Liberals Show Their Value Of Other's Values

I can see no connection whatsoever between living in a society with a national health service free at the point of use and an obligation to be defined as a socialist.

Can you clarify what you mean?

Re 16

They’re not the sole province of lefties. My concern is drawing attention to the influence of State control.

Absolutely. I was meaning, rather more simply, that ‘libertarian’ is a homophone of liberal, and perhaps somebody could read one as the other.

You’re too literally minded. My statement that I’m a ‘committed socialist’ should be read not only with swivelling eyes but also in the light of the words that followed…

My apologies; I was misled by your subtlety. (Never thought I’d utter those words!)

Of course, you are a ‘socialist’, if not a ‘Socialist’, because we all are (at least in the United Kingdom) aren’t we?

No political party is electable in this country unless it maintains the NHS and the Welfare State; that is a fact! I’m about as far as it’s possible to get (in this country) from being a ‘Socialist’ and still be a serious person, but I regard myself as a ‘socialist’ and would never regard the word as a term of abuse…

…but the word can have some odd connotations! ‘National Socialist’ for example!

…the metropolitan capitalist elite who think they are entitled to everything…

NNNEEEH! (Sound of buzzer!)

Objection: use of blatant stereotyping when accusing another of stereotype bias! 🙂

Well it certainly does. I always thought it meant a term of comtempt. Y’know like ‘socialist’ or ‘environmentalist’

“…..metropolitan liberal elite….” Meaning the Marxist/Labourite mob that live in either Islington or Hampstead and think that they are entitled to everything !

I take it then the metropolitan capitalist elite who think they are entitled to everything are the OK guys?

I don’t know how you come to acquire such a blinkered outlook, like it or not there are good points to be found from people from all walks of life and political persuasions.

Re 16

They’re not the sole province of lefties. My concern is drawing attention to the influence of State control.

CD

You’re too literally minded. My statement that I’m a ‘committed socialist’ should be read not only with swivelling eyes but also in the light of the words that followed.

If, after that, you’re in any doubt ask Charlie ! He, if he has a mind, will explain all about sarcasm.

Me? A socialist? I laughed so much my socks fell off.

I have it on very good authority!

I support Nigel as do a few million others.

As most of you are aware, in addition to the above I am also a committed socialist. Yes, all right I agree, it hasn’t always been that obvious…

Not even to yourself, apparently! 🙂

Perhaps the mix up here is that you sometimes espouse libertarian views? Or say nice things about the NHS?

CD

Me? A socialist ? I laughed so much my socks fell off.

Well it certainly does. I always thought it meant a term of comtempt. Y’know like ‘socialist’ or ‘environmentalist’…

And yet you call yourself a ‘socialist’!

Never thought of ‘liberal’ as a term of abuse myself (in the United Kingdom anyway).

In the United States ‘liberal’ probably equates closest to our ‘socialist’, and, of course, ‘socialist’ in the United States may as well mean ‘communist’! 🙂

…slacktivists…

Nice…..my new favourite word! 🙂

Using the term ‘liberal’ as a pejorative only works if you can guarantee your target audience have the same world view as yourself. I think it is thrown around a lot more by Americans than the British, though I’m sure that will change (we’ve already imported Black Friday and Trick-or-treat after all). I trust the original poster intends the word to conjur up an image of the dreadlock’d idealogue aged somewhere from 18 – 25 who has ‘never done an honest day’s work’ ad nauseum…

I think the original poster means anybody who supports President Obama, universal healthcare, gun-control…

…so, does that mean Democrats?

Those in the United States that hate (and fear) ‘Liberals’, or should that be fear (and hate) ‘Liberals’, always seem to use somewhat confusing terminology to me; they seem to fear Liberal ‘oppression’ and that always sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. That’s why I don’t think the term translates well across the Atlantic!

Plant trees and hand out free condoms – that’ll cure practically everything. Nature will deal with the rest.

Hi All,
I would say the main object of the Greenpeace exercise has been achieved they have brought attention for all to talk about the ever growing abuse of living in a fragile home but I would ask:- Aren’t the environmentalists on a losing battle ? Even if they won with a complete victory as far as the human race is concerned and we had a better way of disposing of our waste just as an example, the world would still suffer the natural effects that will ultimately change our environment completely around us and we cannot do anything about that, yes the human race has been very naughty but while we have added to the problems of the earths natural environment forever changing we are not completely to blame as the cause for this mess we are in we are just not very good at keeping our home clean that’s all ! 🙂

Goff.

Two points. A whole range of public concerns can actually have an environmental factor floating in the background that is not always obvious. To give a fairly obscure example, the rate of petty crime is influenced by the weather. To use your example, the vectors of the malaria protozoa will change behaviour in accordance to a changing climate. An environmentalist would be interested in this as, if for no other reason, you could begin to model the spread of malaria against other factors and better treat the spread of it. That is a study of the environment in its truest form. I agree that this isn’t a scientific discipline as it covers too broad an area and too disparate a range of topics. You wouldn’t invite a deep ecologist along to meetings setting out the restoration of habitat around the HS2 project; everybody should walk more, they would smirk.

Secondly, I don’t agree that environmentalism isn’t taken seriously ‘for the most part’. It is perhaps roundly rejected by those that grew up and were educated prior to any real understanding of environmental impacts or the effects of pollution, but as time passes these people are becoming a pleasingly small minority. Environmentalism is further rejected by those that see it as little more than a pesky threat to their profit margin. Rather like nimbyism, these individuals have a core belief (you can’t tax me any more, you can’t put that wind turbine up here, etc) and then try and stud in the science afterwards. On the other hand you only have to notice the cynical employment of ‘greenwash’, that has encouraged manufacturers to use ‘Eco’ as a prefix on nearly everything, to see that producers of goods or services can use shaky green credentials to their advantage in the market. People cannot ignore that.

The problem about “environmentalism” is its meaning. I have no doubt that a majority of people are interested in the environment which they inhabit and which impacts on their lives. But what does all that actually mean? We lose thousands of species of creatures every year but gain new ones. How much does that matter? The population is affected by pollution, but there is a myriad of statistics on the damage it causes, many contradictory. People also suffer from influenza and malaria which kill millions. No confusing statistics there.

Environmentalism has become a “cause”, rather than a scientific discipline so it suffers from indiscipline and a distinct lack of rigour about its terms of reference and its aims. And attracting just the sort of individuals as you have described hardly enhances its credentials to be taken seriously. Which, for the most part, it isn’t.

I was never under the impression that ‘environmentalist’ was a term of contempt. I think there are those within the environmentalist sphere that are worthy of contempt, but to tar the whole movement is about as illogical as suggesting all engineers are worthy of contempt. Using the term ‘liberal’ as a pejorative only works if you can guarantee your target audience have the same world view as yourself. I think it is thrown around a lot more by Americans than the British, though I’m sure that will change (we’ve already imported Black Friday and Trick-or-treat after all). I trust the original poster intends the word to conjur up an image of the dreadlock’d idealogue aged somewhere from 18 – 25 who has ‘never done an honest day’s work’ ad nauseum.

As I said before, I wouldn’t class Greenpeace as real environmentalists as their crass PR tactics far outweigh their contribution to the dull and dirty end of environmentalism; setting emissions targets, programming habitat creation or restoration, informing policy making decisions etc. Environmentalism is actually fairly boring when you get into it, and everything takes a while to get ratified, passed, monitored etc. If you study it academically, as I did, you either end up pigeonholed into a small subject area or you go into another discipline and work from there, which is what I did. The Greenpeace chuggers in the street, and the slacktivists that tracked footprints over the Nazca lines, probably wouldn’t know a Ramsar site from a SSSI. However their insidious game is to go for the absolutes; oh, you don’t care about the environment? You hate this planet then? Interestingly, the last time I saw a Greenpeace chugger on Princes street I was reliably informed by my girlfriend that said individual had been a stripper in a fairly sleazy cabaret bar until recently and had no environmental, earth science or ecological credentials. Make of that what you will.

Well it certainly does. I always thought it meant a term of comtempt. Y’know like ‘socialist’ or ‘environmentalist’

“…..metropolitan liberal elite….” Meaning the Marxist/Labourite mob that live in either Islington or Hampstead and think that they are entitled to everything !

Are Greenpeace now officially ‘Liberals’ then…

…to be heaped with all the other enemies of your particular ideology?

I only ask because the term (of abuse) ‘Liberals’ doesn’t translate well on this side of the Atlantic.