"More on my quest to make liberal less of a dirty word...."


PDA






Oleg Volk
December 28, 2003, 01:03 PM
Let's see...people who got me into gun ownership are self-defined liberals. Last person who described herself as a "California liberal" was right between conservative Republicans and Libertarians in attitudes. Seems to me that the label has become awfully imprecise. In view of the number of self-described "liberals" who are members of THR (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56454), could we find a more exact term for the critters we dislike? "Authoritarians" might do it, or something else...but I am not all that keen on offending dozens or hundreds of THR members every time I type. Suggestions?

If you enjoyed reading about ""More on my quest to make liberal less of a dirty word...."" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cookhj
December 28, 2003, 01:23 PM
how about communists. sen. mc carthy would be proud :D

4v50 Gary
December 28, 2003, 01:24 PM
Political labels can be very misleading.

How about calling them what they are? Antigun.

Oleg Volk
December 28, 2003, 01:30 PM
The reason for this discussion, besides my aversion to giving offense needlessly, is that it is unhelpful to insult your target audience just as you start to communicate with them.

stevelyn
December 28, 2003, 01:33 PM
I agree. The word liberal has been unjustly misapplied to the gun-grabbers. They aren't liberal. They may have some liberal ideals, but they are SOCIALISTS. Look at it this way. Hubert Humphrey and JFK were liberals by the definition of the word. Both honorable men.
Trash like the Clintons, Diane Fienstien, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, et al and the elitists of the entertainment industry are SOCIALISTS, ELITISTS or STATISTS. There is nothing liberal about them except for the liberal amounts of control they wish to impose over the rest of us.

Old Fuff
December 28, 2003, 01:52 PM
Oleg:

You have made some good points. Unfortunately those on the far left have kidnapped the word "liberal" to describe themselves in what is mostly a successful attempt to hide their true views. Maybe we should use the term, "left-wing," or far left wing" rather then "liberal." In the future I will try too do so.

sm
December 28, 2003, 02:00 PM
Oleg,
I too agree , good points. We do have many whom lurk, seeking answers, better to attract by promotion. As Gary stated polical "labels" are misleading, many really don't know what they themselves are by definition.

A better reference is a good idea and said definition as well as the others should be in the THR Library for clarification.

ReadyontheRight
December 28, 2003, 02:04 PM
I think many of the above-mentioned Democratic leaders have hijacked "liberal" causes like the environment, civil rights, anti-war, anti-gun, etc. to gain and retain power. Many folks truly beleive in these causes and they all lend themsleves to feel-good legislation.

"Elitist" makes sense to me, but the elitists sure won't accept that phrase for themselves.

riverdog
December 28, 2003, 02:08 PM
The term "liberal " is fairly broadly applied these days and includes just about any on the left, whether they espouse hugging trees (environmentalists), giving your money to those who won't work (socialists), or going the total pacifist route ala Howard Dean and Neville Chamberlain (fools). Some pacifists feeel that nobody should have guns and these guys should be watched carefully, they're ... fools?

The gun grabbing types we are most concerned with aren't necessarily environmentalists, socialists or fools, although those types may find themselves as useful idiots in the campaign. The group we need to watch are those who feel that firearms should only be in the hands of the police and military when they are on duty.

Folks like this are on both the left and right although none are conservatives. Moderate NE Republicans come to mind. They are elitists who believe that they know what is best for us and if a few good folk die at the hands of bad guys with knives and clubs it's okay because society as a whole is safer without firearms. They are fairly myopic and won't let facts get in the way of their supposed ideals. "Authoritarians" may be a good term/word to describe these people. "Liberal" covers too many different ideologoies. I'd vote for Authoritarians.

Sarge
December 28, 2003, 02:16 PM
Draconian , then?

Amish_Bill
December 28, 2003, 02:42 PM
Hmmm....

Terminology can be such a slippery subject. People seem to subconciously re-define abstract words as it fits their specific experience and impressions. It's an extreme example, in one of the dorms I lived in, the term "squidding" meant studying on one floor and oral sex on the next one. :confused:

What to call them... Hmmm...

"Authoritarians" does have a good ring, and is accurate.

"Elitists" could work too, as they usually think they have some special capacity to know the truth in all things that we lack.

"Police State Control Freaks" seems to fit, but it lacks that 'roll off the tongue' type of usability.

We need to find a word or term that is
A- accurate
B- easy to fit into a soundbite
C- openly derogatory without being offensive, slanderous or libelous. (sic?)
D- not a threat on it's face. (I doubt "Hog-Food on the Loafer" would go over well with the Secret Service if used to define politicians)

gp59
December 28, 2003, 02:44 PM
why don't we call them what they are "left wing socialists!" if they get there way we won't be a country of free thinkers but a country of keept people and zombies.

:uhoh: :( :(

Black Snowman
December 28, 2003, 02:55 PM
Draconinans may be a copywrited term as it's used in a series of fantasy novels collectively known as "Dragon Lance" to describe a mythical race.

As a general rule I use the psychological defense mechanism they're using to "protect" themselves when refering to them or just lump them into "ignorant". If they insist they have the facts straight then I can procede to "Oh, you're just stupid then. OK."

Totalitarian is accurate for most of them and is similar to authoritarian but has a more negative conotation.

Lone_Gunman
December 28, 2003, 02:56 PM
"Authoritarian" is a much better description of what has been popularly called "liberalism".

"Liberalism" should technically be about liberalizing rights, not restricting them.

pax
December 28, 2003, 03:01 PM
Y'know, I don't think "WE" need to call "THEM" much of anything.

It's possible to argue against a repugnant opinion or political position without slapping a label on the folks who hold the opposite position.

Not only so, you're more likely to win friends and influence people if you stick to the point at hand. If you're debating gun control, why drag same sex marriages, public schools, tax rates, public medical care, etc etc into the debate? What are you going to accomplish that way, besides very likely alienating the person you're talking to? If you want to deal with the meta-issue of government control, why not deal with that and leave all of the permutations and logical consequences alone until the initial point is received, understood, and discussed?

We could just leave the labels at the door, and debate the point rather than the label.

pax

Handle people with gloves, but issues, barefisted. -- Dagabert D. Runes

cordex
December 28, 2003, 03:04 PM
My favorite is Statist. It can be used to describe anyone who advocates a powerful central government whether through gun control or through drug control or any number of other favorite areas of control.
It's possible to argue against a repugnant opinion or political position without slapping a label on the folks who hold the opposite position.
I hear this a lot. I call it "anti-labelism". :)

But seriously folks ...

Labels are often timesavers. They may not be perfect, but when debating entire ideologies or even attempting to understand where someone comes from on an issue, they are helpful. I would even go so far as to say they are necessary. Imagine if whenever you spoke with someone you had to cover what each of your stances were on every single possibly pertinent issue. It is much easier to use labels to give a general perspective, and then discuss individual points where the label does not apply.

My opinion, anyhow.

Bainx
December 28, 2003, 03:14 PM
Trash like the Clintons, Diane Fienstien, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, et al and the elitists of the entertainment industry are SOCIALISTS, ELITISTS or STATISTS

Problem is, these people swear an allegance to the Democratic Party. Plain and simple. So, it is easy to confuse, dilute, melt, blend them with all of the other Democrats.
I grew up in a "Southern Democrat" family. This was back when you could be a democrat and were not categorized as "socialists, communist, baby-killer, save the whales, etc." My grandfather, a Southern Democrat was truly a conservative in many notions and actually voted for numerous Republicans.

Now, I have tried and tried to inform my father that his party is flooded with pro-abortionists, gun-grabbers and other menaces. He simply refuses to believe any of this and hangs on, with dear life, to the notion that the Democratic party is for the poor man, the down and out of luck man, and that the Republicans are of the rich, by the rich and for the rich and that every single problem in our country today is attributed to the Republicans.
Believe me, it is very difficult to try to change someone who has lived a 'Mind-Set' for 70 years!:mad:

Justin
December 28, 2003, 03:23 PM
One of the interesting curiosities of left-wing statists seems to be their penchant for continually redefining and assimilating words in common useage. Once upon a time, the term 'liberal' would have been synonymous with the modern 'libertarian.'

For instance, look at the term 'centrist' and compare what it means to be a centrist today as opposed to thirty or forty years ago.

Heck, look at the term 'conservative.'

In the days of JFK, he was considered a liberal/progressive type.

Nowadays he'd have a hard time getting on the Republican ticket.

Baba Louie
December 28, 2003, 03:46 PM
Are you referring to the "Ivory Tower Starry Eyed Dreaming Utopian Intellectuals Who Know What's Best For Everyman"?

That'd be ITSEDUIWKWBFE or as my Democrat Yellow Dog, Freedom and Gun Loving Father calls them, "Busybody Meddlers" or BM's which is also a nice way of saying... ;)

The bad thing is, they get together and pass laws that someone then has to enforce. The really bad thing is they come in two parties, D & R... and they seem to be breeding :scrutiny:

geekWithA.45
December 28, 2003, 03:54 PM
My two preferred terms:

Statist (usually followed by "scum"): Those who believe that the righteous individual human spirit and activity is/should subordinate to a political collective of any description, that rights are gifts of the state, and that any thought or deed can be supressed at the state's pleasure. In short, the power of the state, whether benevolent of malevolent, it limitless.

Gun Bigot: http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2003_12_14_geekwitha45_archive.html#107189648545422777

Most gun bigots are statists, but not necessarilly so.

Nearly all statists are gun bigots however, for an armed society bears in it's core the very destruction of the state.

Listen up, because this is important:

No state that needs destroying will ever approve of its members posessing the means of its destruction.

The ONLY coherent and stable states to ever fully approve of a fully armed populace _was_ the US, 1776-1934, and also arguably Switzerland from the 13th century.

Now, back on topic:

A part of our problem with labels these days is that the major parties are out of alignment with the real issues that are floating around, and politics is in an incredible state of flux.

See: http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2003_04_27_geekwitha45_archive.html#93573879

ajacobs
December 28, 2003, 04:03 PM
Let me get this straight, your lookig for a politically correct term to use derogatorily?


What happened to sheeple? Or just being more specific like gun-grabbers?

P95Carry
December 28, 2003, 04:03 PM
I think within the framework of trying to ''type'' this category ...... one of the most obvious aspects these days is that ''they'' have seemingly the greatest wish for advancing the ''politically correct'' approach to life.

Much of this ''PC'' approach includes excessive desire to sublimate the rights of others - as long as that does not severely limit their own!

Matt G
December 28, 2003, 04:04 PM
While I risk ticking off the Bossman of this board, I feel the compelling need to take a liberal action ( :) ), and move this thread to the Legal and Political forum.

Cactus
December 28, 2003, 04:07 PM
"A rose by any other name ..."

Many of the FAR left don't consider themselves liberals but prefer the term "progressives" because liberal has become a perjorative in many circles.

When refering to a pro-gun liberal, why not just call them that? The terms liberal and conservative are part of the everyday lexicon in America. Most people understand what you mean when you use that label. Why confuse the issue?

The terms liberal, conservative or libertarian define a certain GENERAL political belief. There are variations of people within those defined positions such as: pro-gun liberal, anti-gun conservative; anti-abortion liberal, pro-abortion conservative; etc., etc.

Just use the commonly understood term and qualify it as needed. There is no need to create a definition that only a handful understand.

Black Snowman
December 28, 2003, 04:19 PM
Oh yes, bigot I like and use a lot (stolen from THR, most likely Geek himself :) ) because it points out how politicially incorrect their PC stance is. Statist is also quite accurate but not commonly known and may slow down the dialog.

I especially like just calling them bigots and leave them to look up the word and to ponder it. If I say "gun bigot" they stop listening after the word "gun" as a general rule.

longeyes
December 28, 2003, 04:22 PM
Liberal once meant people who were for individual freedom. Now they'd be "classic liberals" or libertarians.

I consider our opponents to be collectivists, of all stripes, secular, religious, and in-between.

dischord
December 28, 2003, 06:26 PM
Yes, it is a shame that the meaning of the word "liberal has been turned upside down to describe people whose political philosphy often is based on control rather than liberation.

grampster
December 28, 2003, 09:46 PM
WE'UNS = Members of THR and other such organizations that promote freedom as defined, enumerated and confirmed by the Constitution and BoR. Generally sentient folks that are aware of more than their immediate surroundings for a time period longer than a 30 second soundbite.

WOLVES = Socialist Elitist Statists who believe that the only proper rule is one that they force upon others regardless and in spite of any other opinion or document (such as the Constitution and BoR).

SHEEPLE = Everybody that is left over.

BLISSNINNIES = Sheeple that are trying to be Wolves.

Al Norris
December 28, 2003, 10:06 PM
LIBRAL as opposed to whatever else you've been using. It's a coined term that I've been using for years now. It's a term that was used by a few individuals on a catholic newsgroup I used to inhabit back then. It connotes the touchy-feely PC mindset of the many "socially progressive" in America today.

Wildalaska
December 28, 2003, 10:14 PM
Anti gunnner is far more appropriate than such childish terms as "sheeple" and "blisninnie"


WildnoinvectiveAlaska

BenW
December 29, 2003, 12:19 AM
Anti gunnner is far more appropriate
That would assume that the gun issue is your only criterion for defining neo-liberals. I kinda lean towards "Statist" myself regarding people who won't leave me the hell alone.

Tamara
December 29, 2003, 12:22 AM
I've always been partial to "looter". ;) It nicely describes the various members of the pantheon of statists, collectivists, and other varieties of control freaks that have a burning desire to tell me what to do and take my stuff, like Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. :)

cordex
December 29, 2003, 01:00 AM
Anti gunnner is far more appropriate than such childish terms as "sheeple" and "blisninnie"
Wow ... I agree with WildAlaska on something!

Andrew Rothman
December 29, 2003, 01:17 AM
Draconinans may be a copywrited term as it's used in a series of fantasy novels collectively known as "Dragon Lance" to describe a mythical race.

Snort.

Hardly.

dra·co·ni·an
adj.
Exceedingly harsh; very severe: a draconian legal code; draconian budget cuts.
[After Draco.]

Dra·co, Seventh century B.C.

Athenian politician who codified the laws of Athens (c. 621). Lauded for its impartiality, his code was unpopular for its severity.


But it's not a good term for gun-grabbers.

Hey, how about gun-grabbers?

Wildalaska
December 29, 2003, 01:24 AM
Wow ... I agree with WildAlaska on something!

Wow!..At last you are right:neener: :neener: :D

WildcouldntresistAlaska

romulus
December 29, 2003, 01:27 AM
Yes, it is a shame that the meaning of the word "liberal has been turned upside down to describe people whose political philosphy often is based on control rather than liberation.
It is a shame...but you could blame also those that allowed such a co-opting of the term to take place...

Chuck Dye
December 29, 2003, 01:49 AM
Very few humans fit into pigeon holes!

Alexey931
December 29, 2003, 03:51 AM
Oleg:

While in Russia, did you ever contemplate ditching the word "moujchina" as a way of address? It's the ugliest possible choice, means something else, there is a choice of alternatives any of wich is better. Nothing helps, though. There goes the world "liberal", likewise, to it's misapplied destiny :).

Best regards

Malone LaVeigh
December 29, 2003, 04:18 AM
After rereading the original post, either I or 90% of the respondents so far don't understand your question. What do you mean by "the critters we dislike?" If you are asking, as it seems to me you are, what to call people who disagree with us on the RKBA issue, I would wonder what the word "liberal" has to do with it at all. The begining of political stupidity is to generalize from one issue to a whole imagined suite of beliefs that a word like "liberal" (or socilaist, commie, blissninny, etc) implies. As ably demonstrated here, not too many people can agree to what those beliefs are. So why would you ever consider ever using such an imprecise term when you are trying to make a more precise argument? All you do is sow disinformation and alienate readers. (Also ably demonstrated in the foregoing posts.)

c_yeager
December 29, 2003, 04:55 AM
The fact is that we (pro gun people) really need to be careful of developing an "US" versus "THEM" attitude. Especially when we attach labels like "liberal" and "conservative" to the two groups. The fact is that even the people on the Pro-gun side of the issue cant be painted with that broad of a brush. For example, most people here could be safely called "pro-gun". But thats about our only really common politial belief. Start a discussion about religion, abortion, taxes etc. on this board and all of a sudden we have a broad range of opinion. Ive not a lot of "liberals" who were pro-gun and a lot of conservatives who were "card carrying" gun grabbers. Our common enemy (with regards to gun ownership) are the anti's. And thats about it. If we start broadly accusing all Liberals as being our enemies eventually we will make it a reality.

clubsoda22
December 29, 2003, 05:13 AM
Oleg, I'm glad to see my quote on "making liberal less of a dirty word" caught your attention.

I myself am a liberal and dispise when people use the term to describe anti gunners. Some of the most pro gun people i know are liberals. We are not the americanized version of the term, but REAL liberals.

I like athoritarians, because athoritarians are, by their nature, anti-gun. They seek to ban anything that would pose a threat to their athority. It describes both liberal and conservative anti-gunners.

Left-Wing doesn't work because it's a dated term that is too close to liberal, and not all american liberals, even those who describe themselves as liberal democrats are left wing. Many of them are, in fact conservative athoritarians.

Socialist doesn't work either because gun ownership has nothing to do with REAL socialism. In a real socialist or communist system, gun ownership would be perfectly fine. Unfortunately, the only socialist or communist governments we see in this world are bastardized.

Don't group all anti gunners as of one group (unless that group is: anti gunners) unless you want to alienate that group.

MacViolinist
December 29, 2003, 05:25 AM
First time posting, so take it easy on me people. Please.
It seems to me that the word you are all looking for is "fascist"
It is, if I am not mistaken, the word used to describe Hitler's politics. Again, if I am not mistaken the first Federal Firearms legislation in th U.S. was the "1967 firearms act." IIRC it was translated verbatim from the "1937 firearms act" in Germany. I'm not totaly sure if that means anything, but it is interesting. Considering that we have "two parties" to vote for and neither is willing to challenge even the 1967 firearms act, doesn't there at least appear to be a problem? Ok. End soap box. Question: what is the most effective means of converting an "Anti" to a "Pro" in terms of guns? Is it by calling names or by discussing issues? In other words, I think that you have to deal with other people on their own terms rather than make them conform to your definitions. Just my 440 cents worth.

The Grewsome Drewsome

clubsoda22
December 29, 2003, 05:56 AM
Hitler wasn't really a fascist.

Fascism is the blending of corperations and state, much like america under the current leadership. Once again, has nothing to do with gun control in its purest forms.

cordex
December 29, 2003, 10:27 AM
Fascism is the blending of corperations and state, much like america under the current leadership. Once again, has nothing to do with gun control in its purest forms.
clubsoda,
The word that describes that particular political construct is not facism, but socialism.
Fascism has more to do with a nationalistic dictatorship or an otherwise autocractic government (which would describe Hitler).

dischord
December 29, 2003, 10:39 AM
Again, if I am not mistaken the first Federal Firearms legislation in th U.S. was the "1967 firearms act." IIRC it was translated verbatim from the "1937 firearms act" in Germany. With all due respect, that is simply untrue. :) (I'm certainly not defending the 1968 GCA, BTW).

Amish_Bill
December 29, 2003, 10:44 AM
I understood that while not a verbatim translation, certain sections were very similar in order and phrasing.

Tim Burke
December 29, 2003, 10:52 AM
First time posting, so take it easy on me people. Please.
Welcome to THR.Question: what is the most effective means of converting an "Anti" to a "Pro" in terms of guns?Mug them with a knife.

dischord
December 29, 2003, 11:04 AM
I understood that while not a verbatim translation, certain sections were very similar in order and phrasing. The fact is that most gun laws have similar provisions.

Yes I'm aware of JPFO's work regarding Thomas Dodd, but in the end JPFO only provides circumstantial evidence at best that Dodd based the 68GCA on the nazi law.

In any event -- and back to the topic of this thread -- not all gun controllers are fascists and we would risk at least two tactical mistakes by taking that position.

** (less likely) We ignore the gun control threat from other quarters.

** (more likely) By throwing around terms like "Nazi," we destroy our ability to communicate and convert the non-hardline gun controllers who believe in it without ever actually thinking it through.

dischord
December 29, 2003, 11:14 AM
WE'UNS = Members of THR and other such organizations that promote freedom as defined, enumerated and confirmed by the Constitution and BoR. I certainly hope you are not construing the enumeration of certain rights to disparage or deny other rights retained by the people :neener:

harpethriver
December 29, 2003, 11:38 AM
Oleg- we would be better off judging people by their actions rather than attatching a label to a person like a jar placed on a shelf. What's liberal or conservative to me may not be to you. I take exception when I am described as liberal or conservative based on my opinion of a singular issue. Let's see....I'm pro environment-so I must be liberal. But wait....I'm pro capitalism and anti-union, so I must be conservative. Hold on...I'm pro-choice, so I must be liberal. Not so fast because I'm staunchly pro-gun...so I must be conservative. What am I? Independent, and damn proud I'm able to think outside so called liberal or conservative idealogy. Lots of people know the difference between left and right, yet don't know the difference between right and wrong!

Werewolf
December 29, 2003, 11:40 AM
grampster said:
WE'UNS = Members of THR and other such organizations that promote freedom as defined, enumerated and confirmed by the Constitution and BoR. Generally sentient folks that are aware of more than their immediate surroundings for a time period longer than a 30 second soundbite.

WOLVES = Socialist Elitist Statists who believe that the only proper rule is one that they force upon others regardless and in spite of any other opinion or document (such as the Constitution and BoR).

Change WE'UNS to WOLVES. The perception of Wolves by most IMO is that they represent groups in nature that live free and don't allow others to tread on them.

Change WOLVES to Sheep Dog - The function of the sheep dog is to maintain control of the flock, keep them all together and safe. That's what the social elitists as described above want to do.

cordex
December 29, 2003, 11:53 AM
Wolves prey on sheep.

grampster
December 29, 2003, 12:20 PM
Should have known better than try and inject a little humor into a serious conversation...........:rolleyes: (See We'uns, wolves, sheeple and blissninnies, page 2)

Then again, my wife says I'm usually the only one that understands my humor......:rolleyes: At least that's what I think she means when she says.."You are not being funny......!!!"

My true thought on the matter is that humans tend to be complex, unstable critters in a rather simple, well defined world; so labels tend to be slippery and elusive. A person reveals himself through his actions. What you call him is not important.


:D :p :neener:

ReadyontheRight
December 29, 2003, 12:47 PM
It used to be that the Republicans wanted to tell you how to live your life (no pre-marital sex, anti-abortion, censorship of radio/tv/movies...), and the Democrats wanted to tell you how to spend your money (actually they want to spend it for you).

The Republican position was "freedom from..." taxation, socialism, criminals, foreign invasion...while the Democrat position was "freedom to..." be who I am and do what I want as long as I don't hurt anyone.

I think many current Democrats still think this way and they may not see or understand the change their party has taken.

In the last 20 years or so, the "liberal" movement has added their own version of telling you how to live your life -- no guns, no V8 engines, no hunting, no smoking tobacco, no speaking your mind, etc. Where they can't make laws, they open the door for lawsuits or legislate from the bench.

Federal Republican politicians -- with a few notable exceptions like RWR -- have helped this process along by "moving to the middle" to win elections. Note GWB's recent domestic policies and his comments on the AWB.

I think one basic premise most of us here on THR can agree on is that the government cannot solve all problems.

We support RKBA because we know this. Those who disagree with RKBA typically believe that the Government CAN solve most problems, and they want a strong Federal government to enforce the Nanny State and make every state accept feel-good legislation that limits the freedom of law-abiding citizens.

So...I propose "Nanny Statists".

ReadyontheRight
December 29, 2003, 12:54 PM
I like Tamara's "looters" idea. It fits with "gun grabbers". First you grab the guns and then you can loot.


"...Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard—the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims—then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter..." -Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, by Ayn Rand-

BigG
December 29, 2003, 01:12 PM
liberal ... right between conservative Republicans and Libertarians in attitudes.

Oleg, I don't know if you are being facetious but that is about as far apart as East and West, up and down, day and night.

BigG
December 29, 2003, 01:23 PM
you're more likely to win friends and influence people if you stick to the point at hand. Pax, with all due respeck, you are not going to win friends and influence people by this sort of debate, as warm and cuddly as it sounds. ;) What you have here is a bully pulpit aimed at the choir to hear the thundering proclamations of the enlightened. If a handful of folks become favorably influenced, it is because they already had the leanings and somehow found their way to the site. The vast unwashed majority have no such ability to discern, nor do they care about anything other than their own well-being. My opinion, of course. :)

Liberal is a dirty word because it was co-opted by the Democrats, who for the most part are a stench in the nostrils of anybody with any sense of history. Again my opinion. Apologies to Zell Miller.

BigG
December 29, 2003, 01:34 PM
I'll just contribute this to the debate: Macchiavelli, Chairman Mao, and others thru history correctly stated that "political power flows from the bbl of a gun." Political power is power to control people. These fellows knew, and were straightforward enough to state for the record that whoever controls the guns, controls the people. Whoever controls the people, controls the state.

That is your reason for centralized control of weapons. Not little Johnny getting blown away on the street; not some suicide via an evil gun. Whoever controls the guns controls the people. Should be a mantra.

Your leading democrats know this but are too crooked to admit it.

MicroBalrog
December 29, 2003, 02:11 PM
Statists - whether Republicans or Clintonistas.:D

MicroBalrog
December 29, 2003, 02:12 PM
Liberal is a dirty word because it was co-opted by the Democrats, who for the most part are a stench in the nostrils of anybody with any sense of history.

Merci.

Drjones
December 29, 2003, 02:35 PM
As I think most of you have noticed, I think it is proper to call someone by their true name, and I have taken to doing so with "liberals." I call them communists.

I've been meaning to start a thread that will show precisely how and why the modern American left are communists, plain and simple, but have been putting it off.

"Socialist" is too light a term, as well as simply inaccurate, though I can definitely see how one could mistake them for mere socialists. But don't take them so lightly; the modern left's ideologies are based entirely on communist principles and ideals.

grampster
December 29, 2003, 03:57 PM
BigG,

"....thundering proclamations of the enlightened...." much better than my use of "propundiation" when discussing the wisdom set forth here on THR.

My congratulations, sir, on your inventive use of the King's english.:D

I agree with your last couple posts. Very discerning on your part. Nail on the head, as it were.

grampster

w4rma
December 29, 2003, 04:18 PM
Drjones, should I start smearing all conservatives and neo-conservatives as fascists? No, and neither should you be smearing all liberals as communists.

Sean Smith
December 29, 2003, 04:31 PM
Drjones, should I start smearing all conservatives and neo-conservatives as fascists? No, and neither should you be smearing all liberals as communists.

Well, you already have.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50000&highlight=fascist

The U.S. is becoming more and more fascist as the GOP has made more and more political gains.

Owen
December 29, 2003, 04:44 PM
Why don't we keep it simple

GUN BIGOT = One who is anti-gun and won't be swayed. Characterized by irrational hatred of guns and/or gun owners

ANTI-GUNNER = One who is antigun, minus the hate.

I have a problem with using liberal as a smear. A true liberal should be pro-gun. The problem, as stated elsewhere, is that the term has been co opted, by both the left and the right.

owen

Drjones
December 29, 2003, 04:59 PM
Thanks, Sean! :D

w4rma: :neener: ;)


Seriously; would you call me racist for calling a black man black?

The modern American left's ideologies are wholly based on communist ideals and principles. I'm calling a spade a spade, plain and simple.

Look up the following: gramsci, adorno, marcuse, lukacks, the frankfurt school, and critical theory.

w4rma
December 29, 2003, 05:20 PM
capitalism and socialism are opposite ends of an axis.
democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis.

A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):

“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” -- Benito Mussolini

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.” -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

A state can be totalitarian and socialist (communism).
A state can be democratic and capitalist.
A state can be democratic and socialist.
A state can be anywhere inbetween the two axis. The U.S. has both capitalist policies and socialist policies.

Here is a list of some of the socialist ones:
socialized armed forces
socialized water
socialized police
socialized fire department
social(ized) security
medicare
road building/maintanance
public waste and water treatment
public schools

I am a liberal and I am not a communist. Don't mislabel me.

Drjones
December 29, 2003, 05:26 PM
"Communist" doesn't just refer to economic ideals.

w4rma
December 29, 2003, 05:36 PM
Communism is a totalitarian extreme where a (usually, undemocratic) government takes over control of all of the nation's industries and services. Buisnesses are not allowed, small or large.

I do not support, nor will ever support this.

Corporatism/fascism is a totalitarian extreme where a group of extremely large unelected corporations take over control of the government and all of the nation's industries and services (usually through mergers). Until they have enough power to shut down opponents to their power openly, they do it behind the scenes. Once, they feel that they have enough power, they essentially become a communist nation.

I do not support, nor will ever support this.

I do not support the banning of guns, either. This is common to fascism/corporatism, communism, feudalism and dictatorships.

dischord
December 29, 2003, 05:37 PM
"Communist" doesn't just refer to economic ideals. Drjones and w4rma, I think you two are about to get into one of those endless debates mired in a fight over definitions and semantics. :)

Drjones
December 29, 2003, 05:39 PM
Not really, dischord.

I'm not really going to bother going any further.

You guys will see a thread pretty soon that will explain my position and prove me right. :)

Sean Smith
December 29, 2003, 05:44 PM
Corporatism/fascism is a totalitarian extreme where a group of extremely large unelected corporations take over control of the government and all of the nation's industries and services (usually through mergers).

Interesting how that bears no resemblance to actual Nazism or Fascism. But I've come to expect no different from you. :D

“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” -- Benito Mussolini

A description that bears precious little resemblance to what Mussolini actually did. Then again, you uncritically believing the rhetoric of a genuine fascist is pretty ironic. ;)

cordex
December 29, 2003, 07:25 PM
w4rma,

You use some odd (and wrong) definitions.

Communism is the abolition of private property entirely where everyone owns everything equally and everything is available to those who need it.
Happy, puppy, kitten, flower, sunshine, bunny love.

What has been practiced in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere is actually a form of Marxist Socialism that never got to the utopian Communism stage.

Socialism is a pretty broad brush covering an awful lot of different governmental controls of production and distribution of products and services.

Corporatism is a society organized into industrial and professional corporations which exercise some political control over their jurisdiction.

Facism is an autocractic, often nationalist and/or racist government that doesn't have anything to do with eeeeevil corporations. Hence, Hitler could be a fascist even though he wasn't president of Hitler Inc.

Statist or Looter could imply any of the above.

pax
December 29, 2003, 08:29 PM
Pax, with all due respeck, you are not going to win friends and influence people by this sort of debate, as warm and cuddly as it sounds.
I wasn't aiming at "warm and cuddly." I was aiming for effective vs. ineffective.

pax

If you can not answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. -- Elbert Hubbard

Hawk
December 29, 2003, 08:31 PM
could we find a more exact term...

Perhaps we could simply use the descriptor used so effectively by H. L . Menckin in 1925: UPLIFTER. Certainly, there is nothing innately derogatory about that.

Uplifter (http://www.mindspring.com/~charlson/misc/uplifters.html)


"To a child with a hammer, all the world appears as a nail" (with apologies to A.H. Maslow).

These people (the uplifters) have just not figured out that they cannot reach into the heart of a murderer, or cannot reliably touch the mind of a psychopath. The only tool they have is their vote, their activism, their sway with their legislators, in other words: LAWS - that which by definition will have no impact on criminals. The problem cannot be solved with laws, but it's the only tool they have - thus they will wield it to our detriment.

Pretty much like prohibition.

BigG
December 30, 2003, 12:50 AM
My friend Pax: Since you choose to evade the point, or fail to see it, I vote for ineffective. BTW, the post by Hawk about H. L. Mencken's view is apropos.

I believe we used to call that sort simply "do-gooders."

NorthernExtreme
December 30, 2003, 01:22 AM
Call them GHASE (Gun Hating Anti-Second Amendment Extremist).

The title fits and describes their position.

NorthernExtreme
December 30, 2003, 01:24 AM
I just thought about how that might be pronounced , Sorry!

7.62FullMetalJacket
December 30, 2003, 01:34 AM
No apology necessary....really. Gha-a$$??:confused: :uhoh: :eek:

pax
December 30, 2003, 03:29 AM
BigG,

Looks like you haven't checked your PMs today. ;)

pax

iapetus
December 30, 2003, 12:04 PM
Why don't we keep it simple

GUN BIGOT = One who is anti-gun and won't be swayed. Characterized by irrational hatred of guns and/or gun owners

ANTI-GUNNER = One who is antigun, minus the hate.

I have a problem with using liberal as a smear. A true liberal should be pro-gun. The problem, as stated elsewhere, is that the term has been co opted, by both the left and the right.

owen


I think those are some of the best suggestions, although perhaps modify them to:

ANTI-GUN: general term for anyone who opposes firearms for whatever reason.

GUN-PHOBE: Anyone who has an irrational fear or hatred of guns (thinks they're eeevil, doesn't like being in the room with one in case it goes off), doesn't see why any normal person would have anything to do with them, etc, but doesn't (necessarily) hate gun owners.

GUN-BIGOT: Gun-phobe who also hates gun owners, and anyone who doesn't agree with them. (Maybe should be "anti-gun bigot").



Going off at a bit of a tangent now...

Looking at broader issues, ReadyontheRight's suggestion of "Nanny Staters" is a good one for "people who want the government and state to take care of everyone and protect them from themselves etc".


That said, I don't really like political lables, except when used very precisely. Too often on TV/radio/newspaper/internet/real life debates, I've heard someone make a suggestion, and someone else shoot it down with "That's so rightwing/ leftwing/ liberal/ conservative/ fascist/ communist/ capitalist/ socialist/ etc, as if that's an unbeatable argument in itself, without ever defining what "left/right/etc" means, why it's evil, and how it applies to that particular suggestion.

This is particularly so with terms that mean different things to different people. "Liberal", for example, still tends to have its original meaning in the UK, or at least to mean "Moderately left-wing libertarian", or "Bit wet and wooly-minded; thinks all the world's problems can be solved by just being nice to everyone".

Die-hard socialists still call themselves "socialist", and if you hear anyone attacking liberals, they're usually authoratarian conservatives ("no sex before marriage, public flogging for anyone who breaks the rules, etc).

Drjones
December 30, 2003, 03:12 PM
Die-hard socialists still call themselves "socialist", and if you hear anyone attacking liberals, they're usually authoratarian conservatives ("no sex before marriage, public flogging for anyone who breaks the rules, etc).

Actually, anyone attacking a liberal generally has a brain.

iapetus
December 30, 2003, 03:51 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Die-hard socialists still call themselves "socialist", and if you hear anyone attacking liberals, they're usually authoratarian conservatives ("no sex before marriage, public flogging for anyone who breaks the rules, etc).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually, anyone attacking a liberal generally has a brain.



Ah, but that depends on what a "liberal" is.

My point was that in the UK, "liberal" seems to have a different meaning to what it does in the US.

Not to say that UK "liberals" are perfect[1], but criticisms that are valid against US-style "liberals" may not be against UK-style "liberals"[2].

A lot of the UK people who criticise UK "liberals" are hardly champions of liberty and individualism themselves, and are often right-wing authoratarians or theocrats.



[1] They're often rather "wet", and think that all the world's problems cane be solved by smiling, and being "nice", and everyone will follow their example.

[2] But I admit that some are more like the US meaning (ie socialists)

Amish_Bill
December 30, 2003, 04:34 PM
You don't have to go that far to have a difference in meaning... A co-worker is Canadian. (Co-incidentally, he IS named Terence, and I do sometimes answer to Phillip, but that's another story...) In his political system the term Liberal seems to have a much different meaning than it does here.

7.62FullMetalJacket
December 30, 2003, 04:43 PM
Names, labels, monikers, etc. are all fluid - and confusing. Modern-day US socialists, progressives, and authoritarians are hiding behind the term liberal. Of that, there is no doubt or disagreement.

My parents are both JFK liberals and trust and believe everything anybody says against the evil GOP. They do not believe the Democrat party is any different today that it was then. Oh, boy. These blinders allow the perpetuation of the "liberal" labeling lie. If you wonder how these pols get support, just look at the unmoving masses which believes the party still stands for the "working man." Because I am in polite company here, I will not lay out the true platform of the party.

You only have two choices with regards to the term "liberal:"

1. Resurrect the true meaning of liberalism. This endeavor will be fruitless. The hijackers of the term are legion and effective. "Your" liberal thinking is not welcome under the new liberal label.

2. Choose another label. The liberal label has been hijcaked for the purpose of cover. Find a new term. Left-Leaning Libertarian. Jeffersonian Democrat. Classic Liberal. Whatever. But run screaming, because the authoritarian/socialists have co-opted the term for cover, and probably for the foreseeable future.

These people (the uplifters) have just not figured out that they cannot reach into the heart of a murderer, or cannot reliably touch the mind of a psychopath. The only tool they have is their vote, their activism, their sway with their legislators, in other words: LAWS - that which by definition will have no impact on criminals. The problem cannot be solved with laws, but it's the only tool they have - thus they will wield it to our detriment.

This quote (thanks Hawk and HL Mencken) really brings the focus of the gun issue. Ever more control through LAWMAKING and JUDICIAL FIAT. Control is the name of the game. Liberalism, by definition, means freedom from control. One of the great ironies of the last 50 years is the co-opting of the term liberal to mean everything but.

seeker_two
December 30, 2003, 11:59 PM
After reading these posts, I think that Oleg may have asked the wrong question...

Oleg: You need to ask yourself, "Am I, as well as those friends I mentioned, truly LIBERAL (in the current usage of the word)?"

Go to http://www.boortz.com and find "The Shortest Political Quiz". Take it. Let us know what the results are.

I think you may be suprised....


(Personally, I prefer the term "Controllists", "Regulators", "Supressors" or "Repressors" myself...:cool: )

Gewehr98
January 2, 2004, 11:03 AM
As long as people like Paul Begala and James Carville hide behind the term, that is.

Although I do see a similarity between the Carville/Matalin relationship and the Schwarzenneger/Shriver(Kennedy) version... ;)

seeker_two
January 2, 2004, 12:23 PM
Although I do see a similarity between the Carville/Matalin relationship and the Schwarzenneger/Shriver(Kennedy) version...

Ever notice how--in relationships like these--the LIBERAL partner stays liberal & the CONSERVATIVE partner ends up becoming more liberal than before the marriage? :scrutiny:


2 Corinthians 6:14 - "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"


Makes sense to me... :D

Moondancer
January 2, 2004, 01:37 PM
To look at the other side of the coin... after reading this I belive an adequate label for myself would be... CONSTITUTIONALIST.

I believe that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says. We should uphold ALL of it's provisions and amendments at their face value. We (and the courts) should not "interpret" what it means in the light of today's values. It may not be perfect, but it's the best there is.

Now... back to the previous program.

Jonesy9
January 2, 2004, 04:24 PM
statists

Malone LaVeigh
January 2, 2004, 09:30 PM
iapetus:

I've been thinking along the lines of gun-phobe lately, but must have missed your post.

I've seen the use of the word "hoplophobic" around here, but don't know what that means. Which indicates it's uselessness, since I doubt if the average person we're trying to reach would know, either. But the use of a readily-understandable term that includes "phobic" would be very effective. Gay rights advocates have been very successful using the term "homophobia." Literally, that would mean "fear of men", which doesn't make sense, but we all pretty easily grasp its intended meaning. It very effectively shifts the focus onto the irrational fears of those who hate gays.

We need something like that. As long as the debate is about "guns", they can be portrayed as dangerous and evil things that kill people. The focus ought to be on why some people can't handle the concept of personal power.

iapetus
January 3, 2004, 08:59 AM
Gay rights advocates have been very successful using the term "homophobia." Literally, that would mean "fear of men", which doesn't make sense,


Homo can mean "man" (Latin) or "same" (Greek). In homosexual, it means "same" (as in "sexually attracted to people who are the same sex as you").

Mind you, I suppose homophobia would then mean "fear of things that are the same as you". Rather ironic, given that bigots tend to have a phobia of anyone or anything that is not the same as them.

dustind
January 3, 2004, 08:22 PM
I would look at the constitutionalist party platform before calling yourself one. I think the party is hiding behind the name, but that is a topic for another... topic.

Farmed Ship
January 5, 2004, 02:15 AM
"State-worshippers."

That's what they are.

"Liberal" is a honorable word, stolen
like so many others by the commies.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, as were many
freedom-loving people of 18th and 19th Centuries.

Nowadays one has to say "classical liberal"
to distinguish oneself from the modern toxic mutants
calling themselves liberal.

Ian
January 5, 2004, 02:40 AM
Yup, statists seems pretty good to me.

Malone - "Hoplophobe" is a term coined by Col. Cooper, derived from the Greek "hoplite," or warrior. It's intended to mean a fear of weapons.

TekChef
January 5, 2004, 02:47 AM
I think the best term overall is-

Statist

Left, right, etc..they are all confused and muddied.

Bunkster
January 5, 2004, 08:43 AM
I wish I had saved a piece I read a few years ago regarding this very issue. It explained in great detail when and how the bastardization of the word "liberal" took place.

It was in the early part of the 20th century when a left-leaning group in the United States surmized that calling themselves "leftists" didn't sell too well with the general public. It was a woman in this group that came up with the notion that "liberal" would be far more acceptable and welcoming to your average soccer-mom, soccer-dad, soccer-son and soccer-daughter.

This seems to be somewhat unique to the United States. Go to South America and elsewhere, a "liberal" is still regarded as a non-leftist.

For instance, in the translator's notes of "Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot" by Mendoza, Montaner & Llosa, they specifically point out that all use of the term "liberal" means "libertarian" or "classical liberal".

If you ever listen to or read David Horowitz, you will quickly sense him not playing into the word games of the left: He will, 99% of the time, refer to them as "leftists".

A leftist can attempt to euphemize themselves with "liberal" or "progressive" all they want to, but they are still humanity's most destructive, rancid element.

Regards

If you enjoyed reading about ""More on my quest to make liberal less of a dirty word...."" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!