A toothpaste brand claims their product will destroy more plaque than any product ever made. A politician tells you their plan will create the most jobs. We’re so used to hearing these kinds of exaggerations in advertising and politics that we might not even bat an eye.
But what about when the claim is accompanied by a graph? After all, a graph isn’t an opinion. It represents cold, hard numbers, and who can argue with those? Yet, as it turns out, there are plenty of ways graphs can mislead and outright manipulate. Here are some more things to look out for.
First of all, the scale is inconsistent, compressing the 15-month span after March 2009 to look shorter than the preceding six months. Using more consistent data points gives a different picture with job losses tapering off by the end of 2009. And if you wonder why they were increasing in the first place, the timeline starts immediately after the U.S.’s biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression.
These techniques are known as cherry picking. A time range can be carefully chosen to exclude the impact of a major event right outside it. And picking specific data points can hide important changes in between. Even when there’s nothing wrong with the graph itself, leaving out relevant data can give a misleading impression.
This chart of how many people watch the Super Bowl each year makes it look like the event’s popularity is exploding. But it’s not accounting for population growth. The ratings have actually held steady because while the number of football fans has increased, their share of overall viewership has not.
Finally, a graph can’t tell you much if you don’t know the full significance of what’s being presented. Both of the following graphs use the same ocean temperature data from the National Centers for Environmental Information. So why do they seem to give opposite impressions? The first graph plots the average annual ocean temperature from 1880 to 2016, making the change look insignificant. But in fact, a rise of even half a degree Celsius can cause massive ecological disruption. This is why the second graph, which show the average temperature variation each year, is far more significant.
When they’re used well, graphs can help us intuitively grasp complex data. But as visual software has enabled more usage of graphs throughout all media, it’s also made them easier to use in a careless or dishonest way. So the next time you see a graph, don’t be swayed by the lines and curves. Look at the labels, the numbers, the scale, and the context, and ask what story the picture is trying to tell.
This theory was originally developed by derekscorner and revised last night. I delve into the theory a little bit myself and came up with something pretty incredible. Again, most of this theory is in credit to derekscorner. All I’ve done is branch it out a little more. You can read the original post along with what I came up with here.
Kingdom Hearts is never entirely clear on how it’s universe works. The only trustworthy information you can get is spoken by characters in cut scenes, usually rather vague and said with symbolism, or it’s hidden somewhere in the “Reports” you recover throughout all of the games.
Because of this, the game can constantly flex it’s rules to bring about more scenarios and fix discrepancies it might have had in the past. But assuming, with the release 1.5+2.5 for the PS4, all of those discrepancies were fixed and the game is official, theories about this game will now become all the more relevant. And sensible.
Most things in Kingdom Hearts can be explained away in a rather convoluted essay. However, there are still select few scenarios that fans can’t seem to tackle because it wouldn’t make sense for how the game’s universe operates. One of these leading scenarios is the issue of bringing the lost Nobodies back into existence. I’m talking about Roxas, Naminé, and Xion.
Reaper: …you ever wonder why we’re here?
Widowmaker: don’t do this to me right now.
On Route 66:
Reaper: oh joy, another empty box canyon.
Widowmaker: WILL YOU GET ON THE PAYLOAD.
Talon lackey: this is our new ship! We call it “The Raptor”.
Reaper: …kinda looks like a puma to me.
Talon lackey: wait - what. What the hell is a puma?
Talon boss: okay so I’m not MAD that you failed the museum heist -
Reaper: Widow did it.
Widowmaker: excuse me?
Soldier: 76: Look we could really use you on our side -
Reaper: Sounds like a blue team problem.
Soldier: 76: …
Soldier: 76: better than your red team problems, Sarge.
Reaper: HEYO THERE IT IS
I’ve just recently been writing my Extended Essay, and something I’ve noticed during the process is that this one thing can completely change how people read your essay, and consequently, can get you a much higher grade!
Have a Point. (No, really.)
The point you are making in your essay should have very little to do with the subject you’re writing it on. It sounds crazy, but trust me.
Let’s say this is your thesis:
“Chemistry was the most influential area of science during the Enlightenment because of the drastic changes which allowed it to develop into modern chemical science.”
From here we can break it down into three parts: What, How, and Why.
WHATare you claiming? (Chemistry was the most influential area of science.)
HOWdo you know this? (Because through drastic change it evolved into modern chemical science.)
WHYis this relevant? (Uhhh…)
This is the trap that I see so many people fall into (and I have fallen into it myself a few times) when they try to write major essays. It’s the difference between a B and an A, or eventually in upper-level classes, the difference between a pass and a fail. So how do you fix it?
Figure out why you’re arguing the thesis. Why are you making the point in the first place, other than because the teacher says you have to?
This would by my answer:
WHY is this relevant? Because the advancement of chemistry during the Enlightenment era shows that critical analysis of systems within the natural sciences is mandatory in order for evolution within the field. Science can’t progress if nobody is willing to question it.
This type of universal point is what will get people interested in your essay even if they can’t relate to something as specific as chemistry or the Enlightenment. And the great thing is, you only have to include it a few times in the essay (conclusion especially) to make it work! You still prove your original thesis just like you would normally… this is just a little sprinkle of greatness on top. This is the best advice I have to give you on essays.
someone sent me a very nice ask that i’m going to answer in a bit but a minorly relevant part of it involved pointing out something that many people have observed: the gradual reducing of ‘me and phil’ and ‘me and dan’ to ‘we’ and ‘our’ - and like, just.
imagine the conversation that must have led to that?
imagine dan and phil some time in mid to late 2016, trying to figure out how this would go: how do they tell us? how much do they tell us? how tightly do they guard it? how do they keep us out?
and imagine one of them just quietly suggesting: or we could not
because how exhausting must that have been, you know? and for them, at the time, probably less exhausting than the alternative for opening themselves up to a perception and pressure and invasive inquiry into their relationship that they weren’t ready to deal with; but still, something can be the lesser of two evils and still not feel very fun at all.
how many years of taking selfies they didn’t post, of averting their eyes when they wanted to look, of fingers flexing to reach out and tease and tickle and poke and prod and then falling still at their sides?
they get that now, they get to have that. and i fully believe the conclusions drawn by minds more clever than mine in recent discussion on IDB: this is for them, this is not for us. this is not some prize we get for being good fans. this is themselves, taking some weight off their own shoulders. this does not mean they’re comfortable with us; it just means they’re done letting their discomfort rule their lives when it comes to all things on-camera and social media.
we are the obstacle they had to work around, the way we take their memories and their life and twist it into our own, their aversion to that is the mountain they had to climb without really knowing what the top would look like - and they didn’t do it for us. they did it for themselves.
though i guess the look down the other side wasn’t as scary as they once thought it was because they seem to have taken quite well to this post-baking universe where they post selfies with soft, satisfied smiles and like each other’s tweets and reach out and touch in gentle, surface ways when the urge strikes them and move to a new house together with a smile and an understanding that the conclusions our greedy minds will jump - that where there is one there is the other, that they’ll move together, that it would be downright silly to think they wouldn’t - to are exactly the right ones
**This post applies to those with a significant presence of piscean energyin your natal chart. Everyone has some piscean energy, so anyone is capable of relating to this post. However, it is more relevant and true for certain people.
This many include those with personal planets in pisces, many planets in aspect to neptune/jupiter, planets in the 12th house, planets in taurus and libra*, or (possibly) planets in capricorn and leo*, especially if they make a 150 degree (inconjunction) aspect, and draconic placements in pisces (esp. draconic moon/venus in pisces).
Pisces gets a lot of flack for being delusional, apathetic escapists. This sign seems to wander through life aimlessly.
The truth is, pisces has an incredible amount of raw, consuming desire for one very specific thing. However, the thing they want doesn’t exist in this reality.
Pisces, and neptune, is the gate to the universe. This includes every plane of existence and every possible reality. We live in an infinite universe where everything already exists. Even if the pisces can’t see this, they can sense worlds of endless beauty and magic just beyond reach.
Movies, T.V. shows, music, books, and other exceptional constructs of fiction give us a glimpse of these alternate realities: universes more interesting, with the possibility of lives more fulfilling, than anything this world can ever offer.
While Virgo finds beauty in the ordinary, Pisces can only see beauty in the extraordinary and transcendent.
That’s because this is the true purpose of human existence. We were born to live extraordinary lives, be the heroes of our own stories, change the world, have superpowers, find the kind of love that makes us whole while tearing at our very souls, etc.
Piscean delusion stems from painful clarity: they see what we were always meant to be, and what we’ve reduced ourselves to.
They see people chasing things like sex, fast cars, popularity, relationships, boring jobs, fame, fortune, all the ‘best’ this world has to offer. They’ve been told that they should also chase these utterly boring, pointless things. Add to that the pointless wars, violence, people’s obsession with control, and you can see why Pisces are prone to shutting themselves away.
The only way to escape this hideous world is through death, and freedom from the cycle of reincarnation.
Pisces is the final sign of the zodiac because they have no desire to return, and any attachment they feel to anything in this world can never hold a candle to their burning desire to escape to a better reality.
We see the world as it sees us: people see Pisces as delusional, apathetic escapists. Pisces sees everyone else as delusional (for thinking anything in this world is truly worth having) apathetic (for allowing war, destruction, and greed to destroy humanity) escapists (for trying to run from the truth that we were never meant to live for nine-to-five jobs, taxes, competition, whatever).
(And tbh I have to side with Pisces on this one… They actually have an excellent point.)
Pisces may never be fulfilled in this life. The best they might do is find peace through detachment, and the knowledge that some day, some how, they will end up that better world.
Meanwhile, they can channel that burning desire for something more into creating brilliant works of art and fiction.
Pisces brings the knowledge, desire, and vision of a better world, before leaving. It’s up to the rest of the signs to make that a dream a reality.
I wanted to try something new as a way of handling what would, without visuals, have been an impossible event. A large party spanning 3 rooms with a lot of NPCs and items that just don’t exist in game? Imagination can carry you a long way, but then you’re left constantly cross-referencing text, or forgetting something that was described, or outright missing something that was described. General guild consensus says NO to r20 because we all want to play in the game itself. A map also just feels a little cold.
So the answer, for me, was point-and-click style visuals!
I set up raid markers in areas they can visit, and drew over screenshots of those areas with things they could interact with.
It was… conditionally successful.
Mechanically it was a success… but for something at a much smaller scale. I think my retail manager experience is the only reason I was able to juggle the flow of text coming my way from like 10 people engaging something different at once (if i missed posts, sorry!! i tried!!), and I sort of had to relegate my character to a corner getting stoned and “keeping an eye on things” instead of participating.
I am also definitely not splitting the party again for something like this. It’s not a new DM lesson but the nature of the event necessitated it (some people engage partygoers and distract the host while others go off and hunt for clues).
So will I do it again? Absolutely. I went in expecting these flaws and now I know how to approach them. Condense only to relevant things (because your players WILL fixate on the false leads and flavor instead of the real clues), only do one room or something linear where everyone moves together (no party splitting), and keep in mind how many things to include (even relevant) because 10+ people posting sucks up a lot of time.
Thaaaank you to my wonderful guild for putting up with this ambitious experiment. We’ll do it again sometime! But smaller.
I've had enough with those people accusing Sam having a better childhood and that Dean suffered so much to provide Sam a loved environment. It's not a goddamn competition! And why did they always, always ignore the fact that Sam did LOVE Dean, he's the one who complimented, encouraged Dean! I don't even remember when had Sam guilt tripped Dean into sth while Dean did it all the time. Sorry for getting carried away, I just wanted to ask which tag would you suggest me to search? Thanks!
Too many people assume that because Sam’s experience was not equivalent to Dean’s, it was not challenging or damaging. Additionally, too many fans unquestioningly swallow the image of flawless-parent-Dean and take any assertions that Sam had a tough childhood as accusations against Dean, which they most certainly are not. There are also way too many ridiculous headcanons bouncing around in the fandom that a bunch of people accept as canon, like this one which queen-of-carven-stone so effectively refuted.
Dean certainly had many rough and harmful experiences that Sam can’t understand. Sam had many equally harmful experiences that Dean can’t possibly understand, too, and I think too many people forget that.
A short and incomplete highlight reel of Sam’s childhood experiences:
Sam has never known home or a mother’s love. The only life he remembers is the itinerant lifestyle of a hunter.
It’s the only life he’s ever known, and it is also a life he has never really felt a part of. He spent his childhood feeling unworthy and impure. His attempt to leave and seek a place he might belong ended up with his father disowning him.
Dean knew about hunting from a young age, but Sam was
lied to for most of his young life and left alone in motel rooms as young as 9 years old and (and quite possibly as young as 5). Sam was dragged all over the U.S., dropped in motel rooms alone, and no one would tell him why they were doing that.
He had lost his mother and desperately wanted to know about her, but was yelled at when he asked. He didn’t know any/many of the details of her death until he was 22. He never knew Dean carried him out of the fire until then, either. He spent his whole freaking childhood seeking revenge for a loss he was never allowed to be a part of. Is it any wonder he thought to look elsewhere for a place to belong?
So many people in fanon assume that Dean always (or even often) supported Sam when he stood up against John. However… canon has scant evidence of this. In fact, most of the evidence points to Dean taking John’s side.
That’s not unusual at all, of course. Dean seriously shouldn’t have had to bear the burdens placed on him from such a young age, but neither should Sam.
Sam’s experiences were no less harmful than Dean’s, and the effects of his unstable childhood have followed him into adulthood and beyond.
Lmao this really doesn’t have anything to do with anything going on fandom-wise. I started this damn picture a moth ago - as a practise in perspectives, but with work responsibilities I just haven’t had the time to finish it until now. So, here you go.
It’s been too long since the last proper Larents, sorry x-x
Every time my Kane Chronicles post picks up some notes I always get these people who try to justify it with things like “ohh you know Ancient Egyptian culture and mythology are just not as well known as Greek, Roman, and Nordic”. First I call bullshit bc imo no one knew shit about Nordic culture and mythology until Marvel, the Avengers and Loki went big, which is whatever. Second, did anybody stop and think if that claim is true, why is it the case? Is it bc all these culture are white? And Ancient Egyptian figures (who are not white) were mostly relevant to people (ie Cleopatra in the Hollywood adaptation, and in many other art form depiction that predated it) only once they were whitewashed? Or because of Judeo-Christian influences like the 10 commandments. But actually?? There were so many amazing?? achievements and advancements?? in ancient Egypt?? Like wow hot damn. SO isn’t this a really good opportunity to make these kind of book series more well known instead of excusing past problematic shit so we can celebrate these achievements and the interesting intricate culture now? Tbh thats the main reasons for both of these post, not to call people out but to address an issue so idk
Where I grew up, it was very mono-ethnic (white). However, when I write characters, I rarely actually describe their ethnicity because for the most part I don't really think it matters. Am I wrong? Do I need to specify what people's heritage are? Also, is it necessary to state what someone's sexual orientation is?
You don’t need to state your characters’ ethnicities, but you do need to describe their physical appearance, including skin color, for the sake of your readers being able to picture them. This, quite often, will make it clear what a character’s racial background is. Many writers throw in the ethnicity [IE: she was a tall Japanese woman with long, black hair and blablabla] because it paints an even clearer picture.
Sexual orientation is like any other trait: you mention it if/when it’s relevant. And quite often, sexual orientation does become relevant, because many books include romantic subplots. Even if they don’t, real people go on dates, talk about relationships, talk about sex, etc. I’ve seen a character’s bisexuality seamlessly introduced when she and her best friend were discussing exes and there were both females and males being brought up. Simple and effective.
Please keep in mind, where you grew up is irrelevant to your stories and to your readers, so just because ethnicity doesn’t matter to you doesn’t mean other people feel the same. Everyone wants to see themselves in the media they enjoy. We all want to feel represented and included.
I would like to point out that polyamory CAN work for people who view themselves as insecure. Seriously.
For one thing, many relevant insecurities aren’t really about one’s relationships at all. Many people are ACTUALLY insecure about their looks, their intelligence, their job, their weight, or any number of problems that may affect relationships, but aren’t based on them. Take some time to consider what you’re actually worried about.
Secondly, I think people jump too quickly to solving insecurity by trying to affect the other person’s behavior. In my experience, all you have to do is bring it up.
Instead of deciding you don’t want your boyfriend dating anyone, merely state to your partner, “I feel insecure” and maybe tack on “because I think your new girlfriend is prettier than me” and then let it be a reciprocal discussion. (For me, this tends to involve flopping onto the bed and yelling “TELL ME HOW CUTE I AM.” Because I’m cute as heck.)
This might seem obvious, but when you’re raised in a culture that assumes monogamy as the default, it really isn’t.
Hi I love your biology notes do you have an tips is how you keep them so clear and precise ?
Hey! Sorry for the late reply. I don’t take bio anymore, but here are some tips on how I made my notes for bio a couple years ago.
Refer to your syllabus for organization
Some syllabuses are specific and if so, you should base your notes on that.
If the syllabus is too vague, follow the structure of textbooks or web pages
Separate topics, subtopics, and sub-subtopics accordingly
I use different types of headings and indentations
You could also branch out in mind maps
It might be difficult to determine what counts as a new topic or subtopic, but you could always try out different ways that the topic can be broken down
Draw in pencil first to make sure your diagram is accurate
Label the diagrams (it’s amazing how many people forget to label relevant parts, myself included)
Include explanations below or beside the labels
This means you should allocate space around your diagram
An alternative would be to assign numbers to certain regions and then write the names and explanations of each number below the diagram
I emphasize terms (such as by highlighting or writing in a different color) because oftentimes, if you don’t provide the correct terminology, you won’t score any marks
Explanations should be concise. There are a lot of things to memorize, so I don’t think you’d want to write things you can infer from information you already have. If you choose to do so, however, make sure it’s only a few words
Be clear about steps, sequences, and cycles. Experiment with different layouts, such as flowcharts, numbers, a circle diagram thing (idk).
Refer to multiple sources to ensure you have the best understanding and explanation of the things you’ve taken note of
Carol Ann Crawford, dialect coach for the show Outlander, demonstrates many Scottish accents. (Unusually for a many-dialects video, the comments section has many people with the relevant varieties saying that it’s pretty good.)
so, i’ve seen a few posts floating around trying to differentiate between the various types of attraction (i.e. sexual, romantic, sensual, aesthetic) (e.g. this post) and there’s one they’re consistently explaining incorrectly: aesthetic attraction. (no offense to the OPs, i know it wasn’t intentional.)
it’s not just “appreciation something (or in this case someone) exists,” or a sort of respect that someone has aesthetic appeal for everyone else but not for you. it isn’t as indifferent, as passive as that, like you couldn’t care less.
but, until around two years ago when i discovered i was demi (very shortly after learning the term itself) and started looking for resources for myself, i never knew that. and i suspect the majority of the population doesn’t, either. i spent my developing, high school, and even college years completely unaware that aesthetic attraction was a phenomenon that existed and that was distinct from sexual attraction. after all, for most people, sexual and aesthetic attraction are inseparable from one another; they’re sort of a packaged deal.
but for the ace spectrum folks, that’s not necessarily the case. and i want to shed some light on the subject of aesthetic attraction for that reason, because i wish someone had told me about it a long time ago.
aesthetic attraction isn’t just acknowledgement that someone has aesthetic appeal, as i said. it isn’t “wow that person exists.” it’s more like “wow that person is very nice to look at. i REALLY want to keep looking at that person. and then i probably want to look at that person again tomorrow.”
i read an article once comparing the sensation to that of watching a great sunset, but i’m going to use a thunderstorm analogy instead because i think it illustrates the point a little better. if you’re inside your house/apartment and you hear thunder (unless you live in an area where these are very commonplace, i suppose), you’re probably going to race to the nearest window or out the front door to watch the lightning strike. it’s so exciting and pleasing to look at that you’d stop what you’re doing to dedicate your attention to it, even if only for a few seconds.
that’s what it’s like with aesthetic attraction.
in the same way you might go slightly out of your way to look at a thunderstorm (or sunset), you might peer around the heads of your friends in the middle of a conversation or take the long way to your class or office if it meant you could check out a person you were aesthetically attracted to. in the same way you’d set your desktop or lock screen to a brilliant lightning strike or a beach sunset because you want to look at it more often, when you come across a picture of this person you’ll want to stare. to save it so you can come back to it later.
it’s not about wanting to have sex with them or kiss them or start a relationship with them, or even touch them: it’s attraction based on appearance alone. but it’s a lot stronger than what some misinformation would have us believe, that it’s just a blasé acknowledgement. with aesthetic attraction, there’s an almost magnetic pull to continue looking at the person in question, a feeling of being drawn to the sight of them. if you’re indifferent about how a person looks, you aren’t attracted to them, period. not even aesthetically.
for non-ace-spectrum people, aesthetic attraction often goes hand in hand with sexual attraction. and that’s why if your friend can’t stop staring at their crush, they’re probably also daydreaming about making out with and/or banging them. and the idea that there’s an inextricable connection between the two, between admiring someone’s looks and lusting after them, is so prevalent that there’s basically never been an argument made against it. but let me assure you: they are not inextricably connected. many people can feel aesthetic attraction without sexual attraction, ace spectrum individuals in particular.
if i’d known this as a teenager, i would have spent a lot fewer years feeling confused and freakishly different from my friends, like my brain was just wired wrong. not understanding in the slightest why i could agree someone was “hot” and like to stare at them as much as the next person, but not have any desire jump in the sack with them. always shrugging off my lack of lustful feelings and eventually simply coming to the inaccurate conclusion that “i must not be attracted to them after all” or “they must not be my type after all.” when the reality was, my friends’ idea of “hot” was much different than mine. i just didn’t know that at the time.
so, i wanted to share my insight on the matter, because if there’s even a chance it can help someone avoid living through that confusion and self-doubt, it’d be worth it to me. to all the yet-to-discover-themselves ace spectrum folks, especially, i really hope this post and other resources like it can help you understand yourselves a little better.
don't you think it's somewhat hypocritical to talk about "partnership" and not "ownership" when those with NPD care a lot about not having to commit to partnership and try and control others which is a form of trying to "own" or have power over someone else?
I presume you are referring to the post I reblogged last night which said “Date the person who tells you to be safe when you go out, not the one who gets mad. Partnership, not ownership.” Well buckle up, because I’ve decided to answer your question in depth.
1. This isn’t a blog about Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorders, it’s the blog of a person who has those disorders. I post about whatever I feel like posting about. Not every single thing on my blog is directly relevant to my own experiences, and many of the people who read my blog have neither of those disorders.
That post about partnership vs. ownership is good advice regardless of where it is posted, and could be useful for many people.
2. The attributes you have described in your ask are found in many people with NPD, but certainly not in all of them. While some with NPD do exhibit that behavior, the idea that every single person with NPD does so is a stereotype that doesn’t match up with reality.
3. That said, I do have those symptoms, or at least some of them. I have a pathological sense of entitlement and possessiveness, a deep-seated need for absolute control over others, and extreme difficulty recognizing the rights and free agency of other people. But those symptoms do not control my actions, they merely push me in that direction. Although it can be very difficult, it is possible to have those traits and still work hard to treat others in a healthy way in spite of that, and I have made a substantial and continual effort to do so. It behooves anyone with potentially harmful traits to work hard at not letting their negative symptoms dictate their behavior. For people like that, don’t you think it’s a good idea to be reminded of which healthy interpersonal behaviors they should strive for? Do you really think it would be better for those with potentially harmful traits to only ever regurgitate the maladaptive ways of thinking that could lead them to hurt others?
4. Finally, while I don’t believe I was in this case, sometimes I am a hypocrite. The antisocial narcissist is sometimes a hypocrite. Shocking. Somebody call a news reporter!
so i saw you were writing about the fair folk! i'm not sure if this is relevant, but a lil fact: in a lot of places, especially where i live (n. ireland and probs ireland too) a lot of the time we don't refer to them as the fae, only "the fair folk" or just "the folk". similar to how hundreds of years ago people would call weasels "the beautiful ones" in case they'd steal chickens or kill crops. idk if that's relevant, but i don't know if many people know ! 🌹
Ah, thank you, that is helpful. :)
I’m not really sure how this will play out, though. Like, it may just end up being a short story, if I get around to it at all. I haven’t written in so long, but it’s interesting that the desire to comes about during NaNoWriMo.
so i want to talk about my understanding of certain relevant terminologies and why, to my understanding, way too many people are using it incorrectly. especially in political arguments. the first thing to be established in this is that democrats and republicans are political positions even though many of the people who choose those positions dont agree with all or any of positions that the political party sides on. an example is that many democrats dont care for gun control and many republicans dont care to repeal or replace obamacare. i see many people accusing everyone on the other political party of believing a certain thing but frankly speaking political parties are huge and its only a way for people to advance most of their goals (unless they choose a party based on culture or tradition in which theyre doing it for no intellectual reason).
liberal is a term to describe a behavior and mindset. liberals are people who (according to google) “are open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values”. honestly its a spectrum. there are many democrats who aren’t super liberal and are not willing to be open to new opinions and behaviors. how many democrats can be morally challenged with their opinions on something like incest or the possibility that capital punishment isnt all the inhumane? theyre more than likely going to stick with their traditional and cultural beliefs rather than being open minded. and then there are SUPER liberal people who have no problem with being open to these new and challenging opinions. they might not agree with it, but at least they would listen and consider it.
conservative is a term to describe the opposite of liberal in that they are cautious or in direct opposition to new behaviors and opinions (and according to google change and innovation). again, its a spectrum of behaviors. frankly speaking, most people including both democrats and republicans have a lot of conservative opinions and arent willing to challenge what they believe. however, republicans tend to be far more conservative.
SJW or social justice warriors (probably the most used insult against liberals). to my understanding, SJWs are people who both believe in a social cause and actively and physically try to advance it. many people call liberals and democrats SJWs but frankly speaking SJWs do not represent liberals and democrats. there are liberals and democrats who are SJWs but not all of them. furthermore, there are conservative and republican SJWs. there are plenty of republicans who actively try to advance their beliefs and they go to rallies and protests just like liberal and democratic SJWs.
frankly speaking, apart from out political position, many of the things we associate people of opposition with are often things that our own people practice. its kind of stupid but i guess thats just how people are. we like to over simplify whole demographics into stereotypes despite the fact that everyone is an individual who has agency (ability to choose and react) and can be very different from their respective demographic.