Author Topic: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal  (Read 2169 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

"Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« on: September 05, 2015, 01:39:54 AM »
l think the time has come to stop referring to "liberals" and "progressives" as such. The term "liberal" originally meant what we would now refer to as a libertarian, someone who supports free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the right to bear arms, the right to a fair trial, free markets, and so forth. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights are very much products of classical liberalism, but the liberals of today want to paint them as anachronisms written by evil slave owners, which is a red flag the meaning of the word "liberal" has changed.

Todays "liberals" do not support freedom of speech (speech codes, hate speech laws, Black Lives Matter shutting down Bernie Sanders and Jeb Bush, the "Beach Body Ready" ad storm in a teacup), freedom of the press (Charlie Hebdo, politically correct Newspeak like "undocumented migrants"), freedom of assembly (lynch mobs against Roosh V in Canada), fair trials (the "guilty until proven innocent" rape inquisition proposed in New Zealand), and obviously not the right to bear arms or free markets. They do eagerly support religious freedom for Muslims, giving them special Sharia courts and letting Muslim rapists run loose in Stockholm and Rotherham, but will penalize Christians who won't cater to gay couples, or have their vermin lawyers at the ACLU force crosses and Christmas trees out of public squares. Not to mention, their homey Obama is about the most illiberal dictator you could ever ask for.

A more apt term for "liberals" or "progressives" would be "authoritarian cultural Marxists," or more bluntly, "straight white man haters." They look at the white middle class and see hatred and oppression at every turn. Their endgame for America and Europe is probably similar to South Africa, where over 70,000 whites have been murdered, white women are raped and burned with irons, and whites have been reduced to a 9% minority with no political power under the communist ANC party. This isn't "progress" to any destination besides insanity.

Offline Scorpion

  • Unreal Heir
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9908
  • Gender: Male
  • Ragnarök around the Clöck!
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2015, 03:53:45 AM »
I had something typed up about how you could apply the same extremism to people who call themselves "conservative", how there are nutjobs within every movement and how it does reasonable public discourse a huge disservice to call people with political views that differ from yours "straight white man haters", but then I remembered that I am apparently an "authoritarian cultural Marxist", so I doubt that you care for what I have to say anyway.
scorpion is my favorite deathcore lobster
Hey, the length is fine :azn: Thanks!

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40894
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2015, 05:04:58 AM »
l think the time has come to stop referring to "liberals" and "progressives" as such. The term "liberal" originally meant what we would now refer to as a libertarian, someone who supports free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the right to bear arms, the right to a fair trial, free markets, and so forth. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights are very much products of classical liberalism, but the liberals of today want to paint them as anachronisms written by evil slave owners, which is a red flag the meaning of the word "liberal" has changed.

Todays "liberals" do not support freedom of speech (speech codes, hate speech laws, Black Lives Matter shutting down Bernie Sanders and Jeb Bush, the "Beach Body Ready" ad storm in a teacup), freedom of the press (Charlie Hebdo, politically correct Newspeak like "undocumented migrants"), freedom of assembly (lynch mobs against Roosh V in Canada), fair trials (the "guilty until proven innocent" rape inquisition proposed in New Zealand), and obviously not the right to bear arms or free markets. They do eagerly support religious freedom for Muslims, giving them special Sharia courts and letting Muslim rapists run loose in Stockholm and Rotherham, but will penalize Christians who won't cater to gay couples, or have their vermin lawyers at the ACLU force crosses and Christmas trees out of public squares. Not to mention, their homey Obama is about the most illiberal dictator you could ever ask for.

A more apt term for "liberals" or "progressives" would be "authoritarian cultural Marxists," or more bluntly, "straight white man haters." They look at the white middle class and see hatred and oppression at every turn. Their endgame for America and Europe is probably similar to South Africa, where over 70,000 whites have been murdered, white women are raped and burned with irons, and whites have been reduced to a 9% minority with no political power under the communist ANC party. This isn't "progress" to any destination besides insanity.
OK.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline jonnybaxy

  • Step after step We try controlling our fate When we finally start living it's become too late
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 1270
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2015, 06:19:05 AM »
I share quite a lot of political views with yourself then, haha.

Yes it is true that today's 'liberals' are not those for free speech and freedom of press, but I'd say you'd have to look a bit further to the left wing to find the true 'cultural marxists' the liberals are just those who go along with it

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1513
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2015, 06:22:13 AM »
What is a cultural Marxist? Or an authoritarian cultural Marxist?
---

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 29982
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2015, 07:33:38 AM »
This thread is going to get ugly fast. :lol :lol

I will only say right now that as my views have drifted more towards the center and then a bit to the left over the years, I have become more and more opposed to the idea of being called a liberal, because of how many liberals act (now that how conservatives often act is any better).  I no longer consider myself a conservative, even though I still think capitalism is a good thing and am in favor of smaller government (generally speaking), but on the flip side, even though I am socially liberal more often than not, I often find myself disgusted by the average liberal actions and words.  For example, gay marriage: I am in favor of it, which is technically a liberal, progressive stance, but so many liberals take the "If you are against gay marriage, you are a bigot, hater, etc." position, which disgusts me.  What happened to agreeing to disagree without the name-calling?  Same thing with this whole Black Lives Matter nonsense, where anyone who dares say All Lives Matter or anything of the sort is painted a racist.

When it comes to change nowadays, some like to think of as change for the better in their view to be progress, but that is not always the case.  I never say my views on this or that are progressive.

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2788
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2015, 11:03:10 AM »
Silly me, thinking that modern liberalism was a belief in more government involvement in providing services to the population with equal distribution of said services, and modern conservatism a belief in smaller government and having more provided by the private sector and individuals.

But then I am an authoritarian cultural marxist, so what do I know. At least I learned something about myself today! Thanks MML!

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2788
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2015, 11:05:48 AM »
(Also, in one post, you complain that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are under attack, right after you complain about a group of private citizens engaging in organized protest. Just sayin'.)

Also, if you think Obama is super liberal and left wing, you're in for a real shock if you ever travel to... well, pretty much any other developed country.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2015, 11:29:28 AM »
What is a cultural Marxist? Or an authoritarian cultural Marxist?

It's the new "judeo-bolshevik." Just a reactionary conspiracy theory.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2015, 11:36:05 AM »
Todays "liberals" do not support freedom of speech (speech codes, hate speech laws, Black Lives Matter shutting down Bernie Sanders and Jeb Bush, the "Beach Body Ready" ad storm in a teacup), freedom of the press (Charlie Hebdo, politically correct Newspeak like "undocumented migrants"), freedom of assembly (lynch mobs against Roosh V in Canada), fair trials (the "guilty until proven innocent" rape inquisition proposed in New Zealand), and obviously not the right to bear arms or free markets. They do eagerly support religious freedom for Muslims, giving them special Sharia courts and letting Muslim rapists run loose in Stockholm and Rotherham, but will penalize Christians who won't cater to gay couples, or have their vermin lawyers at the ACLU force crosses and Christmas trees out of public squares. Not to mention, their homey Obama is about the most illiberal dictator you could ever ask for.

What am I reading

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2015, 05:00:33 PM »
I had something typed up about how you could apply the same extremism to people who call themselves "conservative", how there are nutjobs within every movement and how it does reasonable public discourse a huge disservice to call people with political views that differ from yours "straight white man haters", but then I remembered that I am apparently an "authoritarian cultural Marxist", so I doubt that you care for what I have to say anyway.

The point is that the majority of people who identify as "liberals" and "progressives" fit into the mold I just described. It's not an extremist minority. It's the majority. In fact, people who align more with the classical liberal perspective and advocate things such as free markets or the Second Amendment, or who praise our classically liberal Founding Fathers, usually find themselves on the defensive from Cultural Marxists. They are the truly close-minded ones, because they're so sold on the idea that opposition is not due to a different reading of logic or evidence, but because the opponents are morally and/or intellectually lacking. They even have terms like "whitesplaining," "mansplaining," and "straightsplaining" which basically dictate that everything you have to say as a straight white male is irrelevant because you're steeped in "unconscious privilege" or something to that effect.

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1035
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2015, 05:06:13 PM »
I feel like MML is actually a liberal trying to rile people up to see what they'll say. That's the only way I can see this thread even making a lick of sense.

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2015, 05:06:52 PM »
What is a cultural Marxist? Or an authoritarian cultural Marxist?

It's basically hatred of Europeans and traditional European culture, then advocating things such as feminism, multiculturalism, bilingual education, open borders, and affirmative action to siphon as many special privileges to women and minorities as possible. A prime example would be Gregor Gysi, leader of the leftist party in Germany, recently calling ethnic Germans Nazis and crowing about how wonderful it is that they're losing their homeland to "refugees" in the name of "diversity."

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2015, 05:12:40 PM »
Silly me, thinking that modern liberalism was a belief in more government involvement in providing services to the population with equal distribution of said services

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

(Also, in one post, you complain that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are under attack, right after you complain about a group of private citizens engaging in organized protest. Just sayin'.)

More vagueness. Could you clarify which "organized protest" you're referring to? The one where over 70,000 people demanded that a Protein World ad with an attractive model asking if people are "beach body ready" be taken down for promoting an "unhealthy body image," even though the model actually looks quite healthy? The one where feminists in Montreal threw drinks in Roosh V's face, kicked him out of bars, and demanded his books be banned? Or how could I forget the one where social justice warriors went ballistic over a Spiderwoman comic which showed her butt in a sensual way, and actually got Marvel to pull the comic? You do realize the active intent of these movements is to censor people? They're not simply content with saying "I won't buy Protein World," "I won't buy Roosh V's books," or "I won't buy the comic?"

Also, if you think Obama is super liberal and left wing, you're in for a real shock if you ever travel to... well, pretty much any other developed country.

The point isn't whether Obama is "super liberal" or "left wing." You're simply putting words in my mouth. The point is that he's an enemy of human freedom who continuously defrauds the American public, yet "liberals" love him and claim criticism of him is racist. I found this gem recently. Any "liberal" who could read this and think Obama is a good president is, to use a word they themselves are fond of using, a "denier."

https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/obama-252/

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2015, 05:13:40 PM »
What is a cultural Marxist? Or an authoritarian cultural Marxist?

It's the new "judeo-bolshevik." Just a reactionary conspiracy theory.

I guess Vladimir Putin is a reactionary conspiracy theorist:

https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Putin-First-Soviet-government-was-mostly-Jewish-317150

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2015, 05:14:11 PM »
Todays "liberals" do not support freedom of speech (speech codes, hate speech laws, Black Lives Matter shutting down Bernie Sanders and Jeb Bush, the "Beach Body Ready" ad storm in a teacup), freedom of the press (Charlie Hebdo, politically correct Newspeak like "undocumented migrants"), freedom of assembly (lynch mobs against Roosh V in Canada), fair trials (the "guilty until proven innocent" rape inquisition proposed in New Zealand), and obviously not the right to bear arms or free markets. They do eagerly support religious freedom for Muslims, giving them special Sharia courts and letting Muslim rapists run loose in Stockholm and Rotherham, but will penalize Christians who won't cater to gay couples, or have their vermin lawyers at the ACLU force crosses and Christmas trees out of public squares. Not to mention, their homey Obama is about the most illiberal dictator you could ever ask for.

What am I reading

The truth. I know it seems like a foreign language when you've been totally lobotomized by far left college professors and the mainstream media.

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2015, 05:15:57 PM »
I feel like MML is actually a liberal trying to rile people up to see what they'll say. That's the only way I can see this thread even making a lick of sense.

I align more with the classical liberal perspective, but I'm forced to call myself a libertarian because the meaning of the word "liberal" has been totally debased, and I don't want to be lumped in with people who's idea of freedom is fining people $135,000 because they won't bake a wedding cake for lesbians.

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1035
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2015, 05:37:19 PM »
Todays "liberals" do not support freedom of speech (speech codes, hate speech laws, Black Lives Matter shutting down Bernie Sanders and Jeb Bush, the "Beach Body Ready" ad storm in a teacup), freedom of the press (Charlie Hebdo, politically correct Newspeak like "undocumented migrants"), freedom of assembly (lynch mobs against Roosh V in Canada), fair trials (the "guilty until proven innocent" rape inquisition proposed in New Zealand), and obviously not the right to bear arms or free markets. They do eagerly support religious freedom for Muslims, giving them special Sharia courts and letting Muslim rapists run loose in Stockholm and Rotherham, but will penalize Christians who won't cater to gay couples, or have their vermin lawyers at the ACLU force crosses and Christmas trees out of public squares. Not to mention, their homey Obama is about the most illiberal dictator you could ever ask for.

What am I reading

The truth. I know it seems like a foreign language when you've been totally lobotomized by far left college professors and the mainstream media.

This is quite literally the most hypocritical statement I've seen on the internet. You accuse "liberals" of being "white straight male haters" yet anyone who dares write "what am I reading" is an ignorant simpleton "lobotomized by far left college professors." It is quite telling when your entire stance relies on the belittlement of others, and the distrust of education.

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5577
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2015, 06:07:20 PM »
Is this thread real?

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2015, 06:08:42 PM »
What is a cultural Marxist? Or an authoritarian cultural Marxist?

It's the new "judeo-bolshevik." Just a reactionary conspiracy theory.

I guess Vladimir Putin is a reactionary conspiracy theorist:

https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Putin-First-Soviet-government-was-mostly-Jewish-317150

Of course he is. It's a classic reactionary conspiracy theory.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2788
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2015, 08:58:17 PM »
Just gonna say, you've hit a nerve son.
First, with your rallying against feminism, specifically bringing up Montreal, I can't help but think of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

In your OP, you, in your own words, called Obama "The most liberal dictator you could ever ask for", and then said I was putting words in your mouth when I claimed you were calling Obama super liberal (which he isn't).

You then, in one of your posts in this thread, complain about feminism (which is literally the idea that women shouldn't be treated as inferior), multiculturalism (which is literally the idea that different cultures can co-mingle without conflict), and bilingual education. As someone with significant francophone heritage in a predominantly anglophone country, I find this point incredibly offensive. In the course of our history, a third of my ancestors were slaughtered for being a language minority, most of the rest were separated from their families during a violent forced deportation, and even during the modern era we've faced significant discrimination that we've had to overcome (which has been done through peaceful democratic means). Until the 1980s, we were often treated as second class citizens. Even now, I or a relative of mine will still face discrimination or prejudice on that basis every now and then. So don't you dare tell me that multi-lingualism is a bad thing.

You're complaining about multiple groups of people not being marginalized. Yes, modern liberals are against marginalizing people based on gender, ethnicity, language, culture, etc. Thanks for noticing, though I can't possibly understand why you'd be opposed to that.

Quote
Could you clarify what you mean by this?
The philosophy that members of the population contribute their fair share, and then the government provides things like health care, education, retirement benefits, social assistance, etc, to anyone who needs it. You can disagree with that philosophy, but at least in most of the world, that's a big part of what modern liberalism is.

Offline Lucien

  • James 5:1-5
  • Posts: 4618
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2015, 09:08:13 PM »
"Kind of a stupid game, isn't it?" - Calvin

Offline Lucien

  • James 5:1-5
  • Posts: 4618
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2015, 09:25:43 PM »
l think the time has come to stop referring to "liberals" and "progressives" as such. The term "liberal" originally meant what we would now refer to as a libertarian, someone who supports free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the right to bear arms, the right to a fair trial, free markets, and so forth. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights are very much products of classical liberalism, but the liberals of today want to paint them as anachronisms written by evil slave owners, which is a red flag the meaning of the word "liberal" has changed.

I don't know of a single left-aligned human being that says our constitutional rights written by evil slave owners. Care to provide some examples of this extremism?

Todays "liberals" do not support freedom of speech (speech codes, hate speech laws, Black Lives Matter shutting down Bernie Sanders and Jeb Bush, the "Beach Body Ready" ad storm in a teacup), freedom of the press (Charlie Hebdo, politically correct Newspeak like "undocumented migrants"), freedom of assembly (lynch mobs against Roosh V in Canada), fair trials (the "guilty until proven innocent" rape inquisition proposed in New Zealand), and obviously not the right to bear arms or free markets.

Liberals do support freedom of speech. I don't know of a human on this planet that doesn't like being able to criticize the government (which is what free speech was originally for). However, for a very long time America has considered threats to the country/government officials punishable.
Only extreme liberals want to completely remove guns from the people. I certainly don't, leaning to the left myself.

They do eagerly support religious freedom for Muslims, giving them special Sharia courts and letting Muslim rapists run loose in Stockholm and Rotherham, but will penalize Christians who won't cater to gay couples, or have their vermin lawyers at the ACLU force crosses and Christmas trees out of public squares. Not to mention, their homey Obama is about the most illiberal dictator you could ever ask for.

What does raping have to do with 'special Sharia courts'? Why are you calling them 'Muslim rapists'? And if you're talking about those people who won't give marriage licenses to gay couples, it's not a case of religious freedom, it's a case of doing your job, since those people are government employees, and gay marriage is a legal thing now. And I'm not going to even comment on the statement about Obama. Give me some reasons why he's an 'illiberal dictator'.

A more apt term for "liberals" or "progressives" would be "authoritarian cultural Marxists," or more bluntly, "straight white man haters." They look at the white middle class and see hatred and oppression at every turn. Their endgame for America and Europe is probably similar to South Africa, where over 70,000 whites have been murdered, white women are raped and burned with irons, and whites have been reduced to a 9% minority with no political power under the communist ANC party. This isn't "progress" to any destination besides insanity.

So, you don't like it when people are against racism and sexism? I mean, there are plenty of extremists that aren't very lovable (some [most? idk] feminists and certain other groups of people). And nobody's going to murder people out of the majority in this country, nor is it the "endgame".

I really don't know what you're trying to go for in this post.
"Kind of a stupid game, isn't it?" - Calvin

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2788
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2015, 09:52:26 PM »
Once again, there is a concept and practice.  The real goal is a melting pot.  For the most part, that has been what America has been.  A new culture arrives (or gains in population %) and Americans incorporate some of the things that seem positive and vice versa.  But then around 1960/70, the immigration laws changed dramatically and we saw more of "that's your area, this is my area and screw you for wanting either side to accept the other".  Melting Pot is the positive version of what has become the negative version of "multi-culturalism".  And this is not unique to America.
As someone from a country that's more of a Mosaic than a Melting Pot, I'll agree to disagree on premise that we've had very different experiences in very different countries.

Quote

I actually think the idea that the planet isn't making an effort to adopt a common language is a bad thing.  Nothing good comes from miscommunication.  And when I hear somebody talk about learning six languages, it doesn't inspire me to follow.  The reality is we have limited time on the Earth, so we have to pick and choose what we will excel at, get by at and pay others to do for us.  Getting rid of language as a barrier is a good thing.
While I can see the merit you're referring to in unified communication, language is part of culture. Asking a group of people to give up a significant part of their culture is never going to go over well, and it's a notion I don't personally agree with. I don't think language is the biggest barrier to communication (especially seeing how common multi-lingualism is in some parts of the world). In fact, here in Canada, there has been a growing effort in recent years to promote various First Nations languages for just that reason.

Quote
The problem isn't addressing *marginalization*, but the method itself.  You don't end racism, with more racism.   Even the 14th amendment doesn't talk about "freeing the coloreds" (as I think was the "respectful" term back then).  Instead, it tries to apply it evenly, without mention of race ... the idea being the solution isn't about noticing race ... but noticing "people".
I think we're talking past each other then. Modern liberalism absolutely allows for just seeing people as people, without getting bogged down in labels. I'm aware there are people who fixate on things like gender or race, but I feel like they're outliers who don't really represent any philosophy en masse.

Quote
You don't have your economic adviser making statements on the floor of the Congress that stimulus money should not go to "white, male construction workers."  That should have been a career ending statement.  Racism is easy to spot.  Just shuffle it up and say "hispanic, female maids" or "black, transgender Olympic athletes."  Gasp.  The outrage.  But where was it when it was in plain view.  This is why I stopped calling my social views "liberal".
Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I legitimately don't know where this particular bit is coming from.
If it's dealing with 'privilege', the idea of privilege isn't that everyone who falls within the 'privileged' group is well off, or not deserving of assistance. It's that things are inherently more difficult for people who don't fall into 'privileged' groups because of longstanding systemic biases.
As a straight white male, I'm not automatically better off because I am those things, but there are certain hardships that I'll never have to face because of them, which some people will have to deal with for no reason other than they were born outside of those groups.
Again, I'll reiterate, at least in my country, the understanding of liberal philosophy is that everyone contributes what they can, and then people are given what they need in the way of certain social programs. There's nothing about race or gender or sexual orientation in there, one way or another.

Quote
So whether or not you agree with the OP's way of framing this, there is some merit to some of it.
Calvin, I feel like anything of merit in that OP got lost in a ball of crazy. I'm legitimately impressed that you were able to form actual arguments out of parts of it. The things you were saying were actual points that could absolutely lead to interesting back and forth discussion. The OP in this thread was a heap of nonsense.

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2015, 11:18:28 PM »
P.S. I'm aware the OP had a mocking / condescending tone as well and if it attacked what are my natural biases, I might react in a mocking tone, but that's usually poor form ... and can be seen as a form of bullying.

I'm basically atheist, but I try to see things from a person genuinely trying to adhere to their faith.

Under the right circumstances, I'd be open to certain gun ownership restrictions, but I don't see a need to mock gun owners.  Especially since it is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights which have a very special meaning.

I'm pro-choice, but I don't try to ease my conscience by repeating "it's not a life.  It's not a life."  I view it like some do voting.  I hold my nose and accept it because it is basically a collision of the rights of two (or more) parties.  I just have to deal with the guilt of support for one might be slightly less than the guilt of support for the other.

Etc, etc.

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1513
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #25 on: September 06, 2015, 12:46:37 AM »
What is a cultural Marxist? Or an authoritarian cultural Marxist?

It's basically hatred of Europeans and traditional European culture, then advocating things such as feminism, multiculturalism, bilingual education, open borders, and affirmative action to siphon as many special privileges to women and minorities as possible. A prime example would be Gregor Gysi, leader of the leftist party in Germany, recently calling ethnic Germans Nazis and crowing about how wonderful it is that they're losing their homeland to "refugees" in the name of "diversity."


Hmm. Pretty far away from what I studied and know as Marx's theory. Just like how "Communism" was destroyed from what the theory was. Once again, guy rolls over in his grave/water/sky.



I'm pro-choice, but I don't try to ease my conscience by repeating "it's not a life.  It's not a life."



A professor put it perfectly in a relevant class. Paraphrased- "I'm pro-choice. Of course i'm not pro-abortion, killing babies is not ideal or something I would do. But if it is banned and there is no safe option, women will resort to back alley abortions and coat hangers again."
---

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #26 on: September 06, 2015, 01:36:00 AM »
This is quite literally the most hypocritical statement I've seen on the internet. You accuse "liberals" of being "white straight male haters" yet anyone who dares write "what am I reading" is an ignorant simpleton "lobotomized by far left college professors." It is quite telling when your entire stance relies on the belittlement of others, and the distrust of education.

Then perhaps you should watch the movie Indoctrinate U and see the sort of sick brainwashing and groupthink which occurs on college campuses all across America. What would you propose calling modern "liberals" and "progressives" then, since I just showed how they're not spurring progress, and how they embody none of the classically liberal principles of the Enlightenment? Would you prefer Jonah Goldberg's term fuzzy fascists? Or maybe just totalitarians or statists? Regressives?

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #27 on: September 06, 2015, 01:39:53 AM »
What is a cultural Marxist? Or an authoritarian cultural Marxist?

It's the new "judeo-bolshevik." Just a reactionary conspiracy theory.

I guess Vladimir Putin is a reactionary conspiracy theorist:

https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Putin-First-Soviet-government-was-mostly-Jewish-317150

Of course he is. It's a classic reactionary conspiracy theory.

Guinea Pig, I'll admit I made a mistake, which you made too by not calling it out. Putin was talking about the Council of People’s Commissars, which was the elite echelons of the first Soviet government, not the Bolsheviks per se However, let's just be real as to what you're trying to do. You're trying to feel justified in not addressing anything from my post by blackballing me as a "conspiracy theorist," one of many non-arguments masquerading as arguments the left loves to use. If cultural Marxism doesn't exist, then how do you explain the following:

1. What is the point of affirmative action/mandatory gender and race quotas?
2. Why are historically white countries virtually the only countries told that they must become multicultural and admit 10's of thousands of foreigners? Nobody is demanding multiculturalism and open borders for Japan or China or Nigeria or Saudi Arabia or Mexico or Israel.
3. Why are whites the only race it is socially acceptable to bash in the media? For example, the movie Django Unchained has a line "Kill white people, get paid, what's not to like?" Replace white people with "Jews," "black people," "Latino people," or "gay people," the movie would have never made it to theaters.
4. Why don't "anti-racists" ever talk about black-on-white hate crimes, have "Good Night Black Pride Stickers," or hold rallies condemning La Raza and Louis Farrakhan?
5. Why is the historical narrative taught in schools so skewed against Europeans? Who learns about Chinese slavery, Arab slavery, Polynesian slavery, Turkish slavery, Mesoamerican slavery, how Nigerians rioted and burned British ports over British attempts to end slavery, or how countries like Mauritania and India still have massive slave populations? Who learns about black-on-black lynchings, white-on-white lynchings, or how Untouchables in India aren't even allowed to sit at the back of the bus? They must either stand or squat over the floor.

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #28 on: September 06, 2015, 01:49:28 AM »
Just gonna say, you've hit a nerve son.
First, with your rallying against feminism, specifically bringing up Montreal, I can't help but think of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

So is it OK what feminists did to Roosh V because of a shooting that happened 26 years ago? What are you essentially saying if you argue that, if not that two wrongs make a right?

In your OP, you, in your own words, called Obama "The most liberal dictator you could ever ask for", and then said I was putting words in your mouth when I claimed you were calling Obama super liberal (which he isn't).

The most IL-liberal dictator you could ever ask for. Learn some basic reading comprehension skills, son.


You then, in one of your posts in this thread, complain about feminism (which is literally the idea that women shouldn't be treated as inferior), multiculturalism (which is literally the idea that different cultures can co-mingle without conflict), and bilingual education. As someone with significant francophone heritage in a predominantly anglophone country, I find this point incredibly offensive. In the course of our history, a third of my ancestors were slaughtered for being a language minority, most of the rest were separated from their families during a violent forced deportation, and even during the modern era we've faced significant discrimination that we've had to overcome (which has been done through peaceful democratic means). Until the 1980s, we were often treated as second class citizens. Even now, I or a relative of mine will still face discrimination or prejudice on that basis every now and then. So don't you dare tell me that multi-lingualism is a bad thing.

Calvin hit the nail on the head. You have to distinguish between concept and practice. Feminism, in practice, is a thinly-veiled female supremacy movement. You have feminists who flat out say things like "kill all men," "all men are sexist," "teach men not to rape," or someone like Jessica Valenti who suggests women should be paid more money for doing the same job as men. If feminism was truly about equality between men and women, then feminists wouldn't hate men's rights activists so much. Multiculturalism, in practice, cannot be about different cultures intermingling when Islam is fundamentally irreconcilable with Western values.

That's the way you do it in Canada, but in the United States, Australia, and most of Europe, we have one national language that people are expected to learn, or they should not expect society's support. Call me crazy, but I think there's no reason someone should ever have to "Press One for English" in a historically English speaking country. How do you think they'd treat an immigrant to Japan who refuses to learn Japanese? Pretty darn bad knowing how nationalistic the Japanese are, but you won't scream about how prejudiced they are because they're far away from you. I'm closer.

You're complaining about multiple groups of people not being marginalized. Yes, modern liberals are against marginalizing people based on gender, ethnicity, language, culture, etc.

Unless those people happen to be male, white, or straight in which case you can organize something like "Free Slaps For Straight White Men," as the California Green Party did recently. And unless those people happen to be African Americans who "act white" or speak out against leftist policies, in which case, they can be denounced as Uncle Toms, House Negros, Oreos, and clowns in blackface. Moreover, some of the cultures liberals enable (namely Islam and ghetto black culture) DO deserve to be marginalized for having a track records of rape, murder, and violence.

The philosophy that members of the population contribute their fair share, and then the government provides things like health care, education, retirement benefits, social assistance, etc, to anyone who needs it. You can disagree with that philosophy, but at least in most of the world, that's a big part of what modern liberalism is.

There's the use of that vague term "fair share" leftists will never provide a concrete definition for. Barack Obama Sr. toyed with the idea of the rich paying a 100% income tax. Is that a "fair share?" Moreover, let me show you how the things you mention tie into cultural Marxism. In the 90's, there were huge scandals in the U.S. about how blacks received less prenatal care (which was thought to account for their higher infant mortality), lower test scores and mortgage acceptance rates. The impulse on the left was to immediately blame this on "white racism" and "Eurocentrism," ignoring statistics which contradicted the idea, like Asian-Americans faring better than whites in all of those areas. Modern liberals are for forcing equality of results under the pretense of "discrimination" against the group lagging behind, evidence not required.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2015, 03:20:59 AM by MondayMorningLunatic »

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #29 on: September 06, 2015, 02:05:18 AM »
I don't know of a single left-aligned human being that says our constitutional rights written by evil slave owners. Care to provide some examples of this extremism?

Debate SenecaDawg92 or theseoafs long enough.

Liberals do support freedom of speech. I don't know of a human on this planet that doesn't like being able to criticize the government (which is what free speech was originally for). However, for a very long time America has considered threats to the country/government officials punishable.
Only extreme liberals want to completely remove guns from the people. I certainly don't, leaning to the left myself.

No they don't. You flat out ignore all of the examples I provide. Speech codes on college campuses. Hate speech laws (did you hear about that politician in Denmark fined recently for an anti-Islamic tweet?). The Black Lives Matter fanatics driving Bernie Sanders (ironically, a longtime civil rights activist) and Jeb Bush from their podiums. Trying to censor an innocuous ad. I should have added stifling anthropogenic global warming dissent as well. And you're flat out wrong about your gun point. Here's a post-Sandy Hook poll showing that a sizable 44% of people support banning assault rifles (a dumb term, since any rifle could be used for assault), and needless to say, those people are not going to be a bunch of conservatives.

https://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics


What does raping have to do with 'special Sharia courts'? Why are you calling them 'Muslim rapists'? And if you're talking about those people who won't give marriage licenses to gay couples, it's not a case of religious freedom, it's a case of doing your job, since those people are government employees, and gay marriage is a legal thing now. And I'm not going to even comment on the statement about Obama. Give me some reasons why he's an 'illiberal dictator'.

The point is that "liberals" show extreme magnanimity to Islam and let 10's of thousands of Muslims into their countries along with most of their native practices. This reveals their total insincerity about the women and homosexuals they feign so much sympathy for. Muslims kill homosexuals and treat women like chattel. The criminal justice systems in the UK, Sweden, and elsewhere are also soft and show leniency to these Muslim savages. Here's an example of this from Sweden, which "progressives" like Bernie think is just the bee's knees:

https://tavernkeepers.com/six-muslim-teens-receive-community-service-for-gang-raping-a-15-year-old-girl-in-tensta-sweden/

The very least the state could do for Kim Davis, if it's similarly going to allow Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs religious exemptions from certain things, is provide some sort of way out, like having her undersecretaries issue the license, or having a special day for same-sex marriage licenses where she's not present. And fining someone $135,000 because they won't serve a customer is just absurd. What other goods does the state have the right to forcibly extract from people? I already provided 1,125 reasons Obama is an illiberal dictator in the article you missed.

https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/obama-252/

So, you don't like it when people are against racism and sexism? I mean, there are plenty of extremists that aren't very lovable (some [most? idk] feminists and certain other groups of people). And nobody's going to murder people out of the majority in this country, nor is it the "endgame".

If it happened in South Africa, it can happen in America and Europe. Slaughtering 70,000+, torturing and raping women because they're white sounds pretty darn "racist" and "sexist" to me, but "liberals" won't talk about that, because they're too stuck in cultural Marxist/critical theory notion that whites and males can't be victims of racism and sexism because racism and sexism require political "power" (evidently meaning groups like the ANC, NAACP, and CBC don't have power, and there aren't powerful female politicians like Hillary). Their idea of racism is a black person assaulting a white person (or sorta kinda white person like George Zimmerman) and being killed in self-defense, and their idea of sexism is the Gamergate movement calling out feminists who make bad arguments.

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #30 on: September 06, 2015, 02:09:38 AM »
What is a cultural Marxist? Or an authoritarian cultural Marxist?

It's basically hatred of Europeans and traditional European culture, then advocating things such as feminism, multiculturalism, bilingual education, open borders, and affirmative action to siphon as many special privileges to women and minorities as possible. A prime example would be Gregor Gysi, leader of the leftist party in Germany, recently calling ethnic Germans Nazis and crowing about how wonderful it is that they're losing their homeland to "refugees" in the name of "diversity."


Hmm. Pretty far away from what I studied and know as Marx's theory. Just like how "Communism" was destroyed from what the theory was. Once again, guy rolls over in his grave/water/sky.

It's taking Marx's idea of the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie and substituting straight white males and various "victim" groups respectively, which goes back to the Frankfurt School in Germany. By the same token, there are "Marxist feminists" who substitute in men and women. Commies always claim Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong Il etc. just didn't apply communism correctly. I wonder why communists are so incompetent at implementing their own belief system.

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #31 on: September 06, 2015, 02:17:54 AM »
I think we're talking past each other then. Modern liberalism absolutely allows for just seeing people as people, without getting bogged down in labels. I'm aware there are people who fixate on things like gender or race, but I feel like they're outliers who don't really represent any philosophy en masse.

Has there ever been a more disingenuous statement? You KNOW "liberals" are always the ones who play into this identity politics bullshit at every possible opportunity. I'd be perfectly fine NOT viewing issues through the lens of race and gender all time, except for issues like immigration or abortion where it's obviously relevant. "Liberals" turn everything into some race and gender issue. Video games. Magazines. Ads. Mortgage acceptance. Job turnover. Income. Disease. Criminal justice. Voter ID. Higher education, where judging applicants by merit alone has been deemed a "microaggression." It is a fetish for them.

Offline Lucien

  • James 5:1-5
  • Posts: 4618
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #32 on: September 06, 2015, 02:29:03 AM »
I don't know why I posted in this thread

There are actually a couple of things in this thread worthy of discussion, but as a simple member of the self-loathing, anointed intelligentsia, I hardly see how I'd have anything to contribute.
"Kind of a stupid game, isn't it?" - Calvin

Offline Scorpion

  • Unreal Heir
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9908
  • Gender: Male
  • Ragnarök around the Clöck!
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #33 on: September 06, 2015, 02:36:22 AM »
Yeah, I'm out. If all of this thread is just vitriol that buries some interesting points that could be discussed instead, then I don't think that I'll have anything to contribute.

Have fun
scorpion is my favorite deathcore lobster
Hey, the length is fine :azn: Thanks!

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2015, 03:27:25 AM »
Also, my view is that the problem with pure-liberal social policy is it is more about securing votes by creating blocs by division rather than purely about providing equality.

This is very true. I read Ann Coulter's new book "Adios, America!" and that's when it really clicked. People who think the Democrats or the Labour Party or whomever are motivated by a totally altruistic desire to help the Third World are deluding themselves. These politicians care first and foremost about trying to solve their own problems of getting elected and re-elected, and they know that foreigners are not very likely to vote for the conservative policy. Rest assured, if Hispanics tended to vote Republican, the Democrats would have erected a giant electric fence along the Southern border by now. And people like Glenn Beck are idiots for saying "Hispanics are natural born Republicans," or thinking they can woo over blacks.