NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously. It is after all an apt description for someone that holds left wing views, and there is nothing inherently offensive about the word.

It also avoids the pitfalls associated with the term liberal, because, really, the true liberal perspective is hardly left wing. Hayak was a self described liberal for example. And nor does it have the problem that socialist does, because socialist decribes only a small portion of the spectrum of leftist thought. Leftist on the other hand describes everyone from communists to Tony Blair.

Lastly, leftists jnever take offense when other people are called "fundies" or "fascists" for being right wing, and I would submit to you that both those labels are inherently insulting.

So why is it leftists? What bothers you about the word?

I never have taken offense at it, and I haven't the foggiest why someone would.

Although I am libertarian, it is because left is such a sinister word!

Seriously. It is after all an apt description for someone that holds left wing views, and there is nothing inherently offensive about the word.

It also avoids the pitfalls associated with the term liberal, because, really, the true liberal perspective is hardly left wing. Hayak was a self described liberal for example. And nor does it have the problem that socialist does, because socialist decribes only a small portion of the spectrum of leftist thought. Leftist on the other hand describes everyone from communists to Tony Blair.

Lastly, leftists jnever take offense when other people are called "fundies" or "fascists" for being right wing, and I would submit to you that both those labels are inherently insulting.

So why is it leftists? What bothers you about the word?

I've never been offended by that word.
HOWEVER, there's this kid in my math class that always calls me a fascist liberal. :confused:

Dude, there is no bothering here for me. I'm unbothered. And apparently I am left wing. Figures.

STOP CALLING US LEFTISTS! JUST BECAUSE WE SEE THINGS DIFFE...

Just kidding, I dont take offence, I take pride in it.

I've never been offended by that word.
HOWEVER, there's this kid in my math class that always calls me a fascist liberal. :confused:
Hee.
That's like me being accused of being both a Communist and a Nazi within the same sentence.

Well, I know people do because of the innacuracy of the right/left paradigm. It's not a straight line, basically. People from the 'left' may have very different views from one another, so to plot them on one teeny weeny little two-dimensional line is a tad inadequate. The asme goes for the 'right' and those evil fence-sitting centrists! :p

Hmm interesting.

I have been told by others of the left wing persuasion that it was offensive and they resented being referred to as leftists. I couldn't understand why, I mean rightist seems okay - although it doesn't roll of the tongue so easily, I like they way leftist sounds - so what's so wrong with leftist.

I'm glad to see many on the left agree with me.

Well, I know people do because of the innacuracy of the right/left paradigm.
I love teh political compass

Hee.
That's like me being accused of being both a Communist and a Nazi within the same sentence.

Because I keep telling people I'm different political leanings that actually happened to me the other day.

Me: Hey boys
Person A: Sup dirty nazi?
Person B: No, hes a filthy commie. Hows it going Stalin?

The only time I get offended by it is when it is used in a derogatory manner.

Why do conservatives take offense to being called conservatives?

They dont.
Nor, as it were, do leftists.

Why would you make a thread called "why do leftists get offended by the word leftist" ?

It sounds disingenous.


Many on the right use the term leftist pejoratively, and those people arent taken seriously.

This reminds me of test I took once
It rated your politcal view on a two dimensional plane (a line is 1 dimensional, not 2)
it was something like this
Authoritarian
|
|
Left_______________________|_________________Right
|
|
|
Libertarian

The 'left' and 'right' refer to economic, the authoritarian and libertarian refer to social issues. I was down in the lower left corner between Nelson Mandela and the Dhali Lama (btw, he also had several famous political figures ranked according to the same scale based on past actions) Bush was in the far upper right corner and Hussein was a mirror image (left for right), which amused me greatly

Why do conservatives take offense to being called conservatives?

They dont.
Nor, as it were, do leftists.

Why would you make a thread called "why do leftists get offended by the word leftist" ?

It sounds disingenous.


Many on the right use the term leftist pejoratively, and those people arent taken seriously.


I made the thread because I have heard people complain that the term leftist is inherently offensive. I disagree.

I am curious though, how can it be used perjoratively?

Because they get offended by everything. Well, actually, they only pretend to be offended by most things because they thing it's cool to get all butt-hurt about things. They also like to get offended about things that don't concern them because they thing they are being offended on behalf of other people who really don't even care that much.

Leftists :mp5: GLOBO GYM!

I made the thread because I have heard people complain that the term leftist is inherently offensive. I disagree.

I am curious though, how can it be used perjoratively?
With a perjorative adjective (ESL is fun ^_^)

Yes, if you called me a leftist I would be very angry

I made the thread because I have heard people complain that the term leftist is inherently offensive. I disagree.

I am curious though, how can it be used perjoratively?


I havent heard anyone so far complain that the term is offensive.


In the same way that the american media uses the word "liberal" in a distasteful and perjorative sense.

Because they get offended by everything. Well, actually, they only pretend to be offended by most things because they thing it's cool to get all butt-hurt about things. They also like to get offended about things that don't concern them because they thing they are being offended on behalf of other people who really don't even care that much.

Leftists :mp5: GLOBO GYM!
Hmm?
You'd best be a bit more polite, as that could get construed as flamebait, which is against forum rules.
Please be more polite in the future.
Thank you.

Why do leftists get offended by the word Leftist?

So why is it leftists? What bothers you about the word?
Because to abuse generalisations about people with such labels is illogical.

The purpose of generalising is to take a sampling of the whole and form conclusions that will allow one to make predictions about the population. The abuse of this practice is to take the conclusions and use them as if they were facts about any one particular member of the group. The generalised conclusions do not apply to the specific of any individual of a population, even the individuals who participated to make the conclusions.

Hmm?
You'd best be a bit more polite, as that could get construed as flamebait, which is against forum rules.
Please be more polite in the future.
Thank you.

I really don't see how that is flamebait.

I havent heard anyone so far complain that the term is offensive.


In the same way that the american media uses the word "liberal" in a distasteful and perjorative sense.
which is why I want to hurt people for saying the media is liberal

If its liberal, how come they use the word like a swearword

This reminds me of test I took once
It rated your politcal view on a two dimensional plane (a line is 1 dimensional, not 2)
it was something like this
Authoritarian
|
|
Left_______________________|_________________Right
|
|
|
Libertarian

The 'left' and 'right' refer to economic, the authoritarian and libertarian refer to social issues. I was down in the lower left corner between Nelson Mandela and the Dhali Lama (btw, he also had several famous political figures ranked according to the same scale based on past actions) Bush was in the far upper right corner and Hussein was a mirror image (left for right), which amused me greatly
That'd be the political compass.
And a line IS actually 2 dimensional. A POINT is one dimensional. ;)

Because to abuse generalisations about people with such labels is illogical.

The purpose of generalising is to take a sampling of the whole and form conclusions that will allow one to make predictions about the population. The abuse of this practice is to take the conclusions and use them as if they were facts about any one particular member of the group. The generalised conclusions do not apply to the specific of any individual of a population, even the individuals who participated to make the conclusions.

No-ones making conlusions though. If you are left wing, you are a leftist. Some take offence at that however, and I am trying to find out what bothers them,

I really don't see how that is flamebait.
His post?
Saying liberals pretend to get offended at things because "they thing it's cool to get all butt-hurt about things", and getting offended at things that don't matter to people.

I don't personally take offense, but I can see how many others may.

That'd be the political compass.
And a line IS actually 2 dimensional. A POINT is one dimensional. ;)
nope, take geometry again, a point doesn't have any dimensions in and of its self. A sheet of paper (not actually, but just imagine its an impossibly thin sheet of paper) is 2 dimensional, it has lenght and width, a line only has the former.

No-ones making conlusions though. If you are left wing, you are a leftist. Some take offence at that however, and I am trying to find out what bothers them,
But you are... I mean, what does it mean to be "left-wing" or "leftist"? If you put that label on people, you are placing them in with a population that has specific characterstics --but they are the characteristics of the population, not the individual.

which is why I want to hurt people for saying the media is liberal

If its liberal, how come they use the word like a swearword

Well, air america uses conservative as a swear word. No one gets their panties in a bunch about that.

Most media doesn't use either liberal or conservative as anything but descriptions.

And yes, the media is very left wing in this country except to FOX and talk radio.

The WSJ is the only thing worth reading.

His post?
Saying liberals pretend to get offended at things because "they thing it's cool to get all butt-hurt about things", and getting offended at things that don't matter to people.

I don't personally take offense, but I can see how many others may.


HIS post? Oh, now I'm offended... such gender discrimination! Don't you know it's not PC unless you say his OR her, unless you know my sex?

But you are... I mean, what does it mean to be "left-wing" or "leftist"? If you put that label on people, you are placing them in with a population that has specific characterstics --but they are the characteristics of the population, not the individual.

Only in the same way the I would label someone who professes a faith in christ a christian.

If you enter a political debate and describe yourself as left wing, or hold to obvioulsy left wing ideas (like progressive income tax) that makes you a leftist clearly. No-one is drawing conclusions, its just a name for a group of similar individuals.

HIS post? Oh, now I'm offended... such gender discrimination! Don't you know it's not PC unless you say his OR her, unless you know my sex?
:sends you to hospital for mandatory sex change operation to male:
HA!!!!

HIS post? Oh, now I'm offended... such gender discrimination! Don't you know it's not PC unless you say his OR her, unless you know my sex?
Is this meant to be some sort of sarcasm?
Either way, I'm sorry if I used the wrong pronoun for you. Would you prefer I addressed you as something else, or was I correct to begin with and was this meant to poke fun at someone?

I don't know who gets offended by that...I call myself Leftist because a Liberal is just a Conservative in a shabbier suit.

:sends you to hospital for mandatory sex change operation to male:
HA!!!!


Now that's offensive, too. :eek:

The media (CNN/FOX/NBC/CBS) you must remember are only as liberal as the huge corporations which own them and reap massive financial rewards from republican tax and business policy.

I never have taken offense at it, and I haven't the foggiest why someone would.
^

His post?
Saying liberals pretend to get offended at things because "they thing it's cool to get all butt-hurt about things", and getting offended at things that don't matter to people.

I don't personally take offense, but I can see how many others may.

He is just giving is thoughts. I don't see how it is flamebait at all. Nonsense perhaps, but not flamy. At some point, anyone can be offended by anything, I mean weren't you saying in another thread how anti-gay marriage activists should set themselves on fire. That seems worse, and no-one thought that was flamebait.

Only in the same way the I would label someone who professes a faith in christ a christian.

If you enter a political debate and describe yourself as left wing, or hold to obvioulsy left wing ideas (like progressive income tax) that makes you a leftist clearly. No-one is drawing conclusions, its just a name for a group of similar individuals.


What though if one believes in a progressive income tax and huge estate tax along with powerfully laissez faire economic policy and religious-conservative domestic laws?

The media (CNN/FOX/NBC/CBS) you must remember are only as liberal as the huge corporations which own them and reap massive financial rewards from republican tax and business policy.

Eh?

Some corporations are very left wing. It depends on the board and chief officers.

It is not what the label is, rather the beliefs you hold that are more important.
However, I agree that it is difficult but necessary to put people in boxes, as it is the way the human mind works.

Only in the same way the I would label someone who professes a faith in christ a christian.

If you enter a political debate and describe yourself as left wing, or hold to obvioulsy left wing ideas (like progressive income tax) that makes you a leftist clearly. No-one is drawing conclusions, its just a name for a group of similar individuals.
Not all Christians believe the same thing, either; in fact, the denominations very dramatically. Certain Protestants would say that Catholics are not Christian because they worship idols (the cross, Mary, Saints, etc.).

Certainly if one labels themselves left-wing there is no reason for them to take offense at others using the label back at them.

You asked what bothers me about it --that's what bothers me. Abuse of generalisation. Do I support the existence of abortion clinics? Yes. Am I left-wing because I do? No. Do I support the existence of abortion clinics because I am left-wing? No. I have my own reason that have nothing to do with anyone else's reasons, even if those reasons happen to coincide.

He is just giving is thoughts. I don't see how it is flamebait at all. Nonsense perhaps, but not flamy. At some point, anyone can be offended by anything, I mean weren't you saying in another thread how anti-gay marriage activists should set themselves on fire. That seems worse, and no-one thought that was flamebait.
I never said anything of the sort. Lunatic Goofballs did, but I did not.
Someone mentioned "flaming heterosexuals", and I said something along the lines of "Oh, like those Buddhist monks in Vietnam? Oh wait, not that kind of flaming."
Lunatic Goofballs then replied by saying that the anti-gay activist's cause would get more attention if they did things like that. I never even mentioned them, though.

What though if one believes in a progressive income tax and huge estate tax along with powerfully laissez faire economic policy and religious-conservative domestic laws?

Well you can't believe in the first two, and get the third.

Also, I cite the example of the Atlee government in post war england, who did in fact support many "conservative" domestic laws, and were quite anti-semitic, but were most definitely left wing.

Also, soviet Russia was fairly conservative in respect of morality laws. And again left wing.

So I think leftist would be an apt description for the person you just described.

Eh?

Some corporations are very left wing. It depends on the board and chief officers.

It is to the right's good fortune that the corporations in charge of the american mass media do not fall into that category I suppose.

In the end they are businesses, and businesses are in the business of making money.

The fox channel or CNN might play at being "liberal" or "conservative," but that is a part of branding and securing a market share.

In the end, the politicians with the best chance of increasing the profits of the corporations are supported, either directly or through manipulation of their journalism.

I never said anything of the sort. Lunatic Goofballs did, but I did not.
Someone mentioned "flaming heterosexuals", and I said something along the lines of "Oh, like those Buddhist monks in Vietnam? Oh wait, not that kind of flaming."
Lunatic Goofballs then replied by saying that the anti-gay activist's cause would get more attention if they did things like that. I never even mentioned them, though.

Okay, but you see my point, that almost anyone can point to someone elses post and *say* it is offensive and therefore is flamebait. I apologize for getting you and LG confused there.

I think a post really should be clearly offensive before labelling it flamebait at the very least. His post was just sort of whacky.

Edit: Put it this way, anything the FCC would okay probably isn't flamebait material. I am pretty sure that the FCC would let him broadcast his *rant*.

So why is it leftists? What bothers you about the word?

I have no problem with leftist, liberal, or progressive and have never met anyone who did.

My problem is that people hear a label - liberal or conservative - and immediately their ears stop working and their brain short circuits. "Oh, he's a (fill in the blank), therefore anything he says is wrong."

As someone who frequently supports my arguments with citations or websites I get those kinds of judgements all the time about sources. "Well, of course, you cited the New York Times or the Washington Post or the LA Times, so I don't even need to look at the article." As if the Times, Post, or LA paper were supermarket tabloids with no record of journalistic standards at all.

The thing is most people don't even know what liberal and conservative mean. They follow a cult of personality (be it Bush or Clinton) with little understanding of political ideology or governmental philosophy.

I have no problem with leftist, liberal, or progressive and have never met anyone who did.

I'd DEFINITELY have a problem with "liberal" since in the world other than the US liberal means something totally different. Just look at our very conservative liberal government... Liberal refers to an economic policy...

Hayak was a self described liberal for example. And nor does it have the problem that socialist does, because socialist decribes only a small portion of the spectrum of leftist thought. Leftist on the other hand describes everyone from communists to Tony Blair.
I would guess that the term leftist is offensive to some because it is so generalising.

That said, how is Tony Blair a leftist? He wants to dismantle the British welfare system and just a couple of months ago he announced that about 90,000 people emplyed by the British government would be laid off! His policies are also generally pro-corporate, and then there's the Iraq War of course.

By the way, for those interested in history, the term leftist originated in the French Revolution when the Legislative Assembly disintegrated into factions with the constitutional monarchists on the right and the liberal republicans and Jacobins (radical revolutionaries) on the left.

That said, how is Tony Blair a leftist? He wants to dismantle the British welfare system and just a couple of months ago he announced that about 90,000 people emplyed by the British government would be laid off! His policies are also generally pro-corporate, and then there's the Iraq War of course.

Hence the flaw. :p

And where the hell is the centre anyway?

What though if one believes in a progressive income tax and huge estate tax along with powerfully laissez faire economic policy and religious-conservative domestic laws?
Why would anyone be for taxes but against a regulated economy? And yes, religious policies with socialism are not unheard of in some parts of Europe (Poland) and India too.
This reminds me of test I took once
It rated your politcal view on a two dimensional plane (a line is 1 dimensional, not 2)
it was something like this
Authoritarian
|
|
Left_______________________|_________________Right
|
|
|
Libertarian

The 'left' and 'right' refer to economic, the authoritarian and libertarian refer to social issues.
Yes, that is the Political Compass (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/) test. Everyone, give me your results now!

And where the hell is the centre anyway?

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold
"The avalanche has spoken; it is too late for the pebbles to vote."

Seriously. It is after all an apt description for someone that holds left wing views, and there is nothing inherently offensive about the word.

It also avoids the pitfalls associated with the term liberal, because, really, the true liberal perspective is hardly left wing. Hayak was a self described liberal for example. And nor does it have the problem that socialist does, because socialist decribes only a small portion of the spectrum of leftist thought. Leftist on the other hand describes everyone from communists to Tony Blair.

Lastly, leftists jnever take offense when other people are called "fundies" or "fascists" for being right wing, and I would submit to you that both those labels are inherently insulting.

So why is it leftists? What bothers you about the word?

I think it's the implied left extremism emanating from the far right that's most irritating.

I never have taken offense at it, and I haven't the foggiest why someone would.
I'll second that.

I prefer the term leftist, I don't take offence to it at all.

I like the term, the other day i was talking to my friend, and she asked me what my braclet was for (it's a never surrender braclet, a lot like the live strongs, rubbery and such), and i told her it was a leftest political group, and my mom says, its "it's not leftest!" so i asked her to define leftest, which totaly proved my point, so i think it might just be the older generations who take offense to it, but being one of the only leftests in my town, I really have no way to test my theory :) , can i get a w00t w00t for rural america? (to any conseritive rural americans, i'm not being offensive, just giving people and idea of where i sit geographicly) hehe.

??? Perhaps because the word "leftist" is supposed to be derogatory?

Anyway, I care less about it, it's just an insulting way to say "left wing". What pisses me is when I hear "liberal" used as an insult, without further argumentation. If people have a problem with liberals, let them explain why instead of using it as an incantatory insult - it sure needs argumentation, and first of all a definition of what they mean by "liberal" (even heard some people say liberal was same as communist :D ).

Doesn't bother me. Why do fundies find that term offensive? Why do right-wingers find that one offensive?

i have absolutely no problem with the term leftist, it suggests a belief in a particular political ideal. in contrast 'lefty' implies membership in some kind of club, a convenient label suggesting that the person in question's views stem more from a need to belong than from any real consideration of the issues involved.

Seriously. It is after all an apt description for someone that holds left wing views, and there is nothing inherently offensive about the word.

It also avoids the pitfalls associated with the term liberal, because, really, the true liberal perspective is hardly left wing. Hayak was a self described liberal for example. And nor does it have the problem that socialist does, because socialist decribes only a small portion of the spectrum of leftist thought. Leftist on the other hand describes everyone from communists to Tony Blair.

Lastly, leftists jnever take offense when other people are called "fundies" or "fascists" for being right wing, and I would submit to you that both those labels are inherently insulting.

So why is it leftists? What bothers you about the word?


I think mostly because it's so badly misused, mostly in the United States. For example there really are only two parties that can win the oval office in the United States, the dems or the repubs... both parties are right of center. The dems are closer to center, but still to the right of the political compass. The repubs are further right to the political compass. So there aren't really many leftist in the United States. So perhaps they get upset when they're called leftist, when they aren't. Just my guess.

Everyone is offended by buzzwords.
historically, "left" in the US was a way to imply that somehow Democrats were really Communists (true in rare cases, but generally an inaccurate slur).

Nancy Pelosi, for example, is a Communist and makes no secret of it. She was raised by Communist parents who also made no secret of it. To call her "Left" would be an accurate label, even if intended as a slur.

But, there is no real Left in the US. Fear of Communism and the long-term paranoia drove out any real possibility of it taking hold here as it did in Europe and other countries. And at the end of the Cold War, there was a lot of triumphant stomping that relegated the tiny shreds of the Left to the dustbin of history in the US.

I believe that this situation did cause trouble for the Democrats historically, because they had to be careful advancing any remotely Left ideas. Social Security was probably their last great Left concept (remotely so), and they were riding that into the 1960s. The Great Society programs however, have backfired by permanently impoverishing and reducing to profound dependency several generations of African-Americans.

It's not really a good idea to promote Left ideas and only implement them in a half-assed localized way. The rest of America went on while a sector of the population was reduced to dependency.

The US is essentially a right-wing nation. The only difference I can see between Democrats and Republicans is how they view sex.

Democrats (in Vietnam) and Republicans (in the Middle East) have both used lies to justify large scale military adventurism around the world, so I see NO difference there.

a two party system is wholly in adequate in any democracy, particularly one of the magnitude and population of the US. Isn't a choice a central tenet of democracy? People should not have to define their views on an either/or basis. True devotion to democratic ideals neccescitates the review and modernisation of The US's outdated political system and the encouragement of independent and third party politics.

I believe that this situation did cause trouble for the Democrats historically, because they had to be careful advancing any remotely Left ideas. Social Security was probably their last great Left concept (remotely so), and they were riding that into the 1960s. The Great Society programs however, have backfired by permanently impoverishing and reducing to profound dependency several generations of African-Americans.

It's not really a good idea to promote Left ideas and only implement them in a half-assed localized way. The rest of America went on while a sector of the population was reduced to dependency.

The US is essentially a right-wing nation. The only difference I can see between Democrats and Republicans is how they view sex.

Democrats (in Vietnam) and Republicans (in the Middle East) have both used lies to justify large scale military adventurism around the world, so I see NO difference there.
You're right. Howeer I would say that in their domestic policies the Democrats have quite a few differences with the Reps. But in foreign policy they are similar. (I know Dem senators etc criticise Bush a lot over foreign policy, but this is largely for partisan reasons. they would be doing many of the same things if they were in power.)