uh oh... she's thinking again...
there's this thought that's been formulating in my head for quite some time that i want to get down in writing... (and to find some form of validation or to receive some suggestions for improvement/constructive criticism *emphasis on constructive*)
i've been thinking about politics a lot, mostly b/c argumentation class has forced me to (i promise i would never actually do it on my own!), and i wonder about the definition of the word "liberal"
my good friend dictionary.com tells us liberal means:
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
(these, of course, leave out the meaning of liberal relating to "generous" such as a "liberal portion of lasagna" or something like that)
what bothers me the most about using the word "liberal" is phrases like "free from bigotry" and "broad-minded"
some of the "liberalness" i see here at wash u is, well, hypocricy. (1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness or 2. An act or instance of such falseness)
let me give you an example:
last semester's Student-Worker Alliance protest consisted of a group of self-proclaimed liberals marching on the admissions building, demanding living wages for the employees of our campus. however, many of them were mean, aggressive, and outright obnoxious to anyone they THOUGHT might not follow their cause. i saw a classmate verbally assault another of my classmates for not wanting to take one of the orange armbands they were passing around. this uninterested classmate was "an elitist" or "an upper-middle class conformist" for not wanting an armband!! the aggressor was telling him outright that he was evil and the embodiment of everything that is wrong with our society. she was Right and he was Wrong. flat out, that's what her argument was.
now tell me, how is stomping on someone's views considered liberal?? shouldn't a liberal be "broad-minded" when it comes to this? shouldn't they accept that there are multiple views out there? doesnt the very idea of "liberal" mean to being open to multiple ideas?
but to flat out refuse to believe in someone else's opinions AND TO INSULT THEM FOR HAVING THOSE OPINIONS seems wrong, too. that's not being open to multiple ideas. it's being open to YOUR ideas. being open to YOUR opinions. and, being open to the opinions of those who believe exactly like you do.
therefore, i think it is hypocritical to call oneself a liberal when one acts in such a manner. especially when the term is defined as "tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others" or "free from bigotry." my example showed neither of the above. so perhaps i'm using the wrong definition of liberal? or are these people really just not practicing what they say they preach?
i'm not saying that all SWA protesters were hypocritical, nor, do i intend to use this one example to staple the term "hypocrite" onto everyone who considers themself a liberal. i'm taking a thought and applying it to a certain category of liberals... the ones who are "so liberal" that they are closeminded to the thoughts and beliefs of everyone who doesnt follow THEIR thoughts and beliefs. it's a small population of the US that i'm refering to, but a disproportionately large part of the population here at wash u (and perhaps many other colleges).
and it frustrates me. mostly because i have multiple examples of behavior like this... (many of them i hesitate to state because i dont want to get in trouble again for using specific examples)
i want people to have beliefs. i want people to feel they have a right to express their opinions. i even want people to discuss these beliefs and opinions to get a greater understanding of what others are thinking. but when those discussions turn into arguments, when they lead to the mockery of others, when they create harsh feelings or resentment towards others, and when they scorn the RIGHT to believe in others' rights to believe, i feel they have gone too far.
bring on the comments.
i've been thinking about politics a lot, mostly b/c argumentation class has forced me to (i promise i would never actually do it on my own!), and i wonder about the definition of the word "liberal"
my good friend dictionary.com tells us liberal means:
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
(these, of course, leave out the meaning of liberal relating to "generous" such as a "liberal portion of lasagna" or something like that)
what bothers me the most about using the word "liberal" is phrases like "free from bigotry" and "broad-minded"
some of the "liberalness" i see here at wash u is, well, hypocricy. (1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness or 2. An act or instance of such falseness)
let me give you an example:
last semester's Student-Worker Alliance protest consisted of a group of self-proclaimed liberals marching on the admissions building, demanding living wages for the employees of our campus. however, many of them were mean, aggressive, and outright obnoxious to anyone they THOUGHT might not follow their cause. i saw a classmate verbally assault another of my classmates for not wanting to take one of the orange armbands they were passing around. this uninterested classmate was "an elitist" or "an upper-middle class conformist" for not wanting an armband!! the aggressor was telling him outright that he was evil and the embodiment of everything that is wrong with our society. she was Right and he was Wrong. flat out, that's what her argument was.
now tell me, how is stomping on someone's views considered liberal?? shouldn't a liberal be "broad-minded" when it comes to this? shouldn't they accept that there are multiple views out there? doesnt the very idea of "liberal" mean to being open to multiple ideas?
but to flat out refuse to believe in someone else's opinions AND TO INSULT THEM FOR HAVING THOSE OPINIONS seems wrong, too. that's not being open to multiple ideas. it's being open to YOUR ideas. being open to YOUR opinions. and, being open to the opinions of those who believe exactly like you do.
therefore, i think it is hypocritical to call oneself a liberal when one acts in such a manner. especially when the term is defined as "tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others" or "free from bigotry." my example showed neither of the above. so perhaps i'm using the wrong definition of liberal? or are these people really just not practicing what they say they preach?
i'm not saying that all SWA protesters were hypocritical, nor, do i intend to use this one example to staple the term "hypocrite" onto everyone who considers themself a liberal. i'm taking a thought and applying it to a certain category of liberals... the ones who are "so liberal" that they are closeminded to the thoughts and beliefs of everyone who doesnt follow THEIR thoughts and beliefs. it's a small population of the US that i'm refering to, but a disproportionately large part of the population here at wash u (and perhaps many other colleges).
and it frustrates me. mostly because i have multiple examples of behavior like this... (many of them i hesitate to state because i dont want to get in trouble again for using specific examples)
i want people to have beliefs. i want people to feel they have a right to express their opinions. i even want people to discuss these beliefs and opinions to get a greater understanding of what others are thinking. but when those discussions turn into arguments, when they lead to the mockery of others, when they create harsh feelings or resentment towards others, and when they scorn the RIGHT to believe in others' rights to believe, i feel they have gone too far.
bring on the comments.