerning what people would like to do to Gov. Palin involved a warped sense of love and perhaps some contortions. :anim_lol:


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

kev74 said:


> I think any time you attempt to put a one size fits all label on a group of people, it usually doesn't fit very well...


You're right. But it's what we human beings tend to do. Like it or not, we stereotype, and stereotyping helps us maneuver in society, both socially and politically. When someone is labelled "Liberal," we see a certain set of attributes, not all of which fit, but which still helps us understand and relate to that labelled person. (Same for "Conservatives.") I want to change the labels on those stereotypes to something more useful and more properly evocative.



kev74 said:


> ...I also believe that the vast majority of liberals/conservatives, republican/democrats, etc. are good decent people who have the same goal - a better, stronger country and more opportunity for themselves and their neighbors to succeed. Their theories and methods for achieving these goals is different...


That, too, is generally true...except recently Liberal Idealists seem to have adopted a new political mode, which chiefly consists of mindlessly reviling and demonizing the opposition, rather than rationally addressing the differences they perceive and accepting the similarities.



kev74 said:


> ...Any time either side is dismissed out of hand because their philosophies align with one side or the other, everybody looses. That's one of the biggest reasons our country is so f***ed up right now. We've got a president, a senate and representatives who I assume are all trying to do the best they can for our country, but they're incapable of working together...


See my discussion on demonization, above. Under present conditions, compromise is made impossible by emotional foolishness. On _both_ sides, by the way.



kev74 said:


> ...I come from a science background, so I consider myself a realist. If I can't explain why something questionable happens, I tend not to believe it. Because of this, I have trouble understanding why a group of people who (I know I'm stereotyping the entire group, but I do so for dramatic effect) believe that "god" literally created everything in 7 days, and who believe that telling children not to have sex will result in lower teen pregnancies should be called "realists". And why people who believe that business people will put the good of society ahead of their personal bottom line as well as people who believe that halting communication with those with whom we have issues will fix the problem are not "idealist"...


Like "Liberal" and "Conservative," the labels I propose are equally stereotypical. But I believe that my proposed labels are closer to the truth than are "Liberal" and "Conservative."



kev74 said:


> ...And as a quick side note, I work and socialize with a pretty diverse group of people, including many with left leaning tendencies. I don't recall hearing anyone making any comment that they'd like to do anything resembling "anger and deadly hatred" to Sarah Palin. In fact, anything I've heard from either the left or the right concerning what people would like to do to Gov. Palin involved a warped sense of love and perhaps some contortions. :anim_lol:


You haven't been listening to Sandra Bernhard, the "comic" who publicly asks her "big black brothers" to gang-rape Sarah Palin, when she visits New York during her campaign, or to my "Liberal" New York cousins, all three of them very well educated women, who all think that Bernhard is on the right track. And that's only one example.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> You're right. But it's what we human beings tend to do. Like it or not, we stereotype, and stereotyping helps us maneuver in society, both socially and politically. When someone is labelled "Liberal," we see a certain set of attributes, not all of which fit, but which still helps us understand and relate to that labelled person. (Same for "Conservatives.") I want to change the labels on those stereotypes to something more useful and more properly evocative.


I think if you need to use labels, "left" and "right" might fit the purpose, without either promoting or demonizing either side. It doesn't leave you audience with a good visual picture, but everyone will know what you mean.



Steve M1911A1 said:


> That, too, is generally true...except recently Liberal Idealists seem to have adopted a new political mode, which chiefly consists of mindlessly reviling and demonizing the opposition, rather than rationally addressing the differences they perceive and accepting the similarities.


You don't think this movement got where it is through the leadership of Karl Rove?



Steve M1911A1 said:


> Like "Liberal" and "Conservative," the labels I propose are equally stereotypical. But I believe that my proposed labels are closer to the truth than are "Liberal" and "Conservative."


It depends what side of the fence you're on. I think your labels are skewed. Unless I'm mistaken, you use the term "Realist" to add credibility to your side, and use the term "Idealist" as a way to dismiss any debate from the other side as insignificant and fanciful. Others might think it more appropriate to reverse those labels. Arguments could be made supporting and disputing what is closer to the truth.



Steve M1911A1 said:


> You haven't been listening to Sandra Bernhard, the "comic"...


No, I haven't.

But I have heard comments similar to those you describe applied to a former First Lady/Senator. And I can assure you it wasn't "liberals" making those comments. In either case, the comments are inappropriate and uncalled for - even in jest. But it doesn't mean those dopes making the comments represent everyone with similar political philosophies.



> What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." _ - J.F.K., September 14, 1960_


Hmmm... The way he said it, "Liberal" doesn't seem too bad. :smt1099


----------



## Ptarmigan (Jul 4, 2008)

kev74 said:


> I think any time you attempt to put a one size fits all label on a group of people, it usually doesn't fit very well.
> 
> I also believe that the vast majority of liberals/conservatives, republican/democrats, etc. are good decent people who have the same goal - a better, stronger country and more opportunity for themselves and their neighbors to succeed. Their theories and methods for achieving these goals is different.
> 
> ...


Great post. :smt180


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

> What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." _ - J.F.K., September 14, 1960_





> Hmmm... The way he said it, "Liberal" doesn't seem too bad. :smt1099


Democrats and "Liberals" of today or not the same as JFK democrats of the past.

My grandfather was a WWII veteran and a hard core Democrat. I will always have more respect for him than any human being on this planet. It is not the same party that it was in the past, period. The democrat party has been hijacked by extremist, in the same way Islam has been hijacked by radicals.

Kev... I work in the music field, full time musician, and also work in the science field part time at a local college (Astronomy). I know how most of the "left" really feel about the "right", I hear it almost daily and it ain't pretty.


----------



## Ptarmigan (Jul 4, 2008)

To be fair, the Republican party is not what it was either. It is far from being the Party of Lincoln. The New Deal in many ways caused a reversal in the traditional roles of the two parties. For example, the South was largely Democrat but slowly became more and more Republican. Even more recently we have seen a change in party roles. Not too long ago it was the Republican party talking about states' rights and letting each state decide what was best for its citizens. During the past eight years this has become the Democratic stance on the issue of same sex unions for example, an issue that many Republicans felt would be best solved at the federal level.

Most of my wife's family has a long history of supporting the Republican party mainly based on tradition. Yet my father in law recently announced that the federal government should pay for health insurance for all farmers. That does not sound very Republican to me. He seems to vote based on family tradition rather than actually taking the time to find out where the parties and/or candidates stand on the issues.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

Ptarmigan said:


> To be fair, the Republican party is not what it was either. It is far from being the Party of Lincoln. The New Deal in many ways caused a reversal in the traditional roles of the two parties. For example, the South was largely Democrat but slowly became more and more Republican. Even more recently we have seen a change in party roles. Not too long ago it was the Republican party talking about states' rights and letting each state decide what was best for its citizens. During the past eight years this has become the Democratic stance on the issue of same sex unions for example, an issue that many Republicans felt would be best solved at the federal level.


Amen to that! If the Republicans could get their acts together and concentrate on a platform of less spending with the goal of the elimination of debt, smaller federal government and keeping their noses out of people's personal lives, they would win this and every election.

As it is, I feel like we're in some kind of Superman Bizarro-world where everything is backwards.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

kev74 said:


> As it is, I feel like we're in some kind of Superman Bizarro-world where everything is backwards.


+1 to that... :smt023


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Kev;

"Left" and "Right" also have been over- and mis-used to death. They're no better than "Liberal" and "Conservative." I want to use labels that come with no freight attached.

Your next point had to do with overly-nasty political invective having originated with Karl Rove. My only refutation would be a further reference to the completely inappropriate public "jokes" made by Sandra Bernhard on the subject. Whatever Rove may have said, I'll bet he never advocated gang rape as an appropriate response to different political and social beliefs.

Next point: I don't see anything wrong with being an Idealist, unless one is an extreme Idealist. There is nothing wrong with having idealistic hopes. All my Jewish forbears were social idealists-it comes with the religion. Further, "Idealist" very clearly describes the true social view of what we now call "Liberal," while not requiring the forbearance that modern Liberals seem incapable of displaying. So, no, I don't believe that the term "Idealist" is subtly prejudicial.

Penultimately, I have to agree with *js*, that the Liberals of today are not the same sort of people to whom President Kennedy was referring, in the speech you quoted.

And, finally, I observe that you seem to me to be a modern Liberal who actively denies his social idealism, and therefore does not want "Idealist" as his label. I suggest to you that this may be a foolish position to take.
There is nothing wrong with being idealistic, as long as one is not fanatic about it, and as long as one is not led by idealistic emotion to demonize the opposition into a scapegoat for everything that is wrong with today's society.
Remember, as an example, that it was both sides of the congressional aisle that got us into the financial fix we are presently experiencing. Neither side is made up exclusively of angels...or of devils, either.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

js said:


> Kev... I work in the music field, full time musician, and also work in the science field part time at a local college (Astronomy). I know how most of the "left" really feel about the "right", I hear it almost daily and it ain't pretty.


And I work in one of the most conservative/right wing industries imaginable, and the comments I hear about liberals are also often quite shocking and disappointing.

Another +1 to *kev74*'s excellent first post.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Yes.... Superman Bizzaro world... Where the Dems are loading the $70B bailout on the people, and the Repubs are trying to load it on big banks, and the stock market...

I personally think they should "tax" every existing BS government program (90% of them) for a portion of the $70B, and leave it a zero sum gain...


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

JeffWard said:


> Yes.... Superman Bizzaro world... Where the Dems are loading the $70B bailout on the people, and the Repubs are trying to load it on big banks, and the stock market...


Lets see if I can fix this for you:
Where the Dems and Repubs are charging the $70B bailout to the people, and the Repubs and Dems are trying to give it to big banks, and the stock market... 
This giveaway is the first time in about 8 years that both sides are working together.



JeffWard said:


> I personally think they should "tax" every existing BS government program (90% of them) for a portion of the $70B, and leave it a zero sum gain...


I agree, but would go further. Bring back some discussion of a Balanced Budget Amendment, reign in federal spending, and pay off our national debt. 
Now I'm dreaming!  :smt022


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

Steve, I don't think the comments from a has-been comic carry anywhere near the weight of the Political Adviser of the President of the United States. There is substantial evidence that Mr. Rove started the rumors that John McCain had an illegitimate black child and that he was responsible for rumors that John Kerry did not serve honorably in Viet Nam. Its been proven in court that Mr. Rove "outed" a CIA agent in an act of revenge against the agent's husband. I think these activities on the part of Mr. Rove are far more troubling and damaging than unfunny offhand comments from an unfunny comic.

Also, thank you for your thoughtful analysis of my political philosophies, but I think you might be off the mark a bit. I would love to be a member of the Republican party again, but its not going to happen until they get back to their core values of smaller government and responsible spending. 

As for my liberal or leftist leanings, I think if people are hungry they should be fed and if they have no shelter they should have a place to sleep. The food doesn't have to be tasty and the bed doesn't need to be soft. But if the government has the resources to help it should be so obliged - mostly because its the right thing to do but also because it will avoid revolt. On top of that, I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights and the government staying out of my personal affairs.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

kev74 said:


> Steve, I don't think the comments from a has-been comic carry anywhere near the weight of the Political Adviser of the President of the United States. There is substantial evidence that Mr. Rove started the rumors that John McCain had an illegitimate black child and that he was responsible for rumors that John Kerry did not serve honorably in Viet Nam. Its been proven in court that Mr. Rove "outed" a CIA agent in an act of revenge against the agent's husband. I think these activities on the part of Mr. Rove are far more troubling and damaging than unfunny offhand comments from an unfunny comic...


Were that Bernhard was a has-been. She's extremely popular, especially among the East-Coast intelligensia. Well, the East-Coast intelligensia south of Peekskill, anyway.
You're right that Rove started scurrilous rumors and "outed" Valerie Plame. But he didn't advocate gang-rape, which raises invective and dirty politics to an entirely new level.



kev74 said:


> ...Also, thank you for your thoughtful analysis of my political philosophies, but I think you might be off the mark a bit. I would love to be a member of the Republican party again, but its not going to happen until they get back to their core values of smaller government and responsible spending...


Me, too.



kev74 said:


> ...As for my liberal or leftist leanings, I think if people are hungry they should be fed and if they have no shelter they should have a place to sleep. The food doesn't have to be tasty and the bed doesn't need to be soft. But if the government has the resources to help it should be so obliged - mostly because its the right thing to do but also because it will avoid revolt. On top of that, I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights and the government staying out of my personal affairs.


Ah, here we diverge a little. I believe that government has the duty to offer training, and very temporary support during transitions, but that it should never offer any kind of dole or long-term support to anyone, with children or without. The government should not foster clients.
We agree upon civil rights.
But I still think that you're an Idealist.


----------



## lostsoul (Sep 30, 2008)

BLAH BLah blah,yada yada yada-----------A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N-S-!


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

lostsoul said:


> BLAH BLah blah,yada yada yada-----------A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N-S-!


The whole point about being an American is our right of freedom of speech and open discussion.
If it bothers you, don't join in.


----------



## tekhead1219 (May 16, 2008)

lostsoul said:


> BLAH BLah blah,yada yada yada-----------A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N-S-!


And you have a problem with Americans?:numbchuck:


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

tekhead1219 said:


> And you have a problem with Americans?:numbchuck:


I got the impression - perhaps mistaken - that *lostsoul* is saying that we're all Americans, and creating labels to divide us is not productive.

I could be wrong.


----------



## bdp2000 (Apr 22, 2008)

I got the same impression, Mike, but I must say the post was a little vague. And not very productive in itself.


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

lostsoul said:


> BLAH BLah blah,yada yada yada-----------A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N-S-!


I think we need a new forum rule; no drinking and posting. :drinkers:


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> I could be wrong.


Are you certain you want to admit something like that Mike. :anim_lol: :anim_lol:


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

Todd said:


> I think we need a new forum rule; no drinking and posting. :drinkers:


That might be going too far. Some of the best threads on this forum likely resulted from drinking and posting... well, that and politics! :watching:


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> Are you certain you want to admit something like that Mike. :anim_lol: :anim_lol:


Well, I did think I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. :mrgreen:


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

kev74 said:


> Some of the best threads on this forum likely resulted from drinking and posting


As well as some of the most random and incoherent.

Unfortunately js hasn't gotten the Breathalyzer software up and running yet, so there would be no way to enforce the rule. :mrgreen:


----------



## lostsoul (Sep 30, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> I got the impression - perhaps mistaken - that *lostsoul* is saying that we're all Americans, and creating labels to divide us is not productive.
> 
> I could be wrong.


That's exactly what I'm saying.Not so much on this forum but it's gotten down right dirty and name calling.We are all Americans and we share a common interest in our future and the future of our children.NOT ON THIS FORUM,but democrat-republican,some have drawn some weird lines.All of a sudden we're stereotypeing and bashing and insulting etc..I'm very open minded and my only concern is that (WE THE PEOPLE)America,benefit from who ever wins in Nov.I'm liberal by nature but conservitive by morality.I just hope for all our sake,color,religion,sexual preference whatever,we make the right choice.


----------



## unpecador (May 9, 2008)

Todd said:


> As well as some of the most random and incoherent.


I may or may not be guilty of drinking and posting. :mrgreen:


----------



## funkypunk97 (Aug 2, 2007)

I think the biggest problem is that the two sides want to be static, but they are very much dynamic. The swinging scale from left to right does not move in clicks and blocks but in a smeared gradient. 

We have extremes on both sides, neither of which 90% of the people agree with. So we end up with each side split into a smear of numbers....

We end up with 10% extreme left, and 10% extreme right - 
Then it splits deeper with 15% moderate lefts and 15% moderate right -

Right there is a 50% of the population that is not likely to want to understand the other side of the argument. 

Then you have the remaining 50% of the votes, who degrade that split even more as it moves to the middle, but it is this 50% that decides every election. So we end up with gray area politics as a permanent fixture in the USA. Neither side gains much control over the other and in essence nothing really gets done. 

Every once in a while we get a president who can bridge that gap and convince both sides that there is a middle ground. But alas this is happening less and less because the two sides hold such contempt for each other that we are seeing so much partisan grand-standing and spiteful attacks that hurt America. 

A bunch of selfish little babies who get mad at the other side for calling them names....booo-fu<%1ng-hooo ...... my feelings are hurt so I will now punish the tax payers to prove my point..... 

And then you have this same hatred spilling over to the voters.... I've heard such appalling things come out of voters mouths this year it is astonishing...... from the dip-wad in Wasilla saying he would not mind a McCain heart attack so his beloved Palin could get the presidency, to people saying Obama is a terrorist and the Antichrist.......

I've never seen such seething hatred for what seems to amount to the same exact thing.... both sides want the same thing and that is the truth. I do not know one single Democratic voter that wants to take your guns, and I don't know one single Republican that wants the war to continue forever...... I don't know any Democrats that want more tax and spend, and I don't know any Republican that wants true helper programs to be slashed out of business.....

Everyone agrees on new energy, everyone wants less government spending, everyone wants to be safe from terrorists, everyone wants all the same things for our country.....

Problem is everyone thinks their way is the best way to get us there and that this point they have ALL been wrong.......


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

FunkyPunk;
Very well stated.
I agree.


----------



## lostsoul (Sep 30, 2008)

Amen! funkypunk.I'll probably vote for the party that is less dirt digging.less name calling and less defensive,and keep my fingers crossed and pray.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

LostSoul;
Please, next time, say what you mean and don't leave it up to us to interpret.
Ambiguosity sometimes comes across as disparagement, as it did to me in your previous post.


----------



## lostsoul (Sep 30, 2008)

*The New Party!*

Idealists+Realists=Libraconservatarians,nice ring to it.:mrgreen:


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

lostsoul said:


> Idealists+Realists=Libraconservatarians,nice ring to it.:mrgreen:


Libraconservatarians...aren't they the ones who keep the Zodiac circling around the sky in the proper order?


----------



## Method (May 6, 2006)

lostsoul said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying.Not so much on this forum but it's gotten down right dirty and name calling.We are all Americans and we share a common interest in our future and the future of our children.NOT ON THIS FORUM,but democrat-republican,some have drawn some weird lines.All of a sudden we're stereotypeing and bashing and insulting etc..I'm very open minded and my only concern is that (WE THE PEOPLE)America,benefit from who ever wins in Nov.I'm liberal by nature but conservitive by morality.I just hope for all our sake,color,religion,sexual preference whatever,*we make the right choice.*


We'll know in oh, about 4 years.:smt023


----------

