djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 27, 2013 0:41:18 GMT -5
I have to say, I agree with DJ's terminology of conservatives and liberals, based on the fact he continues to say he is a Republican. that made no sense, dude. the fact that i am the last liberal standing in the party has no bearing whatsoever on my ability to read a dictionary.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 27, 2013 12:15:47 GMT -5
All I can say is that you're operating on what 'ought to be' rather than what is. There's enough dissent as to the meaning of the word that it's at best ambiguous in conversation. I've avoided using it in the past for this reason.
Invoke it with your preferred definition; Paul, Tony et al. will continue to use it in the popular sense; and you gentlemen can enjoy many a fruitless argument about "liberals" in spite of the fact that you're talking about two entirely different groups of people.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 27, 2013 12:25:25 GMT -5
*chuckle* How about we have liberals, conservatives, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives ... since we seem to be looking for what's "real"?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 27, 2013 15:33:25 GMT -5
*chuckle* How about we have liberals, conservatives, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives ... since we seem to be looking for what's "real"? Actually, that's an excellent suggestion, mmhmm. I have no problem using "neo-liberal" to describe for the contemporary (and DJ makes a point: wrong) definition of "liberal". Neo-liberal it is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 27, 2013 17:28:56 GMT -5
All I can say is that you're operating on what 'ought to be' rather than what is. There's enough dissent as to the meaning of the word that it's at best ambiguous in conversation. I've avoided using it in the past for this reason. Invoke it with your preferred definition; Paul, Tony et al. will continue to use it in the popular sense; the popular sense is what is in the dictionary. the dictionary is a chronicle of USAGE, after all. and you gentlemen can enjoy many a fruitless argument about "liberals" in spite of the fact that you're talking about two entirely different groups of people. we have no argument, because we use the term according to it's accepted meaning.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 27, 2013 17:32:05 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 27, 2013 17:35:11 GMT -5
We shall agree to disagree there.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 27, 2013 17:48:12 GMT -5
We shall agree to disagree there. no we shan't. to do so would be to concede the argument is a "draw". i won't do that, because it isn't. again..... the people who write dictionary are constantly surveying usage. they get paid to do it. it is their job. you are making it seem like you have credentials that exceed theirs. but you have nothing to offer in your defense other than your own extremely limited experience. forgive me if i choose to go with the experts on this. again emphasis mine: How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary? This is one of the questions Merriam-Webster editors are most often asked. The answer is simple: usage. Tracking Word Usage To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them. Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called "reading and marking." The editors scour the texts in search of new words, new usages of existing words, variant spellings, and inflected forms–in short, anything that might help in deciding if a word belongs in the dictionary, understanding what it means, and determining typical usage. Any word of interest is marked, along with surrounding context that offers insight into its form and use.
if your meaning were accepted, it would be in the dictionary, period. it isn't. period.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 27, 2013 17:57:23 GMT -5
Virgil:
for a guy who loves logic and truth as much as you appear to do, i can't follow you on this thread.
so let me ask you something:
how do you resolve arguments about the meaning of a certain term?
if it is not the dictionary, what or whom do you consult?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 27, 2013 18:53:55 GMT -5
Virgil: for a guy who loves logic and truth as much as you appear to do, i can't follow you on this thread. so let me ask you something: how do you resolve arguments about the meaning of a certain term? if it is not the dictionary, what or whom do you consult? You're asking the wrong question. We're not here to resolve what the "meaning of the term" is. I agree with you that consulting an authoritative source on the subject (in this case, the dictionary) is how we establish the "meaning of the term". What we're debating is in what capacities people actually use the term. What is it's perceived meaning? You've used "peruse" as an example several times. Let's use it again. I agree with you that the vast majority of people use "peruse" incorrectly as a synonym for 'skim'. The fact that you, I, and the dictionary writers know this doesn't make a lick of difference to the fact that if you or I write "I perused the manual.", 99% of people out there are going to interpret this to mean "I skimmed over the manual." where we like it or not. The dictionary is not going to change the definition of peruse solely because nobody cares what the definition is. And you seem to be living in a world where it's acceptable for you and I to use "peruse" correctly, without disclaiming the fact that we're using it in a sense that nobody is aware of, and when people don't understand us it's their own fault for not knowing the dictionary definition of the word. To that I say: go right ahead, sir, but don't come crying to me about it when nobody understands you. As for the dictionaries not putting in the popular definition of "liberal"--why would they? They haven't changed the definition of "peruse" even though nobody uses that word in the proper sense. They're not scouring the corpus of English literature looking to redefine words for people who obviously couldn't care less about the definitions. They're out looking for the "unfriend" and the "chocoholic" stable new additions to the language. Add to that the fact that "liberal" in the popular sense tends to be a nebulous definition to begin with. It usually comprises all of the factors I listed in my definition, but for some people it might comprise more, and for some it might comprise less. In some cases it's just a stand-in for "one who opposes the stated conservative position on this issue" in a particular debate. I can't fathom how badly a dictionary would be burned if they added a new definition for "liberal" in the derogatory sense that many conservatives use it. The dictionaries going to stick with their peaches n' cream classical definitions, and if people want to ignore those (and people do) then so be it. Even the media realizes that "liberal" isn't being used in the classical sense. Watch the final season of West Wing and you can watch Jimmy Smitz belt out a long speech about how "liberal" has been co-opted but that he remembers the original definition, and he's proud of it. "When you throw that word, 'liberal', down at my feet, I will pick it up and wear it like a badge of honour, sir!" ...or something thereabouts, in Aaron Sorkin's characteristic grandiose prose.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 27, 2013 19:05:53 GMT -5
Virgil: for a guy who loves logic and truth as much as you appear to do, i can't follow you on this thread. so let me ask you something: how do you resolve arguments about the meaning of a certain term? if it is not the dictionary, what or whom do you consult? You're asking the wrong question. We're not here to resolve what the "meaning of the term" is. I agree with you that consulting an authoritative source on the subject (in this case, the dictionary) is how we establish the "meaning of the term". What we're debating is in what capacities people actually use the term. What is it's perceived meaning? no, that is what YOU are debating. again, i would refer you to PERUSE. what is it's "perceived meaning", Virgil? how about "altercation". how is the meaning of that "perceived". what you are basically saying is that if you can alter the perception of a word, that makes the use valid. i don't think even Orwell would have argued that. i think it is interesting that we are both arguing that how a word is used IS what it means. our only difference is that i see the dictionary as the arbiter and chronicler of USE, not meaning.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 27, 2013 19:15:33 GMT -5
Virgil: for a guy who loves logic and truth as much as you appear to do, i can't follow you on this thread. so let me ask you something: how do you resolve arguments about the meaning of a certain term? if it is not the dictionary, what or whom do you consult? You're asking the wrong question. We're not here to resolve what the "meaning of the term" is. I agree with you that consulting an authoritative source on the subject (in this case, the dictionary) is how we establish the "meaning of the term". What we're debating is in what capacities people actually use the term. What is it's perceived meaning? You've used "peruse" as an example several times. Let's use it again. I agree with you that the vast majority of people use "peruse" incorrectly as a synonym for 'skim'. The fact that you, I, and the dictionary writers know this doesn't make a lick of difference to the fact that if you or I write "I perused the manual.", 99% of people out there are going to interpret this to mean "I skimmed over the manual." where we like it or not. true. finally, something we agree on.The dictionary is not going to change the definition of peruse solely because nobody cares what the definition is. And you seem to be living in a world where it's acceptable for you and I to use "peruse" correctly, without disclaiming the fact that we're using it in a sense that nobody is aware of, and when people don't understand us it's their own fault for not knowing the dictionary definition of the word. To that I say: go right ahead, sir, but don't come crying to me about it when nobody understands you. well, clearly, nobody doesn't apply. after all, you already said you agree with what it means.As for the dictionaries not putting in the popular definition of "liberal"--why would they? because that is how they earn their living, of course.They haven't changed the definition of "peruse" even though nobody uses that word in the proper sense. i was wondering if you would say that. i have an answer. the answer is that if you took the common meaning, which is basically the OPPOSITE of the accepted meaning, nobody would ever know what you are talking about. and that is actually a fact about that word. to succumb to the common usage on it is to render it meaningless. and, i would argue, that is PRECISELY what is going on with the term liberal. the only difference is that whereas perusal is a casual destruction of meaning, the destruction of liberal as a term is systematic and political. in other words, the word is being systematically destroyed by non-liberals. yes, i firmly believe that.They're not scouring the corpus of English literature looking to redefine words for people who obviously couldn't care less about the definitions. They're out looking for the "unfriend" and the "chocoholic" stable new additions to the language. no, they are looking for new meanings. gay is an example.i have to go, Virgil. more later.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 27, 2013 20:31:29 GMT -5
And I agree with you. But I also consider it one of the reasons linguists will never amend the definition. They have dictionaries to sell, and putting "liberal" in as a pejorative would ruffle more than a few feathers.
If there's one thing neo-liberals (to use mmhmm's terminology) are good at, it's blacklisting institutions that contradict their worldview. Conservatives do it too, but rarely with the same energy or determination.
Would you want to be the dictionary company that becomes the next Chik-Fil-A?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 27, 2013 21:53:30 GMT -5
And I agree with you. But I also consider it one of the reasons linguists will never amend the definition. They have dictionaries to sell, and putting "liberal" in as a pejorative would ruffle more than a few feathers. no, i don't think that is the reason. i think that it is because oppositional meanings create confusion. and dictionaries are about clarifying meaning, not muddying it.
let me ask you something else: do you even ACCEPT THE PREMISE that there is "proper use" of a word?
If there's one thing neo-liberals (to use mmhmm's terminology) are good at, it's blacklisting institutions that contradict their worldview. Conservatives do it too, but rarely with the same energy or determination. neo-liberals are liberals that believe in economic growth, according to the definition. what do YOU mean by neo-liberal? Would you want to be the dictionary company that becomes the next Chik-Fil-A? i like their chicken, but i hate their politics.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 27, 2013 22:00:13 GMT -5
Oh, puh-leeze! I've seen an equal amount of "energy" and "determination" on both sides! What really amazes me is seeing people actually type things like the above. It's as though some see only the failings of others and never their own.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 27, 2013 22:05:15 GMT -5
Virgil: for a guy who loves logic and truth as much as you appear to do, i can't follow you on this thread. so let me ask you something: how do you resolve arguments about the meaning of a certain term? if it is not the dictionary, what or whom do you consult? Add to that the fact that "liberal" in the popular sense tends to be a nebulous definition to begin with. It usually comprises all of the factors I listed in my definition, but for some people it might comprise more, and for some it might comprise less. In some cases it's just a stand-in for "one who opposes the stated conservative position on this issue" in a particular debate. I can't fathom how badly a dictionary would be burned if they added a new definition for "liberal" in the derogatory sense that many conservatives use it. The dictionaries going to stick with their peaches n' cream classical definitions, and if people want to ignore those (and people do) then so be it. you make dictionary writers sound positively conservative. i really don't think they are there to preserve meaning. they are there to chronicle usage. i know you disagree. you have already said that. but in saying that, you are going against their stated mission- which means that you are basically saying that they are lying about what they do- which sounds conspiratorial to me. the simpler possibility is that they are doing what they say.Even the media realizes that "liberal" isn't being used in the classical sense. the media has no consciousness from which it can "realize" anything.Watch the final season of West Wing and you can watch Jimmy Smitz belt out a long speech about how "liberal" has been co-opted but that he remembers the original definition, and he's proud of it. "When you throw that word, 'liberal', down at my feet, I will pick it up and wear it like a badge of honour, sir!" ...or something thereabouts, in Aaron Sorkin's characteristic grandiose prose. sounds about right.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 19, 2024 18:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2013 22:50:45 GMT -5
And I agree with you. But I also consider it one of the reasons linguists will never amend the definition. They have dictionaries to sell, and putting "liberal" in as a pejorative would ruffle more than a few feathers. If there's one thing neo-liberals (to use mmhmm's terminology) are good at, it's blacklisting institutions that contradict their worldview. Conservatives do it too, but rarely with the same energy or determination. Would you want to be the dictionary company that becomes the next Chik-Fil-A? You contend that "linguists" all supposedly support a "liberal" agenda? Amazing! You have to admit it, Solidarity like that is rare! The Myth of the supposed "vast left-wing conspiracy" is the only thing uniting the various disparate right-wing factions... without that "common enemy" they'd turn on each other like feral dogs in breeding season.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 27, 2013 23:46:00 GMT -5
it would be far easier to assume that there was no conspiracy whatsoever- that this is just how things are. there is no master plan to suppress conservatives, or to undermine their values, it is just the trajectory of modern societies. you can be as disappointed as you like, but it is simply a fact that traditions, for better or worse, give way to new ways of thinking and doing things. conservatives are disposed to stand against that, which makes them phyrric in the face of progress and Quixotic in the face of pragmatism, but never ultimately victorious.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 28, 2013 1:15:42 GMT -5
There doesn't have to be a "vast liberal conspiracy" for a dictionary company to think that including a pejorative definition of "liberal" would upset people. And considering you'd be the first person to storm their offices, pitchfork and torch in hand, if they ever did change the definition, you're hardly one to say they don't maintain awareness about public opinion. You've made it clear in this thread that you believe tarnishing the word "liberal" is a vast concerted effort by conservatives. So welcome to crazyland, sir. "Ooooh. Those big bad conservatives out to get DJ. Ooooooooh." That doesn't sound any less idiotic when you're doing it to me. Prominent figures, policymakers, trendsetters, producers in the media. The head of the media engine. Because not rocking the boat is such a difficult concept to grasp. If a writer writes a word and his audience understands what he means (i.e. it communicates the meaning he intended), this is sufficient for the word to be "properly used" in informal writing such as this message board. For something like a thesis, where the writing is extremely formal and the audience is "the world", proper usage is narrowed to dictionary-consistent definitions and context-specific jargon, save for a handful of words. Well that would be your perception, and I have mine.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2013 2:18:44 GMT -5
Prominent figures, policymakers, trendsetters, producers in the media. The head of the media engine. there is no "head". the organ of media is full of complexity and contradiction. it is about as single minded as the entity "proboards".Because not rocking the boat is such a difficult concept to grasp. your idea is easy to grasp, Virgil. it just makes no sense, imo.If a writer writes a word and his audience understands what he means (i.e. it communicates the meaning he intended), this is sufficient for the word to be "properly used" in informal writing such as this message board. i guess what i was driving at is that it doesn't seem like you really care whether a word is properly used, or not- whether it conveys meaning to anyone outside of your very narrow audience on this board. if so, then this argument is pointless. i am writing for the benefit of people like myself and the fellow you cited earlier who happen to think that there is a lot of good in liberalism, just as there is a lot of good in conservatism. those terms don't deserve to be demonized for political gain, imo. so is this pointless, or not, Virgil?For something like a thesis, where the writing is extremely formal and the audience is "the world", proper usage is narrowed to dictionary-consistent definitions and context-specific jargon, save for a handful of words. a thesis requires more SPECIFIC language, but this is not the same as use/misuse.Well that would be your perception, and I have mine.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2013 2:29:16 GMT -5
There doesn't have to be a "vast liberal conspiracy" for a dictionary company to think that including a pejorative definition of "liberal" would upset people. glad you think so. however, i don't think dictionary companies spend a lot of time worrying about what might upset people. i could be very wrong about that, please show me how i am wrong with something other than your opinion, if possible.And considering you'd be the first person to storm their offices, pitchfork and torch in hand, if they ever did change the definition, you're hardly one to say they don't maintain awareness about public opinion. see, this is where you are wrong. i wouldn't do that at all. just as i am not going to storm their office because they use the word "bias" differently than i do. on the contrary, i would quietly accept it, and either find a better term to live by, or i would simply use definition 1 (since, let's face it, it is going to be around a lot longer than definition 8).You've made it clear in this thread that you believe tarnishing the word "liberal" is a vast concerted effort by conservatives. no i haven't. i specifically said it was a right wing smear job. i would describe the participants as neofascists- people who SHOULD legitimately fear liberals, who would take up arms against them if it came to that. liberals are always the first to die when authoritarians come to power. always.So welcome to crazyland, sir. "Ooooh. Those big bad conservatives out to get DJ. Ooooooooh." on the contrary. my dad is a conservative, and most of what i learned, including respect for others, comes from him. that is why i don't spend a lot of time mocking you, Virgil, even though this last little piece of taunting bullshit sorely tests me. i know that this is just an argument, and it is ultimately not about the people involved, but the principles. resorting to ad hominem is a sure sign that you are on the losing end.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2013 2:42:35 GMT -5
Virgil- i have stated before that i don't think conservative and liberal are opposite in the general sense. i think they ARE opposite in certain specific senses such as "adhering to traditions". liberals are not terribly interested in that, and conservatives are, as a rule. but in terms of an issue such as freedom of speech, i doubt you could pass daylight between the position of an average conservative and an average liberal. there are other issues, such as gun ownership and gun rights, where you will find self described liberals that STRONGLY advocate for them. and, in terms of small business and property rights, again, you would have a hard time seeing daylight between the position of the average liberal and the average conservative. you will also find MANY conservatives that are quite libertarian in their social positions- which again, has a lot of overlap with liberals.
where each side falls down (relative to the other) is on the issue of freedom. each thinks the other is uninterested in certain aspects of freedom, and i think this is mostly wrong. they just see freedom differently, and rank it differently next to other things. but that is where i see liberals and conservatives argue a lot: over what that term means PERSONALLY to them, and how it manifests itself in their ideal society. it is disheartening, because again i don't see a lot of difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue either, if they can stop calling each other authoritarians for once.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2013 3:15:51 GMT -5
one last thing.
i have this employee that insists on using an adjustable wrench as a hammer. i keep telling him not to do that. we have hammers in the plant, and he should use them if he needs to drive a nail or beat on something. i am not telling him that just to be an asshole, however- or because i adjustable wrench purist. in fact, i kinda hate adjustable wrenches. but they have their place. and if you go to use an adjustable wrench that has been beaten so badly that the nut won't slide on the adjuster, it can no longer be used to wrench anything.
i worry that people are doing that with language, sometimes. particularly with terms that have some value and history associated with them. they are using them as blunt objects to beat things with, and the result is that the words no longer will function in their original capacity, and that anyone who tries to use them in that way will find that they have become so damaged that they simply have to abandon them.
where this analogy falls apart is that my employees are not TRYING to ruin adjustable wrenches.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 28, 2013 13:30:57 GMT -5
I wasn't implying single-mindedness in this case. Simply that 'some significant part of' the group acknowledges the popular meaning of the word.
I don't agree that all non-classical uses of either word are necessarily pejorative. Certainly they can be treated that way. The main problem (and one of the reasons "liberal" and "conservative" were co-opted in the first place) is that we really have no reasonable alternatives.
With due respect to your suggestion of "big government republican with liberal religious views", nobody is going to use this terminology when talking about "liberals", and if they did (even in a formal publication) virtually no one would know what it meant. Likewise with "conservative". When Americans say "conservative", they immediately consider it synonymous with "right-wing" and "Republican" in some contexts.
I do admit that the classical and popular definitions for "conservative" are much closer together than the classical and popular definitions for "liberal".
The problem is that we don't get to define popular usage. As I told you before, I've avoided using the term "liberal" in the past (scan through my post record if you don't believe me) precisely because the perceived meaning of the term doesn't sync with its dictionary definition. But at the same time, I acknowledge that the word is used differently today, and furthermore I acknowledge this is in large part because no alternatives exist.
So it would appear that you and I are on the same page. You seem to be acknowledging that many people use adjustable wrenches in the capacity of hammers. The analogy may break down in the sense that your employees have hammers while in the case of "liberal", people are using the wrench because no hammer is available.
This is one of the reasons why I tend to be more accepting of people using "liberal" and "conservative" outside their classical adjectival uses. At this point, we need to consider the fact that the classical definitions have been corrupted (or at best, been rendered ambiguous) as a sunk cost. It has happened, and it happened because terms were needed for certain groups of people, and "liberal" and "conservative" were chosen for whatever reason.
It was satire. And it was a concerted reply to Replies #198 and #199 where you and Oscar accused me of believing in boogeymen. Hence my comment, "That doesn't sound any less idiotic when you're doing it to me."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 28, 2013 13:44:40 GMT -5
I wasn't implying single-mindedness in this case. Simply that 'some significant part of' the group acknowledges the popular meaning of the word. i think where we disagree is the extent to which this is true, and what constitutes "use" -vs- "misuse".I don't agree that all non-classical uses of either word are necessarily pejorative. Certainly they can be treated that way. The main problem (and one of the reasons "liberal" and "conservative" were co-opted in the first place) is that we really have no reasonable alternatives. true. we probably would have already migrated to "better" terms if they were at the ready.With due respect to your suggestion of "big government republican with liberal religious views", nobody is going to use this terminology when talking about "liberals", that was actually not my point. my point is that most people probably couldn't even get their heads around that idea, let alone articulate it. but also i seriously doubt most people have looked the word up. and if they did (even in a formal publication) virtually no one would know what it meant. Likewise with "conservative". When Americans say "conservative", they immediately consider it synonymous with "right-wing" and "Republican" in some contexts. and that is an unfair association, as well.I do admit that the classical and popular definitions for "conservative" are much closer together than the classical and popular definitions for "liberal". i think this is because the word liberal has been around for nearly 300 years. i honestly don't know how long conservative has been around- but if you find out, let me know.The problem is that we don't get to define popular usage. As I told you before, I've avoided using the term "liberal" in the past (scan through my post record if you don't believe me) Virgil- have i made this about you? if you think i have, then you are wrong. when i say "you" in this context, i am referring to "your arguments". it is NOT a personal remark. i know you as a cautious centrist. i have told you that. i consider you one of the more rational posters. i have told you that. we agree a LOT on libertarian issues. this is ONLY about terminology, and this argument, not about you. i know you are cautious and fair, which is what makes this discussion INTERESTING to me. i have had it with Paul before, and i get bored much more quickly.precisely because the perceived meaning of the term doesn't sync with its dictionary definition. But at the same time, I acknowledge that the word is used differently today, and furthermore I acknowledge this is in large part because no alternatives exist. but they do. i think that leftist covers all the bases for you. if you don't like that, then socialist covers them fairly well, if you throw in the caveat that a true socialist is totally intolerant of private capital.So it would appear that you and I are on the same page. You seem to be acknowledging that many people use adjustable wrenches in the capacity of hammers. The analogy may break down in the sense that your employees have hammers while in the case of "liberal", people are using the wrench because no hammer is available. ah yes. i would agree with you there. the alternative to the dictionary definition of liberal is really non-existent, which is why i find it so bloody irritating to see it misused.This is one of the reasons why I tend to be more accepting of people using "liberal" and "conservative" outside their classical adjectival uses. At this point, we need to consider the fact that the classical definitions have been corrupted (or at best, been rendered ambiguous) as a sunk cost. It has happened, and it happened because terms were needed for certain groups of people, and "liberal" and "conservative" were chosen for whatever reason. if you believe in something, it is worth fighting for. the fight should be in proportion to how much you believe.It was satire. And it was a concerted reply to Replies #198 and #199 where you and Oscar accused me of believing in boogeymen. Hence my comment, "That doesn't sound any less idiotic when you're doing it to me." i thought it might have been, but it is always good to check.
|
|