How is being called a "bleeding heart" an insult?

[Karlifornia]

Full disclosure: I am what anyone would call a 'liberal'. I am for higher taxes on the rich, I am for gay marriage, I am anti-religion, anti-censorship, anti-puritan, and I think France is a better country than America.

The crux of this post is to ask all the "conservatives" who use the term "bleeding heart" as a negative: Why do you feel this term is so offensive? Do you believe that compassion for others is a weakness? Do you just lack compassion for anyone else other than your immediate family? What is the opposite of a bleeding heart? A black heart? An empty heart? A dry heart?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think it is meant to imply that the "bleeding heart" is a bit of a sucker and easy to be taken advantage of. They would think the opposite of bleeding heart is a realist.

It's trite, but the quote "A conservative is a liberal who got mugged" might help to sum it up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Heh, yeah, I believe that would qualify you as a "liberal"
And while I knew / could have guessed those qualifications I do appreciate you putting some flesh on the bones yourself.

To your question, think of it this way maybe. Your arm, like your heart, has blood going through it but we don't describe your arm as "bleeding" unless there's an excessive amount of blood flowing from it & when that happens generally you make some attempt to stem the flow before it causes major damage to the entire body. Similarly, a "non-bleeding" heart doesn't imply the absence of blood but rather an excessive discharge of the vital fluid.

Interestingly, it seems like term hit popular political culture thanks to a columnist (Westbrook Pegler) back in the 30's but some believe it originated with the "Order of the Bleeding Heart, a semireligious order of the Middle Ages honoring the Virgin Mary, whose 'heart was pierced with many sorrows.'"

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I think it is meant to imply that the "bleeding heart" is a bit of a sucker and easy to be taken advantage of. They would think the opposite of bleeding heart is a realist.

It's trite, but the quote "A conservative is a liberal who got mugged" might help to sum it up.

A reasonable response.

[Dutch]

To your question, think of it this way maybe. Your arm, like your heart, has blood going through it but we don't describe your arm as "bleeding" unless there's an excessive amount of blood flowing from it & when that happens generally you make some attempt to stem the flow before it causes major damage to the entire body. Similarly, a "non-bleeding" heart doesn't imply the absence of blood but rather an excessive discharge of the vital fluid.

So a "bleeding heart" is well on it's way to being "black", "empty", and "dry" whereas a "non-bleeding heart" shall remain vibrant and strong?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Full disclosure: I am what anyone would call a 'liberal'. I am for higher taxes on the rich, I am for gay marriage, I am anti-religion, anti-censorship, anti-puritan, and I think France is a better country than America.

The crux of this post is to ask all the "conservatives" who use the term "bleeding heart" as a negative: Why do you feel this term is so offensive? Do you believe that compassion for others is a weakness? Do you just lack compassion for anyone else other than your immediate family? What is the opposite of a bleeding heart? A black heart? An empty heart? A dry heart?

I think's it's a typical MBTI response. Would you consider yourself warm hearted or cold headed? What's more importnat, justice or compassion? Etc, just MBTI responses neither right nor wrong but each thinks their way is best

[flere-imsaho]

We're a country built on the myth of "rugged individualism" and self-reliance. Since many conservatives strongly believe that anyone can succeed in American, and that those who don't are just not trying, it's my impression that they view people who have compassion for those in difficult situations as merely helping to extenuate those circumstances. Thus the pejorative nature of the term.

To use a simple example: a single mother on welfare works one minimum-wage job and still can't make ends meet. The conservative asks why she's only working one job and suggests she could work harder, spend less, save more, and don't have any more kids. The bleeding heart liberal wants to find a way to increase her benefits so she can provide for her family without having to work 16 hours a day. The conservative asks the bleeding heart liberal why they simply want to perpetuate the state of welfare for this woman, making it easier for her to remain on welfare instead of making something of herself.

[molson]

To me the term reflects a sort of phony, superficial compassion that doesn't actually benefit people or make anything better, but is "in your face" and showy.

I don't believe someone's political views make them more or less "compassionate", and my stomach turns when people use that angle to try to win votes of support for their positions. Whether government works better and benefits people more one way or another way is not a moral question (but "bleeding hearts" think it is)

Instead, I'd want to know if they look to help strangers, sacrifice for others, are charitable, etc, if we're talking morals and compassion.

[rowech]

To me, the term has always been someone picksup the cause for someone no matter what. Now, that's not totally bad but it's when you start picking up causes for people that the can take care of themselves. Where that dividing line is depends on perspective I guess.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I think France is a better country than America.

Yikes.

However, this conversation could go the other way in complaining about the liberals name-calling on those who may be more conservative.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Yikes.

However, this conversation could go the other way in complaining about the liberals name-calling on those who may be more conservative.

Well of course.