Not from Mississippi,

Watch national television. Any channel. The terms liberal and conservative are used there in precisely the same way there as they are used in Mississippi. Or in Illinois or New Jersey.

Not From Mississippi wrote:

---

Since I’m not from Mississippi, I’m having a very hard time understanding the code language you people down there are using.  I read almost all of the threads and I see the same thing occurring over and over.  It appears when some people disagree with faculty and wants to insult them (usually trolls) they call them a “liberal”.  So one side considers this an insult, but I have no clue why.
 
I never hear the other side call somebody a “conservative”.  So I get the feeling that down there “liberal” = “bad guy” and “conservative” = “good guy”.  But I have no clue why.
 

---

What I find particularly vexing about the use of these labels is that in the Thames vs. Faculty war the faculty finds itself in the role of defending traditional academic values. So many folks who may legitimately be labeled as “liberal” in their views on political and social questions are the conservatives in the context of the issues we address on this board. Of course I’m not the first person to make this observation, but it may be worth repeating.

Mr. Wizard wrote:

---

What I find particularly vexing about the use of these labels is that in the Thames vs. Faculty war the faculty finds itself in the role of defending traditional academic values. So many folks who may legitimately be labeled as “liberal” in their views on political and social questions are the conservatives in the context of the issues we address on this board. Of course I’m not the first person to make this observation, but it may be worth repeating.

---

Thanks Mr. Wizard.  This was my interpretation also.  I kept thinking the faculty were in the conservative position in USM's situation and the administration were liberal in their variation from standard practice and policies.  But the faculty were continually being labeled "liberal".  I assumed there was a local reason for this having to do with the community. 

However, "Decoder" says the use of these terms are standard.  So it appears the term "liberal" is only being used to denigrate the faculty in the eyes of the local (socially conservative) community.  Is that why the label "union" was also used against AAUP?  As other posters noted, unions are considered sacred in other parts of the country.  

Is it safe to assume the “trolls” are from the local community and faculty are generally “outsiders”? 

 

 

Not From Mississippi wrote:

---

Is that why the label "union" was also used against AAUP?

---

There is no collective bargaining here.

Not From Mississippi wrote:

---

Thanks, now it is starting to make some sense.  Here there are faculty who are fiscal conservatives, but social liberals.  They are conservative on some issues and liberal on others.  From what I read on this board I get the impression that the local community is conservative on all issues.  Is that the case?  Is that what faculty face in Mississippi? 

---

Others may disagree, but I think your analysis is generally correct. It's really quite perplexing. I am opposed to the privatization of social security, for example, but I subscribe to conservative positions on most other issues.

Seeker wrote:

---

Being in the military = being conservative? No, see John F. Kerry

---

Seeker, you must have learned  by now that once case doesn't prove a thing. You'll be 27 years old on Thursday of next week. You must have learned by now not to make sweeping generalizations like that.

Street Smart wrote:

---

Seeker wrote: Being in the military = being conservative? No, see John F. Kerry Seeker, you must have learned  by now that once case doesn't prove a thing. You'll be 27 years old on Thursday of next week. You must have learned by now not to make sweeping generalizations like that.

---

But in this case, Seeker is right.  Kerry is but one example of the fact that just having been in the military does not necessarily make one conservative.  Perhaps we are so conditioned to hear "liberal = insult" that we become defensive every time in may happen.

The distinction between conservatives and liberals is all about attitudes toward external -- usually government -- authority: conservatives oppose it . . .  except in certain matters; liberals accept it . . . except in certain matters.  Definitions serve only as interesting prologue to the catalog of those exceptions.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" long ago ceased to have any meaning for me except as terms of affiliation: one means us, the other means them; hence the need for finer distinctions such as "fiscal conservative and social liberal." (Is there anyone who is a social conservative but fiscal liberal? Other than the Neo-nazis?)

 

Street Smart wrote:

---

Seeker, you must have learned  by now that once case doesn't prove a thing. You'll be 27 years old on Thursday of next week. You must have learned by now not to make sweeping generalizations like that.

---

That is not a generalization, it is an example. I guess I should have pointed that out.

Not From Mississippi wrote:

---

ram wrote: The terms "liberal" and "conservative" long ago ceased to have any meaning for me except as terms of affiliation: one means us, the other means them; hence the need for finer distinctions such as "fiscal conservative and social liberal." (Is there anyone who is a social conservative but fiscal liberal? Other than the Neo-nazis?)   Thanks Ram.  From posters on this board I got the impression that in Mississippi "liberal" meant "outsiders" or "bad guys" and "conservative" meant "our side" or the "good guys".  So even if a person was conservative both socially and fiscally people, down there you would still have to call him a liberal if they wanted to insult him or get others to stop listening to what he was saying.  In other words if a Mississippian if you want to shut someone up, you would call him a liberal.  From up here it seems to have replaced the old "N" word you use to use so much down there.   So now I understand why the trolls call the faculty "liberal", even conservative faculty like Scarborough.

---

NFM-

I'd take RAM's definition of liberal and conservative with a grain of salt (conservatives generally against governmental authority whereas liberals approve of governmental authority). I think that today's conservatives are heavily invested in using the government to put forward a very specific agenda: pro-corporation (defined globally, unlike conservatives earlier in the century), anti-worker, and pro-evangelical. Many are strong advocates of the use of both central and local governmental entities to achieve these goals (that's why guys like Ralph Reed are so successful). To do this they'll get us deeply in debt to Asia and Europe. Liberals have goverment agendas too, but for different goals. Liberals want the government to have some plan to ensure a living wage for all hard working Americans, safe drinking water and air, good public education, and reasonable access to health care (and, of course, will raise your taxes to do this). Conservatives and today's liberals both want government to ensure that corporate profits are maximized, but in different ways (conservative want quick profits that come with deregulation at the risk of corporate instability and government bailouts; liberals want some regulation to ensure long term economic prosperity and stability at the cost of somewhat lower short term profits). Conservatives want our citizens to lead lives that would make Elmer Gantry proud. Liberals don't care what you do in your own bedroom (just don't do it with MY daughter). Pork politics is the way to go for both of them (go Thad and Ronnie!). We did a bit of research awhile back, and our state legislatures who would be labeled "liberal" by the locals (like Billy "What's a Cull Cow?" McCoy) weren't a heck of a lot different than the local conservative heros (like Amy "I finally passed the bar!" Tuck) on a variety of dimensions.

The 1,2,4, and 5th amendments to the Constitution are under attack by governmental intrusion--and the label used to describe the people doing this is irrelevant and unimportant(Republicans and Democrats are both contributing to this mess). For irony, look at all the conservative Reagen and Bush appointees to various circuit and district courts now being labeled as "liberal" by the legislative branch when their rulings do not match congressional political agendas. Or how liberal (actually moderate) justices think about eminent domain issues.

The locals THINK they are conservative in the classic sense (see RAM's generalization), but a more accurate label is Reactionary (haven't heard that one in awhile). When they say liberal, they mean godless, liberal, baby-killing commie (I can almost hear Arlo Guthrie singing). Listen, a Christian adoption agency with deep roots in Miss that takes funds raised through a government agency (I know we can split hairs on this one), thinks that Catholics are outside the mainstream of Christian thought, and won't allow them to adopt their kids. Geez. Those Jews and atheists must surely doomed to eternal hellfire.

Most "conservative" faculty members I know are not at all like some of the Council of Conservative Citizens types still inhabiting this beautiful state (and pandered to by the local pols-hence their must be quite a few folks who resonate with CCC thought), and the "liberal" faculty are not Leninists. Most faculty folks are relatively moderate with some leanings one way or another. For that reason, I can see why folks "out there" lump us all together as liberals.     

Flame away my "conservative" friends!

       

Godless Liberal Taxpayer in Magnolia-Land wrote:

---

Not From Mississippi wrote: ram wrote: The terms "liberal" and "conservative" long ago ceased to have any meaning for me except as terms of affiliation: one means us, the other means them; hence the need for finer distinctions such as "fiscal conservative and social liberal." (Is there anyone who is a social conservative but fiscal liberal? Other than the Neo-nazis?)   Thanks Ram.  From posters on this board I got the impression that in Mississippi "liberal" meant "outsiders" or "bad guys" and "conservative" meant "our side" or the "good guys".  So even if a person was conservative both socially and fiscally people, down there you would still have to call him a liberal if they wanted to insult him or get others to stop listening to what he was saying.  In other words if a Mississippian if you want to shut someone up, you would call him a liberal.  From up here it seems to have replaced the old "N" word you use to use so much down there.   So now I understand why the trolls call the faculty "liberal", even conservative faculty like Scarborough. NFM- I'd take RAM's definition of liberal and conservative with a grain of salt (conservatives generally against governmental authority whereas liberals approve of governmental authority). I think that today's conservatives are heavily invested in using the government to put forward a very specific agenda: pro-corporation (defined globally, unlike conservatives earlier in the century), anti-worker, and pro-evangelical. Many are strong advocates of the use of both central and local governmental entities to achieve these goals (that's why guys like Ralph Reed are so successful). To do this they'll get us deeply in debt to Asia and Europe. Liberals have goverment agendas too, but for different goals. Liberals want the government to have some plan to ensure a living wage for all hard working Americans, safe drinking water and air, good public education, and reasonable access to health care (and, of course, will raise your taxes to do this). Conservatives and today's liberals both want government to ensure that corporate profits are maximized, but in different ways (conservative want quick profits that come with deregulation at the risk of corporate instability and government bailouts; liberals want some regulation to ensure long term economic prosperity and stability at the cost of somewhat lower short term profits). Conservatives want our citizens to lead lives that would make Elmer Gantry proud. Liberals don't care what you do in your own bedroom (just don't do it with MY daughter). Pork politics is the way to go for both of them (go Thad and Ronnie!). We did a bit of research awhile back, and our state legislatures who would be labeled "liberal" by the locals (like Billy "What's a Cull Cow?" McCoy) weren't a heck of a lot different than the local conservative heros (like Amy "I finally passed the bar!" Tuck) on a variety of dimensions. The 1,2,4, and 5th amendments to the Constitution are under attack by governmental intrusion--and the label used to describe the people doing this is irrelevant and unimportant(Republicans and Democrats are both contributing to this mess). For irony, look at all the conservative Reagen and Bush appointees to various circuit and district courts now being labeled as "liberal" by the legislative branch when their rulings do not match congressional political agendas. Or how liberal (actually moderate) justices think about eminent domain issues. The locals THINK they are conservative in the classic sense (see RAM's generalization), but a more accurate label is Reactionary (haven't heard that one in awhile). When they say liberal, they mean godless, liberal, baby-killing commie (I can almost hear Arlo Guthrie singing). Listen, a Christian adoption agency with deep roots in Miss that takes funds raised through a government agency (I know we can split hairs on this one), thinks that Catholics are outside the mainstream of Christian thought, and won't allow them to adopt their kids. Geez. Those Jews and atheists must surely doomed to eternal hellfire. Most "conservative" faculty members I know are not at all like some of the Council of Conservative Citizens types still inhabiting this beautiful state (and pandered to by the local pols-hence their must be quite a few folks who resonate with CCC thought), and the "liberal" faculty are not Leninists. Most faculty folks are relatively moderate with some leanings one way or another. For that reason, I can see why folks "out there" lump us all together as liberals.      Flame away my "conservative" friends!        

---

Flame it?  I'd rather frame it!

Not From Mississippi wrote:

---

 Is it really true that a "Christian" adoptions agency down there doesn't consider Catholics Christrians?  Do they have a copyright on the title Christian?  Interesting trademark.  It seems like your "conservatives" down there are not very intellectual, or at least less so than the rest of the country.

---

Is it true the Catholic church excommunicates members who hold to certain beliefs? Is iit true they believe that divorced couples or couples in inter- faith marriages are living in adultry? Anti - intellectualism is not limited to the South.

Apples & Organges wrote:

---

I agree anti-intellectualism is not limited to the south.  It just seems to grow better in this warm climate.  

---

Excellent line!

There are boneheads all over Yankee Land. Remember Archie Bunker? I knew many guys like that in the City (New York, not Jackson), including the boroughs (for you Rebs that would be the Bronx and Queens and others) and across the river (that would be Jersey City, Paterson, Passaic, and Bayonne and elsewhere). Thank god (oops, never mind, remember I'm a godless liberal) that winter calms the nuts down up there. Unfortunately, the Magnolia state does not get this reprieve.  

Godless Liberal wrote:

---

 There are boneheads all over Yankee Land. Remember Archie Bunker?

---

Archie Bunker was a conservative Northern bonehead. But don't forget Al Bundy was a liberal Northern bonehead. The Northerly climate is a fertile breeding grounds for extremests.  

Godless Liberal wrote:

---

... (2) a non-sexual use for peanut oil, ...

---

I enjoyed your post.  But I'm embarrassed to ask, "What is the sexual use for peanut oil?"  I had to ask because it is so much cheaper then Viagra.