>>> Nevertheless, please accept my apology, and I'll avoid personal comments if you will. :)
I will give it a try. However, please note that to liberals or even to moderates, deliberately confusing liberalism and socialism, as in 'United Soviet Socialist Republics", is not just an insult. It goes beyond that.
If you wish to explain that by socialism you meant the Kibbutz, or perhaps Sweden of France, I would certainly be glad to hear your argument, though American liberals are far to the right of the French or the Swedes on average.
To original bill-of-rights conservatives, confusing them with the minions of big business and the religious bigots controlling the Republican party today is also an insult. Thus the Libertarian party and Perot's party have had some success, being closer (somewhat) to original principles. This has nothing to do with bringing back the past, but may in some aspects have to do with not throwing out the baby with the bath water. E.g. original conservatives were often conservationists (i.e. environmentalists of their day.) In that sense real environmentalists are actually original conservatives, not liberals.
If you refuse to stop defining someone else in a way that they reject, you can expect feedback, in my experience.
One should I think, allow the sly riposte or the truly clever insult, but it should be responded to in kind. That reflects intelligence and an ability at discourse. Responding to a well-constructed jibe with a direct personal ad hominem attack is inappropriate and unclever.
Other than that, civility has my vote.
Cheers,
Chaz
|
