Name-calling and conservatives

Great Debates
41

Not this moronic song and dance again. How, pray tell, would one go about disproving the assertion that conservatives are more likely to resort to name-calling than liberals without bringing up liberals?

It’s like if I made the assertion that liberals are more likely to be rich folk that don’t pay taxes than conservatives, and so conservatives are better. Then someone pointed out that, in fact, conservatives are just as likely to be rich folk that don’t pay taxes.

Taking the sqweels approach, I would then whine about how I don’t want to talk about conservatives, only about how stupid and evil liberals are.

Taking the rational approach, on the other hand, I would say oh, well, I guess my assessment of liberals as compared to conservatives was wrong.

42

Neither of them are fish. So it’s close.

43

Hey, wait a minute, I’m white (well, brownish) and male. I don’t think I’ve used a racial epithet to anyone’s face since I was about eight and I caught a kid stealing the change out of my shorts in a basket at the Boy’s Club.

I like liberals. Sometimes I play one in real life. Especially if you go back about 200 years. Plus, liberals tend to be more fun at parties. I’m fairly conservative on some issues though. I don’t like racial preferences except as tie breakers, and I live in the “South.” I guess I’m a raging KKK freak. Doh!!!

But, I happily live next to Muslims, Hindus, Blacks, and Hispanics with no problems. I can honestly say I judge people by how well they take care of their homes, whether they say “hi,” and little else. Hey, I have property values to think about. Around here, everyone seems to give a shit, therefore there are few – if any – problems of any kind. Much less racial problems. Actually, the Euros in the neighborhood, there are several of us, love it here.

You know, when we have our secret meetings in hoods and talk about how much we apprectiate our minority neighbors and make them fruit baskets. Yeesh. Arun, who lives next door, talks about his yard all the time. I, having the same problems, listen intently and offer my insights. I guess, I could call him a cricket-playing git. I think “git” means something, right?

Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, I want to play cricket. Smashing that little thingie (looks like a ball to me) would be a huge hoot, I think. Then, the shuttle run, or whatever. Hey, I’m an American. I saw a cricket movie once where the British officers almost killed these Indians they were playing with, I still don’t understand it.

44

Maybe Michael Moore should to one of his typical mockumentaries on Roger Moore.

45

all sarcasm aside, you were aware my post was directed at the OP, not you, right?

thanks for the note, am used to using other BBS systems.

46

Anecdote: A couple days ago, I was hanging out with some buddies. A conservative buddy happened to mention Michael Savage. The next words out of a liberal buddy’s mouth were, “Michael Savage is a fascist!”

Go figure.

47

JuanitaTech. Ahhh, I gave those guys fodder the minute I was born. It’s a little soon for pity, isn’t it? One day after posting, the next day while I’m still processing your assessments and comments? Have I so soon exhibited inflexibility in my thinking?

DanielWithrow. Since I don’t see liberals on the attack the way you describe, I’ve thought more about the liberals I first came in contact with that made me have this long-standing belief about their behavior. I’ve come to realize my experience with liberals is skewed: I’ve known MOST liberals through college and public-school academia, usually in the teacher/student relationship. These teachers – Ms. Schwachella, Dr. Pollans, Mr. Humphrey, Dr. McGuyver – all took pains not to be openly critical of their more conservative colleagues around me. I think I’ve always internalized that restraint as being endemic to liberal behavior in general when all along it might have just been professionalism. So I now accept that liberals are more prone to certain kinds of invective. (see below)

sailor. To my mind, there’s several varieties of name-calling. There’s the caustic, witty remark (“Don’t be so humble - you’re not that great.”- Golda Meir), the mild invective (“Coward.”) and the general personal attack (“Greedy bastard.”) – I think everybody does those. Other kinds, like the profane slur, (“Bible-thumping Jesus freaks.”) and man-bashing (“Male-chavanist pig.”) are probably liberal invectives. The last group – the kind I should have spelled out when I said ‘name-calling’ in the OP – ethnic slurs (“kike”), female gender slurs (“cunt”), sexuality (“faggot”) – I think, remain in the realm of conservative thought. My question to you (or anyone else) is: are these categories accurate?

Dogface. Let me clarify my “crusade”: I believe you can be socially conservative without being racist – as most conservatives are. BUT. I think it’s much rarer to be racist without also being conservative. You raise an interesting point regarding Jeffersonian racism, though.

catsix. You seem to be avoiding pronouns. I’m a ‘he’. You have my assumptions regarding language use and a presumed political orientation correct. You have the other part almost right: Askia wants to know why name-calling racists are frequently conservative, not the other way around. I threw out a theory… (quick cut-and-paste from the OP) : “… flawed understanding of taxonomy and anthropology and other genuine scientific efforts to classify groups – and a leftover anachronism of neocolonialism, where they tended to dehumanize native peoples to justify expansion and oppression.”

tomndebb. Truthfully, I’m still ignoring your Sharpton substitution, although I trust you are probably correct. My ex-stepfather was NOI, so I know about Minister Farrakhan. Can’t say the same for the Rev. Al Sharpton or his views in specific areas. I never thought I would have to spend so much time modifying my first premise, that name-calling racists are conservative. I think you are also right that my terms for “conservative” have shifted a few times, so let me settle on a definition.

conservative, n. 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc. or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2001)

Neurotik. That’s between you and sqweels.

Beagle. I don’t think you’re a raging KKK freak. You definitely seem a little nutso. Maybe even whack-a-ding hoy.

SPOOFE. And your conservative buddy just let that drop unanswered? Coward.

48

One last thing: please point out to me where I EVER said, “All conservatives are racists,” which is a raw inversion of what I believe. I have only ever said, “Racists are mostly conservative.” Where are the liberal racists?

49

Well, Askia, other than telling you that I have found white on black racism more common in conservatives and black on white racism more common in liberals, I don’t know what else I can tell you.

Thank you for clarifying the pronoun issue. I avoid them because I don’t want to guess wrong.

50

In the immortal words of the noted pundit, philosopher, bon vivant and nuclear safety technician Simpson…

Please accept my apologies, and this lovely bunch of bananas…

-Rav

51

Askia, in your replies you ignored my post in which I offered hard evidence to support your OP. Why, you’re nothing but a … a blighter! :mad:

52

catsix. See… I don’t see how any person can be racist and truly be liberal. Conservative thought carried to the extreme leads to racism and racist slurs. Liberal thought carried to the extreme leads to… something else. I’m not sure what. Maybe ‘zealotry?’ (Not that I’m claiming that liberals have all the zeal in the world, but I don’t see conservatives chaining themseves to trees to stop logging, either.)

Jomo Mojo. Blimey! I’m a bleeding blighter. That’s bloody brilliant. Look, mate. I tend to cut and paste responses, type out a reply. I somehow missed highlighting yours. I’m a blinking idjit. Give us a kiss and I’ll buy you a pint. Say hullo to the missus.

To others: still processing what’s been said so far. Hope to reply again soon. If you have any comments, please share.

53

I suspect that you are still imposing meaning on the terms you are using that may not convey a commonly shared understanding of the words.

At base, a conservative wants to hold on to the good of the past and a liberal wants to be free of the evils of the past. (Of course, getting anyone to agree to what was good or what was evil is a neverending and wholly unsatisfying task).

A conservative may easily choose to hold to the good of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the writings of Thomas Paine and John Adams and the Constitution (however imperfectly they were served by the government that was built with human frailty after the ideals were expressed).

A liberal might just as easily wish to be free of the evils that were incorporated into the laws and structure of the country, once it was growing with the same human imperfection.

Thus, there are certainly conservatives who abhor any sort of prejudicial actions or thoughts. Much of the resistance to affirmative action programs comes from people who truly believe that any such action is disparaging to anyone who is “recognized” by race or ethnicity (either to be denied opportunity, outright, or to be treated as though they are not capable of achieving anything without unfair assistance).

There are also liberals who have looked at the accident of history that has left European descended people at the top of the political and economic pyramids and have come to the conclusion that there is either an inherent evil in those people or that their historical rise has created a culture in which they occupy positions of power illegitimately. Such people can frequently be heard saying rather silly things such as “a minority cannot be racist because only the powerful are capable of racism.” (This is not a “liberal” position, but it is certainly a position held by some liberals.) There is also a second trend within some (usually white) liberal groups to take a patronizing view toward other groups, making the assumption that they are not capable of achieving anything without effort. These groups may not use racial slurs, but may act in very condescending ways toward other groups.

(Please do not make the mistake of claiming that they are not true liberals; that argument will carry no weight, here.)

If you define the words so that “conservative” means “capable of racism” and “liberal” means “not capable of racism” you have (beyond corrupting the language) created new and inappropriate definitions for those words.

54

The opinion is pretty much limited to this board, and perhaps a few of the talking head news programs on cable news, but here is the difference that I have noticed.

  1. Conservative tend to stick with the tried and true insults: “Bleeding Heart.” “Hippie.” “Tree Hugger.”

  2. Liberals tend to say such stuff as, “You’re wrong because you’re stupid.” And when cornered on a question that they do not want to answer they say, “That question wouldn’t even matter if you just…” They are also avoid the subject by nitpicking at the format of the question.

  3. It is pretty much equal on both sides, so why not just call it even and become a Libertarian?

55

Here here.

56

The real humour of this thread is that it is impossible to say anything specific about who does the name-calling without giving someone a label and joining the ranks of the blank blankity blanks.

57

Another thing I have learned in the journey we call life: the foolishness of starting a “Great Debate” four days before the beginning a new school year. That’s why God approved of the three-day Labor Day weekend, I suppose.

tomndebb: if you refer to the link you thoughtfully provided, you’ll see that “true liberal” is not a fallacy since 'the predicate (“I don’t see how a person can be racist”) is not actually contradictory to the accepted definition of the subject (“liberal” means “free from bigotry and predjudice.” – my reference is Webster’s.) Nor was my ‘definition of the subject silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.’ I have, however, adjusted the liberals don’t use namecalling thing – but I certainly didn’t do so silently.

Again you’re close to describing my thoughts and motives: I think my personal definition of “liberal” does, in fact, mean “not often capable of racially motivated discrimination and violence” and “conservative” does, in fact, mean “often capable of racially motivated discrimination and violence.” Yes, I’m fully aware of the irony of my biases and predjudices in holding those beliefs – but then, I don’t think of myself as a liberal anyway.

stick monkey. There, there.

Chicago Faucet: Okay. See, I can live with that.

j_sum1: You tellin’ me.

58

Thanks!

This might be the funniest “great” debate I’ve seen here.

:smiley:

59

Because Libertarians never resort to name-calling or specious arguments, is that it? :wink:

No – I’m afraid you have to become an anarchist if you want to avoid such pitfalls.

Daniel

60

Q: Why do all pizza delivery men eat worms but no Chinese food delivery men eat worms?

PS: I am pre-defining “pizza delivery men” as “people who eat worms” and “Chinese food delivery men” as “people who do not eat worms” and will ignore or belittle anyone who does not use my humptydumptyisms.