Skip to main content

Why the bastardization of the term "liberal" makes no sense whatsoever...

Before I even started following the world of politics, I can remember hearing radio ads where a man's deep voice adamantly declared that "liberals" are evil. Haunting music played in the background as he listed off the reasons why this was the case: Heavy taxers and spenders, against tradition, unsupportive of real American family values, and more cuckoo than Cocoa Puffs. Sadly, right-wing politicians' and media's bastardization of the term has often times worked. I even know some far left-leaning individuals whom now label themselves as progressive instead of liberal due to the negative connotation with the latter term. When looking at matters objectively, however, the bastardization of the term "liberal" really makes no sense whatsoever.

Take the dictionary, for example. Here are definitions of liberal:

1) "Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."

- "Favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms."

- "Favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform."

(synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, etc.)

2) "Concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training."

(synonyms: wide-ranging, broad-based, general)

3) "Broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact."

(synonyms: flexible, broad, loose, rough, free, general, nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise, vague, indefinite)

4) "Given, used, or occurring in generous amounts."

- "Giving generously."

(synonyms: generous, openhanded, unsparing, unstinting, ungrudging, lavish, free, munificent, bountiful, beneficent, benevolent, big-hearted, philanthropic, charitable, altruistic, unselfish)

So, when taking the technical definition of the term liberal and substituting the word with synonyms of it in the context of a right-winger attempting to bastardize it, the comments come across as quite puzzling and even silly. Here are just a few such examples:

- "Those no good tolerant ones can't seem to accept the beliefs of Christians!"

- "There's no question about it; the big-hearted individuals on the other side of the spectrum are pure evil!"

- "There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it; enlightened people are stupid!"

Yeah, like I said, the comments come across as so ridiculous, they could properly be described as redonkulous.

Well, in any case, if anyone attempts to talk down to me by calling me a liberal, I'll simply smile, probably chuckle some, and think to myself, "Do they just realize they called me a tolerant, enlightened, big-hearted person?" Probably not, which makes it all the more sad and humorous.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition%20of%20liberal

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal?s=t

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...