The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Its used by people who don't know the meaning of Liberal. What they mean is leftie or socialist/social democrat.
They're just abusive terms to make them (liberals) seem softies, mummies boys, wimps, etc. because of their politics
Ah - the namby-pamby liberals who let terrorists live in 5-star hotels! It's not like the 19th century liberals who were executing emperors ( http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/19thcenturylatinamerica/p/maxaustria.htm ), overthrowing religious theocracies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giacomo_Antonelli ) and revolting against imperialist aggressors - http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr10/fnicaragua1912.htm

Just think what Parliament would be like if there were a few of the above in the Lib Dems!
Socrates
Its used by people who don't know the meaning of Liberal. What they mean is leftie or socialist/social democrat.
That's what Liberal means these days. Just ask Wittgenstein.
Reply 5
Agent Smith
That's what Liberal means these days. Just ask Wittgenstein.

In the US, yes. But that doesn't make it right.
Reply 6
Its a criticism from the right in the same vein as PC gone mad, usually borne out of the insulters ignorance as a blanket for anyone who isn't a hardline bigot. That being said there is truth in it as there are some truly bend over backward anything goes types who would identify as liberal.
Reply 7
1. I don’t believe in capital punishment under any circumstances.
2. I'm ashamed that a large number of mankind's technological advances in the last seventy years can be directly or indirectly traced back to the creation of the atom bomb
3. I think people who say things like ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ are narrow minded idiots.
4. I think the Daily (hate) Mail and its London Stablemate, the Evening Standard are pitiful examples of 'news' papers.
5. I am sick of people obsessing over what they believe to be the ‘costs’ of immigration without bothering to find out the facts.
6. I am ashamed to live in a country where looked after children are still over-represented in young offender institutions, in prisons and on the streets
7. I am ashamed to live in a country where in 2003, 1% of the population owned 20% of the UK's marketable wealth and 50% of population owned only 7%of total wealth.
8. I think the central element of universal human rights is that they are 'universal' and for all 'humans'. You can't pick and choose who you give them to!

If this makes me a bleeding heart/bedwetting liberal, then that’s just fine with me.
Socrates
In the US, yes. But that doesn't make it right.
Surely the "true" meaning of a word is what people use it to mean, though?
Reply 9
Well US usage does not constitute global usage, and surely its more important what "liberals" think, then people who label them?
Socrates
Well US usage does not constitute global usage, and surely its more important what "liberals" think, then people who label them?
Er, no. What the term "liberal" means is not the exclusive decision of those who self-define as such; if that were universally the case, wholly pejorative terms would never be defined properly. People who use "liberal" as a term for everything they hate have just as great, and as valid, a role in the shaping of language as those who use it to label everything they hold dear.

For example. If I were to say that on reading the Wikipedia entry for "Neoconservatism", I was recently surprised to find myself in agreement with significant proportions of the introductory summary, we both know what the response would be from most people.

Much as it would be nice if the world worked the way you suggest, I fear it does not. Definitions are neither fixed nor the inalienable property of the in-group, as any "terrorist", "fascist" or "Nazi" will tell you.
Reply 11
Democracy
1. I don’t believe in capital punishment under any circumstances.
2. I'm ashamed that a large number of mankind's technological advances in the last seventy years can be directly or indirectly traced back to the creation of the atom bomb
3. I think people who say things like ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ are narrow minded idiots.
4. I think the Daily (hate) Mail and its London Stablemate, the Evening Standard are pitiful examples of 'news' papers.
5. I am sick of people obsessing over what they believe to be the ‘costs’ of immigration without bothering to find out the facts.
6. I am ashamed to live in a country where looked after children are still over-represented in young offender institutions, in prisons and on the streets
7. I am ashamed to live in a country where in 2003, 1% of the population owned 20% of the UK's marketable wealth and 50% of population owned only 7%of total wealth.
8. I think the central element of universal human rights is that they are 'universal' and for all 'humans'. You can't pick and choose who you give them to!

If this makes me a bleeding heart/bedwetting liberal, then that’s just fine with me.


:yep:
Reply 12
Agent Smith
Er, no. What the term "liberal" means is not the exclusive decision of those who self-define as such; if that were universally the case, wholly pejorative terms would never be defined properly. People who use "liberal" as a term for everything they hate have just as great, and as valid, a role in the shaping of language as those who use it to label everything they hold dear.

Well perhaps not in all cases. But in terms of the word "liberal", it has a meaning that has been clearly defined. If someone uses it to define things which are illiberal, then he does not have a valid right to label it as such.

Much as it would be nice if the world worked the way you suggest, I fear it does not. Definitions are neither fixed nor the inalienable property of the in-group, as any "terrorist", "fascist" or "Nazi" will tell you.
I agree with you. But if we take "terrorist" as an example, if someone who had never committed violent acts or sympathised with those who do was called "terrorist" as a synonym for "peaceful", then that would be rather invald.
Reply 13
sometimes liberalism is associated with weakness as it is not 'daring' and considered 'middle of the road', but sometimes this is the result of well-considered options and surely a more 'laissez faire' system is one that gives each individual the option and scope for individuals to shape their own future (although safeguards are in place to make sure society is not living below a certain level) than a more intrusive dictatorial form of government that would simply shut up those it didnt agree with, or at the least impose policies that their opposition wouldnt agree with.

surely a loose hanging 'consensus' is better than a tighter rule exacerbating the problems of those politically opposed to whoever is in power..

often people describe liberals as 'betwetters' or whatever, but this is often born out of a need to 'prove yourself' as being ardently left or right-wing or standing for something that sounds really impressive either way, but if the right decisions are being made, surely that is more important than to compromise the resolution of problems for a need to prove yourself and come out with ill-thought out ideas?
- i am purposefully detatching this argument from particular parties or rival ideologies, and i would consider myself broadly tolerant to most other political viewpoints, but this constant jibe towards liberalism is a bit annoying and irresponsible.
Socrates
Well perhaps not in all cases. But in terms of the word "liberal", it has a meaning that has been clearly defined. If someone uses it to define things which are illiberal, then he does not have a valid right to label it as such.
"No true Scotsman" imminent. How many people define as "Christian" acts that you or I would see as precisely the opposite? Among today's "liberals" we find widespread support for protectionism, the Welfare State, subsidies, tariffs, expansion of Government and I don't know what else; all things that would make the 19th Century English school turn in their graves. And yet to most people - and I do mean "most", because this particular battle is pretty much lost - "liberal" means the former, not the latter. Meanings change. Arguing for some "true" definition, existing on a plinth in some airy Platonic dimension with clouds and Doric columns all over the place, is just an appeal to a higher authority; and to be honest, I don't think there's a God in the whole of comparative theology who bothers to lay down the meanings of more than a very few, religious words.
I agree with you. But if we take "terrorist" as an example, if someone who had never committed violent acts or sympathised with those who do was called "terrorist" as a synonym for "peaceful", then that would be rather invald.
Yes, but that's because it involves leaping from A to Z. If you gradually slide through the metaphorical alphabet, in theory at least, you can get to any meaning from any starting point. And with that particular example, you have the handy leap of "terrorist" supposedly equating to "freedom fighter", which is a shortcut from A to at least J.
Reply 15
Really, because nowadays, looking at all the papers, you would have associated those terms with the conservatives?
Reply 17
Agent Smith
"No true Scotsman" imminent. How many people define as "Christian" acts that you or I would see as precisely the opposite?

Well yes, Christian is rather broader than liberal.

Among today's "liberals" we find widespread support for protectionism, the Welfare State, subsidies, tariffs, expansion of Government and I don't know what else; all things that would make the 19th Century English school turn in their graves. And yet to most people - and I do mean "most", because this particular battle is pretty much lost - "liberal" means the former, not the latter.

But they are defined liberal in terms of their social policy rather than economic. Calling them social liberals is fine, calling them liberals is not.

If you gradually slide through the metaphorical alphabet, in theory at least, you can get to any meaning from any starting point. And with that particular example, you have the handy leap of "terrorist" supposedly equating to "freedom fighter", which is a shortcut from A to at least J.

Fair point, I suppose, but again, the term liberal is less overarching as terrorist or Christian, imv.
Reply 18


I did assume you hadn't typed all that out !
Ed.
I did assume you hadn't typed all that out !


:getmecoat:

Latest