Diagnosing Librulism

[BillyBobUSA]

Librulism is not what it was 40 years ago, but then again neither is conservatism. Todays conservative was 1950's liberal.

So why does anyone call todays librulism 'liberalism' and not 'globalist socialism'? The latter would seem more descriptive but no one uses that phrase, so I mispell it 'librulism' instead to differentiate librulism from historical liberalism. It's all I can do.

But as to why librulism is called 'liberalism' now, I think it is the demographic element at play. Todays libruls are the sons and daughter of the 1950s liberals, a very frightening thought if the pattern holds up, lol.

But deeper than that is the way that libruls think, which is an interesting process in that it mostly merely mimics thought.

See libruls are very literate people like conservatives, which is a good thing, but for libruls fiction is greater than reality.

What I mean by that is that a librul will read a novel and believe it to be true. They know it is made up, but they let the events of the book affect their sense of what the world is really like, instead of the contrived sequence of plot devices, contrived explanations and convenient coincidences that fiction is truly composed of. And since 'man bites dog' is far more interesting than its norm, after a while libruls start to accept subconsciously that the peculiar is the norm in real life. Ever know a librul to tell you that what they read in some novel is 'just like real life'? Of course its not or it would be a really boring novel. But for the librul, 'Les Miserables' is simply Truth on paper while the experiences of their fellow man are just nonsense, unless, of course the experience supports something they picked up in a novel somewhere. Real life can only be allowed to affirm their fiction, not dispell it.

This is really key to understanding libruls. Their reality is upside down because novelists use the unusual to depict their stories and keep the readers interests and libruls swallow it all whole. Criminals are most often innocent while cops are usually corrupt and abuse Haitians in locker rooms with batons daily. Prostitutes have hearts of gold while clergy are scumbags. Drug dealers are your friend while parents and any male significant others are the true threat to a persons health, safety and welfare. The government can be trusted to run your life better than you while the local businessmen are only theives looking to steal half your wages before you ever see them.

Up is down, down is up and inside is out in the mind of libruls.

That is why we need them to save us from....whatever, and they have to take absolute power over all our lives to do it.

Just makes you want to give them all a big warm hug, doesnt it?

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Quite a broad brush you paint with there.

[HumanNumber107T]

Librulism is not what it was 40 years ago, but then again neither is conservatism. Todays conservative was 1950's liberal.

So why does anyone call todays librulism 'liberalism' and not 'globalist socialism'? The latter would seem more descriptive but no one uses that phrase, so I mispell it 'librulism' instead to differentiate librulism from historical liberalism. It's all I can do.

But as to why librulism is called 'liberalism' now, I think it is the demographic element at play. Todays libruls are the sons and daughter of the 1950s liberals, a very frightening thought if the pattern holds up, lol.





But deeper than that is the way that libruls think, which is an interesting process in that it mostly merely mimics thought.

See libruls are very literate people like conservatives, which is a good thing, but for libruls fiction is greater than reality.

What I mean by that is that a librul will read a novel and believe it to be true. They know it is made up, but they let the events of the book affect their sense of what the world is really like, instead of the contrived sequence of plot devices, contrived explanations and convenient coincidences that fiction is truly composed of. And since 'man bites dog' is far more interesting than its norm, after a while libruls start to accept subconsciously that the peculiar is the norm in real life. Ever know a librul to tell you that what they read in some novel is 'just like real life'? Of course its not or it would be a really boring novel. But for the librul, 'Les Miserables' is simply Truth on paper while the experiences of their fellow man are just nonsense, unless, of course the experience supports something they picked up in a novel somewhere. Real life can only be allowed to affirm their fiction, not dispell it.

This is really key to understanding libruls. Their reality is upside down because novelists use the unusual to depict their stories and keep the readers interests and libruls swallow it all whole. Criminals are most often innocent while cops are usually corrupt and abuse Haitians in locker rooms with batons daily. Prostitutes have hearts of gold while clergy are scumbags. Drug dealers are your friend while parents and any male significant others are the true threat to a persons health, safety and welfare. The government can be trusted to run your life better than you while the local businessmen are only theives looking to steal half your wages before you ever see them.

Up is down, down is up and inside is out in the mind of libruls.

That is why we need them to save us from....whatever, and they have to take absolute power over all our lives to do it.

Just makes you want to give them all a big warm hug, doesnt it?


Sounds nothing like me and I am a liberal but it's good to finally see a reason, albeit a stupid one, for changing the spelling of the word liberal.

[King Cantona]

I'm a liberal and I believe in the rule of law whereas BillyBob has shown in previous posts that he doesn't believe in such an archaic notion...;)...

[USAF Medic]

I'm a liberal and I believe in the rule of law whereas BillyBob has shown in previous posts that he doesn't believe in such an archaic notion...;)...

The rule of law is good as long as you don't take into consideration that the law once allowed for slavery, discrimination, segregation, disenfranchisement etc.
Because something is law does not make it right or moral.

[Greyclouds]

The rule of law is good as long as you don't take into consideration that the law once allowed for slavery, discrimination, segregation, disenfranchisement etc.
Because something is law does not make it right or moral.

What does make something "right" or "moral?"


In regards to the thread's OP: could you just be misinterpreting a "liberal" tendency to see the world in shades of gray as being "the unusual?"

To further test this: do you believe that there are inherently good people and inherently evil people with no "in-betweens?"

[USAF Medic]

What does make something "right" or "moral?"


In regards to the thread's OP: could you just be misinterpreting a "liberal" tendency to see the world in shades of gray as being "the unusual?"

To further test this: do you believe that there are inherently good people and inherently evil people with no "in-betweens?"

No people are not "inherently" good.
If we where parents would not need to teach children right from wrong.
How many parents spent time teaching their child to lie or not to share? None hopefully.
But I'll bet almost every parent had to teach there child at one time or another that they need to be truthful or to share with the siblings etc.
We would not need thousands upon thousand of laws puting limits on what we can do if we where "inherently" good.

[Greyclouds]

No people are not "inherently" good.
If we where parents would not need to teach children right from wrong.
How many parents spent time teaching their child to lie or not to share? None hopefully.
But I'll bet almost every parent had to teach there child at one time or another that they need to be truthful or to share with the siblings etc.
We would not need thousands upon thousand of laws puting limits on what we can do if we where "inherently" good.

But can you classify people past their "formative" years as being either "good" or "evil?"

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Librulism is not what it was 40 years ago, but then again neither is conservatism. Todays conservative was 1950's liberal.

True statement: today's 'conservative' are nothing even close to what the conservatives were in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Heck, they are not even the same creatures as they were in the 80's with Regan. In today's very real world, the conservative is closer to a independent or libertarian then anything that would resemble a conservatives from past decades.

The conservative party imo, has lost it's voice. During these next four years, I have no doubt we will find a voice and be heard once again...bringing the country together in a more moderate and centrist umbrella on both sides of the political aisle. ;)


So why does anyone call todays librulism 'liberalism' and not 'globalist socialism'? The latter would seem more descriptive but no one uses that phrase, so I mispell it 'librulism' instead to differentiate librulism from historical liberalism. It's all I can do.

All I can say is that the word socialism brings a negative connotation to the people of this nations mind..where the word liberal is just another political ideology. Liberal Democrat denotes a political beliefs system that counters it's partner in Conservative Republican...where the word socialism denotes a loss of freedom, government taking control, sharing the wealth, loss of free market and capitalism. Are some liberal socialist within some of their beliefs? Yes, I believe there are. Are there extremes in both parties today? Yes..I believe there are. Are they the majority? No...I don't think so...not yet anyway.

But as to why librulism is called 'liberalism' now, I think it is the demographic element at play. Todays libruls are the sons and daughter of the 1950s liberals, a very frightening thought if the pattern holds up, lol.

But deeper than that is the way that libruls think, which is an interesting process in that it mostly merely mimics thought.

See libruls are very literate people like conservatives, which is a good thing, but for libruls fiction is greater than reality.

What I mean by that is that a librul will read a novel and believe it to be true. They know it is made up, but they let the events of the book affect their sense of what the world is really like, instead of the contrived sequence of plot devices, contrived explanations and convenient coincidences that fiction is truly composed of. And since 'man bites dog' is far more interesting than its norm, after a while libruls start to accept subconsciously that the peculiar is the norm in real life. Ever know a librul to tell you that what they read in some novel is 'just like real life'? Of course its not or it would be a really boring novel. But for the librul, 'Les Miserables' is simply Truth on paper while the experiences of their fellow man are just nonsense, unless, of course the experience supports something they picked up in a novel somewhere. Real life can only be allowed to affirm their fiction, not dispell it.

This is really key to understanding libruls. Their reality is upside down because novelists use the unusual to depict their stories and keep the readers interests and libruls swallow it all whole. Criminals are most often innocent while cops are usually corrupt and abuse Haitians in locker rooms with batons daily. Prostitutes have hearts of gold while clergy are scumbags. Drug dealers are your friend while parents and any male significant others are the true threat to a persons health, safety and welfare. The government can be trusted to run your life better than you while the local businessmen are only theives looking to steal half your wages before you ever see them.

Up is down, down is up and inside is out in the mind of libruls.

That is why we need them to save us from....whatever, and they have to take absolute power over all our lives to do it.

Just makes you want to give them all a big warm hug, doesnt it?

As for what someone reads...let's take your example of Les Miserables...the focus was on poverty and overt punishment over stealing a loaf of bread. In the minds of most people..regardless their political affiliation, to punish a person for stealing something to eat is offensive. Punish those who steal t.v's or cars during a century flood..but food? That gets most peoples heart strings pulled. To believe the actual story the author crafts to show injustice is not the focus..or shouldn't be the focus. The focus should be what made the scenerio plausible? Corrupt or inept government is the ultimate villain in any scenerio. That is what people read and react too..not the characters in the book as real or the situation as real within the context of the story. It's what I like to call the 'what if ' scenarios.

Do liberals react differently to what if scenarios then conservatives do? Yes...and that's the greater point. Ideologies over substance. Real verses imagined injustice. Knowing verses guessing.

Just my two cents though..

~Mysty

[Pudge]

I think it's time to stop using labels as perjorative attacks. Most people aren't conservative or liberal, but hold a variety of positions from both sides of the spectrum. Take me, for exampe:

I am against abortion. I am all for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I am for a limited federal government, a lighter tax burden, capitalism and the free market. Individual liberty is my guiding principle, that so long as what we do does not harm others or deprive them of life, liberty, or property by force or fraud, then such should not be illegal and government has no business sticking their faces into it.

Yet, that guiding principle of individual liberty sometimes puts me towards the left, as many of today's conservatives see it. I oppose the war on drugs, I oppose corporatism and media consolidation. I oppose the FCC's censorship of content. I support gay marriage (out of principle, not mere self-interest). I oppose the use (abuse) of ballot initiatives designed to deprive individuals of rights. I support the idea of the complete separation of church and state for the good of both institutions.

Only an ideologue would claim that anyone who isn't 100% on board is a 'librul', but the truth remains that most of us aren't all in one camp or another, and those who are must have a hell of a time reconciling the contradictions that must arise.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

I think it's time to stop using labels as perjorative attacks. Most people aren't conservative or liberal, but hold a variety of positions from both sides of the spectrum. Take me, for exampe:

I am against abortion. I am all for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I am for a limited federal government, a lighter tax burden, capitalism and the free market. Individual liberty is my guiding principle, that so long as what we do does not harm others or deprive them of life, liberty, or property by force or fraud, then such should not be illegal and government has no business sticking their faces into it.

Yet, that guiding principle of individual liberty sometimes puts me towards the left, as many of today's conservatives see it. I oppose the war on drugs, I oppose corporatism and media consolidation. I oppose the FCC's censorship of content. I support gay marriage (out of principle, not mere self-interest). I oppose the use (abuse) of ballot initiatives designed to deprive individuals of rights. I support the idea of the complete separation of church and state for the good of both institutions.

Only an ideologue would claim that anyone who isn't 100% on board is a 'librul', but the truth remains that most of us aren't all in one camp or another, and those who are must have a hell of a time reconciling the contradictions that must arise.

If my memory serves me correctly, the usage of the words moderate and centrist are used by many in the media when speaking about the majority of the nations populace. I happen to agree that the majority of people in this nation are middle of the road on any given topic we deal with today. But that doesn't sell air time or papers does it? So, the media focuses on the minority extremes in both parties.

Has America changed since our grandparents and parents days? yes..we have. I would like to believe our growth has been for the betterment of our country...and it's populace. However, not all our changes have been for the betterment...and promotes even more change and growth from it's people. Growth is not a bad endeavor...change is not a bad word..nor should it be. The media telling us what is good change and what is bad change..that's when we get into dark waters imo. The new administration telling us what is good change and what is bad change is also dangerous. :eh:

American's are, if nothing else, independent thinkers. We may not all agree on every subject..but that's the beauty of our nation, we don't have to.

When speaking on my freedoms being dismissed for the betterment of our country...that's when my hackles rise up. Government telling me what is and is not ok to hold as a belief or lifestyle...again, my spider senses begin to tingle...:eek:

Government works on my dime...not the other way around. We have become complacent in our views of our government. Like generations before us, we will have to stand together and get it back under our control so that permenent damage is not done in our so called behalf. ;)

~Mysty

[Pudge]

Well said.

Pundits on both sides like to demonize moderates and swing voters. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has said very unflattering things about those of us who don't hold true to the conservative line over the years- that we're basically wishy-washy (a mild term) and noncommittal. It never occurs to him and other ideologues that our principles as individuals guide what our stances are from issue to issue. Ideology is not a principle to me. I've never subscribed to prefabricated, packaged and shrink-wrapped ethos before and I don't plan to start now.

[XB70]

Sounds nothing like me and I am a liberal but it's good to finally see a reason, albeit a stupid one, for changing the spelling of the word liberal.


Does an insane person know they're insane?:rolleyes:

[Oddball]

No people are not "inherently" good.
If we where parents would not need to teach children right from wrong.
How many parents spent time teaching their child to lie or not to share? None hopefully.
But I'll bet almost every parent had to teach there child at one time or another that they need to be truthful or to share with the siblings etc.
We would not need thousands upon thousand of laws puting limits on what we can do if we where "inherently" good.
But what of those making the laws??

Does your generalization not apply to them, too??

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Does an insane person know they're insane?:rolleyes:

That's pretty damned rude.

[USAF Medic]

But can you classify people past their "formative" years as being either "good" or "evil?"

This is discussion for another thread.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

This is discussion for another thread.

You brought it up...

[USAF Medic]

Does an insane person know they're insane?:rolleyes:

Insane is a legal term not a psychiatric or clinical diagnosis.

[USAF Medic]

You brought it up...

I answered an unrelated question yes but decided not to continue to derail

[King Cantona]

Does an insane person know they're insane?:rolleyes:

I guess that you don't........;).........

[BillyBobUSA]

Quite a broad brush you paint with there.

Not really.

[BillyBobUSA]

Sounds nothing like me and I am a liberal but it's good to finally see a reason, albeit a stupid one, for changing the spelling of the word liberal.


I actually took the spelling from a librul who mispelled my earlier code for libruls which was 'libtard'.

Some objected to the mods so I changed it to libruls inhonor of the librul I mention above.

[BillyBobUSA]

I'm a liberal and I believe in the rule of law whereas BillyBob has shown in previous posts that he doesn't believe in such an archaic notion...;)...

lolol

I believe in the rule of law as long as it actually works.

Til then, if it feels good do it.

[BillyBobUSA]

True statement: today's 'conservative' are nothing even close to what the conservatives were in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Heck, they are not even the same creatures as they were in the 80's with Regan. In today's very real world, the conservative is closer to a independent or libertarian then anything that would resemble a conservatives from past decades.

The conservative party imo, has lost it's voice. During these next four years, I have no doubt we will find a voice and be heard once again...bringing the country together in a more moderate and centrist umbrella on both sides of the political aisle. ;)




All I can say is that the word socialism brings a negative connotation to the people of this nations mind..where the word liberal is just another political ideology. Liberal Democrat denotes a political beliefs system that counters it's partner in Conservative Republican...where the word socialism denotes a loss of freedom, government taking control, sharing the wealth, loss of free market and capitalism. Are some liberal socialist within some of their beliefs? Yes, I believe there are. Are there extremes in both parties today? Yes..I believe there are. Are they the majority? No...I don't think so...not yet anyway.



As for what someone reads...let's take your example of Les Miserables...the focus was on poverty and overt punishment over stealing a loaf of bread. In the minds of most people..regardless their political affiliation, to punish a person for stealing something to eat is offensive. Punish those who steal t.v's or cars during a century flood..but food? That gets most peoples heart strings pulled. To believe the actual story the author crafts to show injustice is not the focus..or shouldn't be the focus. The focus should be what made the scenerio plausible? Corrupt or inept government is the ultimate villain in any scenerio. That is what people read and react too..not the characters in the book as real or the situation as real within the context of the story. It's what I like to call the 'what if ' scenarios.

Do liberals react differently to what if scenarios then conservatives do? Yes...and that's the greater point. Ideologies over substance. Real verses imagined injustice. Knowing verses guessing.

Just my two cents though..

~Mysty


Excellent post and you actually address my main point regarding how libruls look at fiction almost as though it held some 'truth' to it instead of it being merely contrived.

You are obviously a more reflective person that the majority who have resonded so far, but I wish I could give you a more flattering comparison!

[BillyBobUSA]

Does an insane person know they're insane?:rolleyes:


Usually not, especially the milder cases where the insane person can function failry well in society.

:lol:

[BillyBobUSA]

I think it's time to stop using labels as perjorative attacks. Most people aren't conservative or liberal, but hold a variety of positions from both sides of the spectrum. Take me, for exampe:

I am against abortion. I am all for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I am for a limited federal government, a lighter tax burden, capitalism and the free market. Individual liberty is my guiding principle, that so long as what we do does not harm others or deprive them of life, liberty, or property by force or fraud, then such should not be illegal and government has no business sticking their faces into it.

Yet, that guiding principle of individual liberty sometimes puts me towards the left, as many of today's conservatives see it. I oppose the war on drugs, I oppose corporatism and media consolidation. I oppose the FCC's censorship of content. I support gay marriage (out of principle, not mere self-interest). I oppose the use (abuse) of ballot initiatives designed to deprive individuals of rights. I support the idea of the complete separation of church and state for the good of both institutions.

Only an ideologue would claim that anyone who isn't 100% on board is a 'librul', but the truth remains that most of us aren't all in one camp or another, and those who are must have a hell of a time reconciling the contradictions that must arise.

Damn, another good post!

I am starting to feel misoriented.

I am mostly conservative, but I qualify that because conservatism has changed so much.

I really liked Truman, and Reagan was really good too.

But somewhere we went overboard with the state solutions to everything and now we are kind of caught between the neocon "he-who-dies-with-the-most-toys-wins" and the neosocialist libruls.

As long as people can fight for the middle we can keep things together well but the media doesnt sell advertising because they ahve reasonable guests, but instead controvercial, ugly and incindiary ones.

[Pudge]

Damn, another good post!

I am starting to feel misoriented.

I am mostly conservative, but I qualify that because conservatism has changed so much.

I really liked Truman, and Reagan was really good too.

But somewhere we went overboard with the state solutions to everything and now we are kind of caught between the neocon "he-who-dies-with-the-most-toys-wins" and the neosocialist libruls.

As long as people can fight for the middle we can keep things together well but the media doesnt sell advertising because they ahve reasonable guests, but instead controvercial, ugly and incindiary ones.

It happens, Billy. There are times when I still feel misoriented and I have to just look at my core values and principles to form the basis of my beliefs. Sometimes issues aren't so black and white.

I, too, identify mostly with conservatism, but I also think that conservatives today allow their principles to be hijacked by corporate statists who don't want a truly free market, religious statists who don't truly want a free exchange or coexistence of ideas religious or secular, and imperial statists who mask their desire to dominate other people culturally, economically, or militarily and mask it with patriotism. We have to be careful that when we speak of liberty, justice, and freedom that we mean it for everyone, not just the few elect who have money, power, and influence. Being for individual rights doesn't mean you tolerate someone else infringing on the rights of others because the infringer claims it's their right to do so.

That being said, I don't mind if someone says I have a liberal (or 'librul') position on an issue, but I do bristle a bit when I am defined with such broad terms whose meanings have changed many times over the years. And these labels are too often used as insults and said with a sneer. One of my favorite conservative hosts- Andrew Wilkow (who I agree with about 75% of the time) says it in his greeting every day- he says he's an individual patriot first, conservative second, Republican third. I like how he phrases that, it makes sense to me even though I wouldn't use the second or third quantifications.

[BillyBobUSA]

It happens, Billy. There are times when I still feel misoriented and I have to just look at my core values and principles to form the basis of my beliefs. Sometimes issues aren't so black and white.

Almost always arent black and white.

But its the black and white ones that people seem to argue about the most, lol.


I, too, identify mostly with conservatism, but I also think that conservatives today allow their principles to be hijacked by corporate statists who don't want a truly free market, religious statists who don't truly want a free exchange or coexistence of ideas religious or secular, and imperial statists who mask their desire to dominate other people culturally, economically, or militarily and mask it with patriotism. We have to be careful that when we speak of liberty, justice, and freedom that we mean it for everyone, not just the few elect who have money, power, and influence. Being for individual rights doesn't mean you tolerate someone else infringing on the rights of others because the infringer claims it's their right to do so.

I agree with most of this too.

There have to be some limits to what some people think are their rights. An arsonist does not have the right to set fire to a house even if it is his own house as the fire could spread. A prostitute cant sell her body indiscriminately because she may cause dangerous diseases to spread, and almost always do.

But yes, I think a minarchist philosophy the best to follow, and at times in the past laws were passed to enforce what should have been left to social censure.


That being said, I don't mind if someone says I have a liberal (or 'librul') position on an issue, but I do bristle a bit when I am defined with such broad terms whose meanings have changed many times over the years. And these labels are too often used as insults and said with a sneer. One of my favorite conservative hosts- Andrew Wilkow (who I agree with about 75% of the time) says it in his greeting every day- he says he's an individual patriot first, conservative second, Republican third. I like how he phrases that, it makes sense to me even though I wouldn't use the second or third quantifications.

I like that too, except I would say I am 1 Christian, 2 American, 3 moderate libertarian 4 a Dallas Cowboy fan (Yay TO is gone!)

[Techgod]

I sure am glad no one ever believed those stupid scifi books.

Nuclear Subs? Space craft? I once read 30 years ago about how we would have these "Nets" where any fool from anywhere in the world could discuss politics and spout their opinion on everyone else.

Crazy!

[King Cantona]

Til then, if it feels good do it.

Lots of illegal things feel good you know...

But not that many that I subscribe to, I'm a bit boring really BillyBob....

[Pudge]

Why is 'if it feels good, do it' a bad thing?

Never understood the mindset of people who think that denying yourself something fun or pleasureable is somehow noble and good.

Of course, if what feels good to you involves harming someone else or depriving them of life, liberty, or property by force or fraud, then of course, 'doing it' anyway is wrong, but in cases where there's no such harm to anyone else, I don't see where it's anyone's business if someone's doing what makes them feel good.

Self-denial and self-flagellation are completely alien to me.

[Greyclouds]

I answered an unrelated question yes but decided not to continue to derail

Fair enough.

How do you determine fiction from reality in both political mindsets then? Surely there is a conservative mythos in addition to a liberal mythos? Or can we not broad brush like the OP just did?