Conservatives on crack

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-26 01:38pm

SirNitram wrote:So because marketing companies don't know what 'turbo' means, we should throw away the relatively wide-known definition of 'neo' for the benefit of a few people who don't like what a name means in plain English?

Uh, what?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-26 01:39pm

aronkerkhof wrote:
SirNitram wrote:So because marketing companies don't know what 'turbo' means, we should throw away the relatively wide-known definition of 'neo' for the benefit of a few people who don't like what a name means in plain English?
Uh, what?

"Things are far worse in the art world. Its ironic that you correct me in usage of the rice-boy definition (or really, the marketing definition, as there has been turbo cleaning power in detergents long before guys started modding their civics) of turbo in favor of the correct one, as that's what Durran Korr did with neocon to start this thing off. "

Marketing misuses Turbo, so it's fine to misuse Neo blatantly?

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-26 01:51pm

SirNitram wrote: "Things are far worse in the art world. Its ironic that you correct me in usage of the rice-boy definition (or really, the marketing definition, as there has been turbo cleaning power in detergents long before guys started modding their civics) of turbo in favor of the correct one, as that's what Durran Korr did with neocon to start this thing off. "

Marketing misuses Turbo, so it's fine to misuse Neo blatantly?

No. Neoconservative describes the foreign policy of intervention that some liberals held immediately prior to the second world war. Because they were liberal except for this view, they were termed "neoconservatives" as it indeed represented a new type of conservative thought. See, it isn't a misuse of the term, unlike turbo, which was my point, and why I found it ironic. T

So, what happens in a hundred years when people read about 1930's and 1940's era neoconservatives? They're going to assume they were far-right social and fiscal conservatives, even though this was not the case at all. My point is that this label has *already* been used to describe something new that happened fifty, sixty years ago. For present and future clarity, it would be far better to use a new label, such as ultraconservative. Again, if you think I'm just making this up, a quick trip to google should set you straight.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-26 01:56pm

aronkerkhof wrote:
SirNitram wrote: "Things are far worse in the art world. Its ironic that you correct me in usage of the rice-boy definition (or really, the marketing definition, as there has been turbo cleaning power in detergents long before guys started modding their civics) of turbo in favor of the correct one, as that's what Durran Korr did with neocon to start this thing off. "

Marketing misuses Turbo, so it's fine to misuse Neo blatantly?
No. Neoconservative describes the foreign policy of intervention that some liberals held immediately prior to the second world war. Because they were liberal except for this view, they were termed "neoconservatives" as it indeed represented a new type of conservative thought. See, it isn't a misuse of the term, unlike turbo, which was my point, and why I found it ironic.

I see. Well, it's nice to know where it came from.

So, what happens in a hundred years when people read about 1930's and 1940's era neoconservatives? They're going to assume they were far-right social and fiscal conservatives, even though this was not the case at all. My point is that this label has *already* been used to describe something new that happened fifty, sixty years ago. For present and future clarity, it would be far better to use a new label, such as ultraconservative. Again, if you think I'm just making this up, a quick trip to google should set you straight.

Yet more proof those who hand out these labels are a little egged in the head, not thinking clearly. Alright, thank you for clarifying where that came from.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-26 02:00pm

aronkerkhof wrote:No. Neoconservative describes the foreign policy of intervention that some liberals held immediately prior to the second world war. Because they were liberal except for this view, they were termed "neoconservatives" as it indeed represented a new type of conservative thought. See, it isn't a misuse of the term, unlike turbo, which was my point, and why I found it ironic.

Why? At the time, they were the new breed of conservatives. Today, the new breed of conservatives is exemplified by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter. The term itself has not changed; even at the time you speak of, it referred to whatever brand of conservatism was new at the time.

So, what happens in a hundred years when people read about 1930's and 1940's era neoconservatives? They're going to assume they were far-right social and fiscal conservatives, even though this was not the case at all. My point is that this label has *already* been used to describe something new that happened fifty, sixty years ago. For present and future clarity, it would be far better to use a new label, such as ultraconservative. Again, if you think I'm just making this up, a quick trip to google should set you straight.

How does that change anything? It was the new breed of conservatism in the 1930s and 1940s, and today, the new breed of conservatism happens to have different policies than it did back then. Is there something about this which doesn't make sense to you, or implies some kind of contradiction or fundamental re-definition of the term?

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-26 02:09pm

How does that change anything? It was the new breed of conservatism in the 1930s and 1940s, and today, the new breed of conservatism happens to have different policies than it did back then. Is there something about this which doesn't make sense to you, or implies some kind of contradiction or fundamental re-definition of the term?

It was a new breed of conservative thought, thought those that held it were hardly conservative in anything else, which is why the label is handy. It just so happens that today neocons are really just "paleo"cons come back with a vengence. I think my problem is that as I mentioned to Nitram, you're going to have a problem reading literature about the political landscape of the 30's and 40's, and really on up into the 80's, because the term was used for a certain specific definition. That's pretty much it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-26 04:04pm

Paleocons are far-right Buchananite types whose existence is in many ways a reaction to neoconservatism. They don't really share a lot of beliefs with the neocons.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-26 04:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:Why? At the time, they were the new breed of conservatives. Today, the new breed of conservatives is exemplified by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter. The term itself has not changed; even at the time you speak of, it referred to whatever brand of conservatism was new at the time.

Poor Bill. Always trying to call himself impartial and independent and he's gets lumped with Junkie Hypocrite and Reagan's $20 Whore.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-26 04:38pm

How about we simply call them 'wackos'? I feel that such terminology would avoid most of the senseless argument over exactly what word to use.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-27 09:12am

Durran Korr wrote:Paleocons are far-right Buchananite types whose existence is in many ways a reaction to neoconservatism. They don't really share a lot of beliefs with the neocons.

Explain. Because what exactly is the difference between a Pat Buchanan and a Ann Coulter, besides a slightly more secular patina? Paleocons are gung-ho foreign policy types that support intervention in the middle east, right?

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-27 09:14am

Darth Wong wrote: Why? At the time, they were the new breed of conservatives. Today, the new breed of conservatives is exemplified by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter.

The other thing I thought about, is how are the people above actually a new type of conservative? They seem to me to be the same old conservative with more media exposure because of the response to the leadership failure of the left wing for the last decade or so. What policy shift distinguishes them from past conservatives?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-27 09:30am

aronkerkhof wrote:
Explain. Because what exactly is the difference between a Pat Buchanan and a Ann Coulter, besides a slightly more secular patina? Paleocons are gung-ho foreign policy types that support intervention in the middle east, right?

Absolutely NOT. Paleocons (of which Buchanan is only an example) are staunch isolationists and are firmly against foreign adventures. Actually, I wonder at the word 'paleocon'- as I recall- it was coined by a neocon.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-10-27 10:54am

aronkerkhof wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Paleocons are far-right Buchananite types whose existence is in many ways a reaction to neoconservatism. They don't really share a lot of beliefs with the neocons.
Explain. Because what exactly is the difference between a Pat Buchanan and a Ann Coulter, besides a slightly more secular patina?

I think that when it comes to economics, Buchanan and Coulter would disagree significantly. (IIRC, Buchanan is actually against free trade)

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-27 11:17am

Darth Wong wrote:
aronkerkhof wrote:No. Neoconservative describes the foreign policy of intervention that some liberals held immediately prior to the second world war. Because they were liberal except for this view, they were termed "neoconservatives" as it indeed represented a new type of conservative thought. See, it isn't a misuse of the term, unlike turbo, which was my point, and why I found it ironic.
Why? At the time, they were the new breed of conservatives. Today, the new breed of conservatives is exemplified by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter. The term itself has not changed; even at the time you speak of, it referred to whatever brand of conservatism was new at the time.

It's like with modern and post-modern thought, though. Modern thought was in the era of the true neoconservatives, and post-modern thought is the era we're in now. This "new breed" of conservatives are really a backlash against neoconservatism and represent a return to traditional conservatism. It would be better to not call them neoconservatives, as that term has an accepted political definition, and thus is an improper use of a term. It would be like referring to digging ditches and then filling them in as work in a scientific sense...since it ends up back where it started, there really is no work done, though in common usage it is considered work.

So, what happens in a hundred years when people read about 1930's and 1940's era neoconservatives? They're going to assume they were far-right social and fiscal conservatives, even though this was not the case at all. My point is that this label has *already* been used to describe something new that happened fifty, sixty years ago. For present and future clarity, it would be far better to use a new label, such as ultraconservative. Again, if you think I'm just making this up, a quick trip to google should set you straight.
How does that change anything? It was the new breed of conservatism in the 1930s and 1940s, and today, the new breed of conservatism happens to have different policies than it did back then. Is there something about this which doesn't make sense to you, or implies some kind of contradiction or fundamental re-definition of the term?

In a word, yes. Unless we should start referring to work as anything that uses energy, whether or not it actually DOES anything.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-27 11:45am

I think that when it comes to economics, Buchanan and Coulter would disagree significantly. (IIRC, Buchanan is actually against free trade)

That would be an understatement, Pat Buchanan hates free trade and market capitalism just as much as any Green Party member.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-28 12:32am

Durran Korr wrote:
I think that when it comes to economics, Buchanan and Coulter would disagree significantly. (IIRC, Buchanan is actually against free trade)
That would be an understatement, Pat Buchanan hates free trade and market capitalism just as much as any Green Party member.

So, he's a fiscal liberal and social conservative? Greaaaaaaat.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-28 12:38am

The Dark wrote:It's like with modern and post-modern thought, though.

Actually, that's a fine analogy since the term "modern thought" might have a philosophy wankers' definition but in common usage it just means what it says: modern thought.

In a word, yes. Unless we should start referring to work as anything that uses energy, whether or not it actually DOES anything.

Obviously, you flunked physics. It is impossible to use energy without doing something, even if that "something" is simply heating the air.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-28 12:41am

aronkerkhof wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
I think that when it comes to economics, Buchanan and Coulter would disagree significantly. (IIRC, Buchanan is actually against free trade)
That would be an understatement, Pat Buchanan hates free trade and market capitalism just as much as any Green Party member.
So, he's a fiscal liberal and social conservative? Greaaaaaaat.

Oh no, he's all conservative. He's just from a different breed of conservatives.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-10-28 10:25am

Durran Korr wrote:
I think that when it comes to economics, Buchanan and Coulter would disagree significantly. (IIRC, Buchanan is actually against free trade)
That would be an understatement, Pat Buchanan hates free trade and market capitalism just as much as any Green Party member.

Funny that you mentioned the Greens - left-wingers who vociferously oppose globalization are very embarrassed (sp??) by sharing some stances with Buchanan and other reactionaries.

I don't need to explain why.