|
Post by anxiousmom on Nov 13, 2016 15:40:48 GMT
I was pondering all kinds of existential thoughts this morning while drinking my coffee hiding, banished into invisibility while a realtor was showing my house, and my thoughts turned to a question I have been mulling over for a while. I hope this isn't a controversial question, and know in advance that isn't my intent, but I keep hearing people use the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' in ways that are almost as an expletive.
At what point did that happen? Conservative and liberal used to be used to define someone's political leanings (as in 'her politics are more liberal/conservative) but now it seems like both have taken on a new life as slurs on their own (those damn liberals/conservatives.) Why has this happened?
I guess part of the reason I'm asking is that I am conservative in some things and liberal in others and it seems that you really can't describe yourself that way anymore because the terms liberal and conservative have changed.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,983
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Nov 13, 2016 15:52:30 GMT
It's the new tribalism. As old affiliations have all but disappeared, this is one way we still have to differentiate "other."
|
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,402
Jun 25, 2014 19:28:04 GMT
|
Post by RosieKat on Nov 13, 2016 15:53:54 GMT
I completely understand not being able to use the label, as I am also liberal in some ways, conservative in others.
I know slings and arrows are always shot by pundits and commentators, but it *seems* to me that using these terms as pejoratives really accelerated with the rise in popularity of Rush Limbaugh and (yes, seriously here) Dr. Laura. It was the first time (to my knowledge) that ultra conservative people without a specific religious angle had major airwaves. I think there was then a natural backlash, and then the glut of social media set fire to it all.
I'm sure there is more to it than that, and I by no means consider myself a political scholar. These are just observations from my own life.
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Nov 13, 2016 15:55:02 GMT
I saw it start happening when the Tea Party movement started gaining ground. Before that I don't remember the big divide between conservatives and liberals. I may have just been politically unaware up until then, but that is when I started to notice it.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 13, 2016 15:55:20 GMT
It has happened as this country has become more divided.
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,947
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Nov 13, 2016 15:57:15 GMT
I saw it start happening when the Tea Party movement started gaining ground. Before that I don't remember the big divide between conservatives and liberals. I may have just been politically unaware up until then, but that is when I started to notice it. I was going to say the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by peatlejuice on Nov 13, 2016 16:06:20 GMT
I took a political science class in the fall of 2000 that resulted in many heated debates. I distinctly remember the two most passionate students, one conservative, one liberal, both getting kicked out of class for devolving a debate into personal insults. So I've seen liberal/conservative labels used as insults for at least 16 years, but I do think that it ramped up quite a bit after 2008. Although I do think that as a general rule, one side is a bit more derogatory than the other, all you have to do is read this board to see both sides are more than capable of it.
|
|
GiantsFan
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,298
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2014 14:44:56 GMT
|
Post by GiantsFan on Nov 13, 2016 16:15:59 GMT
I saw it start happening when the Tea Party movement started gaining ground. Before that I don't remember the big divide between conservatives and liberals. I may have just been politically unaware up until then, but that is when I started to notice it. While I think Tea Party has been a huge factor in the separation, I think it may have been a little sooner than that. Maybe in the Bush/Gore election cycle and after 9/11. That's when I saw a divide starting among my IRL friends. I think the Tea Party started in the 2008-ish time frame. But I could be wrong. Save
|
|
|
Post by peano on Nov 13, 2016 16:20:20 GMT
I believe the liberal/conservative divide actually arose out of youth movement of the late 1950s and 1960s and was tied to the civil rights movement and the anti-Viet Nam War movement.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 13, 2016 16:20:39 GMT
At what point did that happen? I've known them my entire adult life. I stopped using them as something derogatory 8 years ago almost exactly.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 13, 2016 16:22:10 GMT
I completely understand not being able to use the label, as I am also liberal in some ways, conservative in others. I know slings and arrows are always shot by pundits and commentators, but it *seems* to me that using these terms as pejoratives really accelerated with the rise in popularity of Rush Limbaugh and (yes, seriously here) Dr. Laura. It was the first time (to my knowledge) that ultra conservative people without a specific religious angle had major airwaves. I think there was then a natural backlash, and then the glut of social media set fire to it all. I'm sure there is more to it than that, and I by no means consider myself a political scholar. These are just observations from my own life. Rush Limbaugh is not ultra conservative. ETA - He does have a religious angle.
|
|
|
Post by anonrefugee on Nov 13, 2016 16:47:47 GMT
It's the new tribalism. As old affiliations have all but disappeared, this is one way we still have to differentiate "other." You have something there, know I'll be thinking about this further. Slightly off topic, but I've been reading this week about the breakdown between rural and metropolitan voters. I live in a suburb of a large city between the coasts. Although it's called "urban" it's still more like developed rural than a dense city like SF or NYC. The majority here voted Trump.
|
|
|
Post by **GypsyGirl** on Nov 13, 2016 16:58:20 GMT
It's the new tribalism. As old affiliations have all but disappeared, this is one way we still have to differentiate "other." I do agree that this is most likely a contributing factor. It is human nature to want to assimilate with other like you into a group. It's always been there and most likely always will be. What seems to have nearly disappeared is tolerance for other groups. For that, I give a large part of the blame to the media. They have so many outlets now, round the clock coverage and time to fill. It serves them well to have this discord and disconnect...more to stir up and more to report on. They live and die by the ratings and ad rates that go along with them. Save
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 13, 2016 17:06:35 GMT
"Liberal" was used as a bad word in my house all the years I was growing up (70s-80s). So was "feminist."
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Nov 13, 2016 17:13:51 GMT
"Liberal" was used as a bad word in my house all the years I was growing up (70s-80s). So was "feminist." Honestly, I think there are a lot of people who still consider 'feminist' a negative thing. There was a thread here a while ago about this and I was surprised at the number of people who supported the basic tenents of feminism but did not want to be associated with the word 'feminist.'
|
|
|
Post by betty on Nov 13, 2016 17:18:56 GMT
The rise of cable news could play a part in it. News used to be NEWS at 6pm and 11pm on TV delivered with facts not emotions..now it is 24-7 punditry with an us vs. them appeal. Even CNN has proven this cycle that it is just an extension of the DNC.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:27:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 17:21:15 GMT
I completely understand not being able to use the label, as I am also liberal in some ways, conservative in others. I know slings and arrows are always shot by pundits and commentators, but it *seems* to me that using these terms as pejoratives really accelerated with the rise in popularity of Rush Limbaugh and (yes, seriously here) Dr. Laura. It was the first time (to my knowledge) that ultra conservative people without a specific religious angle had major airwaves. I think there was then a natural backlash, and then the glut of social media set fire to it all. I'm sure there is more to it than that, and I by no means consider myself a political scholar. These are just observations from my own life. This. And compromise became a sign of capitulation and weenie-dom. Reap as you sow.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 13, 2016 17:31:21 GMT
It has happened as this country has become more divided. Maybe the country has gotten more divided because we feel that we have to fit into one of the categories? I also feel that i noticed a switch when Fox News and political shows started to be more popular. Social media has fueled that because of all of the memes and other "info" that pit one against the other.
|
|
|
Post by darkchami on Nov 13, 2016 18:04:39 GMT
I think as the extremist ends of both parties have grown, so has the animosity. Oddly, my 2 best friends and I are all over the political map. One of us is far right, one moderate, one far left. We've had some epic political arguments... until this election cycle. The dismal offering of candidates pulled us together in agreement.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Nov 13, 2016 18:13:26 GMT
It seems to me that any time we create labels to divide ourselves or define ourselves, those labels eventually wind up being used as insults or verbal weapons.
|
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,402
Jun 25, 2014 19:28:04 GMT
|
Post by RosieKat on Nov 13, 2016 18:24:08 GMT
Rush Limbaugh is not ultra conservative. ETA - He does have a religious angle. No, in fairness, he isn't. However, I feel like he was the first "big" conservative voice out there in common culture. And he (and Dr. Laura) both have religious angles - I expressed that poorly - my point was that it was someone conservative who was not speaking as The Voice of some particular church or religious organization. ETA - I know someone who heard him speak several years ago, and Rush apparently said in so many words that he didn't even believe half of what he said, it was just to appeal to people. I found that interesting.
|
|
|
Post by stefdesign on Nov 13, 2016 18:31:59 GMT
I think a lot of the divide is media driven/ fueled...and not just talk radio or Fox News, although that's a part. The internet plays a huge role. Everything from social media to blogs to internet news sites to message boards like this. The internet has allowed us to share and express our opinions, outrage and ignorance in unprecedented ways. In past times, we actually had to engage people in person, or write a letter to the editor. The internet, and to some degree, the news media has expanded and emboldened our political conversations. We can be anonymous, or nearly so. We can say hateful or hurtful things to others without fear of it ruining our relationships (although in many cases, it does, and has ruined friendships and family harmony). The fear of backlash has silenced many people too, leaving people of all persuasions feeling marginalized. But the collective cries of the mighty rain down on people of good will, and keep their voices silent. This works both ways!
Someone mentioned this starting back in the 50s and 60s with the civil unrest back then- I lived through those years and feel that was more issue driven rather than conservative vs liberal. For example, the Vietnam War. Young people who protested and were against the war, didn't care if politicians were liberal or conservative. LBJ was a Democrat and he was just as unpopular as Nixon, a Republican. I think it was more "establishment" vs antiestablishment. Personally, I find it believable that student radicals of the 60s might support Trump if he were running back then, because he's more the antiestablishment candidate than Hillary. (It goes without saying that their favorite candidate probably would have been Bernie, but I'm talking about the final 2)
|
|
|
Post by originalvanillabean on Nov 13, 2016 18:35:03 GMT
Quote: from **GypsyGirl** What seems to have nearly disappeared is tolerance for other groups. For that, I give a large part of the blame to the media. Agree 100%
|
|
|
Post by kibble on Nov 13, 2016 19:59:17 GMT
I completely understand not being able to use the label, as I am also liberal in some ways, conservative in others. I know slings and arrows are always shot by pundits and commentators, but it *seems* to me that using these terms as pejoratives really accelerated with the rise in popularity of Rush Limbaugh and (yes, seriously here) Dr. Laura. It was the first time (to my knowledge) that ultra conservative people without a specific religious angle had major airwaves. I think there was then a natural backlash, and then the glut of social media set fire to it all. I agree. I think some of the talk radio shows have really contributed. I remember my boss listening to Rush at work in the early 2000s and at the time I was kind of shocked how awful he was (but I will say from listening to him it pushed me more into the liberal side)
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Nov 13, 2016 20:46:23 GMT
If any of you are old enough to have been around during the Vietnam era, the tone of recent years, and especially recent days, reminds me a lot of that time, with both sides pulling farther apart on questions. People I know, and knew then, are lining up exactly as they did in the 70s. It's not new at all, and while it makes many of us uncomfortable, I think it's a healthy process in a free country for both ends to care enough to speak up.
With that said, I will add that I have long felt this board should have a separate politics (or non-politics) section. Every time I brought it up, I was told people can scroll on by. Now people from both sides are feeling upset because of comments made mostly on political threads.
I can't stand Rush Limbaugh, but I think he's the product of a right wing that has always been there, not the cause. Without a following he would be off the air. Same can be said for liberal commentators.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Nov 14, 2016 0:31:35 GMT
Rush Limbaugh is not ultra conservative. ETA - He does have a religious angle. No, in fairness, he isn't. However, I feel like he was the first "big" conservative voice out there in common culture. And he (and Dr. Laura) both have religious angles - I expressed that poorly - my point was that it was someone conservative who was not speaking as The Voice of some particular church or religious organization. ETA - I know someone who heard him speak several years ago, and Rush apparently said in so many words that he didn't even believe half of what he said, it was just to appeal to people. I found that interesting. Rush has extremely consistent beliefs. Other people, especially the media, quote him out of context constantly so that what they say he said isn't at all what he actually said. He decided to have fun with it. He can tell his audience... "Johnny is a star on an inner city all-black basketball team. His story is one of determination and he is a role model for us all." Then he might say - "You wait folks. Mark my words. The mass media is going to have a field day with this!" And that night, the next day, the story will be that "Rush Limbow called Johnny an inner-city black! This man has no shame! All inner-city kids are black or play basketball? All he sees are stereotypes. He's horrible! WHY IS HE STILL ON THE AIR?" A lot of times Rush will crank up the emphasis on what he knows will get taken out of context, and he will warn his audience, "Trust me. The media will take this story and this is how they are going to report it. It happens every time. So, I'm going to have a little fun with them." In the context of putting something in a format just to bait the media into blatantly exposing how biased they are, he words things in a way he probably wouldn't if he weren't running a for-profit radio show. So yeah, I could see how that would come down to saying something you don't believe while consistently making the point of what you do believe. He has an enormous audience. His formula works for him.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Nov 14, 2016 0:36:53 GMT
"Liberal" was used as a bad word in my house all the years I was growing up (70s-80s). So was "feminist." Honestly, I think there are a lot of people who still consider 'feminist' a negative thing. There was a thread here a while ago about this and I was surprised at the number of people who supported the basic tenents of feminism but did not want to be associated with the word 'feminist.' I've seen this too and it hurts my heart.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Nov 14, 2016 0:40:51 GMT
ETA - I know someone who heard him speak several years ago, and Rush apparently said in so many words that he didn't even believe half of what he said, it was just to appeal to people. I found that interesting. He and trump have that in common. They like stirring up the masses. It feels powerful to them. ETA: but the bottom line is it is profitable and makes money.
|
|
DEX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,355
Aug 9, 2014 23:13:22 GMT
|
Post by DEX on Nov 14, 2016 0:47:23 GMT
Honestly, I think there are a lot of people who still consider 'feminist' a negative thing. There was a thread here a while ago about this and I was surprised at the number of people who supported the basic tenents of feminism but did not want to be associated with the word 'feminist.' I've seen this too and it hurts my heart. A "like" doesn't adequately describe how my heart hurts too.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 14, 2016 1:40:06 GMT
It's the new tribalism. As old affiliations have all but disappeared, this is one way we still have to differentiate "other." I do agree that this is most likely a contributing factor. It is human nature to want to assimilate with other like you into a group. It's always been there and most likely always will be. What seems to have nearly disappeared is tolerance for other groups. For that, I give a large part of the blame to the media. They have so many outlets now, round the clock coverage and time to fill. It serves them well to have this discord and disconnect...more to stir up and more to report on. They live and die by the ratings and ad rates that go along with them. SaveTo me they were the ones that benefited the most from having such flawed candidates. I feel they pushed these two as they were the best for rating and to fill time. The other republican candidates were pretty boring compared to Trump. And the other democrats didn't have half of Hillary's baggage.
|
|