There certainly seem to be a lot of posters (new and old) lately throwing around the terms “bleeding heart” and “liberal” as if
these are terms which automatically score bonus points if you use them first, and
they have any sort of actual non-rhetorical meaning.
I can’t do anything about 1) except to point out the uselessness of this approach as a debating technique, so I’ll try to sort out 2). In this respect, I am asking any posters who have ever accused other posters of being either or both of the above to post a clear and coherent definition of the appropriate terms which will accurately reflect the sense in which you used it.
(Anticipating a rapid degeneration of civility on both sides of the argument, I’m starting this in the BBQ Pit.)
I use “liberal” to mean “People who are very generous with both my money and time because they have problems with their conscience”. I’d say that statement is pretty accurate.
In response to Airman Doors’ comment, I’ve noticed that oftentimes the more liberal posters are prone to positions based excessively on feelings of guilt as opposed to reason. Whereas a significant number of the more conservative posters override or lack feelings of guilt which would actually be useful in formulating positions that are both logical and compassionate.
Well, I guess I qualify as a conservative, but I don’t think I use “liberal” in a negative way. And I think I give it the generally accepted dictionary definition.
Are you saying anyone who uses the term is automatically using it negatively? Because I don’t agree; it’s a perfectly good word and the fact that a lot of people around here self-identify as liberal further indicates it’s not necessarily perjorative.
A liberal is a person who believes in liberty, and believes that people know best what is right for their own lives. Thus, the liberal would favor the free market when ever possible over a controlled market. The liberal will believe that he governs best who governs least. The liberal would believe in a strong seperation of church and state. The liberal believes in freedom from government, not freedom through government. The liberal believes the primary focus of government should be to repel invaders, protect property, and enforce contracts. That is what a true liberal means to me. In modern America the term has been corrupted, (mostly by the democrats, but also by those who demonize them) to mean some sort of modified socialist who believes in fostering race and class warfare as a means on maintaining personal political power. That is not what a liberal should mean.
Bleeding heart, to me, means a person whose response to a situation is overwhelmingly driven by emotion, even in the face of logical, reasoned arguments that the opposite, or some other, approach is more likely to result in a satisfactory resolution to the problem. A BH will demand that crazy amounts of money be spent for minimal, though visable, benefits. The kind of people who will demand that millions be spent to save two whales on a beach while children go without proper schools. That sort of irrational behavior and poor allocation of limited resources, to me, is an example of “bleeding heart” thinking. Or, to put it more bluntly, “Won’t someone please think of the children?”
bleeding heart = tin foil, seems a perfectly fair exchange to this tin foil liberal with libertarian sexual predilections.
btw, Damn Straight, Mister !- ahh, that’s better. I just don’t get to say that often enough
You know, now that I think about it a bit, I wonder if the phrase might not have originated by association with Irish Catholics and thier “bleeding heart” religious icons? Dorothy Day, Catholic Workers, that sort of thing.
Perhaps this is the origin of Democrat’s peculiar fascination with people poor, musical, and chemically dependent.
Is it possible, Mr. Doors, that perhaps some liberals have put thought into choosing their political ideology, rather than simply relying on emotion? And is it also possible that some conservatives have chosen their political views based more on emotion rather than on thought?
Are you from England cerca 1800? In America and in Europe the word “liberal” has very different conotations. Just what. In 1800 in America a Democrat had ideas that would be considered Republican now. Terms change. Deal.
-Wolfian, leading the charge to make the word awful a good thing again.
Like you’re not sure whether you’re a right wanker or a left wanker?
Conservatives are fond of characterizing themselves as “hard headed.” This is also a common trait amongst cynics. How they tell themselves apart is beyond me.
I blame Ayn Rand and her love-child with Nathaniel Brandon, Ann Coulter. Thier poisonous influence infests the conservative movement, they have managed to sell the lie that selfishness makes sense. Well, of course it doesnt. any damn fool knows that.
But it leads into the utterest of bullshit, how the right is somehow “rational” and the left is “emotional”.
Giving a shit isn’t an emotion. Giving a shit is a mitzvah
upon reiview:
(damn, appletreats, make we wish I hadn’t bothered)
I’d love to see a Celebrity Death Match between Rand and Coulter. Of course Rand is dead, but in her day I think that scrappy little Russian lady could KO Coulter in the first round.
I would agree with the Op that the term “bleeding heart liberal,” is not a particularly useful overgeneralization. Not everybody is good at converying meaning specifically though, and it does have a nice ring and rythmn to it.
No definition from me; I dismiss the terminology out of hand. I am for affirmative action, pro-life, against the death penalty, for school vouchers and pro-union. I believe President Bush often sacrifices the interests of the poor for big business, and I also supported the invasion of Iraq.
I don’t know what category these place me in, and I don’t care. I believe in what I think is right, and I don’t care what camp claims me based on a given belief (and you’re all clamoring to, admit it ;)). Why would anyone care about such a squishy boundary as the definition of “liberal” or “conservative”? Does anyone select their beliefs based on a need to be consistent with what they perceive as these schools of thought? Does anyone find themselves completely, absolutely unequivocally, in agreement with any complex political philosophy? If so, how the hell did that happen? I can’t get my family to agree on toppings for the pizza, and there’s only three of us.
If someone attacks you for his perception of the political camp you reside in, as opposed to pointing out a problem with your ideas, roll your eyes and move on.
