Author Topic: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal  (Read 2330 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2015, 03:37:06 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.

The Council of People's Commissars had five Jews (all non-religious; Lenin wasn't even aware of his part-Jewish ancestry) among its 23 members.

And I'll tell you what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to point out that this "cultural Marxism" bullshit is steeped in anti-semitic and Nazi history, and deserves only scorn and dismissal.

Quote
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.

1. Mandatory quotas are illegal and don't exist. What are you talking about?
2. Historically white countries like the U.S.? Regardless, the fact that you include countries like Israel or Mexico on your list shows you really have no concept of what countries are multi-cultural.
3. Yeah, there's definitely noooooooooooooo subtle racism against people from the Middle East or the Maghreb in the media. No ugly stereotypes of people from China or Japan. Yeah, it's only the poor white man who is assailed from all sides.
4. Anti-racist is code for anti-white! That's what all the Neo-Nazis tell me!
5. Skewed against Europeans??? That's absolutely hilarious. And I would imagine American textbooks focus on American slavery because it was American, and because most historians aren't idiots who shout "WHATABOUT..." every time something negative comes up.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2015, 04:09:11 AM »
The Council of People's Commissars had five Jews (all non-religious; Lenin wasn't even aware of his part-Jewish ancestry) among its 23 members.

Your "fact" on that is ass backwards.

"The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others."

https://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/371/bolshevism-jews/

1. Mandatory quotas are illegal and don't exist. What are you talking about?
2. Historically white countries like the U.S.? Regardless, the fact that you include countries like Israel or Mexico on your list shows you really have no concept of what countries are multi-cultural.
3. Yeah, there's definitely noooooooooooooo subtle racism against people from the Middle East or the Maghreb in the media. No ugly stereotypes of people from China or Japan. Yeah, it's only the poor white man who is assailed from all sides.
4. Anti-racist is code for anti-white! That's what all the Neo-Nazis tell me!
5. Skewed against Europeans??? That's absolutely hilarious. And I would imagine American textbooks focus on American slavery because it was American, and because most historians aren't idiots who shout "WHATABOUT..." every time something negative comes up.

1. Yes they do. For example:

"In a 1973 court case, a federal judge created one of the first mandated quotas when he ruled that half of the Bridgeport, Connecticut Police Department's new employees must be either black or Puerto Rican."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_quota

And you didn't exactly answer my question, now did you?

2. The U.S. is a historically majority white country, whether you want to accept it or not. I have nothing against non-whites for their race, however there is a very real possibility that making it majority non-white would "fundamentally transform" the political nature of the country to use Obama-ese, which is probably not a good thing since non-whites tend to embrace big government Democratic Party policies. Are you actually going so far as to suggest Mexico and Israel are multicultural? Do you have any idea what the Mexican Federales do to illegals from Honduras, Guatemala, or El Salvador, or how the Israelis treat the Palestinians and even the African Jews who emigrate there?

3. Seriously? Who is "racist" against Middle Eastern immigrants? If there are aspersions being cast on them, it's due to their religion: the savage death cult of Islam. Miley Cyrus was just on the receiving end of a huge scandal for mocking Asians. Another proof of what I'm saying is that it's socially acceptable to talk about "old white men" running the country, but if you said "Jews," you'd have the ADL on your ass like white on rice.

4. Again, not answering the question. I'm not a "Neo-Nazi" at all, but I think it's true for all practical purposes. Look at someone like Tim Wise and the utter lack of attention they give to black-on-white hate crimes, and how they scapegoat "white privilege" for everything under the sun. If a Neo-Nazi told you 2+2=4, would you reject that?

5. But you ignore the fact that there are aspects of American history textbooks won't talk about. The black-on-black and white-on-white lynchings. Something else I forgot to mention would be the fact that Free Negros and Jews owned slaves, and Irish indentured servitude is something which also gets overlooked.

Offline 73109

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4966
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #37 on: September 06, 2015, 11:03:00 AM »
I can't believe I am posting in this thread, because like three years ago, I would have gotten kicked out and banned from DTF because of it.

I will, however, say this:

1. Have you—MML or Calvin—read ANY Marx, and if so, how much? What books?

2. If you haven't read any Marx, how can you accuse people of cultural Marxism or Marxism in general when you don't know what the dude actually said?

3. If you think todays "liberals" are really Marxists, you actually don't know what you are talking about. Like, I mean, I'm trying to be nice and civil here but there are opinions and then there are facts. And it is a fact that Obama is as far from being a Marxist as you people are. Hell, even a dude like Bernie Sanders isn't REALLY a socialist. People tend to think socialism or Marxism is the policy that we should all be equal, and that is very false and incredibly ignorant.

4. What would you do if you ever met an actual Marxist in real life? Not like a liberal democrat "Yay Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren" type, but an honest to god, Capital reading, historical materialist believing Marxist?

Hell, my assumption is that you don't even know what historical materialism is, and that's my problem. You can't throw around terms when you have no idea what their implications are. Marxist is such a dirty word since the 50s that it has been used to discredit ideas that aren't even Marxist! It's laughable to witness this debate but it actually makes me really sad, if I'm being honest.

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #38 on: September 06, 2015, 04:30:05 PM »
I can't believe I am posting in this thread, because like three years ago, I would have gotten kicked out and banned from DTF because of it.

I will, however, say this:

1. Have you—MML or Calvin—read ANY Marx, and if so, how much? What books?

2. If you haven't read any Marx, how can you accuse people of cultural Marxism or Marxism in general when you don't know what the dude actually said?

3. If you think todays "liberals" are really Marxists, you actually don't know what you are talking about. Like, I mean, I'm trying to be nice and civil here but there are opinions and then there are facts. And it is a fact that Obama is as far from being a Marxist as you people are. Hell, even a dude like Bernie Sanders isn't REALLY a socialist. People tend to think socialism or Marxism is the policy that we should all be equal, and that is very false and incredibly ignorant.

4. What would you do if you ever met an actual Marxist in real life? Not like a liberal democrat "Yay Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren" type, but an honest to god, Capital reading, historical materialist believing Marxist?

Hell, my assumption is that you don't even know what historical materialism is, and that's my problem. You can't throw around terms when you have no idea what their implications are. Marxist is such a dirty word since the 50s that it has been used to discredit ideas that aren't even Marxist! It's laughable to witness this debate but it actually makes me really sad, if I'm being honest.

I did read The Communist Manifesto a few years ago. The same can't be said about "liberals" who spout off about "capitalism" or "free markets" without ever reading Smith or Hayek or Von Mises or Rothbard or Rand or Hayek or Friedman or any of their other leading exponents. The problem with your comment is that you conflate Marxism in its original sense with cultural Marxism, when I've only been talking about the latter. But even many of Marx's ideas outlined in The Communist Manifesto, you would find mass support for among "liberals." For example, here is an excerpt from Chapter II of The Communist Manifesto where it's talking about what advanced countries will look like after the proletariat begins to wrest power from the bourgeoisie:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Eminent domain, zoning, property taxes)
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (Self-explanatory)
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Inheritance taxes and estate taxes)
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. ("Asset forfeiture," what happened to the Japanese under the uber-socialist FDR)
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve and other central banks)
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. (The FCC, FTA, public buses and high-speed rails)
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (The nationalization of industry, like what Frank Marshall Davis Jr. did with General Motors. The U.S. does not have "state farms," which failed miserably in the Soviet Union and China, but we do have a lot of government involvement in farming, such as subsidies.)
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Lord knows liberals love affirmative action, women's liberation, and labor unions)
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (This one not so much)
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Self-explanatory except for the last sentence, which sounds like a Voc-Tech school).

The earliest copies of The Communist Manifesto also called for a deliberate undermining of family bonds, though Marx and Engels were shrewd enough to omit that from later versions. Does that sound like the ongoing disintegration of the nuclear family, or all of the parents who have kids taken away unfairly by "social workers?" And are you actually arguing that Marxism isn't egalitarian? What's up with all of the talk about abolishing classes or "income inequality?" If I ever met a "honest to god, Capital reading, historical materialist believing Marxist" in real life, I would ask how they square their beliefs with the massive failures of the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

It's ironic you would bring up Obama when one of his foremost mentors is Derrick Bell, who's basically as much of a cultural Marxist as you could ever be. He developed "critical race theory," which is an application of Marxist thought from the Frankfurt School to black-white race relations. It's the reason whites have a casus belli going against them in the forms of "white privilege" and "the legacy of slavery." You can stick your nose up at the term "cultural Marxist" all you want, but you have to propose some sort of alternate term with which to describe today's "liberals" and "progressives," because they're as illiberal and regressive as their tin pot dictator Obama. And yes, Bernie is "really" a socialist. I guess you missed him on NBC saying "Socialism isn't a dirty word," or calling for the state to pay for people's college tuitions. Here's an article called "Bernie Sanders Surge Reflects US Shift on Socialism:"

https://www.voanews.com/content/bernie-sanders-surge-reflects-us-shift-on-socialism-/2946935.html

You guys always laugh off ideas you don't like (so much for "open-mindedness"). Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and John Kenneth Galbraith pooh-poohed the idea there was anything wrong with the Soviet Union at late as the 1980's, right before it fucking collapsed. You laughed off the idea that gay marriage would diminish religious freedom or lead to a mainstreaming of other marriages outside the time-honored one man + one woman relationship, now Kim Davis is a prisoner of conscience and polygamists are asking for marriage licenses too. You laughed off the idea that Obama is a Muslim, now we see that virtually his entire time in office he's been praising Islam. The man actually had the gall to send out a "Happy Ramadan" Tweet on the eve of the Chatanooga Shooting. You love mocking "xenophobes" and "Islamophobes" who say there's something wrong with immigration, Kate Steinle gets shot and dies in her father's arms, there are ISIS cells in 49 states, Sweden has the second highest rape rate in the world after Lesotho and people are getting beheaded in IKEA Stores. You guys are laughing yourselves into the grave.

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 #39 on: September 06, 2015, 06:01:49 PM »
It's hard to "honestly engage" with an OP that claims that all modern liberals would like to assassinate all white people.

Honestly, it's astounding to me that this thread didn't get locked immediately.

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1103
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #40 on: September 06, 2015, 09:39:18 PM »
In the original message he did nothing but degrade everyone who disagrees with him, yet you're agreeing with its message because of the responses? Unreal. Not surprising, but unreal.

Offline Lucien

  • James 5:1-5
  • Posts: 4618
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #41 on: September 06, 2015, 11:04:12 PM »
I'd say this forum is, in general, pretty condescending of extremism. MondayMorningLunatic, in essence, claimed that the majority of liberals are extremist. I don't think it is incredibly wrong for us to disagree with such a generalization.
"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 #42 on: September 06, 2015, 11:36:06 PM »
In the original message he did nothing but degrade everyone who disagrees with him, yet you're agreeing with its message because of the responses? Unreal. Not surprising, but unreal.

He went after an ideology, not a specific person on the forum.  The forum went after the specific poster.  And it was immediate.

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.

Definitely only going after an ideology.
scorpion is my favorite deathcore lobster
Hey, the length is fine :azn: Thanks!

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #43 on: September 06, 2015, 11:44:37 PM »
It's hard to "honestly engage" with an OP that claims that all modern liberals would like to assassinate all white people.

Honestly, it's astounding to me that this thread didn't get locked immediately.

Where did I claim that exactly? Now that you mention it though, I think this Huffington Post author committed a bit of a Freudian Slip when he called for "White Wounding" to work towards racial justice:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-benn/towards-a-concept-of-whit_b_7985986.html


Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #44 on: September 06, 2015, 11:46:38 PM »
In the original message he did nothing but degrade everyone who disagrees with him, yet you're agreeing with its message because of the responses? Unreal. Not surprising, but unreal.

He went after an ideology, not a specific person on the forum.  The forum went after the specific poster.  And it was immediate.

I'm noticing quite a bit of acceptance for mockery of the right, but absolute shunning for mockery of the left.  It is hardly balanced.

Precisely. They think "respect," "tolerance," and "compassion," are a one way street and hate when they get a taste of their own medicine.

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1103
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #45 on: September 06, 2015, 11:49:49 PM »
In the original message he did nothing but degrade everyone who disagrees with him, yet you're agreeing with its message because of the responses? Unreal. Not surprising, but unreal.

He went after an ideology, not a specific person on the forum.  The forum went after the specific poster.  And it was immediate.

I'm noticing quite a bit of acceptance for mockery of the right, but absolute shunning for mockery of the left.  It is hardly balanced.

This post is genuinely hilarious. First, again, I am not a liberal. So I'm not worried about him going after me. But you are truly ignorant if you think him callng out ALL people who call themselves liberals is in no way attacking anyone on this forum. Seriously, I genuinely think you're just looking for laughs.

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1103
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #46 on: September 06, 2015, 11:52:33 PM »
In the original message he did nothing but degrade everyone who disagrees with him, yet you're agreeing with its message because of the responses? Unreal. Not surprising, but unreal.

He went after an ideology, not a specific person on the forum.  The forum went after the specific poster.  And it was immediate.

I'm noticing quite a bit of acceptance for mockery of the right, but absolute shunning for mockery of the left.  It is hardly balanced.

Precisely. They think "respect," "tolerance," and "compassion," are a one way street and hate when they get a taste of their own medicine.

Lol, look at the thread title. Seriously,  you wrote it,  so why not read it aloud. And then explain to me how it's not attacking individuals,  but an ideology. Because "liberals" sound like individuals, rather than an ideology.

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #47 on: September 07, 2015, 12:14:21 AM »
This post is genuinely hilarious. First, again, I am not a liberal. So I'm not worried about him going after me. But you are truly ignorant if you think him callng out ALL people who call themselves liberals is in no way attacking anyone on this forum. Seriously, I genuinely think you're just looking for laughs.

It would seem you're setting up a straw man, because I never said "ALL" people who call themselves liberals fit into the mold I described. Just most. There are some people who self-identity as liberals who do espouse the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment, particularly in the UK where the word has retained more of its original meaning. Here's what you don't seem to get. Modern liberals engage in this preposterous circular argument that they have the right to call other people as many names as the want (fascist, racist, Neo-Nazi, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, gun nut, redneck, free market fundamentalist, simple-minded, reactionary, selfish, bigots, etc.) or censor them because right-wingers "hate" minorities, women, gays, or the poor. Except that's an unfounded assumption, because virtually no one on the right is seeking to actively harm any of those groups. It's basically like going up and punching an innocent person, then complaining when they punch back. You would do well to learn to delineate between bullies and people who are standing up to bullies.

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #48 on: September 07, 2015, 12:16:20 AM »
Honestly, it's astounding to me that this thread didn't get locked immediately.

Honestly, the reactions seem to only give credibility.

Yep, sort of like how I called out "liberals" for not caring about free speech, and theseoafs is "astounded" my thread wasn't locked :lol

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1103
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #49 on: September 07, 2015, 12:24:28 AM »
This post is genuinely hilarious. First, again, I am not a liberal. So I'm not worried about him going after me. But you are truly ignorant if you think him callng out ALL people who call themselves liberals is in no way attacking anyone on this forum. Seriously, I genuinely think you're just looking for laughs.

It would seem you're setting up a straw man, because I never said "ALL" people who call themselves liberals fit into the mold I described. Just most. There are some people who self-identity as liberals who do espouse the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment, particularly in the UK where the word has retained more of its original meaning. Here's what you don't seem to get. Modern liberals engage in this preposterous circular argument that they have the right to call other people as many names as the want (fascist, racist, Neo-Nazi, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, gun nut, redneck, free market fundamentalist, simple-minded, reactionary, selfish, bigots, etc.) or censor them because right-wingers "hate" minorities, women, gays, or the poor. Except that's an unfounded assumption, because virtually no one on the right is seeking to actively harm any of those groups. It's basically like going up and punching an innocent person, then complaining when they punch back. You would do well to learn to delineate between bullies and people who are standing up to bullies.


Again, genuinely hilarious. Seriously. Your defense is that it's not all liberals, just most of them? Then caricature "them" as being close minded and calling others names? I'll let that sink in. Hypocrisy is genuinely hilarious to me.

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 #50 on: September 07, 2015, 12:36:19 AM »
It's hard to "honestly engage" with an OP that claims that all modern liberals would like to assassinate all white people.

Honestly, it's astounding to me that this thread didn't get locked immediately.

Where did I claim that exactly?

Yeah, I understand this game.  This is the part where I explain that I, in fact, was slightly exaggerating, because what you said was simply that liberals hate white people and would like to establish a political climate that is similar to South Africa, with the murdering and raping and whatnot.  What I said is that you said all liberals want to assassinate all white people, which is a slight exaggeration.

Because some people are somehow taking it as a victory that no one is taking this thread seriously, here you go:

The problem with this point of view is that it's so astoundingly out of touch with reality, so reductionist, and so black-and-white, that it's hard to really address any point in particular.  Suffice it to say that the problem with the OP is that it tries to shoehorn all liberals into one frightening monolithic white-hating box, when in fact -- ready for this? -- #NotAllLiberals believe the same things other liberals do.  Politics, even on the left, are a spectrum.  If you put two people who consider themselves "liberals" into a room, they may in fact disagree on a large number of things.  The scary black people who interrupted Bernie Sanders in Seattle?  Not all liberals agree with those scary black people.  In fact, if my Facebook friends are any indication, most liberals actually disagreed with the actions of the scary black people there, even if they did agree with the scary black people that Bernie should talk more about race.  Some liberals think you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against gay couples if you bake cakes for a living, some liberals don't care, and some liberals think you should be allowed not to make that cake if you don't want to (even if they think you're lame for doing it).  Some liberals like Obama and some -- get this -- don't.  (By the way, the idea that Obama is a "dictator": want to explain that one to me?  What does it mean?  I always thought the public perception was that Obama's a disappointing president who hasn't gotten enough done.  Has he gotten nothing done, or has he gotten SO FUCKING MUCH done that it's terrifying?)  Some liberals don't like straight white men, and some like them so much that they are married to them.  By the way, the proportion of liberals who hate straight white men is less than you think it is.  Most of them are more similar to Jon Stewart than to the scary liberals you see on the news.

As for the topic of the thread: yes, the meaning of the word "liberal" is different than it used to be.  Words change their meanings all the time.  It doesn't mean anything. 

By the way, what is with you targeting me in the comments of this thread?  I made one comment.  You don't know anything about me.  For the record I don't think that the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights are invalidated because the founding fathers owned slaves.  That doesn't even make sense.  The OP was absurd, and you don't have to be a spooky black white-person-hating Muslim-loving gay-wedding-cake-mandating Constitution-hating Big-Brother-hugging Obama-loving Bernie-Sanders-threatening terrorist progressive to have thought that.

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 #51 on: September 07, 2015, 12:50:03 AM »
Now, there are a couple interesting examples in the OP which you could pick up and turn into an interesting conversation, in which no one would have to mock or attack anyone else.  You could package up those examples and give the thread a title like "some progressives believe some really wacky things" and then everyone could contribute, because I think everyone agrees that there are some progressives who believe some really wacky things.  And then you can discuss those wacky things and there's a chance that a real, decent discussion could be had.  But taking those same examples and making these kinds of sweeping generalizations and accusations against half of the people in America makes for a really shitty discussion and is just kind of... strange.

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #52 on: September 07, 2015, 01:24:25 AM »
It's hard to "honestly engage" with an OP that claims that all modern liberals would like to assassinate all white people.

Honestly, it's astounding to me that this thread didn't get locked immediately.

Where did I claim that exactly?

Yeah, I understand this game.  This is the part where I explain that I, in fact, was slightly exaggerating, because what you said was simply that liberals hate white people and would like to establish a political climate that is similar to South Africa, with the murdering and raping and whatnot.  What I said is that you said all liberals want to assassinate all white people, which is a slight exaggeration.

Because some people are somehow taking it as a victory that no one is taking this thread seriously, here you go:

The problem with this point of view is that it's so astoundingly out of touch with reality, so reductionist, and so black-and-white, that it's hard to really address any point in particular.  Suffice it to say that the problem with the OP is that it tries to shoehorn all liberals into one frightening monolithic white-hating box, when in fact -- ready for this? -- #NotAllLiberals believe the same things other liberals do.  Politics, even on the left, are a spectrum.  If you put two people who consider themselves "liberals" into a room, they may in fact disagree on a large number of things.  The scary black people who interrupted Bernie Sanders in Seattle?  Not all liberals agree with those scary black people.  In fact, if my Facebook friends are any indication, most liberals actually disagreed with the actions of the scary black people there, even if they did agree with the scary black people that Bernie should talk more about race.  Some liberals think you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against gay couples if you bake cakes for a living, some liberals don't care, and some liberals think you should be allowed not to make that cake if you don't want to (even if they think you're lame for doing it).  Some liberals like Obama and some -- get this -- don't.  (By the way, the idea that Obama is a "dictator": want to explain that one to me?  What does it mean?  I always thought the public perception was that Obama's a disappointing president who hasn't gotten enough done.  Has he gotten nothing done, or has he gotten SO FUCKING MUCH done that it's terrifying?)  Some liberals don't like straight white men, and some like them so much that they are married to them.  By the way, the proportion of liberals who hate straight white men is less than you think it is.  Most of them are more similar to Jon Stewart than to the scary liberals you see on the news.

As for the topic of the thread: yes, the meaning of the word "liberal" is different than it used to be.  Words change their meanings all the time.  It doesn't mean anything. 

By the way, what is with you targeting me in the comments of this thread?  I made one comment.  You don't know anything about me.  For the record I don't think that the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights are invalidated because the founding fathers owned slaves.  That doesn't even make sense.  The OP was absurd, and you don't have to be a spooky black white-person-hating Muslim-loving gay-wedding-cake-mandating Constitution-hating Big-Brother-hugging Obama-loving Bernie-Sanders-threatening terrorist progressive to have thought that.

Again, like portnoy311, you don't understand that there's a delineation between people who are actually liberal, and phonies who use that word when their interest is simply controlling and bullying people, and that the latter represent the majority of so-called liberals today, hence Obama, the architect of the least transparent administration in White House history, enjoying mass popularity among them. He owes almost all of his popularity to being black is the straight truth, because there are no substantive differences between his M.O. and George W. Bush's M.O., yet one is Adolf Hitler, and the other is totally unacceptable to liken to Adolf Hitler.

Call me crazy, but I think the etymology of words is important. The word liberal comes from the Latin word liber for "free." It shares the same root as liberate, liberty, libertine, and libertarian. What sense does it make to call a group of people "liberals" who would do something like create speech codes or absurd "microaggressions" on college campuses, the places which are supposed to be the bastions of free speech and open debate? What sense does it make to call people "liberals" who bend over backwards to appease the most anti-woman, anti-homosexual, anti-religious freedom ideology you could imagine, Islam, and then have the gall to call it a "religion of peace," the literal embodiment of "war is peace" from 1984. Their needs to be an alternate term for those people is my point. And they are not "progressive." They are sending America and Europe to hell in a hand basket.

Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #53 on: September 07, 2015, 01:49:57 AM »
By the way, lest anyone accuse me of contradicting myself for calling "liberals" straight white male haters but defending the anti-woman, anti-homosexual religion of Islam, I would say that reflects on the inconsistency of "liberals" themselves rather than any inconsistency on my part. You oppose abortion, you're a misogynist. You oppose gay marriage, you're a homophobe. You oppose affirmative action, you're a racist. But when Muslims treat women like shit, hang and throw homosexuals off of buildings, and espouse vehement racism against Africans (just look up the term "kaffir"), you have Islamophobia (an irrational fear of Islam) if you dare to suggest these people's way of life is not welcome in the West. Their entire ego seems to be rooted in being what the rest of society is not, even if it comes at the expense of internal contradiction. Look no further than whackjob liberal judges like David Bazelon who spent their entire careers fishing for more lenient sentences for criminals, the "fat acceptance" movement, or enshrining an obviously mentally ill group like transgenders and demanding they have special bathrooms. What purpose does that serve besides just scoring points against "society" at all costs?

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 1103
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #54 on: September 07, 2015, 05:17:22 AM »
Yeah, I'm the one in this thread guilty of that...

Hilarious.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40973
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: "Liberals" and "progressives" are not liberal
« Reply #55 on: September 07, 2015, 07:42:39 AM »
This thread is going nowhere.

MML, if you want to have an honest discussion about these topics, how about starting off with a less confrontational thread.  If all you want is a shitstorm, throw it somewhere else.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.