thegreekdog wrote:F1fth wrote:Greekdog, seriously, f*ck that. That is hypocritical bullshit to the highest degree. Stereotyping is stereotyping and it all is ridiculously stupid, but you have the gall to not only participate in it, but get all self-righteous about it others doing the same goddamn thing.
Don't have a heart attack. The irony is palbable isn't it? If you don't understand, well... I was trying to be ironic. I guess it had the desired effect? I don't know.
I think you both hit a big point. There are really several issues here. First, is the whole definition of liberal. Republicans have used conservativism as an excuse to push their favorite agenda items. Other conservatives, specifically the Christian right, have pushed it even further and added in the element of "conservative = Christian=good, while Liberal=bad".
Liberal used to mean standing up for the working class and poor, supportinq equal race and gender issues. It did mean some "spreading the wealth", but only in the context of not allowing the "big guys" to take
advantage of the "little guys" -- be it through poor pay, poor working conditions (remember, some of this predates a good many safety regulations, benefits like sick leave that we just take for granted now) OR pollution of commonly held resources like water.
Ownership-wise, liberals tend to believe things like air, water, wildlife, (but NOT everything!) are universal resources and not inherently owned by individals. They may believe that owning land does not necessarily give an absolute right to destroy it, because the land and damage created will persist long after any person's term of owndership AND because it often spreads out beyond the borders (a dump, for example on your land may ruin the water and even the safety of the soil of nearby lands), BUT they do believe that individuals have the right to own property, produce and harvest, etc. They just believe consequences have to be taken into account. In conservative talk this often gets translated into liberals "taking" from private property owners, instead of requiring them to protect resources that are, truly not individual property at all. OR, it gets labeled "communism", though communism says that everything is commonly owned.
Economically, conservatives like to claim that liberals "just want a handout", but in reality, all but the laziest want to work. Sure, there absolutely are "lazy idiots" and "major screw-ups", and they DO need to be held accountable. However, if you look around, while we all like to believe that hard work and effort will help us achieve, its not necessarily true at all. If you really and truly look at those who are successful, you will find people who work less, are less intelligent and are less honest (or whatever measure you wish to apply), but who are MORE successful. Not just "exceptions", but many. The lower you fall, the more you see succeeding more due to what can only be considered "luck" and "fortune" -- beginning with where and to whom you were born, winding with just "being in the right place at the right time" for a particular job. I don't dismiss that people create their own luck completely. I do, however say there is "funny cooincidence" in that when someone is doing well, they crow about it being due to their ability. Ask that same person when things go bad.. and its luck. And I mean consistantly. Yes, people make mistakes and learn and only truly realize once they are over what it was that was holding them back. However, I am talking about somethign over and above that. I mean that everyone wants to be able to justify their position, inherently. I mean that failure and success are EACH a measure of luck AND choices/decisions/effort.
Even amongst the "screw-ups" are many who are there because they made poor judgements that escalated to the point they could not handle them. I don't justify turning to drugs or alchohol, but I say that fixes have to take the real problems into account. When the problem is pure laziness, sure "buck it up cookie" is the answer. But, when the problem is someone getting depressed because they have been turned down from the last 100 entry level positions, when the problem is they have medical issues that they cannot control because they don't have health care... etc, etc. Then saying "buck it up cookie" just doesn't help.
Further, even when the "problem" is something real, like a student choosing the "wrong" major, or taking a job that seemed excellent, but turns out to be less so -- maybe a boss who outright cheats, maybe just a "poor fit", leading to an escalating problem of finding a new job in a tough economy with poor or no reccomendations...Anyway, the question is whether those sorts of errors are really justification for someone to be have to go without healthcare, without decent clothing or food. In today's society, those sorts of mistakes DO cause that sort of downfall. How many of you could really and truly pick yourselves up after? Some can, don't get me wrong, but ... the reason those speakers who stand up and say "look at me" are notable is because they are not the normal experience.
This wound up being much l onger than I thought, and I still did not get to the other issue. That is that within each of these labels are real people who just don't "fit" ANY set definition OR stereotype. A liberal who is deeply religious, even in a conservative way. A Conservative who believes that we need baselines of health care,and education for society to function well in capitalism ... etc. (and yes, the rabid liberal who is a racist ... the conservative who supports gay rights... etc.) I won't even call the conservative who accepts people of different races an anomoly any longer. Those who don't are more the exception today.
Still, I'm so used to you being a very reasonable person that it must have broke my little heart to see your silly post. 
