| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ernie wrote: |
| is anyone else really tired of this stupid 'liberal vs. conservative' BS? do these words really mean anything anymore? aren't there any words to describe a political position that are more, well, descriptive? can't i endorse some elements of conservatism (fiscal conservatism), and some elements of liberalism (gay rights) at the same time? |
Yes, you can be a fiscal conservative that is pro-civil liberties. You are called a libertarian or classical liberal. If that's not descriptive enough for you, stack some adjectives in the front for your navel-gazing pleasure.
And labels are known less perjoratively as generalizations. We need them to group elements common to many into a single association. Its called 'language.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| is anyone else really tired of this stupid 'liberal vs. conservative' BS? do these words really mean anything anymore? aren't there any words to describe a political position that are more, well, descriptive? can't i endorse some elements of conservatism (fiscal conservatism), and some elements of liberalism (gay rights) at the same time? actually, a well-thought out, nuanced position wouldn't fit into a 30-second soundbite, so forget it. |
There is nuance to everything, the question is whether or not the nuance is relevant or useful to a certain situation. Nuance and analysis is appropriate in certain contexts, but not all the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
my point is that nuance and analysis is absolutely essential in politics. calling someone a liberal or a conservative is totally meaningless. how about actually describing what it is that they believe? oh wait, that would require listening to someone else for more than 5 seconds, and is therefore impossible.
why not group people according to their stance on each particular issue? are you really that attached to the red and blue state CNN map? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree. The labels are ridiculous. "Fiscal conservative" is probably the most abused label of all. To me, fiscal conservatism is synonymous with living within our means: no debt. Most Republicans consider themselves to be fiscal conservatives even though most are for programs and adventures that are putting us in a debt deeper than the crack in their mama's muthaphuckin' ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
my point is that nuance and analysis is absolutely essential in politics. calling someone a liberal or a conservative is totally meaningless. how about actually describing what it is that they believe? oh wait, that would require listening to someone else for more than 5 seconds, and is therefore impossible.
why not group people according to their stance on each particular issue? are you really that attached to the red and blue state CNN map? |
No, it's not. If it was essential, we'd see a lot more of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khenan
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mix1 wrote: |
| Well, at least the adults are back in charge of things for awhile. Now if the kids in the backseat would stop screaming and whining, maybe we could get some driving done. |
Amen! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jkelly: so you consider the current US political climate to be the apogee of political discourse? i sure hope not. your response is kind of like looking at a person whose kidneys are failing and saying, "if kidneys were essential, then this guy would be dead". give it a couple of hours.
i'm confused. first you said: "There is nuance to everything, the question is whether or not the nuance is relevant or useful to a certain situation." in the very next sentence, you said: "Nuance and analysis is appropriate in certain contexts, but not all the time."
what the hell are you talking about? is your argument about nuances so nuanced that i need to spend hours analyzing it? or is this one of those situations where nuance is irrelevant and i'm trying to find some deeper meaning in what is actually a retarded argument? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
