Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (85828)	8/20/2000 9:24:12 AM
From: Rick Julian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Not only are they buzzwords, they are mental boxes that define dogmatism and offer their occupants the pale illusion of group-think security. How people ever allow themselves to be reduced to the simplistic labels of "liberal", "conservative", "neoretroanarchist", or whatever is completely beyond me. There is no truth in groups of people. Not in churches or mosques, synagogues or cathedrals, support groups or bridge clubs, not in Elks Clubs or Fetish Clubs either, and it damn sure isn't found in political parties. Truth can only live in the individual, but without anyone to turn to for nodding approval, paternal handholding, or the script for "redemption", I doubt the process of finding one's solitary truth will ever become a popular pursuit. "In a world full of people, only some want to fly--isn't that crazy?"

To: Neocon who wrote (85828)	8/20/2000 10:50:17 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Neo, you did not answer my central question, to wit: So, which is it: are the liberals "inside" the consensus, or "outside" it? Otherwise put: how can you equate liberalism with extremism in one post, and in another define extremism as being outside a general liberal/conservative "consensus"? Now, for a few "new" points: I would bet I know more conservatives than you do, and read more conservative publications. I am making an empirical observation. By the same token, I could argue that I know more (self-described)liberals than you do, and read more (self-described) liberal publications. which would put me in a better position than you to make empirical observations about them. The key word here, which you left out, is self-described. You yourself noted the problems with self-description (although you didn't mention the special pitfall of self-congratulatory self-description). In theory, and in practice, for example, a reactionary can call himself/herself a conservative, while remaining a reactionary. And please note: you evidently accept self-described conservatives' self-congratulatory definitions of conservativism, as well as their generally derogatory definitions of liberalism. Hey -- turn about fair play! No, the buzzwords do NOT have "legitimate analytic meaning," at least, not in the hands of a partisan. More often than not, buzzwords serve only to obscure the real issues, rather than to illuminate them. Joan