12 ms·

I'm not sure if you intended this meaning, but it sounds like you see (your) liberal view as the ultimately right one which will inevitably triumph in the end,

by prewett 10y ago

I'm not sure if you intended this meaning, but it sounds like you see (your) liberal view as the ultimately right one which will inevitably triumph in the end, its just bad tactics right now. I didn't notice this until after I got back to the US after some time in an authoritarian country, and I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness of being unwilling to consider the merits of the other side, a feeling of we are certainly right and we are going to enforce it on everyone else through legislation. California just banned single-use plastic bags; it could have simply charged a fee commensurate with the costs of cleanup. Or the hot-button issues. Abortion: women's rights, yes, but the conservatives have a point that it is also killing babies. Homosexual marriage: people's rights, yes, but there are some good arguments to the other side, too. Usually issues have two sides because there actually are two different ways of looking at the problem, and to say that the other way is ignorant, intolerant, wrong, etc. is really not respecting the other side. (Full disclosure: I am a conservative. I am not saying conservatives (!= Republican) are any better, certainly we have our own failings.) I like your analogy about the bear, btw. I think you are probably right on. And even as a conservative, I was just as shocked as everyone else. Hopefully this election will get a good dialog going and people actually trying to understand the other side. That would probably make it worth it.

alistproducer2 10y ago
>I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness IMO this is what distinguishes a traditional liberal from a a progressive. For me, a liberal is basically libertarian with a belief the state can be used to ensure the rights of citizens are administered evenly. IMO, if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty, the state doesn't have much standing in regulating that activity. Progressives believe state power can/should be used to protects their rights and their feelings. But, depending on the issue, you'll find conservatives taking the same stance. Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. Conservatives that want they're feeling protected are no different than the "SJW" so many of them rail against. Like all things there are some grey areas. For example, the trans bathroom thing. I legitimately see both sides on that. Abortion is another I see both sides on and believe compromise is the best way forward. You'll find "authoritarians" on both sides of the political spectrum. In some cases (like abortion) conservatives have their heart in the right places. So do progressive/liberals (environmental issues, for example). In other cases, both sides can begin to see the state as a tool to unnecessarily curtail the liberty of their countrymen.
- masondixon 10y ago
  The problem is definitions. > if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty This requires definitions of what "life" and "liberty" mean. Once you choose these definitions you must ensure they are consistently applied to all your arguments. > Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. What does "deprive" mean? If we continued this discussion debating the definitions, the key would be ensuring they are applied consistently to all other claims by both parties. This is practically endless. Maybe we need a new dictionary that is more specific and uses examples. Just like Stack Overflow Documentation - they realised that the key to good documentation is examples.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > For example, the trans bathroom thing. I legitimately see both sides on that Really? I don't. It's a weird thing to care so much about. > In some cases (like abortion) conservatives have their heart in the right places Do they? I guess you could argue that cruel laws like the one Pence signed in Illinois are the only recourse they have for what they consider a moral battle. I'm not sure how you can explain away fighting abortion while simultaneously fighting sexual education, contraceptive use, and welfare for those people who choose to keep the baby when they have no real hope of raising it well without help.
  - alistproducer2 10y ago
    >It's a weird thing to care so much about. I agree with you. It wasn't something any thought about before. But once it made its way into the public discussion, I understand how some people would be uncomfortable with it: especially people who don't know any trans people. >'m not sure how you can explain away... I can't and I don't. I think people like Mike Pence are assholes. My personal stance is we should use the age of viability (as arrived at by scientific consensus) as a legal cut off.
  - larrywright 10y ago
    Minor correction: Pence was the governor of Indiana, not Illinois.
- 10y ago
sangnoir 10y ago
> I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness of being unwilling to consider the merits of the other side I am not American, but I must say on the level of politicians, Obama repeatedly tried to be bipartisan and was repeatedly rebuffed by the GOP who seemed intent on grinding the government to a halt. Frankly, and it made the Dems look like a pathetic 'hanger-on', IMO. "Considering the merits of the other side" is a losing strategy in game theory when the other side always defects.
- woodman 10y ago
  > ... in game theory when the other side always defects. Consider the conservative position, and what strategy would work for conserving what is important to them. Any sort of compromise is a long term losing strategy, so of course they'll block progressive moves if they're capable. I'm not aware of any real trade ever being offered, something like: we want full on no joke equality of outcome for every flavor of the rainbow, and in exchange we'll give you the abolition of federal income tax. Imagine if someone demanded you eat a sandwich made of human waste, and then they got upset when you refused to compromise and only eat half of it.
  - ejstronge 10y ago
    The human waste metaphor raises an interesting question - what do you think the role of elected officials in a representative democracy is? I would also add that the media-portrayal of conservative perspectives if in multiple instances further to the right than that of the electorate. I'm happy to go into examples if you care (one example would be people wanting healthcare before the ACA became associated with the 'evil' Democrats).
    - woodman 10y ago
      The role of the elected is to carry out the will of the governed except in cases where it is the will of a tyrannical majority. I think that has been demonstrated to not work, unless your measure of success is counted by generations and not years. I don't agree with you on the media-portrayal point, because I think your premise is way off. There is no unified conservative perspective in the way that there is with progressives. This last election has made it very clear that the old conservative guard, the ones most similar to progressives, who called for universal healthcare before Obama, are in a minority position. I'm not likely to be the one you want to discuss this with though, as I'm an anarchist.
serge2k 10y ago
> unwilling to consider the merits of the other side Yes, but now people are going for an immediate overcorrection. Tossing Brandon Eich out of Mozilla is the type of behavior that liberals probably should reconsider. I do think he was wrong, but is he really an evil man who deserved get kicked out of his company. I don't believe so. Is the University of Toronto professor who is fighting to not use preferred gender pronouns a terrible person who liberals should hate? No, I don't think so. Especially when his argument is that it's compelled speech and violation of his charter rights. Are the white supremacists and other racists who have come out of the woodwork to support trump bad people. Yes. They are. They need to be opposed. > the conservatives have a point that it is also killing babies It's not killing babies. That being said, it's completely understandable that it is a moral issue for people. They believe it is wrong. That's not a viewpoint that makes you a bad person. > there are some good arguments to the other side, too Oh really? What are they? I've yet to hear a single one.
matt4077 10y ago
I'm willing to say that, yes, most "liberal" ideas are ultimately right, and will ultimately prevail. History has by and large been a march towards these ideals. Freedom, equal chances, some organized support isolating you from the raw&random powers of markets&nature. That believe isn't new, by the way. The first progressive would have said: "We believe these truths to be self-evident".
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  Isn't that just using a cherry-picked definition of "liberal"? How do you define "liberal" if you say history has been a march towards these ideals? My understanding of how Americans use the word "liberal" is that it's an alternative way of saying "left wing". In that case history has not been a march towards left wing views, surely the fall of the USSR, the rise of Reagan and Thatcher ... it's been the opposite. And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc? It looks like you just picked a few things that are widely regarded as good, and labelled them liberal.
  - coldpie 10y ago
    > And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc? Your scope of the playing field is limited. Affirmative action is indeed unfair when you consider only the choice at hand. You have to back up and take in a larger scope. Minorities are frequently disadvantaged in many areas of their lives: they are born into poverty at a larger percentage than whites; they are policed with much less forgiveness; they are killed by police at a much higher rate, and must live with that fear at all times; their fathers are incarcerated at a much higher rate. The list goes on and on. Affirmative action is an attempt to give an advantage in important employment and education opportunities to make up for those disadvantages.
  - vtlynch 10y ago
    >And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc? Saying this reveals a dire mis-understanding of access and opportunity in society. The reason those initiatives are needed is because of the extreme amount of inequality that currently exists. Women would not need to be put into tech if they were already well there. Affirmative action would have no purpose if minority groups were properly represented. These are initiatives fighting the status quo, which has an extreme bias towards men and white people. It is exactly the opposite of giving "unequal chances."

by prewett 10y ago

alistproducer2 10y ago

>I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness IMO this is what distinguishes a traditional liberal from a a progressive. For me, a liberal is basically libertarian with a belief the state can be used to ensure the rights of citizens are administered evenly. IMO, if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty, the state doesn't have much standing in regulating that activity. Progressives believe state power can/should be used to protects their rights and their feelings. But, depending on the issue, you'll find conservatives taking the same stance. Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. Conservatives that want they're feeling protected are no different than the "SJW" so many of them rail against. Like all things there are some grey areas. For example, the trans bathroom thing. I legitimately see both sides on that. Abortion is another I see both sides on and believe compromise is the best way forward. You'll find "authoritarians" on both sides of the political spectrum. In some cases (like abortion) conservatives have their heart in the right places. So do progressive/liberals (environmental issues, for example). In other cases, both sides can begin to see the state as a tool to unnecessarily curtail the liberty of their countrymen.

masondixon 10y ago
The problem is definitions. > if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty This requires definitions of what "life" and "liberty" mean. Once you choose these definitions you must ensure they are consistently applied to all your arguments. > Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. What does "deprive" mean? If we continued this discussion debating the definitions, the key would be ensuring they are applied consistently to all other claims by both parties. This is practically endless. Maybe we need a new dictionary that is more specific and uses examples. Just like Stack Overflow Documentation - they realised that the key to good documentation is examples.
serge2k 10y ago
> For example, the trans bathroom thing. I legitimately see both sides on that Really? I don't. It's a weird thing to care so much about. > In some cases (like abortion) conservatives have their heart in the right places Do they? I guess you could argue that cruel laws like the one Pence signed in Illinois are the only recourse they have for what they consider a moral battle. I'm not sure how you can explain away fighting abortion while simultaneously fighting sexual education, contraceptive use, and welfare for those people who choose to keep the baby when they have no real hope of raising it well without help.
- alistproducer2 10y ago
  >It's a weird thing to care so much about. I agree with you. It wasn't something any thought about before. But once it made its way into the public discussion, I understand how some people would be uncomfortable with it: especially people who don't know any trans people. >'m not sure how you can explain away... I can't and I don't. I think people like Mike Pence are assholes. My personal stance is we should use the age of viability (as arrived at by scientific consensus) as a legal cut off.
- larrywright 10y ago
  Minor correction: Pence was the governor of Indiana, not Illinois.
10y ago

sangnoir 10y ago

> I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness of being unwilling to consider the merits of the other side I am not American, but I must say on the level of politicians, Obama repeatedly tried to be bipartisan and was repeatedly rebuffed by the GOP who seemed intent on grinding the government to a halt. Frankly, and it made the Dems look like a pathetic 'hanger-on', IMO. "Considering the merits of the other side" is a losing strategy in game theory when the other side always defects.

woodman 10y ago
> ... in game theory when the other side always defects. Consider the conservative position, and what strategy would work for conserving what is important to them. Any sort of compromise is a long term losing strategy, so of course they'll block progressive moves if they're capable. I'm not aware of any real trade ever being offered, something like: we want full on no joke equality of outcome for every flavor of the rainbow, and in exchange we'll give you the abolition of federal income tax. Imagine if someone demanded you eat a sandwich made of human waste, and then they got upset when you refused to compromise and only eat half of it.
- ejstronge 10y ago
  The human waste metaphor raises an interesting question - what do you think the role of elected officials in a representative democracy is? I would also add that the media-portrayal of conservative perspectives if in multiple instances further to the right than that of the electorate. I'm happy to go into examples if you care (one example would be people wanting healthcare before the ACA became associated with the 'evil' Democrats).
  - woodman 10y ago
    The role of the elected is to carry out the will of the governed except in cases where it is the will of a tyrannical majority. I think that has been demonstrated to not work, unless your measure of success is counted by generations and not years. I don't agree with you on the media-portrayal point, because I think your premise is way off. There is no unified conservative perspective in the way that there is with progressives. This last election has made it very clear that the old conservative guard, the ones most similar to progressives, who called for universal healthcare before Obama, are in a minority position. I'm not likely to be the one you want to discuss this with though, as I'm an anarchist.

serge2k 10y ago

> unwilling to consider the merits of the other side Yes, but now people are going for an immediate overcorrection. Tossing Brandon Eich out of Mozilla is the type of behavior that liberals probably should reconsider. I do think he was wrong, but is he really an evil man who deserved get kicked out of his company. I don't believe so. Is the University of Toronto professor who is fighting to not use preferred gender pronouns a terrible person who liberals should hate? No, I don't think so. Especially when his argument is that it's compelled speech and violation of his charter rights. Are the white supremacists and other racists who have come out of the woodwork to support trump bad people. Yes. They are. They need to be opposed. > the conservatives have a point that it is also killing babies It's not killing babies. That being said, it's completely understandable that it is a moral issue for people. They believe it is wrong. That's not a viewpoint that makes you a bad person. > there are some good arguments to the other side, too Oh really? What are they? I've yet to hear a single one.

matt4077 10y ago

I'm willing to say that, yes, most "liberal" ideas are ultimately right, and will ultimately prevail. History has by and large been a march towards these ideals. Freedom, equal chances, some organized support isolating you from the raw&random powers of markets&nature. That believe isn't new, by the way. The first progressive would have said: "We believe these truths to be self-evident".

zigzigzag 10y ago
Isn't that just using a cherry-picked definition of "liberal"? How do you define "liberal" if you say history has been a march towards these ideals? My understanding of how Americans use the word "liberal" is that it's an alternative way of saying "left wing". In that case history has not been a march towards left wing views, surely the fall of the USSR, the rise of Reagan and Thatcher ... it's been the opposite. And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc? It looks like you just picked a few things that are widely regarded as good, and labelled them liberal.
- coldpie 10y ago
  > And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc? Your scope of the playing field is limited. Affirmative action is indeed unfair when you consider only the choice at hand. You have to back up and take in a larger scope. Minorities are frequently disadvantaged in many areas of their lives: they are born into poverty at a larger percentage than whites; they are policed with much less forgiveness; they are killed by police at a much higher rate, and must live with that fear at all times; their fathers are incarcerated at a much higher rate. The list goes on and on. Affirmative action is an attempt to give an advantage in important employment and education opportunities to make up for those disadvantages.
- vtlynch 10y ago
  >And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc? Saying this reveals a dire mis-understanding of access and opportunity in society. The reason those initiatives are needed is because of the extreme amount of inequality that currently exists. Women would not need to be put into tech if they were already well there. Affirmative action would have no purpose if minority groups were properly represented. These are initiatives fighting the status quo, which has an extreme bias towards men and white people. It is exactly the opposite of giving "unequal chances."