17
   

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

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 01:38 pm
@maxdancona,
You do seem to care (very much) though.

Strongly supporting free speech is liberal in the classical sense but not in the way you are using it.

I support same sex-marriage, sex education, birth control, but I'm not a liberal.

You're right, no conservative would consider you a conservative, so you must be a man without an ideological country.

Call yourself whatever you want. Who cares other than you?
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 02:30 pm
Instead of trying to identify with a label as group, try to understand why/how something like 'liberalism' relates to, say, "socialism," and they are considered the political left.

First, consider that in traditionally and/or currently socialist regimes, socialism is not left but right wing. Left/right refers to whether one seeks change and progress or adherence to tradition. Conservative can also refer to change-resistance, but it refers more to fiscal conservatism and/or conservative values, i.e traditional religious values.

Fiscal liberalism is a means of pursuing socialism, i.e. because liberal spending and growth allows taxation and other means of redistributing the capitalist means of production/consumption to the 'have nots' or 'have less-es.'

Social liberalism refers to liberation from traditional religious morality. The concept of liberty was based on the idea that well-behaved religiously devout people could rule themselves without the help of a king/sovereign because they would be responsible enough to do so.

Modern liberalism is the antithesis of self-governance by liberty because it seeks to structure society in such a way that people are liberated from morality and personal responsibility. In short, liberalism seeks to make government a controller and safety net so people don't have to control themselves. Liberty is the idea that people should govern themselves, should be disciplined/educated with the goal of achieving self-control more so than obedience to social/economic structural authority. Liberalism is the idea that social/economic structural authority should be strong enough not to have to rely on private people and organizations to govern themselves.

You will notice all the time that democrats accuse republicans of allowing abuses by eliminating government regulations. That is because they view society and the economy as irreparably liberal. Republicans, on the other hand, hope (maybe naively) that reducing regulation will result in people and organizations/businesses taking personal responsibility to do the right thing.

Both are wrong, in a sense, because strong governance never solves the problems it seeks to solve and weak governance never results in a utopia where everyone governs their own actions responsibly. So basically government and society don't work and politics is about pretending that there are solutions that will work.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 03:27 pm
@livinglava,
I am trying to see what I agree with here. I suppose your view of financial liberalism is reasonable, although I support a regulated free market with checks on accumulation of power (I don't even know where that fits in your socialism vs. capitalism scale).

I disagree with your statement that liberty involves "well behaved religious people". That seems like a gross distortion of history, and a philosophy that has never been held by people called "liberals". Our founding fathers had their vices and defended their right to their vices. The pursuit of happiness was never a Judeo-Christian idea, particularly with the strict Puritan Protestantism that informed our forefathers.

I disagree with your conflation of regulation (which is largely a way to manage shared resources) and morality. Liberals want regulation of public land, public health (including air food and water)... these are all resources that we share. Liberals traditionally want less regulation of sexuality, abortion, and expression. I want Government regulations to make sure my water is clean my air is breathable and my food is safe. I don't want Government Regulations in my bedroom, the government has no business telling me with whom I can have sex with and how (assuming consenting adults).

Of course, there is no simple rule, these ideological and social borders don't always make sense. There is no logical explanation as to why capital punishment (supported by most conservatives) and abortion rights (supported by most liberals) are on opposite sides of the ideological divide.



maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 03:42 pm
One. This is test another “poor Max” thread. Could an admin combine them or something.

Two. I’ve been told that I’m not a liberal too. Somehow I still manage to wake up each day and live with myself.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 03:55 pm
@maporsche,
1) I have never seen anyone say you aren't liberal, MaPorsche. For what it is worth, in my opinion you are pretty solidly in the liberal camp on most issues.

2) You and I had a bet to see if you could stand up to the liberal "in-crowd" here... this experiment failed when you failed to stand up to EhBeth (who isn't really that scary). I found that funny. I don't think you have ever stood up to the liberal group here or expressed any opinion that they objected to.

3) You are part of the process of group think. You are one of the group of members here who respond to ideas that challenge liberal ideological narratives with personal attacks rather than discussion. You popping into this thread is part of that.

Thanks for caring enough to respond here.


Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 05:01 pm
@McGentrix,
As a liberal, I agree.

PC is the bag of the American liberal. Not sure it applies to other countries.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 05:02 pm
@McGentrix,
I think he’s liberal-ish with women issues. Those women issues can be disqualifiers in many circles.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 05:16 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I am trying to see what I agree with here. I suppose your view of financial liberalism is reasonable, although I support a regulated free market with checks on accumulation of power (I don't even know where that fits in your socialism vs. capitalism scale).

Fiscal liberalism (liberal spending by government, business, and/or private households) is something that happens among both republicans and democrats. Some democrats favor public spending and private conservatism, while some republicans favor cutting public spending in order to increase business profits and private spending.

True fiscal conservatism is rare because most people would rather have some form of easy money than to always be pressed to cut their budgets and spend less.

Quote:
I disagree with your statement that liberty involves "well behaved religious people". That seems like a gross distortion of history, and a philosophy that has never been held by people called "liberals". Our founding fathers had their vices and defended their right to their vices. The pursuit of happiness was never a Judeo-Christian idea, particularly with the strict Puritan Protestantism that informed our forefathers.

I'm sorry but I can't get through to liberals about the relationship between religious morality and self-governance. They always want to argue about religious pluralism, relativism, etc. instead of just accepting that traditional religious values are geared toward personal responsibility in honoring God's laws, whether those are called 'Sharia,' or 'the will of God,' or whatever.

Quote:
I disagree with your conflation of regulation (which is largely a way to manage shared resources) and morality. Liberals want regulation of public land, public health (including air food and water)... these are all resources that we share. Liberals traditionally want less regulation of sexuality, abortion, and expression.

I think liberals want less regulation of sexuality because they want more freedom to do whatever they please. The purpose of liberty is not to do whatever you please but to govern (i.e. restrict) yourself according to your own moral judgment. Liberals tend to relativize moral judgment for the sake of giving themselves the freedom to do what they want/like. Self-governance requires sacrificing what we want/like in favor of doing what's good or right.

Quote:
I want Government regulations to make sure my water is clean my air is breathable and my food is safe. I don't want Government Regulations in my bedroom, the government has no business telling me with whom I can have sex with and how (assuming consenting adults).

Exactly, liberals expect business to do bad things if not regulated because they don't expect business to do the right thing voluntarily. When they don't want regulation, it is because they want to get away with things that are traditionally restricted by religious morality. Basically liberalism is the normalization of amorality in society.

Quote:
Of course, there is no simple rule, these ideological and social borders don't always make sense. There is no logical explanation as to why capital punishment (supported by most conservatives) and abortion rights (supported by most liberals) are on opposite sides of the ideological divide.

The Catholic Church opposes capital punishment because of the commandment not to kill. The problem is that Christians are also called to forgive sinners and turn the other cheek, so if that also includes state policies to execute certain criminals, we have to accept that and forgive it, the same as we do when warring factions, gangs, criminals, etc. kill.

What liberals do is try to prohibit the death penalty as a way of reducing the state's ability to control crime. They do this because they essentially want to liberalize crime as part of the economy, so they can tax and otherwise make money off it. You could trace this practice back to the selling of indulgences during pre-reformation times.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 07:07 pm
@livinglava,
I think we disagree more than we agree. Where you are most wrong is where you mind read... you aren't only criticizing policy, but you are also telling people what their motivations are. That requires a level psychic ability that I don't find believable.

1. I make a very good salary (as a senior software engineer in a very successful company). I work for my money... social programs don't particularly help me; I pay far more in taxes than I receive in services. I support government services not because it benefits me financially, but because it represents the type of society that I want to live in. When old people are dying because the don't have enough money for medicine, it strikes me as wrong.

You will disagree with this, probably, which is fine. But your psychic powers that make you think you understand my motivation are demonstrably wrong.

2. You are dead wrong about religious morality (which is a oxymoron). Religious morality has always maintained a unfair system... where you are born rich or poor, free or slave, with little ability to change your status in life.

Religion is used to turn off people's minds, they accept the rules from above without question. A religious society leaves little opportunity for people to develop an individual morality. That isn't saying that religious people can't be good. But as the saying goes...

Quote:
Good people with religion do good things. Good people without religion do good things. Bad people with religion do bad things, and bad people without religion do bad things. But when good people do bad things... that only happens with religion


3. Your claim that liberals want to reduce the state's ability to control crime is ridiculous. But, most attempts at mind reading are ridiculous.
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 07:29 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

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.


It certainty is not you.

I had a thread where I took what you said was a controversial opinion (one that I share and agreed with personally).

I, somehow, managed to avoid all rude behavior.


One life motto: "Don't be a dick."
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 07:31 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

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.


Bull. ****. Max.

You sent me private messages that basically told me to get in a verbal fight with certain posters.

It cemented in my mind what I suspected; you actively try to piss people off.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 07:32 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I assume you realize that this thread was intended to be mostly tongue in cheek


This thread was intended to be, yet another, "Poor Max" thread.

Stop pretending you just meant it as a little joke when we all know what it is.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 08:09 pm
@maxdancona,
https://able2know.org/topic/469129-1

Here is the thread where:

I'm "waffling".
Followed by "back[ing] down" and "capitulat[ing]".
And my opinion gets "stifled" while I let someone "bully [me] into a corner".

Apparently I was required to continue to disagree with everyone on every opinion....well I guess until people stopped having opinions.


One of his last lines was specifically directing me to argue with posters...how long he wanted me to do this (pages and pages?) I don't know. But it's not enough apparently for max to state an opinion, have a bit of back and forth to flesh out that opinion and discuss other people's opinion. I needed to "argue" and "not back down no matter what"


Read the thread and form you own opinions....don't worry, Max will disagree with you and argue with you about it...forever.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 10:37 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
People start with a group narrative, then find facts to match. These narratives are self-sustaining and supported by a homogeneous ideological community.
Yes, that is one theory. I will take your point that this actually does occur sometimes. On the other hand, people just may be telling you what they genuinely honestly believe. You might want to at least consider that people might be telling you their honest opinion that happens to be the same as the group. I have no problem having a group of people thinking the same as I do, especially if they are sharing their true honest opinions.

Quote:
Any facts that support the narrative are accepted without question, and any facts that challenge the narrative are dismissed or ignored.
I will take your point that this also actually occurs sometimes. My question to you is, have you ever been guilty of dismissing, ignoring, or downplaying a point of view that you disagree with?

Quote:
Group cohesion is maintained through attacking dissent.
Yes, that does happen. It also just may be a group of people who just happens to share the same opinion who are presenting a counter argument to your argument.

Quote:
Group cohesion is maintained through attacking dissent.
Not necessarily. There is nothing wrong with a group of like-minded people presenting a counter argument to your argument. I don't consider like-minded people presenting counter arguments as being attacks against dissent. Do you believe it is wrong for like-minded people to present counter arguments to your points of view?

Quote:
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.
I don't recall ever reading any post of yours that would warrant you being called a racist. I may have disagreements with you, but I have never considered you to be a racist.

Quote:
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 think there may be some truth to this particular point. But, I also think there may be some exaggeration to this particular point.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2018 10:42 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Religion is used to turn off people's minds, they accept the rules from above without question. A religious society leaves little opportunity for people to develop an individual morality. That isn't saying that religious people can't be good. But as the saying goes...


Americanism is used to turn off people's minds, they accept the rules from above without question. An American society leaves little opportunity for people to develop an individual morality. That isn't saying that American people can't be good. But as the saying goes...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2018 12:14 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

As a liberal, I agree.

PC is the bag of the American liberal. Not sure it applies to other countries.


You?! A Liberal?! lol. no.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2018 03:06 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

1. I make a very good salary (as a senior software engineer in a very successful company). I work for my money... social programs don't particularly help me; I pay far more in taxes than I receive in services. I support government services not because it benefits me financially, but because it represents the type of society that I want to live in. When old people are dying because the don't have enough money for medicine, it strikes me as wrong.

All spending, whether social, government, private, or business fuels GDP growth. GDP growth, in turn, fuels inflation. Inflation is a tax on saved money. So the bottom line of fiscal liberalism is that spending/investing results in taxation of saved money, which rewards fiscal liberalism to the extent that people/businesses are able to make back the money they spend/invest.

When some people make it and others lose it, however, it causes fiscal conservatism, because people would rather spend/invest less and keep what they have rather than gamble it away. Liberal/socialist governments try to create markets where everyone wins when they invest, but that's not really possible and even if it were, it would mean people would have to always keep working because any money they saved would be gradually lost to inflation.

Quote:
You will disagree with this, probably, which is fine. But your psychic powers that make you think you understand my motivation are demonstrably wrong.

Don't debate about whether or not I or other people understand your motivation or not. All it does is set you up to claim authority over interpreting your own thoughts. It's like when liberals insist that women should have authority over their own pregnancies because it's happening inside their own bodies.

You have to acknowledge there's more going on with individuals than just what they think or feel at the individual level. There are social dynamics in play.

Quote:
2. You are dead wrong about religious morality (which is a oxymoron). Religious morality has always maintained a unfair system... where you are born rich or poor, free or slave, with little ability to change your status in life.

Yes, religious morality doesn't allow stealing. Forcing people to remedy inequalities by transferring property amounts to stealing. You can make a case about inequality to pursuade people to help others less fortunate, but you can't force them.

Quote:
Religion is used to turn off people's minds, they accept the rules from above without question. A religious society leaves little opportunity for people to develop an individual morality. That isn't saying that religious people can't be good. But as the saying goes...

You don't understand religion if you say this.

Quote:
Good people with religion do good things. Good people without religion do good things. Bad people with religion do bad things, and bad people without religion do bad things. But when good people do bad things... that only happens with religion

Abortion is the main political divide currently, and for some reason there don't seem to be non-religious people who are pro-life/anti-abortion.

Quote:
3. Your claim that liberals want to reduce the state's ability to control crime is ridiculous. But, most attempts at mind reading are ridiculous.

I assume you didn't notice how much illegal drug used increased since GW Bush was in office. Many drug criminals were pardoned and instead of changing their ways, they went back to engaging in drug activity. Drugs are used as a means of making easy money by the poor, and that is why liberals/socialists favor going easy on drug crime; and because they are fine with rich people indulging in drug use and paying poor people to service their drug habits. They will also allow prostitution, etc. for the same reason, i.e. because they want poor people to have the choice to take money from the rich to be exploited sexually and otherwise. The only time they want to police sexual immorality is when it's non-consensual, because that takes away the power of prostitutes to demand payment or other compensation to satisfy them.

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2018 11:29 pm
@McGentrix,
How am I conservative??
KingReef
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2018 12:04 am
@maxdancona,
I think you put your ideology in danger when you become too curious. In my experience, a liberal or even the neo-liberal / Leftist have a problem when they began to self-examine their ideology. They aren't supposed to do that. Instead, they are supposed to hear a mantra, and repeat it often after a brief notion to accept whatever it is.

And I'm being completely serious. Don't self-examine your liberal ideology, don't talk in ways to inspire other liberals to think too much. Seriously.
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2018 12:12 am
@KingReef,
Hahaha. Just stop that pesky thinking and agree with everything the majority says.
 

Related Topics

Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
GOP Empire Strikes Back - Discussion by parados
Government School Indoctrination - Discussion by H2O MAN
The Democrats will win again in 2016 - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Romney 2012? - Discussion by snood
Can Obama Lose? Will he be a one-term president? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Obama care 2014 - Discussion by wts
The 'I voted' thread! - Question by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/19/2021 at 03:53:41