Commies, now that is a good old word.  Synonym and adjective = pinko.  As
in, pinko commie.  Language straight out of All in the Family.

 

Chris

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David R. Block
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RC] Thoughts on this tenet? *

 

Never have liked the Commies. Particularly since they got "smart" and
started naming things with the word "Democratic" in there, like German
Democratic Republic, when it was everything BUT Democratic. Notorious word
thieves, those Commies. 

David
 

"A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his
own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of
the individual and cannot really know freedom."-Fredrich August von Hayek 

 


On 1/11/2012 12:33 AM, [email protected] wrote: 

 

Yeah.  About  the word "liberal," that is kind of hard to completely
demonize since

there are the Liberal Arts   --and in common speech, not questions of
politics,

about various things someone can be more liberal or more conservative,

maybe about tastes in clothes or attitude toward modern art, etc, so you

are right about that. Still "liberal" often is used as a cuss word by the
Right

and when it is so used the Left seems to have conceded.

 

"Socialist" is another matter and precisely because of the old USSR.

But in my case, and a lot of other vintage Democratic Socialists of yore,

we would have loved to have driven Saabs or Volvos if we could have

afforded to do so, we always were angry at the Commies for stealing

the word Socialist since they weren't Socialists at all, they were
Stalinists

or Marxist-Leninist Bolsheviks, or etc. 

 

Those years are long gone but I have never forgiven the Commies for

their word theft and still fight that fight.  Especially since the concept
and

the word predate Marx by a good 25 years and the original "Socialists" 

include one of my heroes, Saint-Simon. 

 

Don't fret about now knowing too much about him, hell, most historians don't

know jack squat about him either. 

 

Humor me , OK ?  I'll return the favor some day when you need it most.

 

Muchos Gracias,

 

Guillermo    <http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/2b00000227/13>     

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

1/10/2012 10:18:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Covered Socialist and Liberal elsewhere. Hope you find that. 

I don't like losing words either, but we don't want anyone to think that TR
is one of today's progressives. 

David 

"A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his
own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of
the individual and cannot really know freedom."-Fredrich August von Hayek 

 


On 1/10/2012 11:16 PM, [email protected] wrote: 

1/10/2012 9:00:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

You don't like language "corruption." Fine. Then what are we to do with the
KJV in which Paul's vision has Jesus telling him "it is hard for thee to
kicketh against the pricks." Does anyone today know what that means? Without
an Old English dictionary, I doubt it. Throw out the KJV? The Fighting
Fundies are going to be after you! :-) 

Actually this is anything but a problem for me. Most of the time I read the
NEB, sometimes

the New Jerusalem or Oxford. These are the best scholarly translations, and
they are

well done, at least the editions before about 1985 or so.  The KJV is
strictly

for language as far as I am concerned. It is like Shakespeare. Simply
inspirational.

Otherwise I read the 3 translations, usually the NEB, well over 98 % of the
time.



Take back the language? Great idea, how is that done? We didn't quite get
here overnight. We aren't going back overnight. 

 

We are now on the verge of losing two perfectly good words to the Right,
"Socialism"

and "Liberal."  I feel like fighting to save those words also. On grounds of
historical 

meaning and cultural relevance. But now it is the Left that has pretty much
given up

on the fight.  If that's what they want to do, OK, I am anti-today's-Left
anyway.

But the classical US Left of the era 1900 - 1930 I feel like fighting for.
Today's Left

hates that Left and regards those people as backward and unenlightened.

 

Being an historian means that some issues that draw blank stares from most
people

are burning issues to me  --and to many members of the AHA ( American
Historical

Association ). 

 

But you're right, " We didn't quite get here overnight. We aren't going back
overnight."

That is absolutely correct. 

 

Its like SMU, no football program for decades, and now they're baaaack.

 

Things like that can happen if you work at it.

 

Billy

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--



David

"A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his
own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of
the individual and cannot really know freedom."-Fredrich August von Hayek 

 


On 1/10/2012 11:37 AM, [email protected] wrote: 

Hrummmmph.

 

There are advantages to the word "progressivism." If we are serious about

assuming the mantle of Teddy Roosevelt then we need to find some way

to work with the word and, in the process,  break the identification the
term

now has with  ( the sad excuse for ) today's Left. 

 

That is, partly what we have going-on  is a word war, or "War of the Words."

Creatures from Mars arrive in UFOs to teach us how to use language better

and  to provide Earthlings with better conceptual and communications skills.

 

We are those creatures from Mars.

 

Little Green Radical Centrists.

 

So, let's not surrender any "heritage vocabulary." It can only be a fight

but let's, win back all the good words that others have tried to appropriate

for nefarious purposes.

 

If you were an historian you might well be sensitive to this. Read texts
written

in previous decades ( historians read history just about every day ) and
that may 

make absurd sense if we define words in them in modern-day ways. 

 

"Don we now our gay apparel," the Christmas carol ( one of about 20 with
this problem ) 

sounds bizarre now. Solution,  fight to discredit homosexual use of "gay."
Similarly, 

in the era of the Korean war, the USAF referred to Mig jets as "fagots"  

( can be spelled with one or two Gs ). 

 

Republicans like to demonize "liberal" and socialist."  Why should we accept

such word poisoning ?  Both words have entirely good and noble meanings.

 

All of this said,  I also like your list of alternatives, evolutionary
centrism,

activist centrism, scientific centrism, etc, each of which can be used

in the right context to very goof effect.

 

 

Billy

 

===============================================

 

1/10/2012 9:16:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

 

On Jan 10, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Chris Hahn wrote:

a rational progressivism that supports testable change to improve the lot of
the entire populace, rather than the traditional American progressivism
which moves toward some moralistic utopia.

I like your concepts, but I don't like the word progressivism.  It will be
too easily be confused with American progressivism which already has a
meaning.  Instead of rational progressivism, how about "rational
improvement" or "rational evolvement"?

 

I'm with Chris; great insight, but potentially confusing terminology.

 

How about:

 

- scientific centrism

 

- progressive centrism (adjective instead of noun)

 

- progressive design

 

- evolutionary centrism

 

- activist centrism

 

- improvisationalism

 

Not quite there yet, but worth working on.  As usual, I prefer a name that
is oxymoronic and paradoxical in order to inspire cognitive dissonance. A
good test would be whether it infuriates Solomon. :-)

 

-- Ernie P.

 





 

Chris

 

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Gonzalez
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:32 AM
To: radicalcentrism
Subject: [RC] Thoughts on this tenet?

 

I want to home-in on this particular tenet and get to the heart of the point
(tempered optimism + our brand of centrism = rational progressivism):

When pessimism infects centrism, it becomes angry populism. When apathy
blends with centrism, it creates the traditional view of the lazy, valueless
independent. What is needed, instead, is a tempered positivity in scientific
centrism, channeling the best aspects of an ideology that believes in the
application of workable solutions in individual, piecemeal fashion to civil
society. Consequently, a rejection of pessimism and apathy in favor of sober
belief in a society's ability to improve itself is an essential aspect of
centrism. The result of this is a rational progressivism that supports
testable change to improve the lot of the entire populace, rather than the
traditional American progressivism which moves toward some moralistic
utopia.

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
<http://radicalcentrism.org/> 

 

 

-- 

 

 

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to