What does it take to be liberal? (Kicked out of the liberal club).

I think your unusual views about women leave no room on the reigning liberal cabal’s beach blanket for you. Sit in the sand.

That and your troll avatar.

Good for you. I continue to think of myself as conservative - but with the same caveat.

I love my troll avatar! I ain't gonna give that up for anyone.

(I am a bit curious about what you think are my "unusual views" about women. Most of the views I am alleged to have about women aren't mine.)

It’s a good word:

lib·er·al
ˈlib(ə)rəl/
adjective
1.
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"
2.
(of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
synonyms: wide-ranging, broad-based, general
"a liberal education"

I used to think any liberal who was ashamed of the word was simpy.

The crowd condemns you!

(He won’t stand straight up?)

In this thread, I am talking about the label based political/social ideology. I don't think the general definition of the word fits.

I guess you don’t see them closely related.

I will attempt to answer the questions you are presenting. I am speaking as a liberal democrat. My response is based on my prior interactions with you, as well as other posters interactions with you. I personally believe that the problem is not necessarily what you say. I think the problem is more to do with how you say the things you say. That is just my personal observation. I don't think the occasional disagreement is the real issue. I believe you just rub people the wrong way. This is just my honest assessment. I am perfectly fine with you arguing opposing points of view. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.

Thanks, I guess.

I realize I rub some people the wrong way... and they rub me the wrong way. The problem is group think; when anyone questions the ideological narrative they get attacked. I challenge the group think and that causes conflict.

I obviously don't mind taking this role, nor do I mind the fact that many people aren't happy with this. I don't believe that anyone can question the ideological narrative in a way that would avoid rude behavior from people who want to prevent dissent. If such a person exists it certainly isn't me. I say what I think, I defend it. If someone makes a case I think is questionable, I question it. That's what I do here.

In this thread, I am asking the question if someone who questions liberal dogma can still be a liberal. This is an important question since several self-proclaimed liberals have directly challenged my right to use that label.

Yet, it doesn't have to be that way.

If a group of people truly and honestly agree with each other on specifics, I don't see anything wrong with group thinking.

I present ideological narratives when I genuinely and honestly believe in that narrative. I also will articulate and present evidence to why I believe the narrative I am presenting. I also have no problem with other posters, such as yourself, presenting opposing views to my narratives. On the other hand, if you present your opposing views in a conceited or snotty way, then you should expect your points of view to be attacked.

I am speaking as a liberal. When engaging in a debate with someone, some level of conflict is to be expected. Some level of conflict is not unusual when debating. You might find that when you challenge the group thinking, that the conflict probably wouldn't be as bad if you did it in a non-conceited and non-snotty way.

When I am on a political thread, I expect opposing views. In fact I welcome opposing views. The fun is in the debating of opinions, facts, and evidence. If I didn't have opposing views to debate with, it would get real boring real fast.

If you challenge my ideological narrative in a conceited snotty way, I will definitely respond in a very negative way. I would never want to prevent dissent, but I do relish and enjoy exposing conceited snotty people.

What you refer to as liberal dogma may be what other liberals truly and genuinely believe in, with well thought out reasons for their belief. You can call yourself whatever label you wish to call yourself. It's no big deal.

Just for the record, I have occasionally observed you being attacked unfairly here on A2K.

Group think is a process, not a result. It isn't group think if a large group of people just happen to independently come to the exact same conclusions on number of unrelated controversial issues. That isn't what is happening.

There are two social mechanism for causing this lockstep agreement.

1) People start with a group narrative, then find facts to match. These narratives are self-sustaining and supported by a homogeneous ideological community. Any facts that support the narrative are accepted without question, and any facts that challenge the narrative are dismissed or ignored.

2) Group cohesion is maintained through attacking dissent. Any point made that questions an ideological narrative results in personal attacks-- not against the argument, but against the person who made it. If you question whether a social policy might have negative consequences, the discussion quickly leaves the facts around that policy and becomes a question about whether you are a racist.

This makes real intellectual questioning impossible. No one in a group is willing to question a narrative, and no one is willing to risk the attacks of the group should they dissent.

I presented a list of stances that aren't very extreme that would be unable to present here without personal attacks from what I call the "in-crowd". MaPorsche and I had a little bet to test my hypothesis... unfortunately he stepped back into line pretty quickly (social pressure is powerful). I will have to dig up my list of stances.

I assume you realize that this thread was intended to be mostly tongue in cheek (although you are pushing me to be more serious than I had originally planned).

I took my troll avatar after then ideological liberals started labeling me a troll any time I pushed on the accepted narrative. I decided to own that label. That should explain my attitude on this.

I question the ideological narratives here, particularly when I feel they are not supported by facts. That is part of who I am. I accept the reaction I get.

In this thread, I am just pushing again... this time on how ideologically pure you need to be to wear the "liberal" label.

Max, thou doth protest too much.

Don't worry about perceived clubbiness. Just continue to write as truthfully as you can and back up your claims with facts. You don't have to be a member of any particular group to maintain any intellectual integrity. And being a member of a particular group doesn't mean someone's right — nor does it even mean they have anything interesting to say.

Liberals do NOT support free speech. That is a common misconception.

I disagree. I consistently support free speech. That is a core liberal value, at least to me. The current attempts to stifle speech is one of my sharpest criticisms of modern day liberals.

Freedom of speech is a traditional liberal value. The ACLU at its best has supported free speech from all sides (lately it has been getting squishy on this value).

You've already acknowledged you are not a liberal.

You support free speech. Liberals do NOT support free speech. You are not a liberal.

Logic.

That is a circular argument, McGentrix. I make it very clear that I consider myself a liberal. I consider free speech to be a classical liberal value. The ACLU (generally considered to be a liberal group) has supported speech across the political spectrum from far left flag burners to far right Nazis (i.e. and I am using the term correctly, for people who wear swastikas in public). I don't see any conservative groups who support free speech across the political spectrum.

Based on my opinions in this site, do you think I am a conservative?

A conservative? You? lol. no.