4 ms·

>Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) Antifa[1] generally aren't Liberals, except in the overly-broad definition where anyone who opposed fascism is ant

>Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) Antifa[1] generally aren't Liberals, except in the overly-broad definition where anyone who opposed fascism is antifa. American Antifa is based on the German Antifa, which is explicitly leftist and anticapitalist, and the majority of self-identified American Antifa are the same. GP is talking about political Liberalism[2], of which open discussion is a core tenet. US politics has muddied the term "liberalism" to be essentially meaningless, but as far as words have actual meanings, GP is correct. (The word you're looking for might be "progressives", if you're trying to describe "people left of what the US calls conservatives") [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Clubber 4y ago
>GP is talking about political Liberalism[2], of which open discussion is a core tenet. It's really not though. Here are some issues off the top of my head that many modern liberals, at least on the internet, have no desire to honestly discuss. By discuss I mean listen and consider and understand the other side's opinion in good faith: - Abortion - Effectiveness of gun control - Maybe Trump wasn't a Russian asset - Transexual rights v. women's rights - Drug Policy - Benefits of free market capitalism Most don't even understand the actual counter arguments and just understand the counter arguments as other liberals explain it to them. It seems both sides are in their corners and just shouting past each other. This is the polarization every is talking about. I think liberals see conservatives as a caricature of that conservatives actually are and vice versa. It reminds me of the same propaganda/caricatures that the US used during WWII to try to make the Japanese and German armies look foolish and weak.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  >By discuss I mean listen and consider and understand the other side's opinion in good faith Based on everything I've seen on the internet, that's a definition that sets the bar so high it's almost comical. Especially when it comes to "culture war" topics like you've listed. Very, very few individuals are willing to actually try to understand what their opponents believe, on either side of the issue, and the exceptions are truly exceptional. That being said, the Liberal concept of "open discussion" doesn't require anyone to actually understand their opponents'' positions. In fact, it implicitly discourages it. That's because the purpose of open debate, according to Liberal ideal, is to allow "everyone's voice to be heard" in the "marketplace of ideas" so that "the best ideas will naturally float to the top". If one really believes that their idea is the best, they have a vested internet in making sure it is heard loudly and frequently in that market. You're correct that this has led to polarization, because that is precisely a failure mode of these Liberal ideals. A couple of side notes: - "Liberal" isn't a synonym for "Democrat", nor is it a strict antonym of "conservative". A lot of the Republican platform is and has been Liberalism/neoliberalism (though this has lessened in the past few decades, especially in the post-Trump era). Indeed, lots of (pre-Trump) Republicans are Liberals/neoliberals, though many would be offended to be called that due to the aforementioned American muddying of the term. (Don't ask me to define the distinction between classical- and neo- liberalism, though, it never had a fully accepted distinction) - "Transexual" hasn't been the preferred term for over a decade. That and the fact that you listed it in opposition to "women's rights" makes me think that you aren't actually coming to these discussions to "understand the other side's opinion in good faith", on that idea or others, and that might be affecting your perception of what these "liberals on the internet" are willing to do.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    >(Don't ask me to define the distinction between classical- and neo- liberalism, though, it never had a fully accepted distinction) Neoliberalism is an economic policy favored by both parties, it's not a socialistic policy. It leans towards unfettered capitalism. This philosophy is why we have things like outsourcing, globalization and NAFTA, things that significantly disadvantage the American worker. I didn't understand it for a while myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism >"Liberal" isn't a synonym for "Democrat", nor is it a strict antonym of "conservative". Yes, as I understand it, liberalism is change, conservatism is status quo. Personally I'm liberal on some policies and conservative on others. To me conservative could simply mean, "I haven't heard a good plan yet, I'll wait until I hear one." On the topics I'm conservative on, I could be persuaded to change if a plan was actually presented, rather than a vague concept (like universal healthcare, UBI, student loan debt forgiveness, etc). The only candidate in recent memory who ever discussed and laid out a plan was Bernie, and I thought it was good, well thought one one that I could support. The only issue is it would have to be a gradual implementation as to not upturn the economy. Unfortunately our current implementation of quasi-universal healthcare seems to be benefit the medical and insurance industry far more than the citizenry, though there are good things about it for the citizenry as well. >"Transexual" hasn't been the preferred term for over a decade. That and the fact that you listed it in opposition to "women's rights" makes me think that you aren't actually coming to these discussions to "understand the other side's opinion in good faith" I don't keep up on the latest trends of vernacular, they change like the tides. I'm also older, so people tend to stick with the terms they learn. (i.e. Blacks, vs African Americans, vs Colored People (bad) vs People of Color (good?!), and other labels that go back even further). Out of curiosity, what is the current preferred nomenclature for what used to be "transexual?" Also, who decides? Isn't that what the T in LGBTQ stands for? You should let them know they need change their acronym. FWIW, just because your circle of people want to call potato chips "crisps," doesn't mean you should expect everyone to immediately switch, or even know you've decided to describe something differently. You certainly shouldn't assume they aren't coming in good faith because they don't keep up with your group's trends, that seems fairly egocentric. An example of this would be, "You called Pluto a planet, therefore you aren't arguing in good faith about science." Seems a strange conclusion when put in a different perspective. Instead of discussing the topic, you shut down the conversation because I used a term that was common only 10 years ago. That somewhat proved my original point, though I don't believe that was your intention. Anyway, I seemed to have gotten side tracked in the long and rambling post. I think my original point was liberals have extremists too, and liberals aren't as open to discussion as they used to be and are quick to find reason to shut down discussion (like not using the current, possibly obscure nomenclature). Extremism isn't a political condition, it's a human condition and should be shunned regardless of political goal.

Clubber 4y ago

>GP is talking about political Liberalism[2], of which open discussion is a core tenet. It's really not though. Here are some issues off the top of my head that many modern liberals, at least on the internet, have no desire to honestly discuss. By discuss I mean listen and consider and understand the other side's opinion in good faith: - Abortion - Effectiveness of gun control - Maybe Trump wasn't a Russian asset - Transexual rights v. women's rights - Drug Policy - Benefits of free market capitalism Most don't even understand the actual counter arguments and just understand the counter arguments as other liberals explain it to them. It seems both sides are in their corners and just shouting past each other. This is the polarization every is talking about. I think liberals see conservatives as a caricature of that conservatives actually are and vice versa. It reminds me of the same propaganda/caricatures that the US used during WWII to try to make the Japanese and German armies look foolish and weak.

LordDragonfang 4y ago
>By discuss I mean listen and consider and understand the other side's opinion in good faith Based on everything I've seen on the internet, that's a definition that sets the bar so high it's almost comical. Especially when it comes to "culture war" topics like you've listed. Very, very few individuals are willing to actually try to understand what their opponents believe, on either side of the issue, and the exceptions are truly exceptional. That being said, the Liberal concept of "open discussion" doesn't require anyone to actually understand their opponents'' positions. In fact, it implicitly discourages it. That's because the purpose of open debate, according to Liberal ideal, is to allow "everyone's voice to be heard" in the "marketplace of ideas" so that "the best ideas will naturally float to the top". If one really believes that their idea is the best, they have a vested internet in making sure it is heard loudly and frequently in that market. You're correct that this has led to polarization, because that is precisely a failure mode of these Liberal ideals. A couple of side notes: - "Liberal" isn't a synonym for "Democrat", nor is it a strict antonym of "conservative". A lot of the Republican platform is and has been Liberalism/neoliberalism (though this has lessened in the past few decades, especially in the post-Trump era). Indeed, lots of (pre-Trump) Republicans are Liberals/neoliberals, though many would be offended to be called that due to the aforementioned American muddying of the term. (Don't ask me to define the distinction between classical- and neo- liberalism, though, it never had a fully accepted distinction) - "Transexual" hasn't been the preferred term for over a decade. That and the fact that you listed it in opposition to "women's rights" makes me think that you aren't actually coming to these discussions to "understand the other side's opinion in good faith", on that idea or others, and that might be affecting your perception of what these "liberals on the internet" are willing to do.
- Clubber 4y ago
  >(Don't ask me to define the distinction between classical- and neo- liberalism, though, it never had a fully accepted distinction) Neoliberalism is an economic policy favored by both parties, it's not a socialistic policy. It leans towards unfettered capitalism. This philosophy is why we have things like outsourcing, globalization and NAFTA, things that significantly disadvantage the American worker. I didn't understand it for a while myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism >"Liberal" isn't a synonym for "Democrat", nor is it a strict antonym of "conservative". Yes, as I understand it, liberalism is change, conservatism is status quo. Personally I'm liberal on some policies and conservative on others. To me conservative could simply mean, "I haven't heard a good plan yet, I'll wait until I hear one." On the topics I'm conservative on, I could be persuaded to change if a plan was actually presented, rather than a vague concept (like universal healthcare, UBI, student loan debt forgiveness, etc). The only candidate in recent memory who ever discussed and laid out a plan was Bernie, and I thought it was good, well thought one one that I could support. The only issue is it would have to be a gradual implementation as to not upturn the economy. Unfortunately our current implementation of quasi-universal healthcare seems to be benefit the medical and insurance industry far more than the citizenry, though there are good things about it for the citizenry as well. >"Transexual" hasn't been the preferred term for over a decade. That and the fact that you listed it in opposition to "women's rights" makes me think that you aren't actually coming to these discussions to "understand the other side's opinion in good faith" I don't keep up on the latest trends of vernacular, they change like the tides. I'm also older, so people tend to stick with the terms they learn. (i.e. Blacks, vs African Americans, vs Colored People (bad) vs People of Color (good?!), and other labels that go back even further). Out of curiosity, what is the current preferred nomenclature for what used to be "transexual?" Also, who decides? Isn't that what the T in LGBTQ stands for? You should let them know they need change their acronym. FWIW, just because your circle of people want to call potato chips "crisps," doesn't mean you should expect everyone to immediately switch, or even know you've decided to describe something differently. You certainly shouldn't assume they aren't coming in good faith because they don't keep up with your group's trends, that seems fairly egocentric. An example of this would be, "You called Pluto a planet, therefore you aren't arguing in good faith about science." Seems a strange conclusion when put in a different perspective. Instead of discussing the topic, you shut down the conversation because I used a term that was common only 10 years ago. That somewhat proved my original point, though I don't believe that was your intention. Anyway, I seemed to have gotten side tracked in the long and rambling post. I think my original point was liberals have extremists too, and liberals aren't as open to discussion as they used to be and are quick to find reason to shut down discussion (like not using the current, possibly obscure nomenclature). Extremism isn't a political condition, it's a human condition and should be shunned regardless of political goal.