Defining the noun "Liberal"

[wellwisher]

We need political diversity in university hiring, with big government setting hiring quotes to reflect the majority who votes right. The left has never been the victim of the quota system it applies to outsiders. It is time that the left practices what they preach. Too many leftist in university leads to children becoming spoiled emotional wrecks, unable to cope with reality.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

We need political diversity in university hiring, with big government setting hiring quotes to reflect the majority who votes right. The left has never been the victim of the quota system it applies to outsiders. It is time that the left practices what they preach. Too many leftist in university leads to children becoming spoiled emotional wrecks, unable to cope with reality.

Hooray!

Nazi Party on campus.

 

[Capracus]

We need political diversity in university hiring, with big government setting hiring quotes to reflect the majority who votes right. The left has never been the victim of the quota system it applies to outsiders. It is time that the left practices what they preach. Too many leftist in university leads to children becoming spoiled emotional wrecks, unable to cope with reality.

Why would any self respecting conservative student risk attending such institutions? Or get backing from their conservative parents? It’s a miracle that their native philosophies survive the massive onslaught of liberal indoctrination.

Stop Blaming Professors
Study finds that the more students engage with faculty members and academics, the more their political views moderate. Student activities are what appear to encourage those already leaning left or right to tilt further.
By
Scott Jaschik

Part of the conservative critique of higher education is that liberal professors indoctrinate students, turning middle-of-the-road students into Young Democrats (or Young Socialists).

But a new study suggests that it's time to stop blaming professors (of any political leaning) for any leftward tilt that college students may show (and the study acknowledges that many do lean that way over the course of their college years).

The influence is coming from students themselves. In fact, the study says, the more engaged students are with faculty members and academics, the more their views moderate toward the center. But the more students become engaged in student activities, the more the liberals become more committed as liberals and conservatives become more committed as conservatives.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...fessors-lead-some-become-more-liberal-college

 

[exchemist]

#NeverTrump


Liberalism, historically speaking, describes the endeavor to open the benefits of civilized society to more and more people.

Conservatism, historically speaking, describes the endeavor to reserve those benefits of civilized society as privileges of a few supported by the efforts of many.

This is why, as Marx and Engels put it, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

What a travesty of the meaning of "conservatism".

Political conservatism conserves, that is to say seeks to to retain, existing traditions and social institutions. That is quite different from having as an objective the reservation of benefits for a privileged few. The latter might be a Marxist's view of what it leads to, but that's another matter and open to argument.

 

[Randwolf]

Political conservatism conserves, that is to say seeks to to retain, existing traditions and social institutions. That is quite different from having as an objective the reservation of benefits for a privileged few.

It is not at all different if the existing traditions and social institutions include benefits for a privileged few. In this case the two become synonymous.

 

[exchemist]

For me the term defines a belief that celebrates freedom, yet I see signs that many who consider themselves liberals are now taking a step back from what the meaning of that word has become. Has the Left gone too far and become the mirror image of the extreme Right? Also, considering where I'm posting this thread, what is your definition of the word?

In the US, the term "Liberal" seems to have become a pejorative label, applied by the political Right to socially permissive views they dislike. But I agree, it did mean, and I think ought still to mean, a person whose politics are in favour of freedom, a generally laissez-faire approach. For example, it is often observed that the economic policies of Margaret Thatcher were in fact those of a market liberal, rather than of a conservative. A social liberal of course would of course take a permissive approach to social behaviour, for example being in favour of allowing such things as gay marriage.

The oddity is that in today's world we often seem to find the political Right combines economic liberalism with social conservatism, and vice versa on the Left. The consequence is that the terms is starting to lose definition, due to inappropriate use.

 

[exchemist]

It is not at all different if the existing traditions and social institutions include benefits for a privileged few. In this case the two become synonymous.

No, they do not become "synonymous", they become connected. Motive and purpose is one thing. The consequences, which may be intended or unintended, are something else.

I'll give you an example of conservatism: I describe myself as conservative, in that I do not think we in Britain should change our constitutional arrangements, for example by replacing the unelected House of Lords with an elected upper chamber, as Tony Blair proposed. My reasons are not, however, because I want to grind the faces of the starving poor, but because I think we are better governed by having a revising chamber for our legislation occupied by experienced people from across society who are NOT subject to the populist pressures of constant re-election. (the same argument, actually, as the one for not having elected judges). I also think we should retain the monarchy (though I won't bore you with my reasons for that, unless you express a keen interest in hearing them.). So that makes me conservative. But it does not make me someone who wants to preserve privilege for a few at the expense of the people. Far from it: I think the people get a better outcome this way.

And, on the other side of the argument, history has plenty of examples in which the overthrow of social institutions and traditions has in fact led to worse oppression of the populace than occurred under the previous system. Soviet Russia? Nazi Germany? Present day Venezuela?

It is in fact highly offensive to suggest that conservatives are self-interestedly trying to keep the goodies in society for themselves. Most people go into politics because of idealism, not self- interest. That applies just as much on the political Right as on the Left. They just have different visions of how to improve society.

 

[Schmelzer]

Here's a genuine liberal, talking about somebody you've heard of: Bill Clinton.
Now: do you think the Clintons - either of them - are liberals? Why do you think that?
Here's another quote from a genuine, vetted, solid core liberal:
Now: Do you think C students at Yale are liberals?

As if this would matter. Ask any European liberal, and he will tell you that there are no liberals at all in America, and those who name themselves liberals are socialists.

And in Russia "liberals" is a word for anything pro-American. Even if they don't know about any differences between democrats and republicans or even prefer republicans they are named "liberals". So the word is simply discredited by everybody using it without any base in actual liberal traditions.

 

[iceaura]

As if this would matter. Ask any European liberal, and he will tell you that there are no liberals at all in America, and those who name themselves liberals are socialists.

I doubt that every European liberal is as ignorant of American politics as you are.

And in Russia "liberals" is a word for anything pro-American. Even if they don't know about any differences between democrats and republicans or even prefer republicans they are named "liberals". So the word is simply discredited by everybody using it without any base in actual liberal traditions.

Sure. Except for a consideration about that word "everybody".

There has been an organized propaganda campaign in the US to destroy that term, among others, and it has had great success - but the misusers of the term were not "everybody", in the first place.

 

[joepistole]

We need political diversity in university hiring, with big government setting hiring quotes to reflect the majority who votes right. The left has never been the victim of the quota system it applies to outsiders. It is time that the left practices what they preach. Too many leftist in university leads to children becoming spoiled emotional wrecks, unable to cope with reality.

So now you want university hiring decisions to be made based on political identity rather than on merit. Sieg Heil! Unfortunately, that's just the normal progression of fascism. I never thought I would see fascism on this scale in The United States. Needless to say I find it very disturbing, but with the rise of fake news and right wing disinformation, no one should be surprised.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.", but now with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of right wing entertainment, right wingers can have their own opinions and make up their own facts. That's not good for a democracy. It leads to people like you who want to replace our democracy with a Nazi like system.

The left doesn't apply a quota system - period...oops. It never has. Further, a majority of Americans rejected the Republican candidate; make that a double oops. As others have said, universities aren't about ideology. Science doesn't change based on ideology. Newton's laws don't change because of someone's ideology. And where is your evidence that "too many leftists (i.e. anyone other than a Republican) in university leads to children becoming spoiled emotional wrecks, unable to cope with reality". One more thing you may want to consider, as a rule, children don't go to college; adults do.

What makes you think the "left" doesn't practice what they preach? Please do be specific.

 

[Bowser]

The left doesn't apply a quota system - period...oops. It never has.

Sure they do.

Further, a majority of Americans rejected the Republican candidate; make that a double oops.

Yet here we are, an elected Republican for president, a Republican House and Senate. What the hell happened, Joe?

As others have said, universities aren't about ideology. Science doesn't change based on ideology. Newton's laws don't change because of someone's ideology. And where is your evidence that "too many leftists (i.e. anyone other than a Republican) in university leads to children becoming spoiled emotional wrecks, unable to cope with reality".

Yet politics does appear to be a large part of campus life. Also, consider the recent addition to campus diction: Safe Spaces, Micro Aggression and Trigger Warnings. Do you believe these terms evolved from a conservative perspective?

One more thing you may want to consider, as a rule, children don't go to college; adults do.

 

[joepistole]

Sure they do.

Well then it should be easy for you to prove. So let's see it. Where is your proof?

Yet here we are, an elected Republican for president, a Republican House and Senate. What the hell happened, Joe?

People like you happened, people who don't need or want evidence or reason; people who are gullible happened.

Yet politics does appear to be a large part of campus life. Also, consider the recent addition to campus diction: Safe Spaces, Micro Aggression and Trigger Warnings. Do you believe these terms evolved from a conservative perspective?

Have you ever been to college? The answer is obviously, no. Politics aren't a large part of campus life.

 

[Bowser]

Well then it should be easy for you to prove. So let's see it. Where is your proof?

Yes, it's happening, and it is have negative impact on minorities
http://nypost.com/2015/12/08/college-quotas-are-actually-destroying-lives-of-minorities/

People like you happened, people who don't need or want evidence or reason; people who are gullible happened.

People like me? I think we are a diverse group, coming from a variety of backgrounds. We don't want to chase rainbows and unicorns, but the idea of making America great again sounds like a noble cause.

Have you ever been to college? The answer is obviously, no. Politics aren't a large part of campus life.

I did go to a community college many years ago. I'm happy to say I'm not part of the college scene now.

 

[kx000]

Could liberty, liberate? Could faith be belief?

 

[billvon]

The Left is at a crossroad in history. It's being rejected now . . . .

More people voted for Clinton than Trump. Hardly a "rejection."

 

[Bowser]

More people voted for Clinton than Trump. Hardly a "rejection."

Well, cling to that with all your conviction, it won't change the outcome of the election. She lost where it mattered the most. Maybe in a parallel universe...?

 

[joepistole]

Yes, it's happening, and it is have negative impact on minorities
http://nypost.com/2015/12/08/college-quotas-are-actually-destroying-lives-of-minorities/

I guess you didn't pick up on the inconsistency in your reference. The titled, "College Quotas Are Actually Destroying Lives of Minorities", but in the body of the article it doesn't mention quotas. It doesn't talk about quotas, because quotas only exist in the minds of folks like you.

If you read your reference you should know your article references racial "preferences" not quotas. There is a difference between a quota and a preference...a big one. If you went to college, you should have been able to pick up on that one.

One more point, you still have your head deep up the derriere of right wing media. Your source is well known for right wing sensationalism and blatant advocacy as demonstrated by your reference.

"The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated "New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."[36]

Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit Murdoch's business needs, in particular that the paper has avoided reporting anything that is unflattering to the government of the People's Republic of China, where Murdoch has invested heavily in satellite television.[37]

Critics say that the Post allows its editorial positions to shape its story selection and news coverage. Former Post executive editor Steven D. Cuozzo has responded that the Post "broke the elitist media stranglehold on the national agenda."

According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[38]

The Public Enemy song "A Letter to the New York Post" from their album Apocalypse '91...The Enemy Strikes Black is a complaint about what they believed to be negative and inaccurate coverage blacks received from the paper.

The Post's coverage of the murder of Hasidic landlord Menachem Stark prompted outrage from Jewish communal leaders and public figures.[39]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism

People like me? I think we are a diverse group, coming from a variety of backgrounds. We don't want to chase rainbows and unicorns, but the idea of making America great again sounds like a noble cause.

Yeah, people like you voted for Trump, and if we had a true democracy whereby the president was elected by the popular vote, he wouldn't be president. Because Trump lost the popular vote.

So you think you are a diverse group?

America has always been great. However, all that may soon change under a Trump presidency.

 

[joepistole]

Well, cling to that with all your conviction, it won't change the outcome of the election. She lost where it mattered the most. Maybe in a parallel universe...?

No one is saying Trump didn't win. He won. But for you and your Republican cohorts to say you represent or Trump represents a majority of Americans as you have done, is a lie. Because you don't. You don't represent most Americans because most Americans voted against your ideology and your candidate. Now if you want to take pride in that, so be it. But at least be honest about it.

 

[Bowser]

I guess you didn't pick up on the inconsistency in your reference.

It was the top of the list when I googled the term. Feel free to search the subject if you care to give it some effort.
Here's another for you to criticize.
http://hrweb.mit.edu/diversity/affirmative-action-plan-admins/what-is-an-aaplan

Yeah, people like you voted for Trump, and if we had a true democracy whereby the president was elected by the popular vote, he wouldn't be president. Because Trump lost the popular vote.

If the outcome had been reverse, I doubt you would care. SO, why should I? I'm perfectly happy how things came to be. Absolute perfection.

So you think you are a diverse group?

13% African American Vote
33% Latino Vote
53% Women Vote

Yep, we are a diverse group.

America has always been great. However, all that may soon change under a Trump presidency.

The worst that will happen is that the Earth will crack open and swallow the Golden Calf.

 

[Bowser]

No one is saying Trump didn't win. He won. But for you and your Republican cohorts to say you represent or Trump represents a majority of Americans as you have done, is a lie. Because you don't. You don't represent most Americans because most Americans voted against your ideology and your candidate. Now if you want to take pride in that, so be it. But at least be honest about it.

Just a note to be inserted in this conversation...

But among those figures were stark contrasts in key states that helped swing the election to Trump — in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan and elsewhere — indicating the President-elect’s leap from long-shot candidate to the most powerful political position in the world may have happened in part because of apathy toward Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, especially among the Democratic base, several political scientists and organizations monitoring voter turnout told the PBS NewsHour.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/voter-turnout-2016-elections/

It really isn't OUR FAULT that the Democratic nominee lost this election. And I'm having a hard time feeling any sympathy for those who supported Hillary. It is what it is. The voters have spoken and Trump won. You can say the lack of support for Hillary was the deciding factor in this election.