Draginol Draginol

Why left-wing liberalism is dying

▼

Why left-wing liberalism is dying

Hostility to the open market of ideas is bad for an ideology

from JoeUser Forums

I'm just rambling here so if you're looking for a well written piece, you'll want to go elsewhere.  After 6 weeks of massive hours I'm spent..

It's not a good time to ideological. 

If you're a conservative, you're quickly discovering that victory in politics quickly corrupts.  Conservatives control the congress and the presidency only to have record deficits, sloppy governance, and cronyism. 

If you're an intelligent liberal, your ideology has largely been hijacked by very loud people who sound like they just came off their meds. 

It is kind of ironic that in the past few years conservatism, as a movement, has become more secular, while liberalism has become a secular religion unto itself.  Those who stray from orthodox liberalism are treated as heretics. I think this is one of the reasons why liberals seem much much more likely to attack Christians because they now subconsciously see it as a rival religion.

Personally, I tend to pick and choose pieces of different ideologies to create my own life philosophy. A philosophy that suits me based on my experiences.  I wouldn't be considered very conservative socially by most "real" conservatives.  I'm pro-choice. Pro-civil union for gays. Pro-higher taxes on the wealthy.  I'm not really a libertarian as I do believe in government regulation, the FDA, the FCC, the FTC, etc.  But since I don't follow liberal orthodoxy, I'm a "conservative".  And that's why Liberals are the minority because nowadays, it doesn't take much to be a conservative.  Believe in a reasonably free market? No soup for you.  Consider patriotism to be a good thing? You're off the liberal team. Think Kyoto is a bad idea? Pack your bags, righty.

The liberal religion, for lack of a better word, seems to have gone a long way towards making themselves a permanent minority.  The reason boils down to their religion being so fundamentalist.  Just as obnoxious Christians used to take the attitude "Sure, you can believe what you want, but don't blame me when you're burning in hell" liberal dogma goes something like this "Sure, you can believe what you want but you just prove you're not enlightened if you disagree with me."

I found this image on the net (from a Mac user which is unsurprising).  Pretty typical stuff. To be a conservative simply requires a frontal lobotomy.

And so it goes with most debates I get into with left of center people.  There's a smug undertone to the discussion in which my views are not being taken very seriously because it never occurs to them that any view other than theirs could have any merit.  My views are simply based on ignorance and base human desires (hate, greed, you name it). 

Liberals, would counter and say "Conservatives don't listen to opposing views either." Nonsense.  That's the basic disconnect between conservatism and today's liberalism.  Probably because conservatives believe in social Darwinism, capitalism, and the free market as a whole, bad ideas get jettisoned and good ideas take over. A belief that can't stand the test of the real world gets tossed out. Over time, the ideology gets sharper and sharper.  Liberals tend to have a lot less faith in competition of all sorts and perhaps that is why they tend to stick to beliefs that don't survive critical inspection.

As a result, over time, the conservative ideology has evolved and changed.  Consider today's conservative to one in 1972.  The typical conservative today is quite different from the ones of 1972.  The book "South Park Conservatives" is practically a case study on the phenomenon.   Liberalism, by contrast, remains almost completely unchanged other than changing the dates of predicted doom or whether it's global cooling vs. global warming.  A liberal demonstration today looks pretty much the same as it did back then. Everyone's a Nazi still (except for actual brutal fascist dictators with little mustaches) and big business is still the devil and good intentions still trump any concern over the logical result if their demands were met. It's about caring after all.  It's about fairness(TM) (whatever that means).

As liberals have lost ground, they have become even more shrill and intolerant and it shows.  Moreover, many liberals are poorly equipped to battle on anything resembling equal ground in the war of ideas. Liberals get into college which insulates them from the real world and provides them a sympathetic left-wing environment thanks to left-wing professors who never had to put their beliefs to the test outside academia, and as a result, liberals go out into the world without a good background in how to put forth a compelling argument to advocate their beliefs.

Liberal debating strategy ends up being either:

  1. Duh. (to use Bakerstreet's quote). If you disagree with me you're stupid.
  2. SHUT UP YOU RACIST NAZI!

Nearly every liberal debate on any site will devolve into that.  Either you're stupid or you're a racist nazi. It depends on who you're debating with and whether they are feeling cornered.

The "Duh" argument

Liberals who use the Duh argument usually rely heavily on wit and one-liners. John Stewart of the Daily Show is the poster child of this argument. "Many people disagree with Kyoto, such as President Bush.  In related news, Bush has proposed a mission to Mars in the hopes of helping speed up the timetable in which mankind can escape to a new planet to destroy."

Liberals are often very witty. But wit is no substitute for an argument.

Here's a typical "Duh" argument example:

Mary: "We only eat organic food, it's better for the environment and more healthy."

Bill: "Really? How?"

Mary: "Well, first, it doesn't use pesticide. I'm just not big on having poison on my food. I'm just weird that way. Second, they use natural fertilizer instead of chemicals. Got enough chemicals already, thank you."

Bill: "Why do you think that's better?"

Mary: "Duh. Pesticide. Poison. Poison = Bad for environment. And chemicals = bad. Hello?"

Bill: "I've never heard of anyone dying from pesticide. And they use pesticide so that insects and weeds won't destroy a lot of the crop so that they can produce more food on less land which is better for the enviroment. Secondly, the 'chemical' fertilizer they use is nitrogen which makes up 75% of our atmosphere. Natural fertilizer is literally poop.  Are you saying you'd rather eat poop than have trace amounts of pesticide on your food?"

Mary: "You just don't get it.  You sound like you've been brainwashed  by the agribusiness."

The "SHUT UP" argument

The Shut up argument can start out a lot like a Duh argument. It depends on the intelligence of the debater on how long they are able to "use their words". Eventually, many liberals will devolve into shouting and personal attacks. Either a demand for you to be quiet or an accusation that you're evil or racist or a comparison with Hitler or the Nazis (which is ironic since this breed of liberal is unknowingly imitating the tactics of the Nazi party during the 1930s -- another issue, this breed of liberal usually knows little on history).

Craig: "Bush and his cronies are once again stuffing the pockets of their rich friends while the poor are left to rot. What's next? Bush going to send his cronies to pick pocket the poor to give to their rich buddies?"

Angie: "Well technically the poor don't pay federal taxes and the government doesn't give rich their money, tax cuts mean that less of the income earned by rich people is taken by the government."

Craig: "The rich don't need that money! (getting louder) What about the poor mother with 3 children to feed? What about them??"

Angie: "Well, perhaps they should have considered their finances before having 3 children?"

Craig: "SHUT UP YOU RACIST NAZI!"

It's not both sides

Usually at this part of the discussion an intelligent liberal will try to argue that "both sides" have their crazies. And that is true. But numerically, it's incredibly one-sided (you don't usually find too many math majors who are liberals which I guess makes sense since statistics seem to be an anathema to them).  Cindy Sheehan who is detested on the right can give a speech uninterrupted but Ann Coulter and other conservatives have to worry about being assaulted on stage. Being able to give their speech is often difficult if not impossible because of left-wing loonies screaming  "SHUT UP YOU RACIST NAZI!"

You see it on JoeUser too.  there are right-wing boobs here on JoeUser.com.  But in terms of foaming at the mouth, red-eyed hatred, it's not even close which side is more represented.  It's not just here. Democratic Underground is a favorite whipping boy.  But there's really no right-wing equivalent.  The New Republic has some crazies, Democratic Underground IS crazy.

Many liberals are very intelligent and have many good points. But it's becoming increasingly rare to find even intelligent liberals who do more than simply complain about how bad a given policy is. Conservatives often seem more intent in actually finding a solution. It may not always be the best solution but at least they're trying. Liberals, even intelligent ones, will just poke holes in it without offering an alternative.  And the unintelligent ones will just shriek nonsense that I suspect even they don't think will be considered seriously.

And it's getting worse.  I'm not sure where things will end up.  The joke at our home is that it won't end in civil war because the right-wingers have all the guns.  But something is going to give in the next few years.  The left's shrillness from the extremes and complacent arrogance from its mainstream is causing it to lose more and more influence as the majority begins to find replacements to the institutions that those demographics have tended to control (media and academia). 

In the meantime, I'll just hope that I can debate with friends and strangers alike without them trying to patronize me or shout me down.  But I won't get my hopes up.

politics
30,052 views 94 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
How anyone from either party can pretend to hold the high ground is laughable. Bottom line is that BOTH parties are being reorganized and refocused while they resort to vitriol, manipulation, and obfuscation to ease their egos. Hopefully the result will be parties that rely on accountability, attentiveness, and deference.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
You contradict yourself, first you say liberals have been hijacked and then you say they haven’t changed at all. I think it’s obvious that both ideologies have been moving steadily left for some time. Today’s conservative is yesterday’s lefty. For instance say you believe in idea darwinism witch is liberal view not a conservative one.

I personally don’t see the human race as an episode of wild kingdom. Don’t you think it’s ironic and stupid the decidedly religious right now believes in social darwinism?

Just because someone says there liberal or conservative doesn’t mean they are. And likewise some who say’s they disagree or even hate conservatives doesn’t mean there liberal.

I think your confusing hate with fear. Liberals don’t hate Christians there afraid of them. They think there trying to take over the government. And Pat Robertson saying" were trying to take over the government", all without a peep from the more moderate voices doesn’t help to quell those fears.

Conservatives are the reason we even need environmental laws. A true liberal (not someone pretending to be a liberal because the don’t like conservatives) would not need a law to tell them they should try to minimize their impact on the environment.

Personally I think conservatives are the ones hijacking liberalism.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

You contradict yourself, first you say liberals have been hijacked and then you say they haven’t changed at all. I think it’s obvious that both ideologies have been moving steadily left for some time. Today’s conservative is yesterday’s lefty. For instance say you believe in idea darwinism witch is liberal view not a conservative one.

I personally don’t see the human race as an episode of wild kingdom. Don’t you think it’s ironic and stupid the decidedly religious right now believes in social darwinism?

Just because someone says there liberal or conservative doesn’t mean they are. And likewise some who say’s they disagree or even hate conservatives doesn’t mean there liberal.

I think your confusing hate with fear. Liberals don’t hate Christians there afraid of them. They think there trying to take over the government. And Pat Robertson saying" were trying to take over the government", all without a peep from the more moderate voices doesn’t help to quell those fears.

Conservatives are the reason we even need environmental laws. A true liberal (not someone pretending to be a liberal because the don’t like conservatives) would not need a law to tell them they should try to minimize their impact on the environment.

Personally I think conservatives are the ones hijacking liberalism.

1) Liberal beliefs haven't changed much in the past 30+ years.  However, the tactics have.   Beliefs and actions are not the same.

2) I agree that many liberals fear Christians. And for many, that fear becomes hate.   But there's little evidence to support their fear.  The Republicans have controlled the executive and legislative branch for 6+ years now and there's been no laws passed that stifles anyones freedom on religious grounds.

3) Conservatives are the reason we need environmental laws? Wow.  Most conservatives I know care deeply about the environment.  We simply have different ideas on how to protect it.  Many liberal "environemntal" policies strike me as either being not very well thought out or selectively harsh.  Some tree hugger living in the burbs whose house is on land that was once a wetland screaming about how wrong it is to drill on a few hundred acres of land at the very northern tip of Alaska is hard to take serious. 

Often times, liberal positions seem to evolve something like this:

  • Policy X is flawed.
  • Libreal group proposes policy Y.
  • I like Liberal group therefore policy Y must be the solution.
  • Those who oppose policy Y are either stupid or evil.
  • Because they are stupid or evil we should either ignore them or do whatever it takes to stop them even if it's illegal since evil people don't deserve rights.

What I object to is the belief that those who disagree are somehow evil. And both sides do fall prey to this -- I grant that.  But far FAR more liberals tend to follow this path than conservatives presently.  If you're an outspoken liberal, you are much more likely to have your say than if you're an outspoken conservative. 

Look at BRS above. As soon as someone got on his nerves, he immediately launched into profane insults at them. It's a very common tactic to try to bring any meaningful conversation to a halt.  He toggled between assuming those who have alterative views are "stupid" (such as "The whole notion of this article is hogwash and is borne out of little more than a tired and somewhat transparent habit of slamming the left. Lots of attitude and myopic behaviour attribution but ultimately zero substance.") or that they should be shouted out of the conversation  (such as "Why dont you just suck him off and get it over and done with DG").

The issues I bring up in the article represent common human failings.  But for whatever reason, liberals seem much MUCH more inclined to exhibit those failings.  And because they seem to exhibit those failings much more often, their ideology is slowly dying which is not good for anyone. 

What the left needs are intellectuals ready to come to the table and express their beliefs as to what they think the problems our society has and provide some realistic solutions to those problems that are based on sound reasoning.  And when they inevitably have counterarguments to be able to engage those people in meaningful dialog instead of patronizing them or trying to shout them down.  Because if they don't, eventually their ideology (and by ideology I mean their collection of specific beliefs) will fade into obscurity.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
[
2) I agree that many liberals fear Christians. And for many, that fear becomes hate. But there's little evidence to support their fear. The Republicans have controlled the executive and legislative branch for 6+ years now and there's been no laws passed that stifles anyones freedom on religious grounds.


That’s because most republicans despite enormous pressure from religious groups still believe that separation of church and state is a good thing.

3) Conservatives are the reason we need environmental laws? Wow. Most conservatives I know care deeply about the environment. We simply have different ideas on how to protect it. Many liberal "environemntal" policies strike me as either being not very well thought out or selectively harsh. Some tree hugger living in the burbs whose house is on land that was once a wetland screaming about how wrong it is to drill on a few hundred acres of land at the very northern tip of Alaska is hard to take serious.


Well many of them have no problem exploiting people or the environment. Capitalism rewards this behavior and that is in fact why statistically conservatives have more wealth.

What the left needs are intellectuals ready to come to the table and express their beliefs as to what they think the problems our society has and provide some realistic solutions to those problems that are based on sound reasoning. And when they inevitably have counterarguments to be able to engage those people in meaningful dialog instead of patronizing them or trying to shout them down. Because if they don't, eventually their ideology (and by ideology I mean their collection of specific beliefs) will fade into obscurity.


Liberal ideology may be experiencing a back step in America for now but it’s not dying. Your concern is unwarranted. Society will continue to become more liberal as it has been. This slow down is mostly to do with the war. A war with conservatives from the Middle East ironically. (The Talaban was the apex of conservatism in the world today). I hear what your saying, that’s why liberals make lousy politicians, it’s all or nothing they don’t seem to know how to take small victories to reach a goal.

Conservatism is a movement that came into existence as a backlash to the age of enlightenment. It is the status quo, don’t stray to far, and tow the line ideology. It has been the ideology of people who are afraid of change and advancement because they have limited comprehension. That is its history. It has since evolved into something far more palatable but still rutted in that intolerant past. Conservative and some religious ideals are in fact why freedom isn’t free. All wars ever fought are conservatives fighting conservatives; Liberals don’t go to war with liberals. They only go to war to be free from conservatives.

And by the way, conservatives are directly responsible for me not having a flying car and the ability to vacation on the mars right now. Probably for the best they would have never survived the atomic age (Taking us liberals with them), if advancement had proceeded through the dark ages.

Nope I don’t have a conservative bone in my body I’m pleased to say. There is nothing about the movement that I can get behind. I wish all conservative ideals would fade away so there could finally be peace on earth.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

Aww look. Brads little puppy is giving him some love. Do you fetch for him a well?

Actually that is what Brad was talking about.  Cripples.  I am no ones step and fetch it, but you are a good candiate!

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Doesn't it bother you to have this Guy do your talking for you Brad?

Actually, I do my own talking. Which if you could read, you would know.  Not being able to, I guess you are condemned to eternal stupidity.  By yout own rendition.

Does it bother you that you are so isolated?

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
And your point is? I think YOU missed a few keywords. I did predicate that quote with "Too much of anything is bad. " In other words too much nitrogen could and can lead to cancer. Moreover these are medical and environmental arguments and positions not purely those of "liberals".


You're the one missing the point here not me. There is not one shred of evidence that too much of it causes cancer. And whether or not you care to admit it, nitrogen is nitrogen. There is not 2 seperate entries on the atomic weights table for organic or chemical nitrogen. They are one and the same. The "only" difference is that one is man-made and the other is pulled from a more natural product.

And its this preexisting natural nitrogen supply that more often than not is unaccounted for by those applying additional nitrogen to their crops and pastures. This results in an oversupply because crops and pastures can only absorb so much. This oversupply then leeches into ground


Again you show how much it is you "don't" know about the ag-business. Farmers/growers already know that the soil will only absorb so much. So to apply both is and would be "utterly" ridiculous and wasteful. It is not done by any serious farmers/growers only the incompetents would do such an ignorant thing. As that would be a total waste of money. Something that is usually in "short supply" in the ag-business. And the "whole" point is that it's "supposed" to leech into the ground/soil. Like I said before I probably know quite a bit more than you on this subject. I grew up/lived/helped operate a farm in upstate NY and did quite a bit of planting and was active in 4H so I got to see what was going on around the county.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

The whole notion of this article is hogwash and is borne out of little more than a tired and somewhat transparent habit of slamming the left. Lots of attitude and myopic behaviour attribution but ultimately zero substance.

Ok, How about some facts?  You have tarred me, now prove it. Cant?

Not hardly!  You are a good clown, and a lousey debater!  You have nothing but allegations!  No facts!

And I am supposed to be wounded?  After Brad has already shot me down more than once?

Guess conservatives know truth, and you know just the shit in your mouth.  Taste ok?

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well many of them have no problem exploiting people or the environment. Capitalism rewards this behavior and that is in fact why statistically conservatives have more wealth.


Got any proof of this?

Liberal ideology may be experiencing a back step in America for now but it’s not dying. Your concern is unwarranted. Society will continue to become more liberal as it has been. This slow down is mostly to do with the war. A war with conservatives from the Middle East ironically. (The Talaban was the apex of conservatism in the world today). I hear what your saying, that’s why liberals make lousy politicians, it’s all or nothing they don’t seem to know how to take small victories to reach a goal.


You'are way off course with this too. Society is becoming more "moderate" not liberal.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

Comments like:
Aww look. Brads little puppy is giving him some love. Do you fetch for him a well?

I can handle myself.  I dont need dogs to yap at my heels as they gnaw at their fading threads.  Stupid is as stupid does.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the political crap throwing goes both ways...not just one party or one side standing knee deep in bullpoo. On here, its easy to see that this site is strictly promoting only the conservative viewpoints, which is why I tend to stay away from the political area. The select few that do post on the side of liberalism are people that are reallllllllly far out there on the left.

Each party has its own pros and cons...and from our own viewpoints, we can see the others cons much more clearly because they dont align with us and so we like to point it out...and we like to get on a soap box and say "looky over there at them, see that, see that (point point)....they say that and we dont! we say this!....we have our own documentation that proves we are right....so we are right....and they are wrong, those incomprehensabile morons!"
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, I do my own talking. Which if you could read, you would know. Not being able to, I guess you are condemned to eternal stupidity. By yout own rendition.


Err. The charge was you also do the talking for others. We're all well aware of just how much you like to talk yourself... and of course when that fails you can always resort to cries of "Im number 1!! Im number 1 Im number 1!" .... as you're so inclined to do.

Btw if you dont think i can read then why write something addressing me? Doesn't seem particularly results oriented.

Does it bother you that you are so isolated?


In this forum No. But clearly you're very bothered in general.

Ok, How about some facts? You have tarred me, now prove it. Cant? Not hardly! You are a good clown, and a lousey debater! You have nothing but allegations! No facts! And I am supposed to be wounded? After Brad has already shot me down more than once?Guess conservatives know truth, and you know just the shit in your mouth. Taste ok?.



pffft. lmao. Wow you really flip out when you get all pissy dont you? You're practically incoherent at this point. [When i write lmao, I really do mean it. I'd better quiet down or the neighbours will think me mad.]

All you've done here Smithers, aside from displaying your obvious irritation or wounding as you like to call it, is provide the counter example to Brads charge that only liberals behave in this way. As i pointed out in my rebuttal to his initial assertions, this is human behaviour not liberal behaviour.

Your behaviour is precisely the reason why his entire article can be dimissed as "hogwash and is borne out of little more than a tired and somewhat transparent habit of slamming the left. Lots of attitude and myopic behaviour attribution but ultimately zero substance."

Thank you for providing the weight my argument supposedly lacked.

It will be interesting to see how both Brad and Bakerstreet respond to your posts. No doubt the the typical pattern of conservatism cronyism will prevail whereby your comments are dismissed as irrelevant but mine are held up as the shiny example of the liberal shout down.

And for all your concern about the quality of the debate here Smithers, what exactly have you contributed to this thread? Apart from snide baiting remarks and a minor multi-post flip out that is. Hmmm?
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well many of them have no problem exploiting people or the environment. Capitalism rewards this behavior and that is in fact why statistically conservatives have more wealth. Got any proof of this?


Like Draginol says Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, After I’m finished eating you get the scraps. If you deserved more you would take it as I have done. The sense of entitlement and power also allows for them to rationalization polluting the environment for profit. Certainly not saying all conservatives exploit but the ideology allows for that path. Liberalism does not.

Liberal ideology may be experiencing a back step in America for now but it’s not dying. Your concern is unwarranted. Society will continue to become more liberal as it has been. This slow down is mostly to do with the war. A war with conservatives from the Middle East ironically. (The Talaban was the apex of conservatism in the world today). I hear what your saying, that’s why liberals make lousy politicians, it’s all or nothing they don’t seem to know how to take small victories to reach a goal. You'are way off course with this too. Society is becoming more "moderate" not liberal.


Got any proof of that?
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is not done by any serious farmers/growers only the incompetents would do such an ignorant thing.


So it is done then? And it could therefore be a problem then?
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Well many of them have no problem exploiting people or the environment."


Or it could be that they grant enough personhood to the average person to expect them to not allow themselves to be exploited. On the other hand Liberals seem to feel without their nurturing influence full-grown women and minorities will be unable to fend for themselves.

"Society will continue to become more liberal as it has been. This slow down is mostly to do with the war."


It's creepy when I hear this. You realize that Liberalism simply breeds an environment for people to be taken advantage of, right? It isn't "backlash", its self-absorbed distraction INVITING opportunism. Look at the 1970's, the flowering of Liberalism and the jumping off point for the hyper-consumerism and greed of the 1980's.

The ideal Liberal environment would just end up being the Morlocks and the Eloi. Liberal culture coming into its own doesn't become and idealistic society of thinkers, it becomes a debauched, feel-good consumer economy distracted by its comfort and pleasure.

And yes... I said that. Quote me.

"I wish all conservative ideals would fade away so there could finally be peace on earth."


And in the end Liberals would just become hyper-conservative of their own ideals. Where do you think it eventually leads, a totally peaceful anarchy with no need for any institutions or laws? What a joke. Liberals pound for pound are MORE authoritarian, because they can't tolerate people differing with them.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
if you disagree with them they'll either scream very loud and accuse you of being hateful and bigoted without any shred of evidence OR they'll patronize you and imply/state that you are stupid or lacking some other element.


You mean like DG does Brad.

Guess conservatives know truth, and you know just the shit in your mouth. Taste ok?


I dont need dogs to yap at my heels as they gnaw at their fading threads. Stupid is as stupid does


Not only is this Guy a conservative but hes also the number 1, according to your ranking system, blogger on your forum.
It's laughable that you seriously expect anyone to follow your "the problem with liberals" motif? Your time would be better spent cleaning up your own back yard before you try and trot out anymore "liberal" bashing and attempt to shape it as informed opinion.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Or it could be that they grant enough personhood to the average person to expect them to not allow themselves to be exploited. On the other hand Liberals seem to feel without their nurturing influence full-grown women and minorities will be unable to fend for themselves.


Typical conservative, you don’t get to grant varying levels of personhood. Full personhood is the default state.

It's creepy when I hear this. You realize that Liberalism simply breeds an environment for people to be taken advantage of, right? It isn't "backlash", its self-absorbed distraction INVITING opportunism. Look at the 1970's, the flowering of Liberalism and the jumping off point for the hyper-consumerism and greed of the 1980's. The ideal Liberal environment would just end up being the Morlocks and the Eloi. Liberal culture coming into its own doesn't become and idealistic society of thinkers, it becomes a debauched, feel-good consumer economy distracted by its comfort and pleasure.And yes... I said that. Quote me.


There is a good chunk of society that is just debauched and depraved, and because they want to be that way they embrace the ideology that facilitates this. There not liberals or conservatives, they care only for themselves. Using the lifestyle of these individuals to form your opinion of a liberal society I can see why you would think that way.

And in the end Liberals would just become hyper-conservative of their own ideals. Where do you think it eventually leads, a totally peaceful anarchy with no need for any institutions or laws? What a joke. Liberals pound for pound are MORE authoritarian, because they can't tolerate people differing with them.


“Peaceful Anarchy” sounds good to me, as long as we don’t accidentally thaw out a conservative to wreak havoc on us we'll be just fine. The problems with letting everyone do what he or she wants are the same encountered with having a free and open society like America, you have to risk someone taking advantage of it. You have to believe in idea darwinism, eventually the bad ones will weeded out and leave a healthy society.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are both specifics and a general thesis here. The specifics are less important to me, we can debate issues later, so lets look at the overall concept here.

"If you're an intelligent liberal, your ideology has largely been hijacked..." Too true. I say this sadly and with regret.

Liberalism and conservatism are often a matter of identification. You are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. The same is true of BakerStreet and others. But in large measure the shrill voices of the American Left cause you to identify yourselves as a Conservative.

I, on the other hand, consider myself a Liberal. I have since the 1960's when, as a teenager, I joined my first protest march against the War, that of course referring to the war in Vietnam. (I make that point to establish pedigree and to remind the youngsters of the past.) But I am frankly embarrassed by today's Left. I shudder when I learn that Howard Dean is speaking. I want to yell "He's not with me!"

In the 1950's and early 1960's Liberalism drew from churches. (Even before that, look at the Quakers, for example, during the days leading up to the Civil War.) But today it is damn near impossible for a person of faith not to be offended by spokespeople of the New Left. When did Liberals decide to alienate our supporters? I wasn't at that meeting.

When did Liberals decide that Israel was bad and that Arab terrorists needed to be supported? I remember Liberals of the not to distant past pledging support for Israel. That has changed. Another meeting I must have missed.

At some point Liberalism was identified exclusively with the Democratic party. Not a good idea. John McCain is probably more Liberal on several aspects of policy than Joe Leiberman, but we seem stuck with that identification. And the Liberal Democratic leadership seems intent of sabotaging any hope of election in 2008. It is just sad.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Typical conservative, you don’t get to grant varying levels of personhood. Full personhood is the default state."


Typical enlightened doublespeak. An elitist who feels the lesser humanoids must be overssen by their more advanced counterparts. Thanks Mr. Spock. Oddly I thought the last 200 years of social evolution was about convincing us that we were all equally evolved.

It's all synthetic, hothouse flower ideals. One day, it suits Liberalism to paint us all as the noble savage. The next some of us are graced with ability and the rest are to be fostered like Dicken's orphans. Whatever meets the needs of the moment works, because none of it has to make sense outside your ever shifting utopian fantasy.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Typical enlightened doublespeak.


Typical BakerStreet response. Quote a statement that generalizes and make a generalization. Typical!
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

Err. The charge was you also do the talking for others. We're all well aware of just how much you like to talk yourself... and of course when that fails you can always resort to cries of "Im number 1!! Im number 1 Im number 1!" .... as you're so inclined to do.

Apparently you read at a second grade level or you would know what that article was about.  SInce you cannot. let me clue you in.  FOr the permanently mentally defficient, it meant my site was number one at JU for a few days.

Now I would ask you if you feel stupid, but I dont see how that would be any different for you.

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top

You mean like DG does Brad.

I had to use simple words so you could understand them!  Now go play with your bubble bath, cause you cant debate worth crap.

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, looking from an European perspective the only place I'm confronted with the left versus right attitude is JoeUser, and basically, the intolerant shouting ones stiffling any discussion are the righties. Any meaningful leftwing discussions will be just overshouted by the rightwing supporters. So the only leftwing supporters left are the ones who are just looking for an arguments thus 'supporting' your case (this is a generatlisation, so you know whether this applies to you )

The main problem with the political discussions on JoeUser is that there is no respect for each other. The few discussions I took an interest in resulted to stupid namecalling so quickly that it becomes a waste of time reading them. And looking at this discussion you are just a part of that problem yourself Brad.

Don't know whether this problem is specific to JoeUser or whether it is more widespread. To me it is a shame, as I'm really interested in a place with some meaningful discussions about opinions in the US. Guess JoeUser just isn't it.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well many of them have no problem exploiting people or the environment. Capitalism rewards this behavior and that is in fact why statistically conservatives have more wealth.

Wow. That's a real stretch.  I would argue that the reason why conservatives tend to have more money is because they tend to look for solutions to problems and act on those solutions as opposed to sitting back and complain about how unfair life is.

Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

Liberal ideology may be experiencing a back step in America for now but it’s not dying. Your concern is unwarranted. Society will continue to become more liberal as it has been. This slow down is mostly to do with the war. A war with conservatives from the Middle East ironically. (The Talaban was the apex of conservatism in the world today). I hear what your saying, that’s why liberals make lousy politicians, it’s all or nothing they don’t seem to know how to take small victories to reach a goal.

Conservatism is a movement that came into existence as a backlash to the age of enlightenment. It is the status quo, don’t stray to far, and tow the line ideology. It has been the ideology of people who are afraid of change and advancement because they have limited comprehension. That is its history. It has since evolved into something far more palatable but still rutted in that intolerant past. Conservative and some religious ideals are in fact why freedom isn’t free. All wars ever fought are conservatives fighting conservatives; Liberals don’t go to war with liberals. They only go to war to be free from conservatives.

And by the way, conservatives are directly responsible for me not having a flying car and the ability to vacation on the mars right now. Probably for the best they would have never survived the atomic age (Taking us liberals with them), if advancement had proceeded through the dark ages.

WOW.  I mean, WOW.  So we conservatives ar the way we are because we dislike the age of enlightenment.  I must have missed all those liberals in my engineering classes, I guess I was too busy foiling flying cars and Mars missions.

So let me make sure I'm not taking you out of context -- the problem with conservatives is that we're not enlightened?  So you are agreeing with the reason why liberals tend to dismiss why conservatives think because conservatives lack enlightenment?

I think you're using labels in a way that suits your needs.  Many of today's conservatives (including myself) would be better described as classical liberals.  There's nothing "tolerant" about today's left-wing liberal in my opinion.