Can you be a liberal without conforming to the standard of political rectitude?

Good man.

Let's be honest here Osso. You came here to pile on with Setanta and Centrox. You didn't even try to comment on the topic of this thread. Setanta and Centrox were in a (rather amusing) discussion on whether I am an "idiot" or a "moron", and you jumped in... not even responding to the topic... to add to the list of insults.

You are a loyal member of the in-crowd here. I don't see anyone in your group questioning the rightness of your opinions. You do sometimes hesitate (which I appreciate), and your personal attacks are less frequent and more subtle (which I also appreciate) but I have never seen you stand up stand up to the social pressure in your clique.

Setanta and Centrox are here to exert social pressure to anyone who expresses opinions outside of what you all consider appropriate. You usually give tacit approval of this bullying even when you don't directly participate.

This is a thread about political correctness, and you all are providing a very good example of what I am talking about.

I am curious Roger, Sentata and Centrox are alleging that I am a closet conservative (something that I am not particularly offended by, I believe what I believe).

From you sit, knowing what you do about the opinions that I express here... do you see me as a liberal?

Sure. I do see you as a liberal on some issues, but far from all. Just as I see myself as conservative on some issues.

Sorry I couldn't be more definitive.

I think most people would classify me as being on the "liberal" side of the spectrum but I don't march in lock step with every person who claims to be a progressive. Like you, I can be critical of certain aspects of feminism. I also hold other positions which differ from what you'd find on a progressive platform. But, by and large, I don't believe liberals on this site have ever treated me unfairly or drummed me out of the party for questioning the established wisdom — with the possible exception of Setanta.

max, you seem to think it's your nuanced positions that cause negative reactions from liberals. I think it's your style of argumentation. I had one run-in with you about factory farming when I first returned to A2K and you were so doctrinaire, so dismissive, and so arrogant that I decided to avoid any interactions with you in the future. In fact, I'll probably regret responding on this thread!

In a snit because I criticized your remarks about the constitution? That's the only time I've had any negative exchange with you. Poor baybee . . .

Maybe you are right about my style of argumentation.

I express my opinions pretty strongly, and I defend them until (in my judgement) they are refuted. I have admitted to being wrong on several occasions (I am quite proud of that). When someone brings up a new argument that I can't counter, I enjoy that; having my opinions challenged is why I am here. If that pisses people off... there is always the ignore button.

I vaguely remember the argument about Factory Farming... I think you are referring to Edgar's thread. I stated my opinion and responded to the counter opinions. I didn't find any argument that I felt challenged my viewpoint. It is your judgement whether I am "dismissive" or "arrogant". I do feel quite strongly that Edgar's position (and I assume yours) is wrong according to the facts. And, I think I said that without attacking Edgar or you... I can strongly disagree with you without attacking you as a person.

And... of course you have the choice to avoid interactions with me.

The issue is the concerted campaign by Setanta, Centrox, Izzy, Osso and others to stifle certain opinions and viewpoints using personal attacks.

These people go from thread to thread, not only arguing the points... but insulting and name-calling the people making the points. The vast majority of Setanta's posts (and you can look at his recent points and count yourself) contain personal attacks on someone's intelligence with no real response to the topic under discussion.

Yes, I argue my opinions strongly. I am wiling to say that a point of view is ridiculous (which I think is valid in a discussion). I refrain from attacking anyone personally (except in response to a personal attack)... and I certainly don't carry grudges from thread to thread. There is a big difference between attacking a viewpoint and attacking you personally. Many people here seem to have a problem with not taking debate about ideas personally.

People who want to avoid any arguments with anyone who has a different viewpoint are in the wrong place. Able2Know provides a great deal of freedom of expression with pretty much anyone who wants to come in. This means that if you are here, you will run into people who disagree with you. For you and them to argue your points is really what Able2Know does best.

There are platforms that allow you to filter out opinions you don't like so that you only interact with people who agree with you. Try Facebook.

paranoid much?

also, who are my clique? I'd like to meet them.

Maybe I can start a clique sauce company, as we need industry happening in the US.

Come on Osso, you are here to support Centrox and Setanta. They are your clique (along with Izzy, DrewDad... and many others). I have never once seen you stand up to them, and you are often there to offer tacit support when they are calling people "twits" and "morons". You are participating in the attempt to discredit Able2know members for expressing the wrong opinions. You all are not arguing with their opinions, you are attacking them as human beings.

You could very easily put me on ignore (if I really bother you). There is a big "Ignore" button that you know how to use. But you don't use it. You are choosing to pile on with personal insults with the goal of supporting a particular viewpoint by attacking anyone who promotes an opposing viewpoint.

Since you are not ignoring me, I am going to push back. I don't like the attempt at social control that you all are trying to push on Able2know.

More paranoia.
I have often put you on ignore, but let you loose later.

You are not "letting me loose" Osso. If you take me off ignore you are doing it because you want to. It is no skin off my back whether you have me on ignore or not (although I suppose we have had some positive interactions in the past). There are 7 billion people who don't read my posts.... I am Ok with that.

If you keep taking me off of ignore, you obviously like something about my posts.

That would make an excellent epitaph!!

I don't call you a liberal, since liberal was a moniker with pejorative connotations, back in the Vietnam Era when "liberal" went along with "bleeding heart liberal," or "liberal Jew," I question whether you would have identified with the moniker of liberal. So, in my opinion, you might be an intellectual faddist, with a nuanced definition. I could be wrong, but since I thought you follow the standard leftist criticism of Israel, that neatly forgets how the western world saw a need for Israel back in 1948, and also neatly forgot the suicide bombers were just proxies for the defeated Arab armies, in my opinion, I could believe your liberalism is just faddist. If I am wrong, it is only my opinion.

You couldn't have played with identities; however, if you were born in 1942 Germany, by your same parents; the state would have given you an identity. In my opinion, your moniker should be "just American." That might then include a degree of gratitude for your good luck in time and place of being born. The moniker of liberal could connotate to some that the speaker might be "full of oneself, or at least self absorbed to a fault." Like Jimminy Cricket said, "Let your conscience be your guide."

You seem to be defining "liberal" mainly in terms of supporting certain social issues. But, that's quite apart from viewing it as a political position--i.e., liberal/Democratic vs conservative/Republican which traditionally rests on the influence, and intrusion, and control, of the federal government vs states rights and control by the state.

So, many fiscal conservatives, or plain old Republicans, might also be liberal in their views of social issues--like abortion, or same-sex marriage--but might definitely oppose a health care system mainly controlled by the federal government.

Whether you find the Democratic party appealing would likely depend on whether you share their view of federal influence, and interference, and not just your position on social issues.

My impression is that the Republicans demand more of an adherence to positions of "political rectitude"--and are more dismissive of those Republicans that deviate, branding them as RINOS--Republicans In Name Only--than is true of the Democrats.

I don't believe this makes sense at all. The line you are trying to draw can't be draw.

- A liberal view of immigration means that States can refuse to enforce Federal law and can say "No" to federal authorities. California just made itself a Sanctuary State.

- A liberal view on Marajuana means that States have the right to refuse federal law.

- This isn't a new thing... a liberal view on Slavery meant that states could defy Federal law such as the Fugitive Slave Act.

Of course there are plenty of counter-examples.

- A liberal view on gun control is that the Federal Government can pass legislation that has to be followed by the states.

- A liberal view on health care, and gay marriage is that all States must comply.



Recently Bernie Sanders got shouted down by liberals for supporting a Democratic candidate who is pro-life.... go figure.

Hardly.

Did I say it was a regular occurrence?

You implied as much, and in the context of political rectitude being enforced here.

Talking about "liberals".

Not only the video is funny, but comments are interesting.



Comment by Ron Yeahright: "...Is it any wonder that liberals are sissies? Look at their king."

It doesn't make sense to you because you just don't understand it--as your simplistic "liberal view" examples show you don't clearly understand the concept of states' rights in political discourse and law--nor do you understand the political philosophic differences that separate Democrats from Republicans, and which do not rest on so-called "liberal views" of social issues.

I have no doubt you will continue to put forth more of your muddled thinking, to try to defend the rather obscure, idiosyncratic topic you have chosen for this thread, and I have no desire to wade through that muck to try to continue to dialogue with you.