Verbal terms causing personal offense


PDA






Hook686
June 24, 2005, 01:25 AM
preacherman wrote:
The problem is real, as I'm sure you know: and the solution is equally clear. Treat the views and religious convictions of others with respect, just as you expect your own to be respected, and don't misuse the name of God, however it is expressed, so as not to disrespect those who hold it in (perhaps) higher esteem than you do. Simple enough, no?

I humbly ask that this form of "Good manners" and respect apply to all topics and personal beliefs. I am often stunned by the terms and attitudes used on this forum towards "Liberals". I am a politically liberal individual, and am greatly offended when I read such negative judgements. As with the reference to some folks belief in God being a point of offending, when the term is used in a negative manner, could the same be applied to those of us who may be "Liberal" in our political views ?


Please do not misuse the term "Liberal", and please do not disrespect those that practice that political persuasion.
Hook686

If you enjoyed reading about "Verbal terms causing personal offense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
peacefuljeffrey
June 24, 2005, 01:34 AM
Or, you could just recongnize that other people have the right to not respect you, your beliefs, your views, your ideology... and just get over it.

Why do you believe that you are entitled to protection by the powers that be from insult or derogation?

Maybe we should all declare ourselves a protected class unto ourselves and get the nannies to pass an edict that nobody may say anything mean about us. :rolleyes:

But no. Once again, my advice is to get over it.


-Jeffrey

nico
June 24, 2005, 01:40 AM
jeffrey, keep in mind that the idea on THR is to attack the idea, NOT the person.


Hook, welcome to THR.
edit: I'm not sure what you mean by "misuse" but most of the time I see "liberal" mentioned here (I try not to use labels like "liberal" and "conservative" personally), it's in the context of a specific action being done by a self-proclaimed liberal.
If by "misuse" you mean calling the modern national Democrats "liberals," that's the label they give themselves, and it'd be hard to argue that most modern "liberals" align themselves with the Democrats (or the Greens).

bigun15
June 24, 2005, 01:41 AM
As long as people breathe, there will be arguments, name calling, debates, fights, etc.

mattw
June 24, 2005, 01:43 AM
I think you're over reacting.. sooner or later everyone gets offended for one reason or another.. no one singled you out and picked on you so I do not think it is fair to make everyone be afraid to offend anyone. If you can get this offended over something you read that was written by people that you do not know on the internet then i suggest you learn to let things slide.. in my opinion you are being obtuse. Accept that people dissagree and be adult about it, don't clog up the boards with this stuff, PM an admin.

Cesiumsponge
June 24, 2005, 01:45 AM
I think in the heat of an active discussion or debate, people will tend to get a bit emotional and there will always be some shoulder-rubbing and it is difficult to avoid.

Trying to be respectful to the opposing view can be difficult, as I'm sure many of you have argued passionately and felt that "wall" from the other side that can get your blood boiling. This is especially true when a majority of people in a particular group (like THR) share a common view and the minority is constantly bombarded by degrading stereotypes. I'm sure all of us have been in that minority in one point and time. No matter what, there will always be someone who disagrees and ends up in the minority as a fact of life. A thick skin becomes useful in many occasions...otherwise one will spend life being offended by a great many thing.

I don't think my post helps out much other than pointing out the obvious. I try to respect others since it is the way I'd like to be treated. However there is a point where being polite in general turns into the uber-PCness super sensitivity. I try not to go around calling people arseholes and making personal attacks but I draw the line at calling manhole covers "personhole covers".

Vernal45
June 24, 2005, 01:45 AM
Or, you could just recongnize that other people have the right to not respect you, your beliefs, your views, your ideology... and just get over it.

+1

You have rights, And I, along with most of us here at THR will fight for your rights. But others also have the right not to tolerate you, your views, your opinions or anything else about you.

bogie
June 24, 2005, 02:22 AM
As a proud Jeffersonian Liberal, I really _hate_ to see the term "liberal" used as an insult.

Not all "liberals" are bad. And many well-meaning, but not that mature, induhviduals have just not been educated.

mnrivrat
June 24, 2005, 02:56 AM
I've never quite understood the title liberal or conservitive when it comes to human beings . ( or aliens for that matter ) Can't I be a conservitive liberal ?

I haven't seen the document yet that realy lays out all the differences required to be put in one slot vs the other , and who made up the rule that you can't have a personality that is subject to both ways of thinking depending on the topic ?

And for that matter - who the hell cares ? I'm on a gun related board and what's important to me is topics related to firearms, their use, general information, safety, and the politics related to 2nd amendment issues.

Am I missing something here ? I see the spelling and grammer police chimming in and ask myself what point related to firearms are they trying to make ?

This may not make me popular , but I look at the same thing going on here with things like liberal vs conservative . I don't get it ! Are all liberals anti-gun and all conservatives pro-gun ? If that's so , how was that determined ?

:confused:

TonkinTwentyMil
June 24, 2005, 03:31 AM
Would anyone out there who voted for Kerry/Gore/Clinton in the last 3 elections be offended if I referred to them as...

Pacifist/Conflict-averse...

Ballistically-illiterate...

Anti-Gun...

Cultural elitist...

Politically-Correct/Thought-Controlling...

MainStreamMedia bedazzled...

Tax-and-Spend...

For The Children/The Common Good, etcetera...

EURO-SOCIALISTS?

Alternately, I'm open to being persuaded that "Liberal" somehow doesn't apply to 90% + of those fitting the above sub-sets.

I await your evidence, Hook.

GunnyBob
June 24, 2005, 04:15 AM
"Anyone under the age of 30 who is NOT a liberal has no heart. Anyone over the age of 30 who IS a liberal has no brain."

Winston Churchill

The_Antibubba
June 24, 2005, 05:54 AM
Ahh, but Liberals aren't really human beings, so there isn't a problem. :rolleyes:

only1asterisk
June 24, 2005, 06:17 AM
respect apply to all topics and personal beliefs

Fat chance! Do you have any idea the asinine things people believe? Do you think that simply holding a position should somehow make it valid?


David

ulflyer
June 24, 2005, 07:26 AM
Tonkin20mil:

Other than "anti-gun"....the rest sounds pretty much like my idea of a Republican.

Browns Fan
June 24, 2005, 07:41 AM
This IS a GUN forum, right? Arent all anti-gun types liberal? So, liberals are fair game.

Matthew748
June 24, 2005, 07:53 AM
My advice is to just roll with the punches and move on. I know that's what I do. Even when they are available, I have never felt the need to cry on the shoulder of a sympathetic mod when I feel offended by someone else's actions.

garyk/nm
June 24, 2005, 08:54 AM
Hook686,
I don't know where you got the idea that you have a right to not be offended, but the sooner you disabuse yourself of that notion, the easier life will be.
PC is not held in high regard on THR.
Oh, and welcome! I hope that you find your stay here worthwhile.

Tory
June 24, 2005, 09:00 AM
""Anyone under the age of 30 who is NOT a liberal has no heart. Anyone over the age of 30 who IS a liberal has no brain."

Winston Churchill"

I think someone is crediting the wrong Prime Minister. I believe that was first said by Benjamin Disraeli. ;)

GT
June 24, 2005, 09:03 AM
Gots to go with jeffrey and vernal on this one. Suck it up.
Who died and left your opinion in charge?

Troll with the punches.

Seriously though, there is no such thing as a liberal. The term has been used to describe pretty much any political position over the years. It has become like "deluxe" and "art": effectively meaningless.

I prefer the term "lefty". This covers all the "liberals", "progressives", "europhiles", "coastal elitists", "humanists", "Democrats (sic)" "Socialists", "Communists" and all other scum who see the world from a left-leaning, big-government, authoritarian viewpoint.

I reserve the right to hate them all unremittingly. I will, however, try not to let the bile show; no guarantees.

My term for those who see the world from a right-leaning, big-government, authoritarian viewpoint is unprintable on this forum.


G

Bruce H
June 24, 2005, 09:12 AM
Right. I have been callled way beyond stupid for some of my remarks and ideas. After reflection and study of the subject I found that I didn't know what the hell I was talking about. If you can't convince people with facts and sound ideas maybe your in need of the ridicule.

GRB
June 24, 2005, 09:21 AM
This thread is, in my opinion, ludicrous. In order for you to say that others should not be derogatroy toward liberals on this site and, for you to say that you are often stunned by the way some on this site refer to liberals, you are absolutely implying that some others who do not hold the same liberal political convictions that you hold, are essentially rude, crude and offensive because they post negatively about liberals or about their convictions.

Hmm, sounds pretty reasonable when you first look at it. Then when you think about it a bit, it gets somewhat fuzzy because it implies you mean conservatives or independents who lean right. I can easily see how the meat of the opinion is quite offensive to conservatives or even to some independents even though it is shrouded in the guise of the victimized liberal. You do not have to name conservatives (or right leaning independents) to make it clear that is to whom you are referring, it is fairly obvious. So what you have effectvely done to conservatives/RL-Independents is exactly what you say you want them not to do to you! How typically and how exceptionally, in my opinion, liberal. I do not take offense to you stating your opinion, however; I do take offense to its implications that you should be allowed to do such while others should not be allowed to do so.

On the other hand, if my opinion offends you, well as Sister Walter Phillip of the Dominican Order used to say: tough noogies. You see it was just meant to be my opinion, it was not meant to tell you not to state your own, it was a response to your own.

If you take offese to me stating my opinion or responding to yours or, if you take offense to the content of my opinion and, if you complain about my stating my opinion by in essence knocking me, isn't that the same thing about which you complained in the first place - except now it is the liberal who is knocking the conservative/RL-Inedependent! Just simply an amazing turn of events.

Sincerely,
Glenn B

Tim3256
June 24, 2005, 09:30 AM
Welcome Hook.

You're saying that I should treat your point of view with respect. Well, I'm sorry but I disagree with the agenda that self-proclaimed liberals advocate.

This PC thing in general is getting out of hand, folks...
I can't help but notice the irony that all their talk of "tolerance, respect, and diversity", goes out the window if your viewpoint is diverse to the point of disagreement. I have NO tolerance for religious leaders that teach hate, and I WON'T be "showing respect" for people that i disagree with that strongly. I DON'T agree that the public schools or Gov't agencies should promote and cater to multilingualism, we have always been an english-speaking country, and I see no good reason to modify that fact. Immagrants have always learned our language so that they could function in their adopted society, as would I, if I were to emigrate to a new homeland.

EXAMPLE:
To say that "The Koran is being used as an instrument of mayhem." is, in my opinion, an accurate staement of the political realities we are currently faced with. If others don't share that assessment, doesn't that, in fact. DEFINE it as being "diverse"? Further, doesn't the ideology of "tolerance" REQUIRE that I be allowed to promote that view? Why is it OK to censor THAT viewpoint? The "Koran" statement does not promote or endorse hatred or violence, so what justifies the admonishments of the PC police? The statement doesn't denegrate or disrespect any race, class, color, ethnicity, lifestyle choice etc etc etc; other than that of the terrorist (our self-proclaimed mortal enemy).
I have always tried to respect other's belief sytems, and I don't generally give a whistle what your "preference", racial background, religion, etc etc etc is; so just let me decide who and what to "respect". I'll do my own thinking, thank you. If we really want to embrace diversity, it seems to me that we need to accept ALL points of view, not just the cute, fuzzy, "correct" views.

"When intelligent debate is outlawed, intellect withers, and we are doomed."

shermacman
June 24, 2005, 09:44 AM
Hook:
First off, welcome!
Second, who do think you are that you are so special as to have some "right" to not be offended by the opinions of others?
Third, who do you think you are to tell anyone that we should not speak negatively about political positions that we disagree with?

Debate and discussion are part of the foundation of our country. The only place on this planet that has ever had a 100% total agreement on politics was in the last "election" that Saddam held.

Opinions, facts and emotional outbursts are not just fun, they are good for you. They might even cure you of your misplaced Liberal pedagogy.

CentralTexas
June 24, 2005, 10:11 AM
you are only a liberal, you should see what happens if you are a vegetarian or Libertarian around here! ;) Actually there are quite a few of all those and more.
CT

Werewolf
June 24, 2005, 10:13 AM
:banghead:
PC is not held in high regard on THR.:what:

ROFLMFAO as I choke, gag and spit coffee onto my company keyboard.

Puhleez - PC is alive and well on THR. The form it takes is only slightly less insidious than that of the mainstream media or say The Democratic Underground but it exists here none the less...

thereisnospoon
June 24, 2005, 10:31 AM
Have to go with Werewolf on this one....

I have had to tame most of my posts and in some cases not even respond to some because I was "warned" by moderators early on that my views were too "over the top" and would not be tolerated.

PC is alive and well on THR, but it is still a great forum to learn about guns, tactics, politics and the way other people think.

BTW, Welcome to THR and get over it, either stand up for your opinions (with facts I might add or some here will rip you apart...we have VERY smart people here), regardless of what someone "calls you" or simply learn to live with being called a liberal.

I wear my labels very proudly, and IF you really believe the drivel your spouting, you should wear your label proudly, too!

Need any tinfoil?

The Freeholder
June 24, 2005, 10:45 AM
Before this thread gets shut down, I want to get my 2 cents in. I agree with Werewolf and thereisnospoon--there is plenty of PC (of an untraditional sort, usually) on THR. Look at the closed threads and you'll figure it out. Each of our moderators has their hot buttons as far as the THR rules and likely other things go--hit one in a thread and it will be closed down, and you will get a PM from them. Do it often enough, and you get banned.

It's cool. It's their site. Even though I chip in my opinions and a few bucks at upgrade time, they get to make the rules. If I don't like them, I'm perfectly free to go elsewhere.

If you don't like it here, if people are to derogatory about liberals, cops or coffee cans (sorry, couldn't resist) to suit you, you're free to go elsewhere too. It's still a semi-free country.

However, I hope you don't. I may disagree with you, but if you like guns we have some common ground. Besides, maybe we'll be able to help so see the error of your ways. :evil:

Justin
June 24, 2005, 10:47 AM
I'd like to point out that there is very much a difference between PC and civility.

As for using the term "liberal" in a derogatory manner, I have to say that I have very, very little sympathy for any philosophy that places the collective above the individual, and that my animosity for statists/collectivists is hardly limited to just those on the left.

Oleg Volk
June 24, 2005, 10:47 AM
I own this forum and yet I've had to bite my tongue more often than not. Insulting people does not convince them. It confirms them in their opinions and it unfavorably impresses the on-lookers. Poor manners and abusive style also reflects poorly on the forum overall.

Look at http://volokh.com or http://www.davekopel.com/ or http://www.claytoncramer.com/journals.htm -- these people can express strong opinions in a clear, logical manner and not offend their readers in the process. "Liberal" is a broad label, and a sign of intellectual laziness, in my opinion. Just like "Conservative" is a broad label and as such very imprecise.

That said: civil treatment of praticipants of this forum is a must. Respect for their ideas: bah! Remember: the civil conduct which I try to forster by example stems from my self-interest and yours, not from pure altruism.

dmallind
June 24, 2005, 10:47 AM
Welcome Hook

Yes anyone even vaguely centrist will be demonized on THR. It doesn't hurt or injure, trust me. You get used to it and even becomes amusing to see if you can tell the difference between the Limbaugh and the Liddy listeners depending on which insults they use.

I notice however none of the "suck it up" crowd addressed the impetus for Hook's post.

We have been officially warned by moderators that we cannot misuse the name of (let alone misapply, insult, or denigrate) the favorite deity, demiurge, or supreme force of others. This was done in the name of civility and respect for deeply held beliefs.

Hook quite rightly pointed out the inconsistency, and quite predictably was verbally savaged for it.

Now if liberalism and liberals can and should just suck it up (and I don't particularly disagree) you would think the almighty Lord of all Creation could manage to be held to the same standard.

Now frankly I don't care too much if you insult me or make unfounded sophomoric claims about anyone to the left of Buchanan - it merely shows your ignorance, not mine. It does get a bit frustrating having to correct or accommodate egregious factual errors I confess, and it's a constant niggle that apparently no-one on THR knows the real definition of socialism (state control of the means of production in case anyone cares - so unless a poster is hankering for Bush to control all US industry-rather than the other way round for example - the term is misapplied) but it's hardly injurious.

Just disappointing.

Frandy
June 24, 2005, 10:58 AM
Welcome Hook.

My only take on this is how I react when I read certain posts. I simply give less credibility to those posters who engage in ad hominem attacks, no matter which side of the aisle the attack comes from.

Justin
June 24, 2005, 11:16 AM
Now if liberalism and liberals can and should just suck it up (and I don't particularly disagree) you would think the almighty Lord of all Creation could manage to be held to the same standard. Funny, but I'm hard pressed to think of any deity from Vishnu to Odin to Allah to Jesus who has ever passed legislation either extorting money from me, or forcing me to give up civil rights at the point of a gun. You know, for the children.

/Really cranky mood today.

scottgun
June 24, 2005, 11:45 AM
Funny, but I'm hard pressed to think of any deity from Vishnu to Odin to Allah to Jesus whose ever passed legislation either extorting money from me, or forcing me to give up civil rights at the point of a gun. You know, for the children.

That's correct, my rights come from God and liberal politicians are the ones who trying to take them away. Well not exclusively liberal politicians, but the liberal policy is the enemy of freedom. And in the fight for keeping our freedom, sometimes the emeny may get upset at name calling.

Please show me a liberal or progressive discussion forum that will tolerate a conservative point of view. The few that I have seen, a conservative poster will be ridiculed, sworn at, chewed a new orifice and then banned. I think that the folks at THR go to great lengths, almost to a fault, to be polite and civil to all people. However bad policies, bad view points will get their just ridicule.

Welcome, and thicken up your skin a bit.

Werewolf
June 24, 2005, 11:47 AM
Political Correctness = Thought Police with Manners

Controlling thought in the name of civility is the very essence of Political Correctness.

There are times - albeit not often - that it is nigh onto impossible to express a thought and remain civil. In PC controlled places it then becomes impossible to express some thoughts which is afterall the goal of PC.

Hook686
June 24, 2005, 11:47 AM
Fascinating replies ...

My inquiry was motivated more by preacherman's statement containing

Treat the views ... of others with respect, just as you expect your own to be respected ... Simple enough, no?

than anything more esoteric ... just simply, can folks be tolerant, and respectful, of other opinions, beliefs and practices, or is more important to strike out and ridicule, demean, put down, and/or admonish those that might hold different beliefs, even though there may also be a thread of commonality. In other words, can folks focus on the positive, or is the negative more attractive.

The answer I found might be the basis for the wisdom in CCW.

Thankyou for all the replies.

Hook686

middy
June 24, 2005, 11:49 AM
Good point, Hook. If we have to be PC about religion, why not about politics?

The labels of "liberal" and "conservative", "left" and "right", are basically meaningless in their current usage. For example, how can a libertarian capitalist be to the "right" along with the Nazi (National Socialist) party? How can an anti-authoritarian, pacifist, hippy commune be "left" over there with Joe Stalin? Is a Republican senator working to overthrow the Roe vs. Wade decision really "conservative"? Isn't he trying to change things? Is a Democratic senator fighting against Welfare reform really "liberal"? Isn't he fighting against change?

Is it really being liberal to change things just for the sake of changing? We already had the most open and least oppressive government in history 220 years ago, is it really "liberal" to expand its powers beyond those expressed in the Constitution, in the name of social justice? Is it really "conservative" to try to change things back to the way they were (or is it just reactionary :D )? Is it reactionary to try to restore something that has been corrupted to its original purity (like, say, clean air and water legislation).

These labels really confuse everyone. In reality, to paraphrase Bob Heinlein, politics breaks down to those who think people need to be controlled and those who don't. Their motives may differ; a "fascist" may want to control people in order to further his own power and conquest, while a "progressive" may want to control people so as to bring about a more "fair" distribution of wealth. But, they will both always be opposed by those of us who don't think government has the right to those controls.

I voted for Bush, but many of his policies, and those of other Republicans, turn my stomach, just generally on a lesser scale than their political opponents. I agree with "liberals" on many issues, but I don't trust them to take the right path in solving those problems, they tend to throw money at problems, creating a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that exacerbates the problems in the long run (e.g.; Welfare, racial quotas). Likewise, many "conservatives" feel like it's OK to legislate morality on issues like drug control and flag burning, which is just flat unconstitutional. All of these issues should be handled at the state and local levels so people can "vote with their feet"...

I could go on like this all day, but I won't (pause for applause and cries of relief). I just hope I've given some of you food for thought when it comes to applying (and conforming to) political labels.

keyhole
June 24, 2005, 11:51 AM
Welcome! No matter what, there is always something good to be found here.

ny32182
June 24, 2005, 11:55 AM
middy wins "best post" so far.

cdma
June 24, 2005, 12:13 PM
The quality of most of the threads on THR is depressingly low; you don't miss a whole lot by staying away. There's a reason my post count is so low.

One reason is that people here approach debate as a chance to demolish and humiliate their opponent instead of challenging and persuading them. The old TFL was very much a community where things rarely got terribly rancorous; this isn't the case with THR where most things devolve into cockfights.

I'm much more conservative than most of my friends, but when we discuss a topic that we disagree on, we can keep it...friendly. It sounds to me like that's all Hook is asking for.

cuchulainn
June 24, 2005, 12:16 PM
Justin: I'd like to point out that there is very much a difference between PC and civility.

Werewolf: Controlling thought in the name of civility is the very essence of Political Correctness.Civility existed long before PC, and I pray it will exist long after PC is rotting in its grave. Civilityand PC are not synonyms.

One of my pet theories for the past few years has been that anti-PC has become the new PC. Certainly, the ad hominem tactics are the same whether attempting to shut up someone by saying "that's not PC" or saying "that's just PC."

In any event, it’s now common for uncivil folk to use the anti-PC backlash to falsely justify language and behavior that 25 years ago -- before PC entered our language -- would simply have been deemed rude, immature and boorish.

Asking for civility is not an attempt to “control thought.” Any idea can be expressed in a civil manner. Any idea can be expressed in an uncivil manner. Any idea.

Werewolf: There are times - albeit not often - that it is nigh onto impossible to express a thought and remain civil.You are confusing emotion and ideas. Then again, strong emotion can be expressed within the bounds of civility, and when done well, the impact is greater.

Hook686
June 24, 2005, 12:17 PM
First off, I again point out my inquiry had to do with preacherman's thread ... and expressions concerning using the name(s) for God in a thread. This would not be tolerated, was my understanding. Basically, if I hit my thumb, with the hammer, while driving a nail, the expression "Gosh darn", has very little redeaming quality. On the other hand, other more vocal expression seem to "sooth the savage breast". This idea was expressed by many, but perhaps most eliquently by

shermacman
Senior Member

with:


Hook: First off, welcome!
Second, who do think you are that you are so special as to have some "right" to not be offended by the opinions of others?
Third, who do you think you are to tell anyone that we should not speak negatively about political positions that we disagree with?

Debate and discussion are part of the foundation of our country. The only place on this planet that has ever had a 100% total agreement on politics was in the last "election" that Saddam held.

Opinions, facts and emotional outbursts are not just fun, they are good for you. They might even cure you of your misplaced Liberal pedagogy.


I was understanding from preacherman that this type attitude was not to be here on THR. I am happy to see that I was incorrect in my assessment, though I'm not sure why the freedom exists for some terms, yet not others. Anyway, ...

Thankyou for the welcome messages ... and Happy Shooting !

Hook686

R.H. Lee
June 24, 2005, 12:21 PM
I find liberalism to be the least tolerant of the political philosophies. Its adherents are quite willing to force compliance on everyone else using the power of government. That is emblematic of the collectivist mindset; that individual rights don't exist, that 'society' (led by a few elitist 'intellectuals' :rolleyes: ) is the giver and taker of liberties and freedoms. Liberals consider themselves to be completely altruistic, and morally and intellectually superior. So did Hitler and his Nazis.

The ideas, values, concepts and philosophies of modern liberalism are completely unworkable and have failed miserably everywhere they've been enacted. So called liberal 'principles' will not stand up to any serious scrutiny which may explain why liberals are relegated soley to whining and complaining, sometimes with vicious and hate filled rhetoric that means nothing and proceeds nowhere.

In fact, I'm offended by liberalism and its purveyors. But then again, I'm mature enough to understand I have no right not to be offended.

P95Carry
June 24, 2005, 12:24 PM
The quality of most of the threads on THR is depressingly low Really?! Sad to hear.

I wonder tho if this is just regarding these types of debate, as against honest to goodness gun discussions. I have a bounty of political views but tend to stay out of the wrangling and bickering - most of the time - I finish up with a headache. Sometimes those subjects do I admit suffer from being ''quality'' challenged. ;) In fact they can be downright tedious.

Overall I would still like to think that the ''nuts & bolts'' gun and shooting discussions - after all the prime purpose of this board, are for the most part useful to many, particularly folks newer to it all. There is a free exchange of info and opinion which for many has made this place a valuable resource.

SteveS
June 24, 2005, 12:25 PM
There are times - albeit not often - that it is nigh onto impossible to express a thought and remain civil. In PC controlled places it then becomes impossible to express some thoughts which is afterall the goal of PC.

What is the answer? I have visited some of the un-moderated forums and tend to stay away, since almost every discussion turned into some junior high, insult-fest.

The Freeholder
June 24, 2005, 12:41 PM
What is the answer? I have visited some of the un-moderated forums and tend to stay away, since almost every discussion turned into some junior high, insult-fest.

I think the answer is what we have here, and in most other moderated gun forums. It may be imperfect, and some of us may occasionally question a moderator's decision. However, it seems to work the vast majority of the time.

Sam
June 24, 2005, 12:57 PM
Welcome Hook,
Hope you take away new perspective of the place.

Middy has expresed it best.

A Socialist is a Socialist whether Fabian or National and liberal does not enter into it.

Most of our labels are wrong.

I am liberal because I believe, support and seek to further LIBERTY, most of the time I have to vote for a Republican to try and get things as I think they ought to be. Only vote for people, not parties

Sam

Legionnaire
June 24, 2005, 01:08 PM
Interesting thread. I've always appreciated the exhortation to attack ideas rather than people. Ad hominem attacks (in the vernacular) don't win arguments ... they just tick people off.

That said, I'm more and more distressed by all the folks I run into (not primarily on this board) who are so overly sensitive to "being offended." To the contrary, I admire those who do not take offense, even when offense is intended! You can insult my intelligence, my background, my religion, my sex, my bald head, my waistline, my choice of carry gun (gotta keep this gun related) ... and if I let myself "be offended" by "your insult," I'm letting you define the terms of our interaction.

I believe that "not taking offense" is a sign of real maturity and self confidence -- real "self esteem" if you will. My value as a person is not defined in the least by what you think of me! To let myself get bent out of shape by some supposed insult means I am letting you define my own sense of value. No way.

In my experience, ad hominem attacks are a ploy by someone who has already lost the argument on its merit. When threads reach that level, I tend to tune out.

It is very important that those of us who carry arms learn not to take offense ... even when it is intended! [/soapbox]

Legionnaire
June 24, 2005, 01:12 PM
Oh ... and welcome aboard, Hook. :o

benEzra
June 24, 2005, 01:17 PM
Hook686, welcome. There are plenty of non-republicans here, and quite a few pro-gun progressives.

This IS a GUN forum, right? Arent all anti-gun types liberal? So, liberals are fair game.
Uh...no...

I could name a number of conservative republicans who are anti-gun...William J. Bennett comes to mind...

Nor are all liberals anti-gun...that's only a recent development, and comes more from communitarianism than traditional liberalism...

That's no more true than saying that all conservatives are anti-Fourth Amendment...some are, some aren't...some prominent ones are...

slzy
June 24, 2005, 01:29 PM
are we working on the basis that "liberal" is a code word for hippy-type?

dev_null
June 24, 2005, 01:46 PM
Or, you could just recongnize that other people have the right to not respect you, your beliefs, your views, your ideology... and just get over it.
So how is this OK when it comes to discussions involving the word "Liberal" and not to when it comes to discussions involving the word "God" ...?

odysseus
June 24, 2005, 02:04 PM
But others also have the right not to tolerate you, your views, your opinions or anything else about you.

I certainly don't subscribe to that line of operation, or perhaps this was not communicated correctly. I myself am pretty right of center... but I would not want to always be discussing issues with people who all say the same thing. Challenging our assumptions and beliefs is the part of our duty, and that duty for all of us is to be a critical thinker. Something I think unfortunetly is also being lost in many of our public schools.

My assumption with THR is if I participate in it, I DO have to tolerate other peoples believes and opinions. It doesn't mean that I have to agree, and it also means I can debate and expect that my opinion can be tolerated (of course within a reasonable person context :p ).

Sure you have a right not to agree and also to disagree... I am not sure what not tolerating means... so he should not be able to have a voice? Shouldn't he, if he is being respectful in its delivery, be able to sound his voice without being heckled?

This discussion also brings up another issue I have been talking to people about. A study was released not long ago (sorry no reference here) I heard on the radio, whereby a startling conclusion was being formed. It should be no surprise to most, but that:

1) People are now only listening, watching, and reading from news sources that seem to only validate their own beliefs.
2) Media sources have realized this, so now they are reporting/showing/discussing events and news that is tailored to the percieved political slant of this audience (be it right/left).
3) This of course now is so they can advertise accordingly and now derive a higher profit by having a "tuned" audience for the product.

scottgun
June 24, 2005, 02:10 PM
So how is this OK when it comes to discussions involving the word "Liberal" and not to when it comes to discussions involving the word "God" ...?

"God" and "Liberal" do not have equal standing. The comparison doesn't hold. There are some things that are quite offensive and need consideration, but that doesn't mean that everything else needs to have that equal amount of consideration.

Edited to add: in a Legal and Political forum, Liberal and Conservative are appropriate topics, God is not. imo

shermacman
June 24, 2005, 02:23 PM
Hook:First off, I again point out my inquiry had to do with preacherman's thread ... and expressions concerning using the name(s) for God in a thread. This would not be tolerated, was my understanding.

Nope. That is not what you said. What you said, in your original post, is that you wanted that same standard applied to "Liberals". Note that my response is not an ad hominem attack against you. It is an attack against the fact that you are now changing your original argument. It is also an attack against the absolutely unconvincing equivalence of "God" and "Liberal".

TonkinTwentyMil
June 24, 2005, 02:29 PM
...for a very good analysis of this same issue/debate.

I couldn't have said it any better than (the despised-by-Liberals) Karl Rove... who ALSO apparently believes that, If The Shoe Fits...

-->> realclearpolitics.com

CentralTexas
June 24, 2005, 02:34 PM
"gun owner" is a code word for wife beating, inbred, knuckle dragging, child molesting hillbilly.
So I guess the answer is "no". :D
CT

cuchulainn
June 24, 2005, 02:48 PM
I'm quite bemused that Preacherman's request (request, mind you) has generated so much consternation in that thread and in this one.

spacemanspiff
June 24, 2005, 03:00 PM
turnabouts fair play. how about we all go to the DU and complain because their comments are offensive to us?

see how long that lasts.

i have yet to see anyone who calls themselves 'progressive' behave in a truely 'progressive' manner. i have also not been privy to witnessing the much described 'peace, love and understanding' that the left lays claims to.

dev_null
June 24, 2005, 03:01 PM
"God" and "Liberal" do not have equal standing. The comparison doesn't hold. There are some things that are quite offensive and need consideration, but that doesn't mean that everything else needs to have that equal amount of consideration.
So there's a sliding scale when it comes to tolerance, and religious tolerance is part of the vision of taking the High Road, but diversity of political opinions is not?

If that's so, I'm ok with it, but I'd like to know what the rules are. I just don't see why it's alright for some people to be thin-skinned but not others. Personally, I'm with the "Get over it" POV on *ALL* issues, as long as we are debating ideas and not attacking people.

bearmgc
June 24, 2005, 03:06 PM
Wow first fight of the Summer, and it ain't even hot yet. Makes me want to throw "Grease" in the DVD player and order a pizza. That'll put me in the mood to cruise to the maltshop in my 57 Chevy. PC my butt. This is one of few places I can talk about guns and not be treated like I have leprosy. Now, when the word "liberal" comes up, I'll have to excuse myself, and go read a gun magazine or something.

scottgun
June 24, 2005, 03:10 PM
So there's a sliding scale when it comes to tolerance, and religious tolerance is part of the vision of taking the High Road, but diversity of political opinions is not?

Yes, just as racism and anti semitism wouldn't be tolerated. I haven't seen an intolerance of political opinions, just wrong opinions that get shot down. There's a difference.

I'm with the "Get over it" POV on *ALL* issues, as long as we are debating ideas and not attacking people
I wholeheartedly agree. :D

Andrew Rothman
June 24, 2005, 03:48 PM
The quality of most of the threads on THR is depressingly low; you don't miss a whole lot by staying away. There's a reason my post count is so low.

Which THR are you reading? I find intelligent discussion, new ideas, food for thought, information and amusement here every day.

Oh, and by the way, I'm wholly unconvinced by your contention that the alleged ly low quality of threads explains your low post count.

After all, if you have something "quality" to add, wouldn't that raise the bar?

dmallind
June 24, 2005, 08:58 PM
You are absolutely right. God and Liberalism are not equal!

Any god to deserve the name must surely be so far above the need for protection from disrespect that it is downright blasphemy to suggest that reference to said deity be universally positive. A five year old child is much more sensitive to insult and putdowns than a grownup - and a divine entity must be by orders of magnitude much less sensitive than the adult human surely?

If gods can create universes how can they care if I use their various names as epithets? If their followers care are they not imputing their own human weakness and frailty onto their object of worship, and as such far more disrespectful than I am?

It's the same in political discussions. God is "kept out" of the classroom. The same deity who cast out Satan and by whose power Christ raised the dead has to kowtow to the SCOTUS in Abingdon? Christianity is "under attack" even though every single president and 90%+ of nationally powerful politicos are overtly Christian, and the language, culture and sociology of the nation is strongly infused at all levels with Christianity with no opposing voice in any position of influence? (quick - name a nationally elected or appointed atheist!)

So absolutely divine postulates and political postulates deserve different levels of protection and courtesy. The trouble is THR has it the wrong way round on which deserves the most.

dev_null
June 24, 2005, 09:27 PM
dmallind, do you think that the rule is there because the Deity needs protection, or because people tend to get emotional when religion enters the discussion?

dmallind
June 24, 2005, 09:32 PM
Both devnull,

I think the rule is there because people get emotional and think that their deity needs protection from insult, when that to me is a far greater insult than any other.

It's like my stepdaughter thinking I need to be protected from the opinions of her middle school friends, when I am, like almost all parents, completely indifferent to such juvenalia. How much more so would a god be indifferent to my opinions of him, regardless of how much it annoyed his acolytes?

scottgun
June 24, 2005, 09:40 PM
I think the rule is there so we don't get into a discussion about religion.

Guns are alot more fun to discuss. :D

CentralTexas
June 24, 2005, 09:53 PM
1- With Bush senior and many other prominent folks saying Atheists aren't Americans, why would one announce it?
2- I hate to broad brush here but I didn't start this, I find many Christians can be very hateful about this despite the love/forgive everyone statements.
3- It's ok, fat people and atheists are still fair game since you can't bash gays and blacks anymore! ;)
4- Last unabashed one in office I know of recently was Jesse Ventura. My try looking up Robert Green Ingersoll, he was almost president in the 1800's and wouldn't hide his atheism.
It really doesn't prove anything much other than we aren't very electable due to prejudice on "someones" part :neener:
Plenty of non-elected company though from Lance Armstrong, Rodney Dangerfield,Isaac Asimov,Kinky Friedman, Penn Jillette to Bill Gates etc etc etc
CT :D

dmallind
June 24, 2005, 10:03 PM
I commend you on your knowledge of atheism and atheists Central Texas, as well as your perspicuity in naming atheists as one of the last minorities who are fair game to slander and establish prejudice against.

My only minor quibble with your post is that despite his public antipathy for organized religion, Jesse was not an atheist himself. We have a friend in common who I specifically requested to confirm this for me when the brouhaha over the "crutch" comment broke out. The best I could understand second hand of his beliefs I would peg him as a Deist, in which company he is joined by a goodly number of the Founding Fathers.

Also worth noting for those who equate lack of overt Xianity with extreme leftism and anti-freedom that he was and remains an ardent proponent of gun rights.

But really you seem to be agreeing with me more than not - in that Christians tend to be defensive and sensitive when it is the nonbelievers who are marginalized and attacked by society, not the believers.

Either way I find it impossible to take seriously the idea that an omnipotent Creator could worry too much what I as a rather pedestrian example of humanity think of him, which is why the whole concept of salvation by faith makes no sense to me. Especially since a Creator both omnipotent and omniscient would, at the exact time of his creating my soul, have been fully aware of its eventual belief stance and hence eternal destination.

Barbara
June 24, 2005, 10:24 PM
Ha..not only am I a liberal, I'm a man-hating feminazi (tm). Talk about guaranteed popularity on this forum! :) But basically, I think if someone doesn't like it, I don't much care. I don't base my beliefs on other people's hangups. I work my tush off for the 2nd Amendment and various other rights, and I do it because I believe in it, not because I care if someone thinks happy thoughts about me.

What it boils down to is, that if you believe in something, believe it in and quit caring what other people think of you. If your beliefs aren't strong enough to withstand criticism, then they're probably wrong. Or else you're a big old wimpy liberal. :)

Barbara
June 24, 2005, 10:30 PM
are we working on the basis that "liberal" is a code word for hippy-type,pinko,fag?

Ha! Those are just rumours. I don't even have a Commie flag tacked up on the wall inside of my garage.

thereisnospoon
June 24, 2005, 10:36 PM
How the crap did this discussion disgress into an argument over wether a Diety needs "protected" from our inane comments or insults?

I thought the question was wether or not we were allowed to label each other...the following labels would apply quite nicely to me, ifn y'all need any help:

Fat
Three steps to the right of Attilah the Hun
Obnoxious
Overbearing
Short
Ugly
Narrow Minded
Jesus Freak
Very Poor Spellar
Even Poorer typist

Please feel free to add to the list, if you have read any of my posts and find something else you think may be appropriate...

:neener:

dev_null
June 24, 2005, 10:58 PM
You forgot:

spoondenier

:neener:

MechAg94
June 24, 2005, 11:17 PM
Interesting to see comments about how hateful Christians are from atheists who are acting arrogant and smug. That is the typical attitude I see from atheists elsewhere. "we are better than you because we do not believe in your religion." And you wonder why you get a hostile response sometimes. :rolleyes:

Which is exactly the reason for the rule. Not protection of religion, but to avoid pointless religious arguments. If you have questions about why Christians believe the way they do or some other question, go somewhere else to ask them or send PM's. I don't care if you are atheist or not. Hold your own beliefs and keep them to youself, especially on a THR. I will also.

MechAg94
June 24, 2005, 11:23 PM
On the original post, I have learned that liberal can mean a lot of things. I think of the idiots people in Washington, but a lot of people consider themselves liberal that don't fit that. I think if you went issue by issue, you would find a lot of confusion over what a liberal is vs other labels.

That being said, if you think you are getting offended, GOOD! Suck it up and move on. You are probably too sensitive anyway and need to grow some thicker skin.

If you can't handle a confrontation on the internet, do you really think you would be able to handle a gun in a real confrontation? Somthing to consider.

Sir Aardvark
June 24, 2005, 11:27 PM
To get back to Hook's original query.......

I'm not going to take sides here - but you are SO wrong!!

THR is really tame compared to the other gun sites on the web. If you want to be party to cussing, bashing, flaming cretins, try Glocktalk - at least here at THR we have a strong semblance of manners and civility.

CentralTexas
June 24, 2005, 11:32 PM
Civility here? Oh Yeah??? Yo Momma! :neener:
CT

pax
June 24, 2005, 11:40 PM
Folks,

The reason religion is verboten on THR has nothing to do with whether we might hurt a god's feelings by talking about him, her, or it. It's simply that religion is not part of our core mission here, and that it is divisive. Since talking about religion is both unnecessary and divisive, we've chosen not to discuss it here.

We do talk about politics here, because it is part of our core mission even when it's divisive.

Unfortunately, it isn't possible to talk politics these days without using words. The problem is, words have meanings -- emotional ones as well as definitive ones. But without words, we can't have a discussion.

That's why the rule is, "Attack the argument, not the arguer." Which is a far cry indeed from saying "Certain arguments aren't allowed." You can propound any sort of nonsense on THR you want, and everyone else can tell you how much nonsense it is ... as long as they do it politely.

I don't see what's so difficult about this.

pax

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. -- H. L. Mencken

Ky Larry
June 24, 2005, 11:42 PM
Could someone remind me why I should give a sh** what anyone on this board thinks of me and my beliefs? As PopEye would say"I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam." Please feel free to insult me or my beliefs. This is America. :neener:

GRB
June 24, 2005, 11:42 PM
just simply, can folks be tolerant, and respectful, of other opinions, beliefs and practicesI can be quite respectful of you for having your beliefs, yet I do not need to tolerate those beliefs to respect you. I can try all in my power to tear them down and discredit them, to show you what I believe to be the error of your ways (and what greater respect could there be than for me honestly to try to help you improve your ideals). If I believe them wrong, or immoral (and I am not looking at this from a religious standpoint at all because I am far from religious) it would be disrespectful of me to ignore you if you believed in them because I would be in effect allowing you (at least as i would see it) to just keep on going wrong. However, because I show you respect when I do this, or try to do it, does not mean I have to respect your ideas if I think they stink. Tolerance is apparently one of those liberal standards I cannot stomach because it only works when liberals want others to be tolerant of liberal views and not when those others want liberals to be tolerant of conservative views.

Best regards,
Glenn B

griz
June 25, 2005, 12:13 AM
I am a politically liberal individual, and am greatly offended when I read such negative judgements.

Just so we're clear, are you offended because of people disagreeing with you or insulted by their terminology?

If the former, well kitchens are hot you know. If the later, which term would be less offensive to you? I'm not trying to be caviler here, and if I am missing your point please straighten me out.

Thanks, Griz, who is pretty much libertarian minded and thinks labels get in the way of meaning.

dmallind
June 25, 2005, 12:30 AM
Well you're not doing a good job of keeping them to yourself MechAg. Where exactly are the accusations of hatefulness? Where exactly are the smugly superior aspects of my posts? I made no pejorative comments whatsoever about Christians.

Isn't the idea on THR that you are supposed to discuss the idea not the person?


I think I did that.

And Pax I find your response disingenuous. All manner of topics not remotely part of the THR raison d'etre are thoroughly discussed without official admonitions to avoid hurting the sensibilities of what is after all the vast majority.

Gordy Wesen
June 25, 2005, 12:35 AM
in truth, being a Liberal means never having to say you're sorry... not sorry to take your guns, your land or your life support.

Feanaro
June 25, 2005, 03:23 AM
A number of people have said, more or less, "tough cookies". I, personally, agree with this idea. I am offended by many things, I keep it to myself. But if our liberal friends should have to "tough it out", why can't the religious members tough out my use of "Jesus Christ!" in consternation? Why can't I cook their Sacred Cow to make my hamburgers? Because THR is built on civil discussion. I hope we all remember that regardless of the issue.

Now if the reason we aren't allowed to abuse the name of God is because it easily starts narsty discussions, that's fine with me. If it is a double standard, that's fine too. It is Oleg's site, he is free to demand that while we post we all dance nude to "It's Raining Men", whilst rubbing our head and patting our stomach.

Cesiumsponge
June 25, 2005, 03:39 AM
In regards to Feanaro's post.

I think the "respect God" thread caters to the beliefs shared by the majority of members here and when you start offending the majority, you're going to get a lot more fire than offending at the minority.

I would fathom the same applies to guns, political affiliation, and heterosexuals. It might be stereotype, but I would be willing to bet a large majority of those here are conservative Republican straight Christians. In establishing that, someone offending the majority is going to cause a lot more backlash than somone poking at a gay liberal Democratic Hindu getting little support in result.

Its just a mob mentality and unavoidable given the gathering of many like-minded people. Given my political and religious beliefs are different than the typical here, I still find myself doing just fine here. Everyone is going to feel offended now and then, especially when people are passionately arguing their viewpoints against yours. You can either back out, continue on, or complain about it.

I don't run around making personal insults (or at least attempt not to). I'll usually feel free to attack ideas and hope that people can discern the difference between attacking an idea and making a personal attack. If I feel it is going to hit a wall or it will continue indefinitely with no headway, I'll back out and save my breath. If there is good discussion, I'll continue on. I'll only complain when discussion turns into personal attacks.

Legionnaire
June 25, 2005, 09:41 AM
"A gentleman never insults anyone unintentionally." -Oscar Wilde

Hook686
June 25, 2005, 02:19 PM
Yesterday, 11:13 PM #80
griz
Senior Member

Just so we're clear, are you offended because of people disagreeing with you or insulted by their terminology?

If the former, well kitchens are hot you know. If the later, which term would be less offensive to you? I'm not trying to be caviler here, and if I am missing your point please straighten me out.

Thanks, Griz

Hello Griz ... my comments were from reading the thread that ended with what I viewed as restrictions on expressing oneself using religous verbage, as it offends some members. My point was simply, as a liberal minded individual, I am offended by anyone slamming anyone, or their personal belief, or opinion. In other words, I was asking everyone to be nice to each other. If you do not like this opinion, you can express your attitudes without being negative about my chosen path, beliefs, or way of life, it is arduous enough as it is. So maybe you are right, it is more the terminology being used in such an absolute manner ... like I'm right, and you are wrong, you stupid dip***t democrat ... such absolute judgements send shivers down my back, democrats sometimes are right.

Namasté

Hook686

jefnvk
June 25, 2005, 02:44 PM
Just because someone chooses to offend me because I don't agree with them, I am still going to try and show them some couertosy, while attacking their argument. To degenerate into name calling and insults shows your argument doesn't hold very well. I don't buy into this 'he did it, so I can too' thing.

As for the basic terms, as with everything, they change meaning over time. You may well consider yourself a Jeffersonian Liberal, and I may know what you mean by it. But since the term liberal does not mean today what it once meant, due to change in its poular usage. By telling people you are a liberal, they are going to have a much different connotation of you, than if you would have told them that 100 years ago.

det.pat
June 25, 2005, 02:48 PM
who gives a rats ass, just move on
pat

Werewolf
June 25, 2005, 05:30 PM
Two responses to one statement - take your pick.
democrats sometimes are right. Please - Stop... ROFLMFAO.... no more... you're killing me here.

You mean like that?

Or this...

Well - in the grand scheme of things even a broken clock is right twice a day. On the other hand when it comes to socialists (Democrats) trying to influence the culture of what was founded as a free nation of individuals bound and determined to fend for themselves and be free of government interference as much as possible it is laughable to even consider that socialist principles that place the collective ahead of the individual are right even half the time. It belies logic that such is even considered seriously.

The first statement says the same thing as the 2nd with a whole lot less words and saves bandwidth in the process.

I suppose the first statement could be considered a personal attack if one is sensitive but it really isn't. It would probably be considered most rude by many (not me). It derides the idea that Democrats (socialists, nanny staters etc) are right - sometimes.

On the other hand it is obvious that the 2nd statement is definitely aimed at just the idea.

I'm just lazy I guess - I prefer statement one.

Barbara
June 25, 2005, 06:21 PM
A good friend of mine is a registered Democrat and he's way more conservative about a lot of things than I am and I'm a registered Republican. Funny how that works out.

He even voted for the Shrub and I didn't because I think he's a tax and spend freedom nabber. Hey, maybe that's why he voted for him! :)

Matt G
June 25, 2005, 07:54 PM
I named this forum. :)

Okay, okay-- Oleg named his forum, but he took my suggestion.

We were Staff at www.TheFiringLine.com together, and Rich Lucibella had decided to shut it down. Oleg wanted to see that many of those who had come together there had a place to go to. Not the same forum. Not TFL II, but a place where those Members would feel comfortable. We had a powwow, and EVERYONE involved agreed that the principles of personal dignity that Rich Lucibella brought to TFL should be carried on at the new site. Oleg asked for suggestions for names for the new site. I suggested that we use (or paraphrase) the unofficial (but heavily-adhered-to) policy of TheFiringLine: "Take and follow The High Road." I suggested "thehighroad.com" and found that it was already taken, and promptly re-suggested "thehighroad.org". Oleg liked it, and here we are.

The High Road, friends, is not just a concept. It's certainly not a place. It's what you do. It's making each interaction with another person a choice to remain above the stupid degeneration that is everywhere. Having fun? Oh yes. Snooty? Not at all. But we can be irreverent without being rude at the expense of the dignity of others. Does that sound (horrors!) "PC"? I don't really give a damn.

coyote Mak
June 25, 2005, 09:19 PM
Hook686
Man you need to grow some Kahunas,balls,tits or what ever it is you need to survive in the world. if your going to come on a board and start aTROLL!! war over something as stupid as name calling then you have some serious mental problems.
Life is a bitch, suck it up and live with it, or else someday you are going to tell someone the wrong thing at the wrong time and you are going to end up a pile of dog dodo on the floor.
basically,GROW UP!
:cool: :cool: :cool: :scrutiny: :scrutiny:

coyote Mak
June 25, 2005, 09:26 PM
Oh buy the way I think you nothing more then a TROLL!!!!

P95Carry
June 25, 2005, 09:30 PM
Please NO personal attacks! :mad:

Farnham
June 25, 2005, 11:17 PM
I would respond to this thread, but the latent PC tendencies are kicking in.

S/F

Farnham

PS: The premise put forth by the OP is retarded. I sincerely hope there is a bus with his name on it out there.

coyote Mak
June 26, 2005, 12:01 AM
Well someone has to say it like it is and tell this dude what he or she is. 2+ pages of pussy footing around and basically nothing has been said to the fact that the subject matter was silly to start with. Its starting to sound like a church debate. Basically its starting to sound like a bunch of girly men!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No_Brakes23
June 26, 2005, 04:27 AM
Or, you could just recongnize that other people have the right to not respect you, your beliefs, your views, your ideology... and just get over it. Oh, very High Road, there...

Arent all anti-gun types liberal? The fact that anyone would even utter this statement, (which contradicts itself) is part of the problem...

I find liberalism to be the least tolerant of the political philosophies. Yet another statement devoid of logic. If it is not tolerant, it is therefore not liberal, no matter how much Diane Feinstein and Ann Coulter want it to be.

being a Liberal means never having to say you're sorry... not sorry to take your guns This one kills me. The "sorry" part is from out of nowhere, and there is that whole "liberals remove liberties" argument again.

By telling people you are a liberal, they are going to have a much different connotation of you, than if you would have told them that 100 years ago. True, due to their own intellectual laziness.

I don't know where you got the idea that you have a right to not be offended, but the sooner you disabuse yourself of that notion, the easier life will be.
PC is not held in high regard on THR. Well, it IS, actually, but the PC is relative, and it is called Art's Grammaw. I love the first sentence, "right to not be offended," because that is exactly what some people think they have. I am beginning to see just how one-way the "High Road" is.

I disagree with the agenda that self-proclaimed liberals advocate. Another big part of the problem, "self proclaimed" liberals. They lie about their stance on liberty, and instead of calling them on it, we validate their position by using liberal as an epithet. Just like the self-proclaimed "safety" advocates who want to take our guns away. And yet, I don't see anyone disparaging the word safe.

I'd like to point out that there is very much a difference between PC and civility. Yes, it is called perspective.

Funny, but I'm hard pressed to think of any deity from Vishnu to Odin to Allah to Jesus who has ever passed legislation either extorting money from me, or forcing me to give up civil rights at the point of a gun. Holy Mother Church has frequently supported arms control throughout history.

are we working on the basis that "liberal" is a code word for hippy-type,pinko,fag? It would certainly appear that way, based on the surplus of oxymoronic statements in this thread.

"God" and "Liberal" do not have equal standing. Perhaps for you. I on the other hand value my personal freedoms, (such as RKBA,) more than I value your religous freedom. Are you suggesting that slurring my beliefs is okay, but it is not okay to even make casual use of a paticular deity's name? Because that is what the current policy amounts to.

Personally, I'm with the "Get over it" POV on *ALL* issues, as long as we are debating ideas and not attacking people. I agree. That's why I usually confine my objection to the oxymoronic use of liberal to my sig.

You know, I enjoy the fact that the mods jump on flamefests, but I don't want to see stricter rules concerning slander of beliefs. (After all what kind of liberal would I be if I wanted more limitations?) I do think hook was right to an extant that there is a double standard here. I bet things would be different if there was a concerted effort to portray members of the political right as knuckle-dragging cretins. I bet policies would change abruptly if the word conservative was used synonymously with Nazi, Fascist or Communist. People who use liberal as an epithet don't like to be reminded of famous "conservatives" like Ayatollah Khomeni, Saddam Hussien, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler. If the label conservative were used as loosely, sloppily, and incorrectly as the term liberal, then people would be singing a different tune.

But in the end, It is Oleg's site, and it beats the hell out of GlockTalk anyday...

No_Brakes23
June 26, 2005, 05:31 AM
Oh yeah, coyote Mak, large point font, personal attacks, only 17 posts, three of them to attack hook...

...who's the troll here?

BluesBear
June 26, 2005, 05:38 AM
I will never understand how a group of people devoted to preserving our 2nd amendment liberties can get the word liberal confused with the word leftist. Because the leftists who desire to erase our 2nd amandment liberties started calling THEMSELVES "Liberal".

werewolf=PC is alive and well on THR.

thereisnospoon=I have had to tame most of my posts and in some cases not even respond to some because I was "warned" by moderators early on that my views were too "over the top" and would not be tolerated. What the heck are you doing then? I have pizzed off an huge amount of people here. I am probably on more ignore lists than anyone here. (I'm also sure I have the most names on my ignore list as well.)Yet the number of times I have been taken to task by a moderator is still (just barely) in the single digits.

I can't believe I waded through four pages of this rubbish. :barf:

This thread couldn't be any more doltish if the subject had been, "Which Model Glock would G_D use?"

Looking at the names of those posting here I see many people with high post counts that I rarely see ever discussing firearms.
Some I have never seen at all.

Perhaps I should pay more attention to these Urinals At Twenty Paces threads.

:neener: Yeah right.

--------------------------------

And I further reserve the right to call a grandstanding microcephalic moron with delusions of adequacy and an advanced case of the stupids exactly what he is.
And, despite your opinion to the contrary, I can do that without impugning on the Second Amendment. Or any other right, for that matter. (Lawdog THR October 26th, 2003)

Sorry but I really don't care about or have time for stupid folks. Folks got a right to be wrong, stupid or both. (sm THR 05-06-04)

Some theories are neat, plausible and wrong. (Grump THR 06-16-04)

It would appear that for some, no explanation is required... for others, no explanation will do. (Baba Louie THR 09/29/03)

"If you don't have some anxiety, you're not in touch with reality." Newt Gingrich

No_Brakes23
June 26, 2005, 06:03 AM
Because the leftists who desire to erase our 2nd amandment liberties started calling THEMSELVES "Liberal".

So if Jane Fonda called herself a "patriot", you would use patriot as a term of derision?

joab
June 26, 2005, 06:23 AM
So if Jane Fonda called herself a "patriot", you would use patriot as a term of derision? Not patriot, but maybe calling someone a Jane Fonda Patriot would get the proper point across

Mannlicher
June 26, 2005, 08:04 AM
Hook,
there are no 'liberals'. They are all left wingers. Liberal Americans are part and parcel of 'the enemy'.

That being said, the only way you can be offended is if you elevate the other person's opinion over yours. If you enable this to happen, then golly, you will be offended every time you turn around.

Most of the time though, there is no real offense. What is happening, is that folks tend to grab any chance to go on the warpath.

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 08:04 AM
I'm a non-leftist liberal. Explain that one. :)

coyote Mak
June 26, 2005, 09:23 AM
Brake_23
for what its worth bud, i have been on this board since early 03. I left for a while and when i came back due to a upgrade my old handle had been wiped out. so i started with a new one. I watch and read more then i post, but i do post on some relevant things and ones that are down right funny, like this one. maybe in California you don't think liberals and leftest go together, but in the rest of the country it sure does. so let me ask you a question, do you believe in the RKBA and do you CCW. do you even own a gun larger then a .22. basically do you walk the walk or do you just talk the talk.
when this board first came on line, it was a good gun board for gun people and people that believed in there rights to do so. now its more of a California liberal leftest girly man,men or what ever board. so you figure it our sonny, your the one claiming to be one thing and acting like something else.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

pharmer
June 26, 2005, 09:39 AM
Don't see a problem. It would be uncivil to refer to Hook as a socialist antigun liberal jackass. However it would be perfectly polite to refer to socialist antigun liberals as jackasses. Only those that relate will be offended, as it should be. Joe

WESHOOT2
June 26, 2005, 09:58 AM
So what kinda gun does dog, er, god own? :what:

Barbara, howsabout you explain to us?

I took the time to read every post on this thread, and I'm worried.

Biker
June 26, 2005, 10:02 AM
Ya know, I may just change my handle to Motorcycle Enthusiast....

Biker ;)

Mongo the Mutterer
June 26, 2005, 10:05 AM
Yah, My sig line too. Change to PC, "no offense" anyone. If you are offended I will prostrate myself before you, begging your forgiveness....

NOT

Malice
June 26, 2005, 11:19 AM
My favorite quote on religion sums up my ideas on this:

"Blasphemy was created to defend beliefs which are themselves wholy indefensible."

To me, any attempts to supress criticism or negative comments about a belief are admissions that the belief does not justify itself.

Werewolf
June 26, 2005, 11:24 AM
"Blasphemy was created to defend beliefs which are themselves wholy indefensible."

Ding - Ding! +1

Political Correctness was created to defend beliefs which are themselves wholy indefensible with the added benefit of heaping scorn upon those who attack those beliefs.

armoredman
June 26, 2005, 11:25 AM
Be offended. You have no constitutional right to not be offended. There is no law anywhere I know of saying I have to worry about offending anyone. The only thing I don't do is offend Oleg, and moderators, by following the rules, and thereby not being banned. Any one offended by what is said/shown here, which is all within the bounds of what we consider good taste, can leave, change channel, surf elsewhere. I am not going to get wadded undies over whether someone is offended - I work in a highly offensive environment, where a person with that thin skin wouldn't survive his/her first day.
So, by all means, be offended, but do it quietly, OK?

bearmgc
June 26, 2005, 11:38 AM
Can we talk about guns now? :confused:

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 12:22 PM
Well, I'm pro-gay rights, anti-racist attitudes, pro-women not putting up with too much crap, and somewhat pro-environment. That makes me a liberal. I'm pretty outspoken about all these things in case anyone missed that :D.

But I don't think the government is the best solution to these, or most other problems, since they're societal problems and no amount of regulation is going to make someone stop being a racist. Government is inefficient and given to making sure those in power stay there, rather than really dedicating itself on fixing problems, real or perceived. I'd rather pay taxes only for defense and roads, and let private or local groups deal with social welfare issues. I'm also a big fan of personal responsibility (while allowing as how sometimes things go wrong despite a healthy dose of responsibility and that charity is a very good thing..to give anyway.)

So, there you..I'm a radical right wing liberal. Really I'm a libertarian, but as I've said, people get confused when one expects liberty to extend to everyone. :)

As far as guns, yep, CPL holder..larger than a .22, too, and with a fondness for old rifles I can't afford. :)

motoman
June 26, 2005, 01:01 PM
Know thy Enemy Shirt (http://www.thoseshirts.com/imaolib.html)
The last line says "Liberals are always whining about tolerance, but when I punch them for that, they get moody. Hey, be tolerant!" I wore it Friday night to an outdoor concert, I had several people stop me and ask me where I got the shirt. No one told me it offended them. Of course they may have read line 6, "Liberals are constantly inflaming the culture war. They seem to forget which side has all the guns." :evil:

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 01:04 PM
Motoman. :D

Ha, I'd wear that shirt.

The good news, guys, is that I'm way more of a pain in the tookus to anti-gun people than I am to you. At least I don't get hate mail from THR. Not yet, anyway. :)

migoi
June 26, 2005, 01:16 PM
if you were a person holding some beliefs that caused you to self-identify as a "liberal" and read this thread (or any other where the world "liberal" seems to be used as a synonym for all that is evil and wrong in the world) how do you think you would feel about the people making those statements?

The reason I ask...As I type this, the front page lists 157 members and 238 guests currently reading this forum. I would take this to mean that significant numbers of "non-gun" people visit and read here every day.

We pretty much know that we'll never change the minds of the true anti-gun folks and the gun folks are already on our side (they are us). The one's I am concerned about are the "guns are not even on my radar screen of things to worry about" folks. In my experiences this third group actually makes up the majority of folks in the U.S.

Most people really don't spend any time thinking about guns, gun related politics, or any other gun related subject. Occasionally some gun-related political choice will be thrust on them and they will have to make some decision (vote for or against some person or proposed law or rule) related to guns but for the most part they don't really care one way or the other.

When that gun related decision is thrust upon this group part of them will make a "whim of the moment decision" based on what they read in the popular press. These folks will not probably vote in our favor (considering the number of gun related errors regularly showing up on these pages).

Another group will actually go out and try to find good info to base their decision on. A portion of those folks will find their way here (actually that's how I found this place..looking for the text of the AWB).

So, a person holding ideas that cause them to self identify as "liberal" shows up at our doorstep to find out about firearms from real "gun folks" reads through any of the numerous posts using "liberal" as a synonym for all that is evil and wrong in the world. Do you think they are more likely to vote in a way favorable to our retention of our 2nd Amendment rights and our firearms or do you think they are likely to go away with the "screw them, I'll vote anyway that will get back at those "insert favorite profane identifier here"? Remember, these folks don't care about gun issues...they are just trying to figure how to vote on an issue that has been thrust upon them.

Is the best advice we can put out.... suck it up, no one has the right to not be offended? Seems to me that we're putting that little red dot square on our own foreheads.

migoi

GEM
June 26, 2005, 01:49 PM
I've said this before.

To me the important dimension is pro or anti RKBA. It is not a law of physics that social conservatives have to be progun and socially liberal folks have to be antigun.

That is not empirically true. Unfortunately many folks don't understand this. I confuse folks because I'm socially liberal and very progun. I had a very pleasant conversation with Larry Pratt about this. However, some socially conservatives folks can't accept that the RKBA issue IS independent of wanting to control folks' sexuality or wanting to force their religion into the schools - kind of religious socialism, don't you think?

I know and have seen a fair number of conservatives who are statists and antigun as their big business orientation necessarily leads them to have the common folk unempowered.

As mentioned before, the common usages and tirades are just indicative of weak minds who can't deal with issues on their merits.

I am shocked though that the drapes have come off the breasts of the statues of the Justice Department. As the deeply conservative Ashcroft left, it is clear that this move indicates a triumph of liberalism and the disintegration of American culture as these stone breasts will drive heterosexual conservative males to the destruction of the American Family.

Let's have this discussion in another 6 weeks after 1911 rocks and should I carry my Glock unchambered. As much wisdom as found in those discussions will be found in a repeat of this one.

No_Brakes23
June 26, 2005, 01:50 PM
so let me ask you a question, do you believe in the RKBA and do you CCW. do you even own a gun larger then a .22. basically do you walk the walk or do you just talk the talk.

Well, that is four questions, not one, and to answer them, I believe in RKBA because I am a liberal and a patriot. That is why I spent 8 years sworn to defend the Constitution as a US Marine.

I don't CCW, because it is illegal for the most part in California, and I can't be a very good father, husband, or promoter of RKBA if I am in prison. If I lived in a state where I could CCW, I would, and when I was stationed in Yuma, AZ, I carried openly on occasion. In California, we have fairly liberal carry laws concerning blades, so I am rarely without one.

I have received two .22LRs as gifts, but my first firearm was a 1911. Other than those gifts, I don't own a weapon under .30 cal. But the fact that you would even equate caliber to "walking the walk" speaks to an ignorance of our sport and possible some deeper issues. Of course the firearm I am most familiar with, (M16A2) is chambered in .223, so maybe me and all my fellow Marines aren't manly enough for you, because we tote girly-man rifles into battle.

As for walking the walk, I haven't voted for an anti-gun candidate since '92 when I voted for Bush sr, because I naively thought an anti-gun Repulican was better than an anti-gun Democrat. I am a member of the CRPA, and I shoot as often as I can. When I encounter people with an anti-gun bias I attempt to reason with them, and I have even made a few converts.

Your continuted insistence upon allowing people who are not liberal to call themselves such is sad. The dirtbags in Iraq that are shooting at my fellow Marines call themselves "freedom fighters", but I don't talk about freedom fighters as the enemy. Because they are not freedom fighters, they are thugs. Everytime you use the word liberal in a negative manner, you are empowering the enemy, and making yourself look like a communist, or facist. The word patriot has already been subverted by being attached to a VERY unpatriotic piece of legislation. Using liberal as a dirty word plays right into the hands of the people who hate liberty and want to enslave us. The gun-grabbers have you brainwashed if you can't see the total contradiction in calling them liberals.

coyote Mak
June 26, 2005, 04:18 PM
no_brake23
well as to the rest of your little post there, you believe what you want about me, i really don't care. as for the word liberal, if it is used by every one and his brother to describe anti-gun, Democrats and the anti's and the democrats call them self liberals then i would say it was a given that the word liberals described people that want things there way and not whats good for everyone. if you read the paper, watch the news, read the net and belong to gun-boards and haven't noticed that, then you are really stuck in your own little world.

:) :) :) :)

1 old 0311
June 26, 2005, 04:49 PM
Me? I am a Marine Corp vet. Vietnan 69-70 A 1/3 3 RD Mar Div.I Corp. Politically I am probably far to the right of Rush Limbaugh.However there are liberals who do support Gun Rights.These I do welcome to the fold.The right to bare arms is the basis for our society.As long as we agree on this the rest is fluff.Semper Fi.

Kevin

BluesBear
June 26, 2005, 09:03 PM
When trying to explain personal rights, the rethotic used will vary greatly depending on whether you are describing yours or someone elses.



Anyway , I believe it has been better said before.

And I further reserve the right to call a grandstanding microcephalic moron with delusions of adequacy and an advanced case of the stupids exactly what he is.
And, despite your opinion to the contrary, I can do that without impugning on the Second Amendment. Or any other right, for that matter.
(Lawdog THR October 26th, 2003)

Biker
June 26, 2005, 09:07 PM
Kevin
I too support the "right to bare arms". I wore a tank top today. ;) In all seriousness, I agree with you. I think that the common ground for freedom minded people is the 2nd A.
Biker

Byron Quick
June 26, 2005, 09:50 PM
Look at the quote from LawDog above, folks. We'll follow the forum rules and be civil to each other...or we won't be here. It's not PC.

coyote Mak
June 26, 2005, 10:01 PM
Just a small suggestion to those that have been arguing this subject so strongly. lets all agree that liberty and Justice for all is the same on both sides.
what kind of ideals do you feel a liberal believes in compared to a Conservative.
One Rule:
you can not use the argument that the words liberal and Conservative are mean or offensive.
these two words have been used for many years to describe at least two different ways of thinking and philosophy's.

Yes I will give you mine soon, but first I would like to hear from some of you first, and i will be truthful with you as to my ways of thinking and philosophy's.

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

griz
June 27, 2005, 07:08 PM
My point was simply, as a liberal minded individual, I am offended by anyone slamming anyone, or their personal belief, or opinion. In other words, I was asking everyone to be nice to each other.

My take is it's not the terms that are offensive to you, but the abusive rhetoric that's the problem. If that’s correct then I certainly agree with you. I should be able to disagree with, even “slam” your opinion, without a personal insult.

As for the terminology, I find it interesting that this thread now has several people who agree they dislike liberals, but can’t agree on what liberal means. Might be some meaning in there somewhere, I can't tell. ;)

Byron Quick
June 27, 2005, 08:02 PM
My point was simply, as a liberal minded individual, I am offended by anyone slamming anyone, or their personal belief, or opinion. In other words, I was asking everyone to be nice to each other.

It all just depends on your personal beliefs and opinions, friend. If your personal beliefs and opinions include approval for female genital mutilation and infibulation, to name just one example, then I am going to express my disapproval in the strongest possible terms. You will not have any doubts whatsoever as to my opinion. Nor will you be my friend or welcome in my house or my neighborhood. If I have evidence that you have actively engaged in such multi-cultural activity; I will gladly furnish such to the authorities.

Liberals are in the same boat as conservatives as far as I'm concerned. Politically, I don't much care for either breed. I simply regard them both as a cross that this much suffering nation must bear. Personally, many of them are good people to hang out with.

Justin
June 27, 2005, 08:33 PM
A statist is a statist is a statist is a statist.

Liberal or consevative makes no difference to me, I'll happily criticize looters on both sides of the aisle.

Sean Smith
June 27, 2005, 09:04 PM
Well, at least the topic starter isn't perpetrating any stereotypes about liberals being chronically offended sissies who beg for special protection or anything like that...

:neener:

The truth is that Democrats largely self-identify as the liberal party. And while this makes classical liberals spin like gas turbines in their graves, Democrat = Liberal in common usage in 2005. Since the Democratic Party is overwhelmingly anti-2nd Ammendment, the shorthand is Democrat=Liberal=Anti-Gun=Enemy, this being a gun forum after all. Like most over-simplifications, it does do some violence to the truth, but if you accept the shorthand of "Democrat" as "liberal," not very much.

The fact that a couple of pro-gun Democrats hang out here sometimes doesn't count for much in most people's minds, fairly or not, since a) they don't represent the bulk of their party on 2nd Ammendment issues, b) nobody like them has any influence in the national party, and c) half of them pimped for Kerry on this forum, he of the 100% anti-2nd Ammendment voting record, and then mysteriously disappeared.

Democrats pretending their party is less anti-2nd Ammendment than the Republicans are pretty comical. Count the votes in Congress, and you find that Democrat votes for anti-2nd Ammendment measures outnumber Republican votes for anti-2nd Ammendment measures by a wide margin. The Democrats are an overwhelmingly anti-2nd Ammendment party; the Republicans objectively less so, but quite bad enough. Of course, if you are a classical liberal, none of this applies to you, but most of the people whining about being called "liberal" in a mean way can't even spell laissez-faire. ;)

Barbara
June 27, 2005, 09:20 PM
You talkin' French, boy?

:eek: :D

Marshall
June 27, 2005, 09:21 PM
And frankly, if liberal gun owners voted democratic, they didn't do a thing for the cause. I strongly imagine a vast majority did.

Barbara
June 27, 2005, 09:33 PM
This one voted for the Libertarian. It was hard. I waffled right up to the minute I was in the booth, whether I was going to cave and vote for the Shrub or not..when it came down to it, I couldn't do it.

Other than that, I voted for a Libertarian in every election they were available, one uber-liberal but very pro-gun Dem running against an anti-gun bonehead (Nugent endorsed the Dem too. The Republican really is evil. He got booed out of a gun club I was at and the Dem got a standing ovation, if that tells you anything.)

The rest were Republicans.

I'm not just liberal, I'm capable of independent thought. :D

Gewehr98
June 27, 2005, 09:36 PM
So how is this OK when it comes to discussions involving the word "Liberal" and not to when it comes to discussions involving the word "God" ...?

1. You have to believe in a "God" of some sorts.

2. You have to believe in the right "God".

Otherwise, it's all same-same. ;)

(I'll take a window seat, please.)

DarthBubba
June 27, 2005, 09:56 PM
Hook686

Where is it written,
That you have the right to not be offended?!
I can say the same things of most of the Liberal Trash floating out on the net.
Just a recommendation if you do not like what you read ignore it ,Wow how is that for common sense. Do not be upset by what you read on the pages of this site take what you can from them and learn some new things, like it is all right that not everyone shares your views, that is what this sight is for.
Unless you are one of the perpetually offended liberal types that have nothing better to do than try to control the thoughts of others.
I look forward to any knowledge you can pass on and hope that we can all learn from each other and have a good time in the process.

DarthBubba :evil:

MechAg94
June 27, 2005, 10:19 PM
I'm not just liberal, I'm capable of independent thought.
:what: :what: :what:


:) ;) :)

Barbara
June 27, 2005, 11:07 PM
Hey, I may have voted for Republicans but that doesn't mean I didn't annoy them about the gay marriage amendment and the war on drugs. :)

And I may have..um..completely accidently, I swear...almost made the Constitution Party guy cry. He was such a nice young man, too. I just asked the difference between the Libertarian party and the Constitution Party and stuttered and said his party followed the Constitution exactly, and then he started talking about gay marriage and the war on drugs, and so I raised my hand again and asked if those were in the Constitution, and he just looked really sad and stuttered and I didn't have the heart to ask him anymore mean questions.

I'm pretty sure he told us he had a .22 shotgun, too, (he kind of mumbled) but like I said..he was so stiff and nervous and sad looking, I'd have felt horrible asking him tough questions like who manufactured that.

BluesBear
June 28, 2005, 03:15 AM
Well...
a few years ago Marlin was making a .22magnum shotgun. :)

But I sorta doubt that's what he was referring to.

No_Brakes23
June 28, 2005, 03:58 AM
And frankly, if liberal gun owners voted democratic More often than not, I don't vote Democratic, specifically because I am a liberal, and it seems like the Dems just want to limit what I can do.

Can't buy this gas, can't ride this vehicle here, can't listen to offensive music, can't play offensive video games, can't drive a practical vehicle because it is the wrong shape, can't buy this gun because of it's shape, (Although Bush senior started that one,) can't buy this rifle, it's too big. Kerry supported the "Patriot Act", so he is obviously not someone who cares about personal liberty, and he had the same ideas about gay marriage as Bush until close to the election. Republicans have plenty of gun-grabbers, bliss-ninny soccer-mom saftey nazis, too; but the Democrats are slightly more aggressive about removing my individual rights.

In reality both sides are working pretty hard to dismantle the constitution, and both sides have been milking 9-11 for the fear factor.

Many would classify me as a classic liberal, but I disdain that term and prefer to call the leftist "fake liberals" if they must be called liberal at all. I don't see how people asociate socialism and other leftist ideas with liberals except by the same blind error of accepting the lies that these leftists utter when describing themselves.

Take back what should be a term of honor synonymous with patriot by refusing to use the term liberal to describe people who clearly are not. Don't let the leftists brainwash you.

igor
June 28, 2005, 06:06 AM
Hook, welcome.

This is the quota European on the forum speaking. Can you imagine all the narrow, negative connotations Europe can be lumped together with? I try to educate while being educated here and mostly get more than I bargained for.

As been said, some stuff is best to let slide. Labels are subjective and often "wrong" seen from the receiving end.

odysseus
June 28, 2005, 08:51 PM
I will never understand how a group of people devoted to preserving our 2nd amendment liberties can get the word liberal confused with the word leftist.

I can see where you are coming from, but I find the two words still being defined and used interchangably. For example there are "leftists" out there that wish to be armed and have their gun rights. Look how many leftist communists we have fought around the world. Of course, 2nd Amendment liberties are not usually where they are going with it... ;)

Well, I'm pro-gay rights, anti-racist attitudes, pro-women not putting up with too much crap, and somewhat pro-environment. That makes me a liberal. I'm pretty outspoken about all these things in case anyone missed that

This irritates me sometimes, just as much as a "liberal" hates being characterized. For one - this comment insinuates slightly that being anti-racist is exclusive to liberals. Mind you I have met plenty of "liberals" who are racist (maybe not on the surface) where as myself included, many conservatives are not. As far as pro-gay rights, being a libertarian more myself I could care less what sexuality you like - and I don't want goverment and my tax money controlling any of it. I and many "right wing" types I know are also "pro-women" as you say and firmly believe in their equality of mind and spirit. Again, this isn't exclusive to being liberal.

Just so many liberals like to pronounce themselves as though the left is exclusive of these believes. :fire:

Barbara
June 28, 2005, 09:51 PM
Personally, I don't care what people think. If I called myself a right winger, a lot of you who get annoyed that I choose to call myself a liberal would think I was just fine. I think its not so much my beliefs as my choice of labels that annoys you, and that's ok with me. I used to be in charge of making people happy but I resigned. :)

I've met crappy progressives and some who were decent people..smart right wingers and some that were complete jerks..we're all more than one label or another.

BluesBear
June 28, 2005, 11:43 PM
I think a big part of the problem is that too many leftists call themselves liberals, when their actions and opinions are nowhere close to the textbook definition of the word liberal.

Whereas an intelligent, rational thinking, tolerant, human being who actually is liberal in his or her outlook on life, is insulted by those who have hijacked the term liberal to use as a smokescreen to cover their narrow minded agendas.


It's somewhat akin to the red herring slogan bantered about, "It's For The Chikdren".
Poppycock! :barf:
Stupidity and kee-jerk reactionism do nothing, in reality, to benefit children.

Just as the so called "Patriot Act" does nothing that would make any of our patriotic Founding Fathers proud.




Well... now... that's what I think. ;)

Missashot
June 29, 2005, 11:11 AM
Wow everyone is using such big words and neat complicated labels for everyone else. :rolleyes: A lot of problems and misunderstandings could probably be avoided by using just a little common sense and some basic common curtsey. There will ALWAYS be someone somewhere offended by something (All of us have one or more things that will set us off).
On a diffrent note, I am really surprised this thread is still open. :p

middy
June 30, 2005, 11:04 AM
Come on! Very early in this thread I posted a nice little essay on how modern political labels are inaccurate and misleading, and y'all procede to ignore it and get all wrapped up in arguments about what "liberal" means.

No_Brakes23, I appreciate you wanting to reclaim the word liberal for freedom-loving people, but it's counterproductive when you get offended at its misuse before explaining yourself.

coylh
July 2, 2005, 04:25 AM
I tend to see labels like liberal or republican as frequent flier miles for political agendas. You can miss pleasant destinations because "my brand doesn't fly there."

I find it very rejuvinating to seriously reconsider long held beliefs every few years.

"An unexamined life is not worth living."
-- Socrates

Bruce H
July 2, 2005, 09:21 AM
Several people wouldn't mind if I disappeared form this place. Guess what. A Patton quote comes to mind. " If everybody is thinking the same thing nobody is thinking." The discussion on ideas is all important. If you join in a discussion you better be able to defend your thoughts. Too many people have the Tommy Smothers syndrome of "mother always liked you best" when confronted with defending their position.

P95Carry
July 2, 2005, 12:51 PM
Guys - this was left open probably way beyond what was really needed anyways. On review I think as much has been said as is needed - and some!

Time to put this one to bed. :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Verbal terms causing personal offense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!