Posted on 10/30/2014 8:21:09 AM PDT by rktman
One definition, to "conserve," is along the same lines as to protect something or preserve something in its original state, to keep something as much the way it was as possible. "Conservative" comes to mean "resistance to change" to many people under that definition.
The other primary definition of "conserve" is TO USE SPARINGLY, as in, the "conservative" use of sugar or spice in a recipe or for me, the conservative use of government. As opposed to the LIBERAL use of government or the LIBERAL use of salt or sugar in a recipe.
As for the word "liberal," in my extensive reading of many thousands of reader comments by Joe Blow Americans from all across the continent, it is VERY CLEAR that in the general lexicon of average Americans, "liberal" translates to someone who wants more and bigger nanny government. We can dicker about its technical meaning all we want and create our own obstructions, but I am satisfied, with good reason, that MOST Americans define "liberals" about the same way we do -- as big government nanny staters.
The only folks who really insist on applying the classic definition of "liberal" are leftist big government tyrants themselves who refuse to admit that they are big government leftists.
Yup! God bless your kids and grandkids!!! And you too!
Well said!!!!
Thanks, Finny! God Bless you and yours, too!
” The only folks who really insist on applying the classic definition of “liberal” are leftist big government tyrants themselves who refuse to admit that they are big government leftists. “
Yep
Dictionary.com
You're telling me that, according to that particular dictionary, the definitions of "Liberal" and "conservative" are said to be subjective, depending on who is using the terms.
No; let me rephrase what I'm saying:
A huge portion in society are viewing/hearing things through the liberal/progressive
worldview, though this would be more accurately described as socialist — so among the general population there are a lot of otherwise conservatives who understand and identify with liberal because of that dictionary definition — as Impy said in Post 55: According to the dictionary, WE are the liberals and the progressives too. Around the turn of the 19th century the term “liberal” was co-opted by socialists.
One problem is that in the general population we-as-a-society have essentially ceded the ability to assign definitions to these socialists.
My take would be that the specific dictionary you cite was a creation of a relatively new politically correct editor and/or publisher, with the objective of getting it approved for use in left-run schools and colleges.
How about Webster's 1828 dictionary?
As you can see, there's a little language-drift, but would be essentially the same when applied to politics, excepting #9.
- Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor; the liberal founders of a college or hospital. It expresses less than profuse or extravagant.
- Generous; ample; large; as a liberal donation; a liberal allowance.
- Not selfish, narrow on contracted; catholic; enlarged; embracing other interests than one's own; as liberal sentiments or views; a liberal mind; liberal policy.
- General; extensive; embracing literature and the sciences generally; as a liberal education. This phrase is often but not necessarily synonymous with collegiate; as a collegiate education.
- Free; open; candid; as a liberal communication of thoughts.
- Large; profuse; as a liberal discharge of matter by secretions or excretions.
- Free; not literal or strict; as a liberal construction of law.
- Not mean; not low in birth or mind.
- Licentious; free to excess.
I can assure you that dictionary creators of past generations wouldn't have to resort to tables such as that.
You completely miss the point — I made the table to show that what people hear and what people say can be widely different depending on the worldviews [or indoctrinations] involved.
(BTW, I still use my Funk and Wagnalls from the 1970s and find it perfectly adequate with rare exception.)
*nod* — I have an old dictionary from the `60s that I really like. (It's currently in storage though.)
So are their several different definitions of what "is" is in your modern-day dictionary, as Clinton stated under oath? :)
The word you want is there
.
And I think I've shown that, in both modern and old dictionaries, liberal
is a generally good quality — that you're getting all hot and bothered about it is proof that my thesis (that different worldviews interact w/ communication) is correct.
This is one reason that the conservatives have a hard time articulating their positions: because the people hearing actually hear [understand] something different than what was said.
I try to not get bogged down in labels. They are convenient and handy shortcuts, but the problem with them in the political context is that political world views for individual people are like snowflakes. No two are identical.
Except for the communists who really do march in lockstep.
see if that person who is on the voter roll - that’s where summons come from -
*************
I know some states use both the voter and drivers license list for jury summons.
VA and TX are in this group.
the modern “liberal” the naive type at any rate...as opposed to the corrupt type simply exists in an entirely different paradigm ?
I tend to describe the latter as socalists, statists, and elitists — and the Republican party has incorporated a lot of that into itself.
Fully agreed.
the activists....rather than the passive..Yes... Help Me...”voter” type....
The dynamic quality of language isn't going to adapt to ME, so I have to adapt to IT.
OneWingedShark is positively inspired and eloquent in showing how dangerous and disruptive this dynamic quality of language is in real-world ways. If only "liberal" had maintained its original meaning! But smart folks here and across America recognize that it's been hijacked by the left to mean something entirely different.
I think it's safe to say that now, most Americans understand "liberal" in the definition of "generous," as in the generous -- or liberal -- use of an item. To water plants liberally is to apply a lot of water and often. THE SAME IS SO OF GOVERNMENT.
A bigger problem is the definition of the word "conservative" in politics. For many, "conservative" is code for "using government to preserve and promote Christian values." Hence a big government statist like Huckabee, who is (rightly) anti-abortion, is considered "conservative" under that definition.
Yet Huckabee is the opposite of "conservative" in the usage that I apply to the word, "conserve" as in watering plants conservatively is to use water sparingly and only when necessary. THE SAME IS SO OF GOVERNMENT.
There's not a lot of confusion in the general lexicon as to what "liberal" in politics means -- that's why so many liberals deny its current definition as applying to themselves. They HAVE to, just like they HAVE to cheat to put their guys in office.
I think the more worrisome confusion is with the word "conservative." I wish the majority of Americans would embrace its meaning as "to use government sparingly."
Sadly, semantics can be a killer. Thus the Gun Violence Messaging guide to help the anti’s phrase and parse their wording to appear reasonable and non threatening. In case you haven’t seen it:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf
Why would one need a guide if there weren’t ulterior motives? It’s all in the marketing of your message.
Most Americans understand "liberal" in the definition of "plentiful," as in the plentiful -- or liberal -- use of an item. To water plants LIBERALLY is to apply water PLENTIFULLY, a lot of water and often. THE SAME IS SO OF GOVERNMENT.
The liberal wants to use government "liberally" -- that is, a lot of it and often. In a free-handed manner. "Liberally."
That is what the word "liberal" has, apparently, come to mean in the political lexicon of many, if not most Americans, as far as reader comments on countless MSM forums across the country.
The confusion lies with the definition of "conservative."
Well, I would say it's really only HALF in the marketing of the message. The other half lies with the individual processing the info. ;^) People see through tricks in language eventually. That's probably why it's dynamic.
I might also point out that marketing ... schmarketing. If marketing called the shots, Dick Tracy would have been a box office hit. The best marketing in the world will still fail if the product stinks.
An interesting thing just came to mind about semantics and tricks with language. The word "gay," for example. Many words have multiple meanings, such as the word "mad." It can mean angry, OR it can mean crazy insane. The word "gay" could mean homosexual OR light-hearted. But it doesn't anymore -- in today's America, "gay" means homosexual. PEOPLE WERE TOO SMART FOR THE TRICK TO WORK. They outsmarted, in a way, the language's deception.
Who knows. Maybe it's a good thing that language is as alive and ever-adapting as the people who use it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.