<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Conservative and Liberal, two words that should not be used.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jachin.rupe.name/2008/02/17/conservative-and-liberal-two-words-that-should-not-be-used/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jachin.rupe.name/2008/02/17/conservative-and-liberal-two-words-that-should-not-be-used/</link>
	<description>Ho Hum, De Dum</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:07:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Sinykin</title>
		<link>http://jachin.rupe.name/2008/02/17/conservative-and-liberal-two-words-that-should-not-be-used/comment-page-1/#comment-222</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Sinykin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:07:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jachin.rupe.name/2008/02/18/conservative-and-liberal-two-words-that-should-not-be-used/#comment-222</guid>
		<description>i agree that political oversimplications are hazardous, and i agree that language itself is a power structure that can and is wielded by the powerful to at times dubious ends, but i disagree with your take on the terms &quot;liberal&quot; and &quot;conservative&quot; themselves.  these words, like many words, have several perhaps even unrelated meanings.  yes, they have their progressive v. traditional meanings, but i believe most people don&#039;t have much trouble refraining from conflating those meanings with their meaning in the political context, which is different.  (now, whether or not people do or don&#039;t have a problem with that conflation is up for debate.)  but the words are almost uniformally intended in the political context to mean a conglomeration of issues that have formed and changed over the years with the political lives of parties in the US.  and, in fact, we are seeing the sort of splintering of the conservative movement right now, as various aspects of so-called conservatism are no longer holding well-glued together.  the point being, from a linguistic perspective, the terms themselves don&#039;t have the meaning you give them once we&#039;re speaking in a political way.  their meaning may be complicated (or vague, if you prefer), and there are certainly other issues to jump to from there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i agree that political oversimplications are hazardous, and i agree that language itself is a power structure that can and is wielded by the powerful to at times dubious ends, but i disagree with your take on the terms &#8220;liberal&#8221; and &#8220;conservative&#8221; themselves.  these words, like many words, have several perhaps even unrelated meanings.  yes, they have their progressive v. traditional meanings, but i believe most people don&#8217;t have much trouble refraining from conflating those meanings with their meaning in the political context, which is different.  (now, whether or not people do or don&#8217;t have a problem with that conflation is up for debate.)  but the words are almost uniformally intended in the political context to mean a conglomeration of issues that have formed and changed over the years with the political lives of parties in the US.  and, in fact, we are seeing the sort of splintering of the conservative movement right now, as various aspects of so-called conservatism are no longer holding well-glued together.  the point being, from a linguistic perspective, the terms themselves don&#8217;t have the meaning you give them once we&#8217;re speaking in a political way.  their meaning may be complicated (or vague, if you prefer), and there are certainly other issues to jump to from there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: B.</title>
		<link>http://jachin.rupe.name/2008/02/17/conservative-and-liberal-two-words-that-should-not-be-used/comment-page-1/#comment-221</link>
		<dc:creator>B.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jachin.rupe.name/2008/02/18/conservative-and-liberal-two-words-that-should-not-be-used/#comment-221</guid>
		<description>I can&#039;t recall the last time I&#039;ve heard someone self-identify that way.  

I&#039;m inclined to agree that generalizations of that sort are more likely to distract from an issue at hand.  Unless one is cock-waving, there are much better points to specifically to address. (See appeal to authority)

I&#039;d wager when you see people who are actually competent arguing an issue you will never hear &quot;Because I&#039;m a *fill in the blank*&quot; etc..    (Not that participants would not use it as a slur - &quot;you are a liberal - so you think child abuse is ok&quot; [a very bipartisan tactic]) 

The thing is, few conversations are that well prepared (or lengthly)..  hence the recourse to lazy buzz words for a short conversation.


If people are not ready and willing to get down to specifics, politics should be avoided in social conversation. (oxymoron?) 

 8 )

B.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t recall the last time I&#8217;ve heard someone self-identify that way.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m inclined to agree that generalizations of that sort are more likely to distract from an issue at hand.  Unless one is cock-waving, there are much better points to specifically to address. (See appeal to authority)</p>
<p>I&#8217;d wager when you see people who are actually competent arguing an issue you will never hear &#8220;Because I&#8217;m a *fill in the blank*&#8221; etc..    (Not that participants would not use it as a slur &#8211; &#8220;you are a liberal &#8211; so you think child abuse is ok&#8221; [a very bipartisan tactic]) </p>
<p>The thing is, few conversations are that well prepared (or lengthly)..  hence the recourse to lazy buzz words for a short conversation.</p>
<p>If people are not ready and willing to get down to specifics, politics should be avoided in social conversation. (oxymoron?) </p>
<p> 8 )</p>
<p>B.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lolife</title>
		<link>http://jachin.rupe.name/2008/02/17/conservative-and-liberal-two-words-that-should-not-be-used/comment-page-1/#comment-220</link>
		<dc:creator>lolife</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:12:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jachin.rupe.name/2008/02/18/conservative-and-liberal-two-words-that-should-not-be-used/#comment-220</guid>
		<description>Great post, Jachin.

I use the word liberal to mean that I share most of the same views as other people who describe themselves as liberals. I share fewer views with people who describe themselves as conservative.

But I do agree it is confusing. For example, I have reclaimed fiscal conservatism for the liberals, meaning I see liberals acting more fiscally conservative than conservatives these days. Whether you agree with this viewpoint or not, it does add weight to your argument about ambiguity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, Jachin.</p>
<p>I use the word liberal to mean that I share most of the same views as other people who describe themselves as liberals. I share fewer views with people who describe themselves as conservative.</p>
<p>But I do agree it is confusing. For example, I have reclaimed fiscal conservatism for the liberals, meaning I see liberals acting more fiscally conservative than conservatives these days. Whether you agree with this viewpoint or not, it does add weight to your argument about ambiguity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
