Does "liberal" still actually mean nice? Are leftists still claiming to be the "nice" ones and conservatives are "mean" or what?

[TaKinGDeePanal]

21 hours ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

 

Figure. Look through his posts. It speaks volumes that there are NO upvotes on any of them.

It was easy in the days of Yahoo groups to identify duplicate accounts as most IP addresses were static. Unfortunately not so much the case anymore, as people can use more than one device at the same time to logon (and have multiple email addresses).

 

1 hour ago, harrysmith26 said:

It's unusual for a leftie to think the person who got the most "votes" must be right...

Coming from you, I'll take this as a compliment.

[BBArchangel]

Trump was -never- a friend to our community. [think before following links] https://www.hrc.org/resources/trumps-timeline-of-hate

[DallasPozzible]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:27 PM, harrysmith26 said:

It's unusual for a leftie to think the person who got the most "votes" must be right...

Of course we do like people who get more votes. Accordingly, we should have had presidents Gore and Hillary in addition to Obama and Biden. 

[hntnhole]

To the OP:  some of us don't see some colors very well, including me.  I couldn't make out what the colored text is.  I'm assuming it's either red or green, neither of which I can discern. 

Judging from other respondents, it must be an interesting topic though ... 

[Cumfilledbottomboi]

On 12/11/2023 at 11:37 AM, harrysmith26 said:

Seems like you've been hanging around for a while here.

Since this forum is "LGBT politics", you're supposed to answer yes or no, rather than dropping the name of fantasy creatures out of Tolkien or R.R. Martin books.

So you ARE trolling. 

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, DallasPozzible said:

Of course we do like people who get more votes. Accordingly, we should have had presidents Gore and Hillary in addition to Obama and Biden. 

Exactly. The last Republican president to get a majority (or even a plurality) of votes cast for president was Shrub, in 2004, and if we actually elected based on most votes gotten, he wouldn't have been a candidate in 2004 (because he'd have lost in 2000).

Prior to that election, the last time a GOP candidate won a plurality of votes was in 1988. 

[hntnhole]

Can someone give me a brief explanation of what a "troll" (in the above context of this post) actually is?  It seems that a human (?) called Harry has been stirring this pot - is a "troll" (not in the sense of a broken-down old person) some mechanical device?  Or an actual human behaving like a troll .... 

[hntnhole]

To the OP's topic though, "a Liberal" means someone who supports Progressive (i.e. the process of addressing cultural/social deficits, and in support of ameliorating those weaknesses  in our collective lives.  The word "Nice", in and of itself, can mean anything from the absence of malice to active support of humane social/cultural causes, and has become so generalized it's not of much use in serious discussions.  

"Conservative" carries a connotation of preserving those inequities that need to be addressed.  The BLM movement, for instance.  Yes, it took a breathtakingly blunt murder of an American who happened to be of African ancestry by a Caucasian cop to rip the blinders off the general public's eyes, and force the issue onto the front burner.  Another example, very recently, is the inexcusable, overt racism emanating from the former Mayor of NYC, even after conviction of the same.  

Generally, "Conservatism" promotes conserving the wrongs of the past, in support of a minority afraid of losing their assumed cultural dominance.  Liberalism promotes adjusting the focus of the public towards justice and equality across the board.  A more coarse way to say it might be the "us first, then everyone else" viewpoint, vs. sharing the whole pie equitably in the first place.  

[NWUSHorny]

To be fair, not there were a lot more definitions of conservatism, other than the now overwhelmingly predominate, radical religious/cultural fundamentalism prior to 2016. To be even more fair, Trumpism/MAGA ism, is a collection of every, discredited populist political idea of the 20th century, from both the left and right. 

[topblkmale]

9 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Can someone give me a brief explanation of what a "troll" (in the above context of this post) actually is?  It seems that a human (?) called Harry has been stirring this pot - is a "troll" (not in the sense of a broken-down old person) some mechanical device?  Or an actual human behaving like a troll .... 

1a & 1c below:

 

troll

1a. Noun
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

1b. Noun
A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous disagreements, sex, status, ect. A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.

1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.

2a. Noun
Sometimes compared to the Japanese ‘Oni’, a troll is a supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, whose race was thought to have carried massive stones into the countryside (although actually the result of glaciers). Lives in hills, mountains, caves, or under bridges. They are stupid, large, brutish, hairy, long-nosed, and bug-eyed, and may also have multiple heads or horns. Trolls love to eat people, especially small children.
The Females of the species are generally kinder and more intelligent, but still fairly hideous.

2b. Noun
An aesthetically repulsive person, often has terrible social skills, usually a woman. See Troglodyte.

2c. Noun
An old, unattractive gay man who hits on young men, and cannot seem to understand that they want nothing to do with him.

3a. Verb
To fish by dragging bait behind a moving motor-boat.

3b. Verb
To cruise for immediate sexual pleasure without commitment. Often characterized by an older man, seeking a younger man, or any man for immediate, often anonymous sexual contact.

4. Noun
A joke disguised as an outrageously stupid statement or question, intended to trap people into believing it is serious.

5. Verb
To use **** and **** simultaneously. See trolling.
(Comes from ‘Tripping’ on ***, and ‘Rolling’ on ******)

6. Noun
A toy popular in the 1980’s, a ‘troll’ is a cute little plastic trolls with fluffy, colored hair.

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by topblkmale

[hntnhole]

Thank you, topblkmale !!!  I was hoping it wasn't some automated, non-human thing: (at least until A.I. takes over everything).  

And, thanks for enlarging the colored text - I was able to make out the red-colored words fairly easily with that font.

Edited December 18, 2023 by hntnhole

[harrysmith27]

25 replies and not a single one of them was "yes we are nice"!

 

The internet is like some experiment, where people try to say absolutely everything they can except the answer to the question.

Well it definitely is when dealing with the 50 or 60 million pathetic kooks who actually voted for Bidentard, anyway

[BlueSaphir]

I been liberal for many years. Being liberal stands for fairness, bringing in changes for the better for the good, bringing new wealth, spreading wealth, ensuring proper competition of the market to the economy. 
 

Today “conservatives” are not true to their values. Many are up for preserving their monopoly, power, control of their wealth and position. And to be true conservative, they should value their wants for less infringements of government, preserving freedom, individuality.  Last two are just equally worth protecting. I have a problem with people shunning down my sexuality. Treating it not “normal”. I have a problem with people shoving their religious views and not respecting other beliefs and viewpoints.  I have a problem with wealthy individuals trying to undermine their competition for their self gain. I WILL NOT respect anyone that wants to control a narrative because they are not comfortable of what see differently. 

[PozTalkAuthor]

I'm honestly scared by extremes. Be it right or be it left, extremists are toxic because they think their own way of thinking and acting, is the only one valuable, good, NORMAL. 

I'm scared by politicians saying hetero/christian is the only way acceptable, or hetero/muslim/jewish... 

But, on the other hand, even the atmosphere of "you can say nothing" isn't less scary. 

I mean: when someone criticizes a movie or book or whatever, and there are always others behind his back saying "you're racist/homophobic/whatever". When the critical opinion is mostly based on how the product has been built. If you produce a story based on England's history, why having a black actress interpreting Queen Elizabeth? Or why having a white actress interpreting Whitney Houston, let's say...

This is marketing, not inclusion; this is not being "liberal".

Today's way to face discussions is frightening me a lot, there seems to be the necessity, no, the urge, to always be one against the other. 

And this brings to conflicts. With or without weapons.

Always saying "it's the left / it's the right's fault", if things are ending up like this, if racists, homophobes and soever are forcefully taking their space and have lots of success, it's not only their violence. There might have been extremism acceptance to our side too. 

My 2 (unrequested) cents.

[PozBearWI]

@PozTalkAuthor may I add a nickel?  🙂

If we're to survive as a species we need to cooperate.  I react similarly to "Republican" and "Democrat".  When we do that we lump a whole lot of nuanced ideas under a single banner that is on its own, not nuanced at all.  We sweep away a panoply of if/then/else conditions as if they were trivial.  When we do that we tend to oversimplify and reach shaky conclusions.  

It may seem odd from my atheist life position to refer to anything biblical.  The Zealots were one of the significant cautionary tales there.  

It takes some finesse to sort out the threads in any controversy.  

Is there anyway we can let go of our addiction to "Breaking News" which more often than not is a continuation of yesterdays news and thus, no longer breaking?