"More on my quest to make liberal less of a dirty word...."
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
NorthernExtreme
Member
Call them GHASE (Gun Hating Anti-Second Amendment Extremist).
The title fits and describes their position.
The title fits and describes their position.
NorthernExtreme
Member
I just thought about how that might be pronounced , Sorry!
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
No apology necessary....really. Gha-a$$??
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).
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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... )
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...
)Liberal shall always remain a certain description to me.
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...
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
Member
Ever notice how--in relationships like these--the LIBERAL partner stays liberal & the CONSERVATIVE partner ends up becoming more liberal than before the marriage?
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...
Moondancer
Member
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.
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.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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
Member
"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.
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.
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
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
- Status