It's embarrassing the way social liberals allow conservatives to frame every social issue.

I would like to add that the words used by social liberals have a foundation in their liberal or libertine philosophy, they tend to focus on the freedom of expression, but they do not consider the reality or the result of their expectation.

Conservatives, for all their disagreements, tend to root themselves in a more realistic mindset. Be it because of capitalism, or be it because of adherence to more doctrinal values, varies.

This string might just as easily have been titled: "It's embarrassing the way social conservatives allow social liberals to frame every social issue," for much the same reasons given by Savant.

The uselessness of political labels is thus justified.

Forget "No kings." I am all for "No political parties."

We started this grand experiment without political parties, and it should have remained the standard.

The observation that 

social liberals invent terms for self-description and then react angrily when conservatives use those terms is a commonly noted pattern in political discourse, particularly regarding shifting identity and social justice language. This phenomenon is less about a formal, deliberate "invention" and more about the natural evolution of language within a specific in-group, which then becomes a point of contention when used by an out-group. 

Language as an In-Group Marker

Within social liberal or progressive communities, new terms are often adopted or created to more accurately reflect evolving understandings of identity, social dynamics, and inclusivity (e.g., "cis-gendered," "non-binary," or specific preferred pronouns). For those within the group, using this precise language is seen as a sign of respect and an effort to foster a more inclusive society. 

The Conservative Reaction and "Anger"

When conservatives use these terms, the perception from the liberal perspective is often that the terms are used sarcastically, mockingly, or with malicious intent to "own the libs". This perceived misuse or ridicule of what are considered respectful identity terms can lead to strong emotional reactions, which may be interpreted as "anger" by conservatives. 

For example, the term "woke" was originally a term used within Black communities to mean being aware of racial prejudice and social injustice. It was later adopted more broadly by progressives. Opponents then co-opted the term, using it ironically to ridicule performative activism or perceived "overrighteous liberalism," a use that often sparks negative reactions from those who use the term in its original or progressive sense. 

The Underlying Dynamics

Political science and psychology research offer insights into the dynamics at play: 

1. Affective Polarization: Both liberals and conservatives exhibit strong emotional responses to political messages, especially when group identity is tied to partisan identity.
2. "Hot-Button" Words: Certain words act as "hot-button" triggers, causing different neural and emotional responses in liberals and conservatives.
3. Perceived Intentions: The key difference in reception often lies in the perceived intention behind the language. When a term is used by an in-group member, it is seen as authentic; when an out-group member (a political opponent) uses the same term, it is often seen as a challenge, an attempt to demean, or a failure to acknowledge the term's intended meaning.
4. Differing Values: The conflict also stems from fundamental differences in values. Liberals tend to prioritize harm reduction and fairness, while conservatives often focus on in-group loyalty and authority. The language used by each side reflects these differing moral frameworks, leading to misunderstandings and friction. 

Ultimately, the phenomenon is a reflection of intense political polarization, where language itself has become a battleground for identity and cultural conflict. 

This string might just as easily have been titled: "It's embarrassing the way social conservatives allow social liberals to frame every social issue," for much the same reasons given by Savant.

Why though? How do these examples show conservatives allowing liberals to frame social issues? If anything, they show the opposite.

It’s literally Rule 4 and Rule 5 from America's "Rules for Radicals."

Rule 4:

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

Rule 5:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

Everyone uses those rules in American politics.

Here is the cleanest example,

Obama years: The party of law and order doesn't trust the CIA, FBI, and the NSA.

Biden years: Nobody is above the law.

Trump years: Nobody is above the law.

Rule number 4 is the playbook for both sides.

The Supreme Court rules the President has absolute immunity for performing his duties as president.

The observation that 

Yes, I made that observation in 4 sentences.

conservatives allowing liberals to frame social issues? If anything, they show the opposite.

Just demonstrating both sides use the same tactics to attack the other when we would be much better off using that energy to try to get along in spite of differences. It's called "balance of power." That's politics, and there's the lesson from the Tower of Babel we have royally failed to accomplish in thousands of years.

Rules for Radicals won't end anytime soon.

When I was younger, I used to think only naive people want to get rid of political parties and that more pragmatic people want them.

I realised as I grew up that it's actually closer to the opposite. The real solution is decentralisation. Centralised governments in one busy city can never make the right policies for the areas far from and/or very culturally different to that area. Arguably, nowhere in a nation should be very culturally different but if you compare rural to urban and grasp that in some places different regions become almost like different countries (UK with 4, US with 50, Germany where Berlin and Frankfurt really are different) you realise that what happens is it's better to let the 'states' have more powers but I want this taken to even a county level, not necessarily a town/city level. Counties tend to be defined as areas of a group of towns/cities or part of 1 huge city, that identify together culturally and in very close proximity. This fits human nature that the rulers of that particular subset will at least know certain ins and outs that suit that populace which wouldn't suit some others in the same nation.

The more decentralisation that occurs, the more you at the very least get situations where natural selection can take place because people can migrate between towns or cities inside a nation a lot easier than migrate between nations themselves.

I realised as I grew up that it's actually closer to the opposite. The real solution is decentralisation.

"the solution to a bad government is multiple bad governments" - What luck for politicians that people have low IQ.

I know you don't want to dig into the sociology here

What gave you that impression? My whole post is pop sociology.

Rules for Radicals will endure only as long as we fail to comprehend and act on what should have been learned at Babel. When. we do, Saul Alinsky will finally roll over is his grave and sleep the big sleep, along with Karl Marx, and the Dragon, the latter being all others' inspiration.

I think our founders would have been horrified by a city as large is L.A., my hometown, let alone NYC. Packing ourselves together literally like rats - they literally eat each other when compacted in an over-populated space - solves nothing that should be socially acceptable. And the clear evidence of that is that we do compact ourselves together, thinking we do not have sufficient space for all 8B of us. Wrong. Every man, woman, and child of our 8B can live sufficiently on about 2 acres of land, each, and occupy only 2 land types of agricultural and arable [inactive agriculture], leaving all other land types - urban, meadow, mountains, arctic, desert, etc. - completely void of human population. I'm not advocating we actually occupy agricultural and arable land; we need that land for the purpose it serves. I'm just saying we have not over-populated the Earth, we're merely poor land managers. Fix that, we fix our apparent population issues, and we all would enjoy life in smaller cities and towns, villages- and let the countries be as they are, I don't care.

I don't think we agree on cities but we agree the overpopulation thing is a dangerous hoax. This is where the left wing get it far more correct.

We need wealth caps and land has to become much harder to rob people of and hoard as a very rich person.

Maybe politicians should actually use the proper names for their policies instead of using crafted propaganda if they don't want the other side to redefine their own terms for them. If they simply called DEI what it really was, reparations for past injustices (RPI), then it would be clear why selection based on skin color was codified into law. Instead of ACA for Obamacare, they should have called it Medical Insurance Subsidies for the Poor (MISP), that way, when the costs soared, they could say "hey, it was to cover poor people, not make things cheaper." Instead of the Patriot Act, they should have called it Protective Surveillance for Americans. (PSA). "No Child Left Behind" should have been named honestly: "No Smart Child Moves Ahead."

You can't get upset at political marketing flops when the jargon wasn't honest in the first place.

The term "woke" is probably the most obvious example, where it arose in social liberal circles as a badge of honor, and then as soon as conservatives started using it as an insult, the people describing themselves as "woke" allowed it to become an insult and started complaining that so many things were being called woke.

Any word can become an insult. The emotional connotation of a word comes not from its definition but from how the word is historically used. Woke is a perfect example. When its usage first entered mainstream, it was used to mean someone who was aware of social injustices in our society (contrasting with those who weren’t, which self identifiers basically thought was mostly everyone). But since, the political right did what it does so well - ignore what it actually meant and use it as a stand in for “any viewpoint about race that makes me feel uncomfortable”.

They also did this with critical race theory, a college course that they turned into “any conversation about race I don’t like”.

And let’s not forgets about DEI, a set of ideas and principals designed to educate the people within organizations as to the social plights and proceeding obstacles faced by minority groups, mostly in the workplace - to which the right turned into “any black person who’s taking the job of a more qualified white person”.

It’s not the left’s usage of the word liberals are reacting to, it’s the absurd ways the right is dishonestly using them as a shield for their bigotry.

the political right did what it does so well - ignore what it actually meant and use it as a stand in for “any viewpoint about race that makes me feel uncomfortable”.

It’s not the left’s usage of the word liberals are reacting to

Yeah that's my point. The left allowed the right's usage of the term to dictate its connotation. They don't brag about being woke anymore. They even use "safe space" as an insult against conservatives, as if they don't still have actual safe spaces.

It’s a silly point. The left didn’t “allow” anything, it’s not up to them how the right uses words.

It's up to them how they respond. They stopped using woke as a badge of honor or saying "stay woke." They gave up as soon as they were challenged. They also made little effort to turn words like "based" into an insult and instead tried to appropriate it, which was just giving the right a head start.

They stopped using woke as a badge of honor or saying "stay woke."

But who is “they”? Stay woke was a phrase that before republicans caught onto it was only uttered by a fraction of a fraction of the left. Specifically, it was mostly signifier of political activism within the black community. That’s a very small group and cannot compete with the political machine on the right. The idea that they were supposed to “fight back” to preserve the word is just silly. Once Arkansas rednecks start using it at school board meetings and then you have politicians all over the map rallying up their base with it, the connotation changes and nothing is going to be done about that.

The idea that they were supposed to “fight back” to preserve the word is just silly.

So once woke is in common parlance, they can't use it positively? The political machine on the left tried oh so very hard to turn "weird" into a thing, but they failed with "woke" even though they had a head start. Even small segments on the far right were able to spin terms to mean things opposite their original intent, like "modern woman" or "black fatigue." I'd much rather the far right was losing many of those fights, but for whatever reason, they are able to spin buzzwords more than you'd expect from their numbers alone.

but they failed with "woke" even though they had a head start.

What does this even mean? You keep acting like it was the job of “the left” to maintain “woke” as a positive phrase, why? It’s just a word.

but for whatever reason, they are able to spin buzzwords more than you'd expect from their numbers alone.

The right is much better at buzz words because their politics is all emotionally based. The right isn’t about ideas to improve people’s lives, it’s about grievances and culture war BS, so it’s built for catch all phrases used in ways that are effective even while meaningless.

L.A., my hometown.

Thought you lived in a remote, self sufficient Rocky mountains bunker.

You would be surprised at the number of secluded fortresses around LA. The feudal system is gonna feud. Places only drones can see from a distance.

You keep acting like it was the job of “the left” to maintain “woke” as a positive phrase, why? It’s just a word.

The right spinning that word has been politically useful for them. Is it the job of the left to be politically strategic? Maybe not, but it would probably help them accomplish more of their goals.

The people who were using the term “woke” were doing so because it was a way to signal/convey their values and priorities to others, not because they thought it was a great way to get ignorant people to vote for candidates of their persuasion.

The latter is what the right is all about, which is why they were able to commandeer that word along with a host of others to get people out to the voting booths in support of the non existent bogeymen they created.

This generally doesn’t work on the left because left wing politics is about improving people’s lives, so left wing voters aren’t so easily manipulable.