Readers here will easily recognize the issues covered in this short piece by Theodore Dalyrymple:
In his essay on the liberty of the press, the great philosopher David Hume wrote what has been many times quoted, but has never achieved the status of a cliché:
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Slavery has so frightful an aspect to men accustomed to freedom that it must steal in upon them by degrees and must disguise itself in a thousand shapes in order to be received.
I think this is borne out pretty well by our current experience. Freedom is being nibbled away in the name of justice, security, well-being, and even of freedom itself, that is to say true freedom, not the merely apparent kind — for nothing is easier for power-hungry intellectuals to justify than the coercion that they favor to bring about true freedom.
However, Hume goes on to say something that seems to me not to be quite true:
But if the liberty of the press ever be lost, it must be lost at once.
He says this because he assumes that the only serious threat to freedom of the press comes from a despotic government desirous of imposing centralized censorship of what appears in print, and which it is be able to do by fiat. This is not so; there are other, subtler threats to press freedom.
Dalrymple continues then with a practical and entertaining example of such using the word “mankind”. Which, as they say, read the whole thing.
Most striking, however, is his admission of the eventual outcome.
I cannot say my role in resisting this tiny tyranny has been or is an heroic one. On the contrary: I now simply avoid the use of certain ways of putting things so that the question does not arise. I do not want to have a blazing argument with editors or sub-editors each time I use the word “Mankind” and it is changed without my permission, nor do I not want to stop writing altogether; and the matter, after all, is a very small one. How petty one would look to argue about it, how foolish to cut one’s nose off to spite one’s face if one refused to write any more because of it!
And so the censors have achieved a small victory. They will seek out new locutions to conquer.
Or, in other words, this is what makes the slope so damn slippery. Frozen Astroglide slippery. It’s because we’re helping. With our non-reciprocated manners. With our willingness to cede ground without a second thought. Enough.
Instead, what if each of us decided to offend the progressives without hesitation and learned to enjoy their assuredly illiberal responses? Perhaps we’d find them questioning if these little battles are worth their effort. Perhaps we’d hear them muttering to one another, “I don’t think this hill is worth dying on.”
What if? Would that put us in Villainous Company? Maybe not.
Heh, sdferr. Yeah, that did come to mind when I came across the Dalyrymple piece.
As we’ve seen, there are any number of conservatives who will go to the manners or “not this hill” arguments before the progressives even need to open their mouth.
ot grandpa’s getting senile
link
There stands a secondary order, we can’t fail to observe. These are our friends we want to say. (And do, of course.) But…
In such a way did we in the UK lose our handguns. In such a way have we lost all ability to resist force. In such a way are all freedoms lost.
but also that’s just language – people like to fiddle with other people’s… it’s a lot like how well-meaning people try to get me to change the word coward when I talk about Meghan’s daddy and whore when I talk about various… whores…
The key is that the changers are well-meaning.
Sometimes they’re not.
There’s a difference.
Which resolves back to the IFF question put a few days ago. It matters.
I don’t think everyone wants you to stop calling Meghan’s daddy a coward altogether; just be more precise and call hime a political or moral coward-that’s all…
Because I will attest firsthand to never having met any cowards among my fellow Naval Aviators; especially when it cam to going in harms way.
So no censorship brother, maybe just more precision.
No slam intended, my friend.
hf, the problem with your word usage as it relates to McCain is largely one of inaccuracy. If you say political cowardice, then your point is more likely to go unquestioned. The main reason being that the man’s military history points to the exact opposite of cowardice. So the word use chafes.
I don’t see what his military misadventures have to do with the piss-poor Senate career the piss-ant has made of selling out our little country. If anything it was Meghan’s daddy what besmirched his military career by pimping it out for political gain.
But humankind is rather more accurate.
I kinda like the name on McCain myself, at least to the extent that he has often enough behaved in a cowardly way, which isn’t to say he has always behaved that way. Still, if someone is pulled up short by hearing McCain called a coward, they’ll say, hey! I don’t think of him as a coward! Why are you saying that? And then we can explain, right? Distinguishing, which is what we do. But then the person who hasn’t thought about the ways in which McCain has acted like a coward gets to think about that in a new light. Which is good.
what if each of us decided to offend the progressives without hesitation and learned to enjoy their assuredly illiberal responses? Perhaps we’d find them questioning if these little battles are worth their effort. Perhaps we’d hear them muttering to one another, “I don’t think this hill is worth dying on.”
Please. We already know what happens when we provoke them. They become even more entrenched in their prejudice that we’re all racistsexisthomophobic. They become hysterical. They go right ’round the twist.
And as long as proggs dominate the wordsmithing professions (as they do), they’ll just decide that they’re better off getting rid of the right-leaning writers, because we’re more trouble than we’re worth.
Most corporate style guides prefer that “he” never be used as the generic singular pronoun, because it’s “sexist,” whereas “he or she” is awkward. Solution? THEIR!
“Ask the client to give their consent verbally; you can get the written consent later.”
In this context, you can’t switch to all-plural (which is a nice way to get around the mess), because I’m writing instructions for a customer-service call center, and they’re on the phone with one person at a time.
If I can, I’ll delete “their” altogether—”Ask the client to give consent verbally”—but that doesn’t always work.
You are more than correct about the unreturned politeness JeffG.
I think at it’s core, that particular move is a corallary of the Alinsky tenet;
“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”[76]
“No organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their ‘book’ of rules and regulations.”
In a tactical sense they count on religious folks to respond and/or behave in a certain manner, and try to turn this to their advantage; to watch for an opening and then complain about THE HYPOCRISY!, or THE FAIRNESS, or throw up their favorite-JESUS WOULD BE FOR [Insert liberal redistributionist isea here].
In the same manner, they count on folks who belive in politeness and actual, you know, discussion to behave in a predictible fashion. They count on the shouting down, ad hominems, and in-your-face techniques leading to the confrontation they really want. And in that moment, when the optics are just right, their nut-dream is to be able to record it on the legacy media cameras to show to the world!, so they can breathlessly hand-wring over the need for CIVILITY NOW!
Like the recent Kabuki where Barney Frank and the pips paraded in front of the tea partiers, and tried to use the resulting outrage of the crowd over the ramming through of Obamacare as UNDISPUTABLE PROOF! that the protesters were homophobic, racist, h8ters of the highest order. A meme that is being nuked even as we discuss this topic.
http://powip.com/2010/04/gallup-nukes-the-predominantly-white-racist-tea-partier-meme/
Me? I say eff ’em. State your piece clearly, and be precise when using your words. And when critics try and use the common-usage BS, or, “well everyone knows what that means these days”, or decries your use of ‘CODE WORDS!; then you make them look lile the asses they are by schooling them on the meaning of words. And there is the added bonus of being able to decry “PC Speech” in doing so, a practice that, increasingly, many Americans view in a negative light as well as talk about the hi-jacking of the meaning of words by those who would wish to twist your intent and propagandize your ideas.
I’ll never give in!
By the way, the Keeper of the Style Guide is in our San Francisco office. Any questions?
grandpa was once brave but then became a slimy politician and it got greasier from there like a greasy ’76 ford maverick
I’d have agreed with you, Makewi, right up until you actually articulated it. Now I have to think about it.
Yes it chafes, but honestly, it is that chafing sensation that we generally applaud in Jeff (good man) or Rush Limbaugh (hope he fails) when they’re doing it to the left. Perhaps the problem here is that the chafing is too close to home?
My Mama felt bad about her abortion due to gratuitous euphemism usage intending google trouble, you know.
Still sends me a little green velveeta cheesecake every year on what would have been my birthday, she does.
then you make them look like the asses they are by schooling them on the meaning of words.
…because all interviewers are willing to Stop Time to let you hold forth on something theoretical. For a good six minutes, without interrupting you or letting the fools on the other side of the split screen talk over you.
The TV medium favors the soundbite and the fascile generalization. Radio favors the longer-winded. We’re at a natural disadvantage unless we want to resort to the same bumper-sticker nonsense that they do.
The assaults to personal autonomy are made with melon-baller and not with a machete these days. Little pains heal over quickly, but we see the scars and remember.
Di, that last paragraph wasn’t aimed at corporate technical writers. That’s why I included two links to show specific examples of what sorts of thing I was referring to.
You make a good point Dicentra,
I should have stipulated that I was discussing written arguments or direct discussion. Of course, with TV all bets are off. I guess the only resort would be to refuse the interview if you smelled a rat-so to speak, or to carefully word what you intend to say in advance.
I don’t expect to be going on TV anytime soon myself…
Sorry, second to last paragraph.
There’s a difference between calling someone who spent time in a POW camp being tortured a coward, or a woman who, to my knowledge, has never peddled her ass a whore, than there is demanding that we change mankind to humankind, but not manhole cover to humanhole cover.
YMMV.
I’m just saying people like to fiddle.
“humanhole cover”
*snigger*
Maybe Sully could use one of those.
Jeff, I agree that we shouldn’t give in to them on the issue of language, but you’re dreaming if you think they’ll ever give up. It’s analogous to the issue of freedom and security in the world. Our enemies take the long view of everything. Time means nothing to them, except to the extent that they think it’s ultimately on their side. This will be an endless fight, and we may as well come to terms with that.
Attn: this post was written by bh, not me.
I confess I too have stopped using “mankind.” Instead I say “man.”
Unfortunately, these days it’s mostly in the context of a cookbook title.
You can tell because of the high number of hidden anti-Duke messages.
Hidden trigger-message alert. That is all.
Craig, I don’t think they’ll give up. But, they’re human. They can get tired and weary from fighting just like we can. And I’ll guarantee they’re more likely to question the value of these small little fights if they actually have to sweat to win them.
There was a specie of giving up in that thread too, I noticed. Nobody even shouted, I don’t think. They just persisted. But then, the argument was over a secondary standing, so that made some difference in the outcome.
I’m not suggesting you can’t use that word if it pleases you hf. I’m just saying that McCain has a dual persona, and the word coward runs up against what we know of his honest to god selfless bravery as a POW. He’s an easy one to love and hate at the very same time is all.
get a new publisher. its not like he’s unknown and has to play their game.
Best post ever, Jeff.
I picked that word on purpose is all. I didn’t chance upon it.
Ok then. You use homo and fag constantly on purpose too?
I used to live within a couple blocks of a gay bar called The Manhole.
They sported 70’s mustaches unironically.
70’s mustache?
I think he’s referring to Tom Selleck or Dennis Eckersly style sdferr.
Oh. Not Gossage or Fingers then.
rollie fingers link
I tend to think of a bushy mustache without any other facial hair as 70’s, cop or gay. I blame the television.
That may have come accross more mean like than I intended. If so, I offer this by way of a peace offering.
The Eck, which, ick
The archetypal hairy caterpillar.
Good to see that Carrie Prejean is still standing though. She’s pretty standing or lying down anyhow, I’d bet.
I always saw Gossage’s and Finger’s as more of the handlebar style, like the old school baseballers wore around the turn of the twentieth century.
But, you know, they did call that the gay 90’s…
Not to be confused with the more recent gay 90’s of emo music fame…
say it ain’t so not phil garner
Jeez. How many times have I actually denigrated a for reals gay person? Like never. Ok except for Princess Lindsey.
Wow sdferr,
That card with the Eck as a member of the tribe is one for the wayback machine! I mean, for all the folks that are younger than we are that is…
Is that his 1975 rookie card?
so g gordon liddy is ghey who knew
ok and Charlie Crist maybe once, but I’ve grown since then
Goose without. Goose with. Goose today-ish.
um baracky?
didn’t g. gordon’s wife just die sort of?
oh. Except for Princess Lindsey and Charlie Crist and Baracky.
I am not the man I aspire to be.
It all comes, I think, from the desire to rescue the children of fools from their parents’ foolishness. And what is a better rescuer than government?* And then the desire to save the children of fools by rescuing their parents – because that is more efficient – and then it goes on, and on.
*The US Coast Guard does a pretty good job, as did one of their predecessor agencies, the US Life Saving Service (unofficial motto: ‘You Got To Go Out; You Don’t Got To Come Back’).
(google search on YGTGO; YDGTCB comes back to my comments mostly. I think the USCG needs to up its web presence – a lot.)
get a new publisher
Right. The publishing world is teeming with sensible, non-PC types.
bh, if you want to fight the battle, where else do you fight it, except where writing takes place? Newspapers? Textbook publishers? BLOGS?
I’m all for calling people out whenever needed, but we have to remember that our interlocutors will NEVER slide off their high horses. It can only be theater to convert the undecided.
Or theater to help the Tea Partiers tighten up their message when it comes to language abuse. That’s always good.
Ok, go ahead and make fun of me, Pen. In my defense, it does say “Posted by JeffG.”
link
And I started rambling at #58, didn’t I?
http://www.lifesavingservice.org/
Row a boat out into a winter storm to pull people off of a wreck? Fly a helicopter into a hurricane to drop a rescue swimmer to assist the crew off of a sinking trawler?
Nothing to see here folks, just move along.
Unless there’s, like, something really good on tv that night.
That about sums up my feeling sdferr,
But, you know, I am a h8ting racist.
Oh, and confronational too.
Di, I just don’t see individual leftists as anymore stoic or tireless than we could be if we so desired. Is there a superior genetic quality they have that we can never hope to overcome?
As a matter of fact, the individual progressives I know are generally quitters.
I like ’70s ‘staches. Jason Giambi was sporting a nice one last year. I had one not too long ago, but I got rid of it. If I had a better chin, I’d be wearing just a Gabe Kaplan.
I despise quitters.
we shall fight on the msm
beaches, we shall fight on the academialanding grounds, we shall fight in the hollyweirdfields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hearts of americanshills; we shall never surrenderThe ‘roids made Giambi’s ‘satche fuller. It’s cheating all the way around.
But I wouldn’t say anything while he was holding a bat.
What’s wrong with calling them dudes and babes? I mean, that’s what they are.
Full disclosure: I still wear one of those Selleck style mustaches. But what used to be mixed red hairs mixed in with the dark brown ones are starting to turn grey…
Now if I could get a little gray at the temples, that might be distinguished.
regnery seems to make money not being pc. why peddle books to the progg world?
“we have to win the battle of language”
mark levin 4/5/10 @ 8:00 edt
Watch this video of a Rep. Phil Hare town hall meeting. Pay particular attention to the guy at the 4:20 mark who is dripping with awesome. I’m thinking he’s a regular PW’er. ‘zat you, JD?
I’ll take that guy and put him in charge of Coot Outreach.
And Congressional Ass Kicking.
My wife has always liked me better with facial hair than without, and she hasn’t complained once about my having quit shaving altogether several months ago.
It helps that I keep the beard clean, of course.
the little president man’s dirty socialist associated press never talks about right track wrong track anymores.
omg there’s hairs on my face get em off get em off
itchy
Yesterday I was driving behind an SUV with U.S. Navy stickers on it.
License Plate Frame: Too Close for Missiles; Switching to Guns
I laffed and laffed…
I look like an even gayer Orlando Bloom when I don’t shave.
…I just don’t see individual leftists as anymore stoic or tireless than we could be if we so desired. Is there a superior genetic quality they have that we can never hope to overcome?
Of course not, but you’re up against the Principle of the Specific Versus the General. The reason it will be an endless fight is the same reason that the Internet is self-correcting.
I just don’t see individual leftists as anymore stoic or tireless than we could be if we so desired.
The individuals might stammer and stutter in the individual encounters, but after they’ve been defeated like that, they just melt back into the herd for reinforcements.
And acquire more clever (but just as fallacious) retorts.
Is there a superior genetic quality they have that we can never hope to overcome?
Only if there’s a gene for the fanatical will to power. Decent people spend their time being productive: raising kids and building stuff. These creeps spend their time plotting how to tear it all down so that they can control us.
The head rush isn’t comparable to the low-grade contentment of the average Joe. They’re the Nazgul pursuing the presciousssss, and they won’t back down until they’re removed from their places or otherwise physically stopped.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t chip away at their insidious changes; it just means we have to be as relentless as they and as single-minded. It’s a stretch for most of us. They keep asking “where were you when Bush was overspending?” as if we were inclined to take to the streets at the drop of a hat.
It’s always the same when dealing with evil: decent people have better things to do, but then after awhile we can’t do our constructive things—we have to switch to tearing down their edifice, and tearing down doesn’t come naturally to us.
Yes, by all means, call them out. Just don’t expect things to go very smoothly.
well that’s it isn’t. why is an author with a name letting some business define what he writes. go to those firms that are in line with his sensibilities. let the free market rule and let the proggs like nyt et al fail. the mspublishers are extensions of the “ruling elite”
Now if I could get a little gray at the temples, that might be distinguished.
You can have all of mine for free.
gay gayer gayest
“License Plate Frame: Too Close for Missiles; Switching to Guns”
I instinctively try and thumb the selector all the time in traffic here, in and around NYC.
Keeps changing tracks on the CD…
go to those firms
Firm. I’m pretty sure Regnery doesn’t have publishing rights in the U.K., Dalrymple’s home turf.
publishing in the U.K. is not a sport for the brave
let the proggs like nyt et al fail
They’re bucking for a federal bailout. I’m not sure they won’t get it.
I hear that, Craig, and I agree. I’m not saying we could entirely win nor that we’ll change the minds of our true opponents.
I’m just saying they should at least have to fight for the territory they want. We’re practically encouraging them onward otherwise.
Dalrymple writes for the City Journal now and then.
Not possible.
I’ll think about that, di.
i’m sorry but dalrymple has a defeatist attitude like derbything that’s not american. we can beat these progg dolts
possible
One of the problems is when you are trying to have a reasoned argument with a True Believer reciting Progressive Scripture. It is a lot more tiring and frustrating for the one actually thinking. Look at the Great Rape Fiasco Thread, 1500 comments and trolls keep popping up saying the same old ridiculous shit.
Admiral Josh Painter: “This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”
Jesus. How long before eunuchs are all the rage?
Is Obama on the verge of playing a game of Ngo Dinh Diem with Karzai?
it’s not fun to think what Meghan McCain’s gay coward rapey president is pursuing in lieu of reelection
swidt?
It’s more fun when ya don’t poke me in the eye with it hf.
apologies
No running with the scissors!
Instead, what if each of us decided to offend the progressives without hesitation and learned to enjoy their assuredly illiberal responses? Perhaps we’d find them questioning if these little battles are worth their effort. Perhaps we’d hear them muttering to one another, “I don’t think this hill is worth dying on.”
I dunno. You can try offending me, but that’s pretty tough to do. And I’m pretty sure my responses wouldn’t be “illiberal” anyway.
Heh, I did see, but then I had to google swidt, ‘feets.
The eunuch look was first popularized by Bobby Hurley, Danny Ferry and Christian Laettner, B Moe.
Let’s go Butler!
… staches? facial hair?
…..pfffftt. Nothing to compare to vajazzled.
** Trigger Alert **
Durham, North Carolina
you’re a deluded dickhead progg sucker like the msm
1500 comments and trolls keep popping up saying the same old ridiculous shit
Cumsluts and homos would be my best guess.
you’re a member of the party of slavery and it’s acorn affliate the kkk
you think jimmy carter and michael moore are intellectuals™
happyfeet,
Thanks for the link to that chilling story about Obama changing the nuclear defense strategy.
That does not bode well for us I fear. Obama is living his college years hemp inspired nut-dreams about NO NUKES!; he doesn’t realize that that self defeating argument of the far left had been replaced by the attempted AGW connivance.
He has already saved the Russians a pile of money by their not having to modernize their aging strategic nuclear weapons/ missile fleet; an expense that we weren’t facing due to our approach to system mainetnance and the nature of the systems involved. And via the policy behind the big lie he told last week about opening up more drilling areas, he’s ensuring that we’ll be leaving the large field in the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico alone so that only the Russians and Chinese will access it, drilling off of the coast of Cuba.
I mean, people often freak at me calling him a red-diaper baby and all, but doesn’t it seem like he’s trying to help out the Chinese and Russian economies more than our own?
Sure does to me…
@newrouter: Hm. No, sorry. Maybe you could try an insult that made some sort of sense?
he’s inviting a biological attack, Mr. Reed
that’s worse than rape even
Sam —
I’d be willing to be that you’d give illiberal responses to certain cues. Whether you knew you were doing so or not is a different story.
1500 comments and trolls keep popping up saying the same old ridiculous shit
It’s amazing.
And, yes, the same schtick…*I* should not be *allowed* to use such a metaphor. Part of the “slippery” slope above.
Thus, I’ve deleted no comments, even ones attacking me in the most vile manner possible.
I.don’t.care.
Here‘s an interesting comment from a “Sam” not too long ago.
Same Sam, Sam?
Obama is a danger. Period. Economically and militarily. Constitutionally. Aesthetically.
It’s revolting. Never ever ever ever ever ever ever take anything militarily off the table. Ever.
Has this guy never watched the Godfather? You don’t tell anyone outside the family what you’re thinking.
When you do? Sollozzo makes his move.
@bh: nope. It’s a different Sam, not me.
@JeffG: True, I can’t speak to what I might do subconsciously. But, come to think of it, what’s an “illiberal response,” anyway?
What our, if I may, faggot president is saying is that the one time we did use our nuclear weapons was illegitimate.
In no small part because he’s a simp he’s a danger. It ain’t all contrivance. Barry is the Fredo of the family.
I wasn’t talking about your subconscious reactions; I was talking about you not recognizing that what you are doing is illiberal.
And I rest my case.
Fredo had a super gay mustache in Havana. That’s why Michael kissed him on the mouth.
My mustache. Don’t even think about it.
there are a lot of illiberal responses in the rape thread… brb
The answer to posts 121 + 123 = narcissistic personality disorder.
Word.
That’s your Bolton lip carpet, sdferr? Excellent.
@JeffG: so asking what an “illiberal response” is, is itself an “illiberal response”? Explain?
Illiberal responses are as illiberal responses do.
from the comments one of those wah wah I was raped hoochies that penned a screed in response to the rape post…
That’s tough love right there.
He’s sub-Fredo sdferr; not only sucking up to those who wish to do us harm, he’s helping them.
Some people may say it’s un-witting, or idealistic.
I think he’s a red-diaper baby, a communist through and through; and the most “useful idiot” that our enemies have ever had.
Halting proven missile defense systems. Helping our enemies economically and militarily, by allowing them to forego massive defense expenditures, or at least the interior political struggle of which Peter to rob to pay Paul in order to to do so. Who’s to say that he won’t pull a Clinton and transfer important defense technology, like stealth for instance, for a paltry sum of money or in the interest of furthering “relations”.
But, you know, HIS BRILLIANT! WISE! JUDICIOUS! POLICY IS THE DEFINITION OF SMART POWER!
And to oppose him is racist…
*of* one of those wah wah I was raped hoochies is what that should say
Well, OK. If Duke wins, that may provoke an illiberal response.
Where was your Trigger Alert Sam. Jeez.
No.
@JeffG: that was quite the unconservative response you gave there. ;)
Sam:
“Bush Lied; People Died”
Please explain the problems with that phrase, including the linguistic ones.
Also: Darleen’s cartoon. Racist or not?
Jeff has self-identified as a classical liberal. A classical liberal shares some principles with conservatives, but not all of them. To a progressive there is probably not a lot of difference between the two, but in truth the differences are quite important.
Third question:
A dude what was working on a university campus (janitorial or summat) was on break reading a book that had a photo of Klan robes on it. A black co-worker took offense and filed a complaint. Turned out the book was about how a university defeated the Klan: IOW, it was an anti-Klan book. That fact did not save the dude from being found guilty of creating a hostile work environment.
So. Did the guy actually create a hostile work environment or not?
#143 was for #140
@dicentra: Well, you’re only supposed to capitalize the first word of a sentence, not all of them. And there’s also no period.
Related.
141, 142, 144: RAAAAACIST!!!!
Weak sauce, Sam. Cute is not enough.
Fourth question: Is there a difference between a racist statement and a racist-sounding statement? If so, what is it?
Even if you’re an adorable baby polar bear, they’ll still want to kill you.
Wow, Sam. Spot on!
Except that I was emulating posters and bumper stickers, which use title case.
WRONG!
Next question!
FIRE IN THE HOLE!
Electing enough fiscal conservatives, real ones, in the mid-term elections could possibly prevent another great depression, but I really think it going to take a metric shit ton of luck to avoid WWIII.
Forget otters, I want a pet polar bear.
@dicentra: Sorry, dude. Purity tests bore me. And the damned game is on. Besides, I wouldn’t want to take a chance on giving an illiberal response or anything.
I’m curious which countries will be involved in WWIII. At this point, I really don’t know.
Lotta contact there, says Clark, as the Dookie walks all over the court. But is ok. He a Dookie.
They are really kind of cute when they sit up and try to act human like that.
“but I really think it going to take a metric shit ton of luck to avoid WWIII”
So true BMoe,
Especially with all of the SMART POWER! and BRILLIANT! JUDGEMENT! that O!&Co are exercising in the foreign policy sphere.
man or human or thing
Purity test? PURITY TEST?
What purity test, Sam?
BTW, first they’ll use you…
…then they’ll want to kill you.
“I’m curious which countries will be involved in WWIII.”
I’m just hoping we will be around when the shooting stops cranky-d. And that most of the exchanges take place on foreign soil.
Nuke ’em ’til they glow, and shoot ’em in the dark!
That was no purity test, it was to test your assumptions about how language works and how those assumptions inform politics, which is the theme of this blog.
You said “And I’m pretty sure my responses wouldn’t be ‘illiberal’ anyway,” but you’re unwilling to demonstrate that for us.
Wow, bh, you’re right. They DO back down when you push back. Even a little!
proggie friend sends this
the video part starts at 2:47
boring “too smart for the room” like 17 min of bs baracky
At the very least, you should tackle my fourth question: Is there a difference between a racist statement and a racist-sounding statement? If so, what is it?
Most conservatives can answer that one correctly without thinking, and without being filled in on the underlying theory. Can you?
That wants a side of Jawa happyfeet.
I mean, I know I’m all God-bothery, and don’t want to force any of that on you all; but I take some solace from the fact that Revelation doesn’t seem to allude to America at all. Whether that means we are already finished, I don’t know…
I’m no biblical scholar, just a regular guy.
happyfeet,
That’s from the, “if you lie with dogs you’ll get fleas”, department, in my humble opinion…
If you hang with insurgents who are preparing to attack a US column, then you have to expect to be shot at by the air units flying cover.
It’s really that simple.
@dicentra: of course it was a purity test. It’s about “how closely does this guy conform to what our idea of a liberal is”.
I have an idea! Why don’t you guys show some courtesy and answer my question first, and then maybe I’ll be a little more forthcoming?
Perhaps a very silly question. But how does intentionalism and all that stuff work with insults and jokes and the like.
I mean, if I call you a shallot, and to my mind, shallot is a grevious, horrible, wretched insult, but to you, a shallot is just a shallot, how does that work?
I guess jokes are kind of the same gig – I mean a joke is funny only if the audience finds it funny.
Thoughts?
BTW, Sam, did you ever figure out what was meant by “illiberal response”?
That’s what the asking tools are for, I think, BRD. If shallot doesn’t register, that is. Or even where it may register yet leave room for doubt. If it’s meant to be funny on the other hand, and can’t of itself trigger the necessary associations to achieve the funny… who’s responsible for that condition?
Your question? Which one?
Maybe you could try an insult that made some sort of sense?
But, come to think of it, what’s an “illiberal response,” anyway?
so asking what an “illiberal response” is, is itself an “illiberal response”? Explain?
[Explain should not have taken a question mark.]
Nasty winter storm happening outside, lemme tell ya what.
Lookit.
http://www.accuweather.com/us/radar/r1h/kslc/radar.asp
Obama is a danger. Period. Economically and militarily. Constitutionally. Aesthetically.
Well, ahem…I hate to say “I told you so,” but…more importantly, Orlando Bloom is gay??
As a prefix, “il-” means “not”. I assume you know what “liberal” means. Simple enough, isn’t it? To lay it out in the open for you, we don’t consider progressives to be particularly liberal, Sam.
proggs are idiots?
@dicentra: well, the first question wasn’t so much a question as a suggestion. And the third was already answered by JeffG, albeit in an unconservative manner. So let’s go with #2 and #4 (which are really the same question).
oh. I just thought it was one of those things you just don’t see everyday specially if you’re in marketing.
Another hint, Sam: The opposite of liberal is “autocratic.”
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/LeftandRight.shtml
Anna Paquin is bisexual. I’m intrigued.
To lay it out in the open for you, we don’t consider progressives to be particularly liberal, Sam.
@dh: Why not?
I only saw the one that was answered. Could you spell them out again?
Classical liberalism, Sam. We’d like to have the word back, really. Though it’s been quite soiled by…um…progressives.
@newrouter: There you go! Still didn’t offend me tho.
@dicentra: interesting article! Thanks for the link.
So what’s the difference between what you’re calling a “classic liberal” and a libertarian?
Michael Steele is a wad of fuck.
It’s because we’re helping.
If there was one thing I could pound into the heads of every self-identified conservative, this would be it. It is the most important thing they could possibly understand, even if it’s all they understand.
@Pablo: But, come to think of it, what’s an “illiberal response,” anyway?
That would be a response that doesn’t adhere to liberalism, Sam. Speaking of which, this site is lousy with classical liberalism discussions.
more progg “change the game” bs
No it wasn’t. You wrote:
And that’s not at all what I wrote. Instead, I noted that you might not recognize that what you are doing is illiberal — not subconsciously, but consciously. When you said you didn’t know what an illiberal response was, I noted that you confirmed that consciously you couldn’t possibly recognize that you were acting illiberally. Given that you claimed not to know what an illiberal response would entail.
I’m not interested in playing games. Your response was either daft or intentionally diversionary. So why follow up?
sam’s just a fuck
Butler is in this game.
Btw, belated hat tip on the post to some of Lee’s comments lately.
@JeffG: yes, you did answer that question. In #139, you said “No.” What you didn’t do at the time was explain what you meant by that, but I appreciate you following up on that in #196.
@Pablo: ok, thanks for that. So unless there’s a difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism that I’m missing, what you guys are saying is that I’m bound to respond in an un-libertarian way. In which case I would have to agree, since I’m not very libertarian at all.
Well, Sam, it doesn’t have to be so very theoretical. You could answer some of dicentra’s questions.
Dicentra was just trying to sort that out. Is that a problem? A purity test?
BTW, Libertarians smoke more dope. Than most of us.
obermann cock slapper
the Hot Air people at the Hot Air place found this and it was the best thing I read today
What you are missing is the definition of the fucking word “liberal”, Sam. It can mean different things in different contexts. That you are too illiterate to understand that doesn’t bode well for your chances at understanding much that is going on here.
I do have a more general question, though. In the case of being a “classic liberal,” why would you insist on using the old meanings of words when they’ve clearly changed in our current lexicon? It would be like somebody insisting on saying they were “gay” every time they’re happy, oblivious to what “gay” currently means, just because that’s what the word “gay” *used* to mean. Language is a dynamic thing, and if the meanings of words like “liberal” and “conservative” are understood to mean certain sets of principles in our current society, what’s to be gained by fighting that?
mankind vs an it with a cock and tits
Mr. Samuelson you are smart thank you for you saying the smart things.
@newrouter: you’re really finding your rhythm now!
only to snake oil sales asshats
no found a progg stodge that makes moe look “smart”
Sam, you’d do well to read many of the links on the left.
Link, ‘feets? For Samuelson. He’s WaPo, right? By the way, what were you saying about a seldom used marketing word above? You lost me.
So what is the new word that means what liberal used to mean?
Lookit, Duke players are flopping and getting bad calls.
Shocker!
oh. Samuelson link was at #205
the marketing thing referred to the link at #166 what Mr. sdferr gave a more better link for at #169
yo sammy,
try answering a question moron. or does your metrosexual persona do suck the obama.
Thanks.
@Sam asks a valid question. What’s so great about being classical?
Sam’s just your basic dishonest interlocutor, albeit one on a mission akin to Margaret Meade’s field researches, here to inspect the natives to see whether he can put them into his anthropological boxes. Could be it’s more as a matter of hobby than an actual pseudo-scientific pursuit though, taking into account the frivolous tenor of his questions.
You never get old, cynn.
ax mozart
ax newton
ax fire
That charge they called the other night on Butler while he was thrashing around with a wrecked knee was fucking absurd. Not blaming the loss on the officiating, we beat ourselves, but that shit was ridiculous.
what’ so great about being a stupid progg?
@dicentra: ok, here you go. Will this be graded on a curve?
(1) The phrase is both political hyperbole and a logical fallacy.
(2) Darleen’s cartoon is not racist, since it doesn’t imply that any race is superior to another. (I think the cartoon is in bad taste, and those that agree with me probably project racism onto it, but that’s irrelevant to your question.)
(3) No, since he wasn’t doing anything overtly hostile that kept the black guy from being able to do his job.
(4) A racist statement is something that claims one race is superior to another. A racist-sounding statement may or may not do this, but it sounds racist solely because it refers to race or racial characteristics in a way that the listener finds uncomfortable.
I’m going to bail now and watch the rest of this game. Have fun!
#219 cynn – @Sam asks a valid question. What’s so great about being classical?
Let’s just be done with it and start over with Year Zero.
Rock is more exciting than classical. More now. Has a beat. So if you look at liberalism, you have to figure, maybe the modern version is better than the classical. I’m not real sure about the exact differences but I’d go with the modern. It’s more progressed beyond the classical liberalism.
what’s to be gained by fighting that?
Bwahahahahahahaha.
Dude.
Read the f’n blog.
I blame Yes. They backdoored us.
Oy, my little sister liked that bunch. And tormented me, with malice aforethought. One day. Get even.
suck teabagger balls lowlife progg
Those are quite reasonable answers, Sam. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
Did you know that if you rearrange the letters in Jon Anderson, it spells “Satan’s favorite minion?”
Thanks bh. I’m just done playing nice with the tyrants. The war is joined, if you ask me.
Gotta pick your battles though. Sam is merely one more cowardly fool. Toy with him if you’re bored, or just want to strup your rhetorical razor, but save your passion and energy for attackers, don’t waste yourself on the terminally ignorant weenies like Sam.
but save your passion and energy for attackers, don’t waste yourself on the terminally ignorant weenies like Sam.
What attackers?
All I see is terminally ignorant weenies. It’s like a cloud of gnats.
I didn’t say I didn’t. I’m disputing that I answered it “unconservatively.” I answered “no” because the answer to your question was “no.”
(1) The phrase is both political hyperbole and a logical fallacy.
It’s not a logical fallacy; it’s an untruth. The worst you can say about Bush is that he was wrong or mistaken, but there is no evidence that he asserted that there were WMD with an intent to deceive anyone.
The linguistic problem is that the word “lied” was chosen not because of its denotative accuracy but because it rhymed, i.e., because it was effective. Also see “General Betray-Us.”
(2) Darleen’s cartoon is not racist, since it doesn’t imply that any race is superior to another. (I think the cartoon is in bad taste, and those that agree with me probably project racism onto it, but that’s irrelevant to your question.)
Correct and not correct. Darleen is criticizing Obama from the right; ergo, it is by definition RAAAAACIST.
(3) No, since he wasn’t doing anything overtly hostile that kept the black guy from being able to do his job.
Actually, it was a black woman, but I didn’t mention that. (I’m citing a true-life case.) The white guy was found guilty because the black woman’s interpretation was privileged over the facts of the matter, including the fact that the dude had absolutely NO racist intent in bringing the book to work.
Campus speech codes always privilege the listener’s interpretation over the speaker’s intent, which provides the listener (and communities of listeners) a weapon whereby they can twist your words to their ends and the truth is no defense. We kinda have a problem with that.
(4) A racist statement is something that claims one race is superior to another. A racist-sounding statement may or may not do this, but it sounds racist solely because it refers to race or racial characteristics in a way that the listener finds uncomfortable.
CLOSE, but no cigar.
The answer is the following: A racist statement is made by someone who harbors racist feelings and therefore makes the statement with racist intent.
A racist-sounding statement is one that a listener misinterprets as racist, but the person who uttered the statement had no racist intent whatsoever.
You may not always be able to determine whether something was uttered with racist intent, but the intent is the ONLY key to determining whether a statement is racist: the listeners can clutch their pearls all they want, but they don’t get to determine whether a statement was racist just by the sheer force of their outrage.
Capiche?
Sam,
I think the cartoon is in bad taste
I admit, it is a crude-thumb-in-your-eye political cartoon. But vulgar? Why do you classify it so?
Just curiousity.
“Liberal” wasn’t so much changed as it was flayed alive, it’s bloody skin then worn as a cloak until the real “Buffalo Bill” started showing through the tattered remains which were then unceremoniously dropped for the new/old paint job of “progressive” which only had to fool anyone for a short while. “Buffalo Bill” is now holding his big coming out party. Success, who knows. It’s a crap shoot.
Also:
Classical Liberals are those who follow fairly closely the precepts set out by the Founders in the Constitution with regard to theory of governance and such.
Libertarians want much less government interference than Classical Liberals do. Today’s libertarians argue about drug legalization, eliminating the Federal Reserve (or at least auditing it), isolationism with regard to foreign policy, and various and sundry other pet issues. (Libertarians never agree on anything, BTW, which is true to type.)
Turn on the game.
Sam says, in effect, “why not just accept the way we’ve redefined ‘liberal’?” Jeff replies: “illiberalism exhibited. Case closed. Pin him to a slide and let’s move on.”
“Liberal” was co-opted by the progressives, whose brand had become sullied after their much-enlightened eugenics program was taken to its logical conclusion by Hitler.
Notice how they’re back to embracing it, on account of “progressive” sounds so forward-looking and stuff, and most people have forgotten what bastards the progressives really were.
Did you know that Woodrow Wilson segregated the armed forces, because he was an inveterate racist, and that wasn’t held against him by the educated classes?
Did you know that Woodrow Wilson imprisoned people who dissented from his wartime agenda?
Did you know that Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood to keep the lesser races from breeding so much?
Did you know that George Bernard Shaw fantasized about inventing a “humane gas” to kill off the inferior races and the mentally unfit?
Did you know that the progressives thought that Benito Mussolini was the cat’s pajamas, because they admired his ability to “get things done” so efficiently, such as make the trains run on time?
Did you know that some moron at the NYT recently admired the Chinese for the same reason—they don’t have their hands tied by messy democracy, consent of the governed, and other impediments to their genius?
Don’t have a TV, watching play by play on the computer.
Lets! Go! Butler!
13 seconds. Everybody pray, whether you mean it or not.
dicentra
Libertarians are radical isolationists, too.
Heartbreak.
fuck
Great game.
Duke still sucks.
I never really understood the Duke hate until this weekend.
If WVU ever has to play them again I’m gonna hire a crack whore to accuse the basketball team of rape.
guttural mutterings
Those Blue Devils are white devils.
Jimmy Chitwood hits that last shot.
People here, now leaving, think you guys are smart and funny.
So, you have that going for you.
I blame Sherron Collins.
I never really understood the Duke hate until this weekend.
It’s quite similar to Los Angeles Lakers hate.
You can’t miss as many good looks as they did and not have it come back to haunt you. Although, shit, Hayward’s desperation shot almost went in. That would have been, dare I say it, ironic.
Must admit, I do hate those Lakers something terrible.
I no longer believe in miracles.
ABout as fine a college basketball game as there could be ever. Glad to have watched it.
Oh there was a thread here?
Yes, well. Obama will pay a cruel price in the next elections and that’s already baked in. I’d like to see him pay ever more cruelly in ’12 with his job. I’m not terribly concerned about who defeats him just that he loses.
If anyone asked me, and no has or will, I would prefer a candidate who has some financial sophistication with a radical commitment to economic sanity, a love of nuclear power and an aversion to invasions.
I think (some of) you might have been hard on Sam.
You said “hard on.”
Time was the Lakers got a small sympathy from the peoples for getting their hopes dashed (asses kicked) year after year by the Celtics. They was pitiful in that day. But that was long ago time.
While I’m riffing, perhaps I could order my imaginary candidate with an appreciation for the negative obligations embedded in the Constitution and a respect for classical education and jurisprudence?
Are the Lakers any better than the Washington Generals? We’ll never know. The Lakers keep ducking the match-up.
Hey, was just scanning bberg before bed and I saw there was a terrible mine explosion in Raleigh County WV. I dont know the area, but I have spent a fair amount of time in Appalachia, mostly in WV, on missions trips for World Vision and I have a heart for the mining life and the area.
That is about as hard of a life as you can get and with miners trapped, thats about as terrible a way to go as you can imagine.
Pray.
Today’s libertarians argue about drug legalization, eliminating the Federal Reserve (or at least auditing it), isolationism with regard to foreign policy, and various and sundry other pet issues.
Well, many of the founding fathers also opposed anything resembling a Fed, as well as government banks (or quasi-government banks).
Pot was also legal back then and more then a few of them inhaled. I think Washington actually grew the stuff. Maybe that’s why he was sorta isolationist too.
OT, but check out this song parody that goofs on Obama; it’s based on the old Kenny Rigers tune, “You picked a fine time to leave me Lucille”. It’s pretty funny.
http://powip.com/2010/04/another-great-song-parody-goofing-on-obama/
It’s the youtube video linked to in the text
What’s sorta weird about the Fed talk? The things I say and the things I advise don’t exactly match up.
‘Cause, theoretically, I can make the case. But, in practice…
That is a good ‘un, Bob, thanks!
Wow.
Tech writers saved Apollo 13. Perhaps my life isn’t so meaningless after all.
Dicentra,
That Apollo 13 story is a great example of the old adage, “Whatever you do, do your very best”, because you really never know when someone will use the fruits of your labor to get our of a terrible jam.
And I’m glad you got a laugh out of the song parody.
Great launch yesterday morning by the way. One of the handsomest I’ve seen, if not the best of the lot outright.
Sdferr is gay for spaceplanes. I knew it.
Yep, a regular Alcibiades chasing the little fat man. Can’t be helped, he said.
@dicentra: yes, I understand. I flunked your purity test. What a shocker!
@darleen: you depicted the President of the United States raping somebody to make a political point. You really don’t understand how that’s in bad taste?
@JeffG: “unconservatively” was a joke, as implied by the ;) I included. It was a term I made up to counter the term you refused to define. And you’re dodging the question.
@sdferr: no, I’m here mainly because I find it boring to talk with people who agree with me all the time. And also to collect names for my death panel list. Generalissimo Soros will be most pleased!
@darleen: you depicted the President of the United States raping somebody to make a political point.
she depicted him getting dressed after he raped the shit out of liberty… Darleen bore witness to a crime what often goes unreported… because of people like you. Who take the rapist’s side. People who judge the victim.
you should be ashamed of yourself
well some of that italickyness is inappropriate I think
Heh, a couple times.
Sam, it’s sorta illiberal to not grok obvious metaphors. Just so you know.
Might even say Sam is tasteless in an empty insubstantial sort of way, hf — carelessly pasting a “somebody” on Liberty, when it’s a whole hell of a lot of somebodies Barry’s had his dirty way with — if he weren’t so sold on the tyrant’s trip.
Dude, the term was illiberal. That’s like accusing him of not defining horse or dishwasher.
*
Canada, liberal or progressive?*
Myself, I’d say you should immediately shoot people trying to kill you with a machete.
bh, liberal or progressive?
sdferr,
You do know the space critters are endangered?
BRD
The only “names on their list are going to be medical procedures/devices/drugs they will not allow you to receive because they in their infinite, never to be questioned, wisdom and kindness have decided that neither they nor you shall ever be allowed to pay for. They, because their money is limited and there will be certain political considerations involved, such as is your disease useful politically to gain more control and/or power. You because it is only fair.
So, make sure you and all your loved ones have diseases, conditions, accidents that are inexpensive to treat or politically useful. Otherwise you can just help decrease the surplus population. Take the pain pill and don’t call us we’ll call you, maybe.
Rational.
So “Liberal” in the classic sense and in no way proggie.
liberal or progressive?
Homo.
Good thread but I am skipping ahead a little (I am applying the outraged by a (happyfeet’s) link exemption;)
“It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.”
Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.”
Threats are not deterred by graded options, genius. They are deterred by fear of the unknown and possibly apocalyptic. The overheated attacks on President Bush actually worked in his favor to some extent. The enemy was genuinely afraid of what his response might be to an attack. It is no coincidence that this did not occur on Bush’s watch
“I instinctively try and thumb the selector all the time in traffic here, in and around NYC.
Keeps changing tracks on the CD…”
Bob,
Good thing you don’t have the bluetooth cellphone option. You might accidentally reveal your un-gentlemanly side to someone on your phone-list ;-)
You really don’t understand how that’s in bad taste?
That’s a good liberal.
^ Italic that first line, k?
#280
Saqm said
“@sdferr: no, I’m here mainly because I find it boring to talk with people who agree with me all the time. And also to collect names for my death panel list. Generalissimo Soros will be most pleased!”
Funny. We find it boring talking with you. Maybe if you got new talking points……………nah.
“Otherwise you can just help decrease the surplus population.”
One is forced to wonder how they are going to deal with people who decide that the best way to reduce the surplus population is to borrow a page from the Hamas playbook and reduce the surplus population of government drones in Georgetown cafes.
Old story: A Chinese warlord was infamous for his legal system. A group of his serfs realized they would be guilty of a minor offense. One asked “What is the penalty for being late?”
“Death.”
“And the penalty for rebellion?”
“Death.”
“Well, friends, we’re late….”
I take back everything that I have said about Obama being stupid.
I looked at his tone deaf foreign, and domestic policy, and thought him incompetent. Now, with the latest news regarding his unilateral disarming of America, that there is a plan. barack has been working diligently to create a crisis that will allow him to ‘temporarily’ suspend civil liberties. A chemical or biological attack would be perfect.
If you look at his actions through this prism they go from being wild leftist spasms to a sensible step-by-step program for eliciting an attack on the United States.
Dude, the term was illiberal. That’s like accusing him of not defining horse or dishwasher.
@bh: If you’re going to go and assume that everyone knows what you mean by “liberal” is a “classic liberal” definition form the 17th century, and not what most people in the 21st century take to mean as “liberal”, then no, it’s not like that at all.
@geoffb: Medical procedures, devices, and drugs? Oh, you didn’t hear. We drafted a Party Resolution the other night that specifically bans the use of all such things. Cost controls, you know. Going forward, all sick people will be brought before The Messiah to draw from his natural healing powers. It’s our new public option!
I am in the company of Sam as concerns the definition of illiberal. Can anyone enlighten me? Merriam-Webster just gives the usual not-liberal kind of words, which doesn’t help me at all.
Danger, we are in complete agreement on your #295. And, as you observed in 296, it’s probably a good thing I don’t have a bluetooth system in my Hummer!
Who would have thought that the built-in hands free phone would have been considered old fashioned…
It means authoritarian, intolerant of various points of view, bigoted, inclined prefer totalitarianism.
I would tend to think “illiberal” would at least connote “opposed to liberal,” as in, say, favoring policies that thwart or undermine a liberal (read, free) society.
The lovely and talented dicentra has you covered, Sam.
No, I’m not. What I am doing is refusing to humor someone who fancies himself a dime store Socrates.
Thanks, Jim and McGehee.
I’m wondering when we’re going to see “authoritarian cult” being used in reference to those who support Obama.
illiberal: cumslut, faggot, homo, hoochie.
@JeffG: so asking basic questions about the point of what you’re doing is now “dime store Socrates” stuff? Or is it asking too many questions that’s verboten? Either way, you could always refuse to reply, you know.
Could be bh was pointing at niggardly answers Slart, in respect of truth.
Your definition of the term “illiberal” is not what holds in this thread as the discussion is based on the use in the post itself. Question was answered, then answered again, and again.
Obstinately obtuse you are in this as you have also shown yourself to be about the “Health-care” bill and what the contents of that bill combined with other provisions that have previously been inserted in other bills such as the “Stimulus” bill will do.
Obstinately obtuse is giving you credit for having the intelligence to understand the concept of authorial intent, and the ability to read legislation and infer what it means for the society it is imposed upon. That may be a credit too far.
Last night, a full million of us met in my room to discuss Jeff’s absurd claims.
Answering every question with a question — even though the question is predicated on a misreading of a previous answer — is not “asking basic questions about the point.” It’s playing games. Hamfistedly.
Have you been stopped and imprisoned?
I could also make a sandwich and eat it naked on a vinyl sofa. And yet I haven’t done that just yet, either.
Either you support the founding principles or you don’t. It’s pretty simple.
The positive freedom and redistribution project is at the core of contemporary liberalism. This project requires drastic reductions in negative freedom and leap toward totalitarianism and away from American political founding principles. Contemporary liberalism is therefore illiberal.
“Illiberal” is a term which has not yet been debased by leftists. It is oxymoronic to say that defending negative liberty and American founding principles of limited government, freedom and prosperity is “illiberal.” It is not oxymoronic to point out that contemporary liberalism is “illiberal.”
Answering every question with a question — even though the question is predicated on a misreading of a previous answer — is not “asking basic questions about the point.” It’s playing games. Hamfistedly.
@JeffG: I would argue it’s simply the basis for rhetoric. After all, how else would I know that I misread one of your answers unless I asked for clarity? Not every answer I’ve given has been interrogative (see #227), but when questions I ask aren’t met with clear answers, but instead with name calling (i.e. “dime store Socrates”), undefined jargon such as “illiberal”, and/or incorporated with vague platitudes (i.e. “Either you support the founding principles or you don’t”), then yes, it does tend to lead to more questions than would otherwise.
Perhaps a clear answer to the question of what the point of all of this is might make the questions stop.
After all, how else would I know that I misread one of your answers unless I asked for clarity?
what do you get when you eat ALL the potatoes?
@Jim Ryan: thank you for finally answering this. This sounds much like what George Lakoff is doing, except from the other side of the spectrum. (I would suggest reading Don’t Think of an Elephant, if you haven’t already.) I disagree with your premise, but aside from that, it seems your project is going to have a hard time convincing people of things like “contemporary liberalism is ‘illiberal.'”
@happyfeet: don’t get all Socrates on me now.
exactly. The potatoes, they are all gone.
Actually, sentient observers will let you do all the work of convincing for them Sam. And you’ve made such a good start, all that’s left is to maintain stride on your march to power. They’ll get it, don’t worry.
I’d argue it’s the basis for continuing to avoid any kind of meaningful engagement. Which seems to be your intent. And that in turn answers my question about your commitment to liberalism, properly understood.
For your part, you can continue to pretend that “illiberal” is some sort of coded jargon left undefined. I don’t much care.
Regis says hi.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/slublog/2554050238/
[…] found in the comments at PW […]
Liberal has recently become synonymous with progressive in the eyes of many (or is that persony?). This is a serious error worthy of Newspeak as the word has come to mean something almost completely antithetical to its former meaning enabling those of something less than goodwill to engage in sophistic gainsaying of whatever you posit or argue, choosing whatever meaning they care to ascribe to it at any given time to suit their purposes.
Me, I’m all for knocking Humpty Dumpty off that wall and smashing the broken pieces into dust, words, master and all that.
@sdferr: Awesome! It’s good to have some job security these days, in case the death panel gig runs its course.
@JeffG: No, I think I’ve coaxed a definition of “illiberal” out of others here already. As for meaningful engagement, you don’t find it effective to ask questions, give answers, and follow up with questions about those answers? If not, then what’s your idea of meaningful engagement? (FYI, I have no commitment to antiquated political labels.)
your project
I don’t have a project, Sam. Liberals’ project is positive freedom. This project is obviously illiberal. I don’t think you understood what I wrote.
Thanks for the Whakoff recommendation, but I don’t read manuals on how to lie.
When you intentionally misread something, you ought to be well aware of it.
The question is, why should they have to define it for you?
That would depend on the questions asked, the answers given, and the follow-up questions about those answers.
In the case of your using that formula, no, I haven’t found it useful at all. Just tedious. And unproductive.
Classical liberalism is not an antiquated label. Pretending it is doesn’t make it so.
Having said that, it’s been a while now since your genius questioning managed to “coax” a definition of a rather common word out of several people here. Using those definitions, either return to the original questions or don’t.
I’ll bet you a turtle that homos and cumsluts ate up all the potatoes.
speaking of homos, I think if Darleen had used Uncle Sam instead, most proggies wouldn’t have minded. they loves them the gay secs.
@JeffG: because your use of “illiberal” is constructed around “liberal” meaning what it meant centuries ago, not what it means today, silly. And a term that meant one thing in the 17th century and then something different in modern times is most certainly antiquated.
What questions have I failed to answer? And really, why should I bother when you’ve so far refused to answer anything I’ve asked?
@Jim Ryan: ok, I see where I misread you. My apologies.
@Pablo: how do you know that anything I might have misread was done intentionally?
Sam is like Chinese water torture.
drip, drip, drip…
Lee,
He’s performingthe standard troll maneuver of trying to make it appear as if he get’s in the devastating last word that, in the shining brilliance of it’s metaphysical certitude, was unanswerable by the knuckle-dragging wingnuts.
And in so doing both reaffirm the POWER! of progressive ideas as well as reinforce the very legend that he is in his own mind.
@JeffG: because your use of “illiberal” is constructed around “liberal” meaning what it meant centuries ago, not what it means today, silly. And a term that meant one thing in the 17th century and then something different in modern times is most certainly antiquated.
So Jeff is responsible for your ignorance? Are you seriously claiming you have no knowledge of the term "liberal" and the conflicts over its usage, even today? Is it remotely possible you could go read a book?
“@Pablo: how do you know that anything I might have misread was done intentionally?”
Because anyone that can use @ in context is capable of figuring out the terms Liberal, Classic liberal, and illiberal. They aren’t exactly anachronisms.
Why are others obligated to do the work of learning for you, a lazy intellect?
Your questions are blatantly designed as a distraction, not for understanding.
…because your use of “illiberal” is constructed around “liberal” meaning what it meant centuries ago, not what it means today, silly.
No, it is not. The political use of the term liberal is only one of its meanings, if I liberally grate Parmesan on my pasta I am not making a fucking political statement. Illiberal is its own word and is not tied to the meaning you are trying to attach it to. You are only making yourself look more the fool with this ridiculous argument.
Yeah, too bad that isn’t the case. The word only began to be totally bastardized politically a couple of decades ago. As Silver Whistle suggested, read a book once in awhile and you might figure some of this out.
The “thing” liberal came to mean when it was self-applied by left-of-center politicians in the mid-20th century was never liberal in any real sense. It became a bad word among left-of-centers because right-of-centers (Ronald Reagan, for example) correctly pointed out this discrepancy.