Somebody clue me please....

I didn't know there was one official version.

than they do about something, like racism, misogyny or homophobia.

If someone affected by any of these issues tells me something, I usually assume they know more than I do since none of the 3 have any impact on my life at all.


It isnt my only definition, but for the purpose of a discussion on DU, that is the one I want to talk about.

Instead, listen and discuss. The other person may have more experience and/or knowledge, but after listening to them you may have questions, or maybe sense conflict in what they say.

I might not be explaining this well, but a part of my liberalism is to put my feet in another's shoes, or be open-minded.

One of the great things I've enjoyed and loved through the years on DU are the serious discussions. Here, we get history lessons, data, anecdotal stories, personal experiences ... so and so forth. I take all that, try and do my own research and hopefully end up with an informed opinion. I have gratefully learned so much and my mind has been changed many times. But I hardly ever defer.

Now there will be times, one out of a thousand maybe, where the person is insincere or wrong or manipulative of me, but in general yes, I trust them to know.

... I agree that real experience usually trumps academic consideration of most issues.

But Trump has business experience - I guess, or whatever you want to call it - but I wouldn't necessarily defer to him on how I might run a business.

Again, I get your drift, but I think a universal application of that doctrine could be problematic. You don't HAVE to have experienced something first hand to have a valid opinion about it. RFK never experienced racism first hand in his life, but he had some pretty good ideas about what to do about it.

Let me guess:

"Oh, that's different".

Notice how deferring to minorities not important for you to talk about but having a gun is.

Tells me a LOT about you...

And you clearly dont give a SHIT about the idea of what a liberal is, just here to fuck with me...

A poor attempt at misdirection. Very poor.



Except when that isn't your definition, apparently.



Sure I don't.


Recognizing hypocrisy and those in the act of engaging in it, is kind of a personal specialty of mine. I like to make sure, when I see it, that everyone else sees it too.

It is clear what you are doing and why.

Everyone?

Who are you talking to exactly?

You're the one that tried to spin things away from "the definition of liberal" to "deferring to minorities". Do you really think people are blind?

I was discussing YOUR definition of liberal randy. Do you recognize it? Its right there quoted above. Those words are YOURS. Now, we both know that your next move, will be to pretend that the examples you gave were qualifiers, but the problem is, we both know that they weren't. And while there might actually be someone out there dumb enough to buy it, I assure you, I'm not one of them, nor are most DUers.





Everyone that reads the thread and the posts it contains.

out of thousands.

The definition of liberal as you've defined it and so aptly demonstrated, is situational, at best.

I'm sorry you don't like that pointed out.

to the point of giving them great credit for their opinion of their issues bothers you.

It clearly does.

You would think after all this time I would stop being surprised at being called out when I say CLEARLY very liberal things like I did in this thread.

Again, a poor attempt at misdirection. Very poor.

Back to the subject at hand:



I was discussing YOUR definition of liberal randy. Do you recognize it? Its right there quoted above.

Those words are YOURS.




A word to the wise:

I will not fall for your sophomoric attempts at misdirection, but feel free to continue trying, and I'll continue to swat them like mosquitos. Meanwhile, the thread keeps getting kicked to the top, and getting more and more exposure, which I am all for.

On edit:



Aww. Now isn't that cute, a straw man. You're not being called out for saying liberal things randy. You're being called out for disregarding your own definition of liberal when it suits your biases.

That's where that 'H' word comes in, but you knew that, didn't you.

This isnt about the dictionary to you, it is about ME and everybody can see that.

I am very anti racist and anti death from guns and this REALLY bothers you, period.

I know why I piss people off, trust me, I know.

It almost always has to do with one of two things, guns or racism.

I could understand attacking what is clearly liberal philosophy if this was free republic or something, but it isnt.

You happily ignore your own definition of liberal when it comes to guns.

Why does me pointing it out bother you so much?

You're very illiberal about guns:

il·lib·er·al

adjective

adjective: illiberal

1. opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior.

Textbook definition, right there.



Yeah, you poor poor victim, how dare anyone hoist you on your own petard.



Not at all. I too am very anti-racist and very anti death from guns. What bothers me is situational ethics, and situational ideology, precisely the thing you have demonstrated that you engage in, in this very thread.



I wouldn't trust you to tie my shoe.



Well, this time, it has to do with situational application of ideology. You are no liberal, nor do you hold a view that is liberal, when it comes to guns.



I could understand being accused of attacking you for liberal philosophy if I actually had done so, but you and I both know I haven't actually done that. What you're being ribbed about, is your less than consistent application of your own definition of the word 'liberal'. That's all on you.

All you have to say, is "you know what, you're correct" and we'll be done here.

My "Creds" - I don't have any. I've actually had a few of my litter-airy efforts published, but that means nothing to my presence in DU I'm closing in on my 10,000th post - it's just a number as is 2007 - the date when I started coming here. I was simply attracted by the banter and insights surrounding the (then) looming presidential election.
My seventh decade on earth, I've come to reconsider what I've always assumed "liberal" stood for - in politics, in rein and as regards amounts of gravy on my mashed potatoes. Getting there (here?) has meant going from not caring about politics at all - to lemming-like obedience to GOP ideals - to finally seeing thru the crap of that league and thinking maybe I'd found my "home" with the Democrats (liberals of a sort).
A product of boredom with school, a "go-your-own-way" spirit and a love for anything that flies - I dropped out of my Senior year to join the Air Force. I had a definite "bent" for things technical and ended up being an aircraft tech. I also ended up stationed in the Philippines with the option of volunteering to go into Vietnam for months at a time if I so chose - and, I so chose. Bolstered by Hollywood depictions of duty and valor in WWII, this pimple-faced airman wanted a taste of the real thing and got it. I also got a nasty infection in my foot that sent me back to Clark AFB before my voluntary tour was done. But I got cured and went back two more times. I loved being a part of the action. I even got to do some "nose art" on some of our bombers - all in pursuit of holding back the Red Menace. I knew nothing of the other young Americans running to Canada or looking for ways to avoid the draft. How could one NOT WANT to be a part of such a fantastic and righteous machine? That just didn't compute with me.
Do I still consider myself a patriot? Sure - just not one of the ill-informed ones like I was at age 18. Now, I'd at least caution a youngster to think about the worst of possibilities before enlisting in our federal mercenary forces.

So but...... all the aforementioned has nothing to do with my question as to the definition of liberal - other than to cover whatever bases I could forsee being berated from for what I'm going to say. See, I've served on a fair number of DU juries in recent times. And I guess my guidelines are that I look for personal attacks or defamation as well as any mindless profanity like one might find as comments to YouTube videos. Some times a troll might trip my trigger, but usually I just figure their ignorance digs their own resting place.
So today >I< was alerted on a post ( my 4th or 5th time since '07, I believe) and while I did not use anyone's name, I did mention that someone could ultimately prove to be an able corporate "lap dog" as well as talking about the looming "coronation". And just to clarify - the thread was about the Democratic/Socialistic hopefuls for 2016. I think the jury was 6 to 1 to hide my post. Rude, hateful, misogynistic and other flattering descriptors were among those tendered. I'm not really angry with those cat-calls, but the word "liberal" sprang to mind in response. I'd like to be set straight as to which of the definitions in my OP I don't understand the limits of. If in reality, I'm something OTHER than a liberal, I'd like to know. If a bird hangs out with a herd of cats, someone ought to clue that bird that it could prove unwise for it to do so.
Do I need to make myself realize this is Democratic Underground as opposed to a Liberal site? It's a question I've been moved to consider long before this recent alert.

So readers have the full picture.

Perhaps you can tell us how you think referring to a female presidential candidate as a "canine" is in keeping with the principles you list above, particularly number 7?

I've never heard that lap dogs were of a particular gender. A canine is a dog, not a FEMALE dog. There's a different word to describe a female dog. Or do you work from a different dictionary?

and I was among them. Even the juror who voted not to hide found the comment inappropriate. Note: Statistically any DU jury is majority Sanders supporters, and they judged the comments warranted a hide. That should be the end of the story, but now you're upset that you don't get to continue using degrading terms about women. Cry me a river.

Really? Well that's interesting. So there's NO chance THIS jury was weighted with Hillarites - or are jurors selected from those who respond, based on what "camp" they fall into? Let's be honest - anything is possible.


"Offensive, sexist and juvenile effort at invoking the b-word."

Let's break this down and analyze it a bit...

"Offensive" - If you're a Clinton supporter, you're going to be offended if someone suggests your favorite is a lackey of corporations. I get that. Even if it IS true, I get that it offends Hillary's supporters. The aim of my alerted comment was to reaffirm my support for someone who will work for the people who fund the respective campaigns. (and remember! As Mitt assured us last campaign: Corporations ARE people, my friend!) There's a particular shade of glasses worn by many around here that let in only selected wave lengths of light. And while it's strictly speculation, I'll bet some of them have been offended when I've suggested that we'd be better off selecting the next president by their allegiances and record rather than solely on their gender.

So - about that B-word I'm now vilely guilty of.... What if I'd have said "psittacine" instead of canine? What invocation would I be guilty of then? I honestly can see pisttacine being appropriate. Fact is, I know pisttacines really well. And there IS a common connotation that's oft times used in referring to politicians as pisttacines (or their more common name - which I'm certain the intellect here will readily recognize). But using that reference has no gender suggestivity to it. Or maybe my alerter can point out to me - what does their Websters Unabridged book of elastic insinuations have to say about the sexual innuendo of pisttacine.

And what about "Feline"? No - no - oh GOD no - that would invoke as horrified a response as canine - what with the slang that ties women to female cats.

How about "puppet"? Are there any connotations to "puppet" that could ire a particular candidate's supporter? I mean, besides the obvious ones. I'm asking about gender-suggestive connotations of puppet. See - I wanna be able to tip-toe thru the politically correct, linguistic minefield that DU is turning into.

LOL!!! I just now reflected on the many posts of late about real DU veterans being muted or given the boot from here. And I had thought - surely - such a fate won't befall a goofy, little crowd heckler like me! But the bug spray, bug zapper, flyswatter phenomenon that's infecting this place like a plague of locusts is a statement in itself of the growing intolerance here. It was probably just a matter of time before someone pointed at me and twisted my rhetoric to indicate that I am one who's not swallowed the DWS Kool-ade - and consequently needs to be whacked into line. "Hey! Someone tell that idiot that this is DU - not D/SU!

Words have meaning - often several meanings (See "liberal". And oft times, words that have been around for ages have been twisted to mean things they never ever did when they were initially coined or recognized. But to convict me of INSINUATING an offensive connotation based on some insecure sort's personal interpretation - what the hell has become of this place? I mean - REALLY? You could SEE just how my synapses worked in less than adroit ways to slip a misogynistic slight past the DU word police??? Hey DU is DU. But in the real world - folks have spent DECADES of their innocent lives in prison thanks to what jurors tried to read into a suspect's mind. Often lead to THAT reading by the slant of the prosecutor! Insinuating that I was invoking the "B-word" is really a stretch as well as an indication of the insecurities of the accuser. Of course, there's probably quite a number of innocent folks incarcerated because of what jurors "read" into suggestive testimony and ill-founded fears.

No - no... I get it. I'm a juvenile nitwit and seven folks (do I HAVE TO call them "peers"?) have convicted me of slandering the anointed one (DAMN! There I go again! - is it possible to alert on myself? Is there anything gender-insinuating about "anointed"?) Please - some word-nick - do the "Right" thing here. Deny this cretin his voice!

No, I'm neither a Hillarite nor a Bernista (I steer clear of the cesspools).

So be happy it wasn't a 7-0 hide.

You got a post hidden. it happens. Learn. Move on. This one really has nothing to do with the word liberal.

I have had a few posts alerted before. None of them bothered me like this one. Yes, it happens. But your "Learn" comment... Learn what? Learn that someone else's interpretation of a technically innocent word is THE way to look at that word henceforth? Is that what I'm supposed to "learn". I could - but won't - name instances in history where words were assigned interpretations that served particular, convenient meanings.

Liberal - to me - infers Liberty. Liberty is freedom from dictates - unreasonable ones anyway. Liberal isn't used much in referring to the other major political party because they've a track record of manipulation and exclusion as means to their ends.
Reading something into a word that's clearly NOT THERE - and using that conjured interpretation to level an accusation - is clearly NOT something a liberal sort would do. And yet I've had just such an occurrence shoved down my throat - or possibly up another port of my digestive tract.

There's certainly something to be learned from this incident, but it's not something constructive.

I'm all about the CS.

That's a supposition of yours - not a fact about me. Again, please indicate with specifics of English diction - how either "canine" or "the laps of corporate donors" defines or insinuates a female dog. C'mon, I double-dog dare you. Whatever you conjure up has to be illuminating or entertaining. We'll all learn from the supreme intellect.
I don't care that six others threw in with the emotions/imaginations of the alerter. I AM READY TO YIELD to a definition from a recognized source that I've slyly labeled Ms. Clinton as a "b****". I've NEVER done that either covertly or overtly - and I never will. Clearly, I harbor hopes she's not ultimately the (D) nominee - but I DO NOT REFER TO WOMEN with sexist terminology. I challenge ANYONE on DU to prove that statement to be a lie. The "alerted" statement included.

LOL..... What if I were to state: "As far as this election goes, I don't have a dog in the race." Would I be slyly saying that there wasn't a female contender that I favored???