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

[Oleg Volk]

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, 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?

 

[cookhj]

how about communists. sen. mc carthy would be proud

 

[4v50 Gary]

Political labels can be very misleading.

How about calling them what they are? Antigun.

 

[Oleg Volk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Sarge111]

How about...

Draconian , then?

 

[Amish_Bill]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Black Snowman]

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]

"Authoritarian" is a much better description of what has been popularly called "liberalism".

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

 

[pax]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Justin]

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]

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

 

[geekWithA.45]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.