question for Liberals
luanqibazao
Veteran
Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner
Advocates of economic liberty – which includes the better conservatives – think about that all the time, because that's exactly where we're headed. Taxes go up every year, and we already have the black hole, it's called Washington D.C.:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/local/seven ... story.html
In addition to the role of government, liberals are more supportive of the freedoms of the collective, and conservatives, the freedom of the individual. The problem is, these two views bump up against each other quite often. When an issue like gun control or environmental taxes put the whole against the individual, the latter is more likely to take it personally, whereas the former may see an unwillingness to progress with society at stubborn, stupid, or irresponsible. Sometimes the issue they are slower to adapt to can be gender or race related, which incites the left.
The public discourse is also a problem for conservatives. As a liberal, I'll admit that at least in America, there were good, intellectual conservatives like William F Buckley, or William Safire. Even Goldwater was decently intelligent if you ignore the UFO stuff. These days you have the Ted Nugents and Ann Coulters drowning out the intellectuals. ...which gets to the issue of intellectualism in general.
I suppose that for the individual oriented person, the only pressure is to be yourself, while with the socially oriented set, contribution and a drive to move society forward may place a higher priority on elitism and academics. The right sees themselves talked down to, while the nature of the discourse makes the left have to do everything in their power not to.
At the end of the day I think it is important to remember that regardless of the means of getting there, the vast majority of people want freedom, and that's a better quality than not. It isn't merely a symptom of my bleeding heart to say that we're all in this together, and we should try and get along.
The good Romans, the good Greeks and the good Egyptians are all gone. Traditional values always fail in the end. It's just a question of time because change is the norm.
As for censoring conservatives, well, I'm not sure what you are talking about. If this is about the gay issue, well, speak your mind and take your lumps. Losing isn't censorship. It's just losing.
The public discourse is also a problem for conservatives. As a liberal, I'll admit that at least in America, there were good, intellectual conservatives like William F Buckley, or William Safire. Even Goldwater was decently intelligent if you ignore the UFO stuff. These days you have the Ted Nugents and Ann Coulters drowning out the intellectuals. ...which gets to the issue of intellectualism in general.
I suppose that for the individual oriented person, the only pressure is to be yourself, while with the socially oriented set, contribution and a drive to move society forward may place a higher priority on elitism and academics. The right sees themselves talked down to, while the nature of the discourse makes the left have to do everything in their power not to.
At the end of the day I think it is important to remember that regardless of the means of getting there, the vast majority of people want freedom, and that's a better quality than not. It isn't merely a symptom of my bleeding heart to say that we're all in this together, and we should try and get along.
it's the problem with communication that i find the most galling with conservatives--they don't talk TO people, they talk AT people with scripted talking points that they won't stray from (their politicians are the most blatant example of this). it's impossible to have reasonable discussion with people like that.
The public discourse is also a problem for conservatives. As a liberal, I'll admit that at least in America, there were good, intellectual conservatives like William F Buckley, or William Safire. Even Goldwater was decently intelligent if you ignore the UFO stuff. These days you have the Ted Nugents and Ann Coulters drowning out the intellectuals. ...which gets to the issue of intellectualism in general.
I suppose that for the individual oriented person, the only pressure is to be yourself, while with the socially oriented set, contribution and a drive to move society forward may place a higher priority on elitism and academics. The right sees themselves talked down to, while the nature of the discourse makes the left have to do everything in their power not to.
At the end of the day I think it is important to remember that regardless of the means of getting there, the vast majority of people want freedom, and that's a better quality than not. It isn't merely a symptom of my bleeding heart to say that we're all in this together, and we should try and get along.
it's the problem with communication that i find the most galling with conservatives--they don't talk TO people, they talk AT people with scripted talking points that they won't stray from (their politicians are the most blatant example of this). it's impossible to have reasonable discussion with people like that.
I think liberals can be faulted for talking at people, too, but I would say maybe the issue is more that they talk over people. Bill O'Reilly is notorious for this. Maybe liberals want more of a dialogue whereas conservatives are more interested in controlling the tone, and hammering their point through by sheer force if nothing else.
As an example I'll use AM radio and NPR (National Public Radio). On the conservative stronghold of AM radio, it is call and response fury, and if someone with an opposing viewpoint calls, they are usually torn to shreds by the host. On NPR, which gets labeled as liberal for some reason, the host will let the caller go on, regardless of their opinion, and even if everyone on the show disagrees, there will be more of a dialogue.
-William F. Buckley
Hmm...
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... are-about/
According to the US public it would seem that Conservatives - not Liberals - are the ones who have trouble giving a hearing to other views... assuming of course that Republicans and Democrats can be even approximately related to Conservatives and Liberals, respectively.
Now... What did Ike say about gutters and rocks?
Advocates of economic liberty – which includes the better conservatives – think about that all the time, because that's exactly where we're headed. Taxes go up every year, and we already have the black hole, it's called Washington D.C.:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/local/seven ... story.html
Well you go up there and try running the country then come back and tell us all your opinion.
Liberalism in the US is about the liberation of government, not the individual. According to liberal doctrine, rights are indulgences conditionally granted by government until such time that they become inconvenient to the interests of the government. They are simply marketing hype deployed as a means toward achieving unlimited government. There is little doubt that liberalism is no fan of the concept of rights as described in the Constitution, as this limits the power of government.
Regarding the graph, that really isn't surprising to me since many extreme conservatives view compromising Republicans as RINO's and lobby to have them replaced. I believe that during the Clinton era compromise was very common and things worked out well. That is how democracy is meant to function.
Regarding the graph, that really isn't surprising to me since many extreme conservatives view compromising Republicans as RINO's and lobby to have them replaced. I believe that during the Clinton era compromise was very common and things worked out well. That is how democracy is meant to function.
Ah yes, but liberals often call themselves progressives, right? It is a progressive opinion that a hundreds of year old document cannot hold up indefinitely. There's always the argument about how the framers of the Constitution could not have imagined the kind of weaponry we have today, but even with issues like Net Neutrality and drones, the world is just that much more complex.
I don't think the Constitution restrains the public or the government. I think in some areas, it impedes progress.
As for unlimited government, that is a straw man. Liberals are just as wary as government overreach. It is just sometimes in different areas.
And where does William Hickman fit into all that?
ayn rand----ugh.
quoted by almost as many misanthropes as nietzche.
Regarding the graph, that really isn't surprising to me since many extreme conservatives view compromising Republicans as RINO's and lobby to have them replaced. I believe that during the Clinton era compromise was very common and things worked out well. That is how democracy is meant to function.
Corporations and banking interests run america. This thing you call government has been captured by the corporations and banking interests. People keep blaming government for s*** that government does at the behest of corporations and banking interests! Why do you people never blame the freaking corporations and banking interests? Instead of going after corporations and banking interests, you go after.... Government's ability to do anything to mitigate the damage done to the public by corporations and banking interests.
Last edited by Stannis on 11 Mar 2014, 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
I made this exact argument years ago in a discussion with AwesomelyGlorious and Master_Pedant,, that conservative stereotypes are just more inherently dislikable than the liberal ones and that accounts for some of the hate gap. The other prong of my argument is that I don't think a lot of liberals give conservatives the good faith that they should, e.g. presuming that someone who opposes a particular welfare program does so because they hate the poor rather than they think it's inefficient or fosters dependency; you'll note my frequent sarcastic reply "so you're psychic now" made to people who do this, overwhelmingly on the left side of the aisle.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
quoted by almost as many misanthropes as nietzche.
Ad hominem fallacy; just because Ayn Rand said something does not make it untrue.
Also, hated by more people that haven't read her work than any other author I can think of.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
No job means a gf is out of the question? |
01 Oct 2024, 6:54 pm |
Updates + Question |
19 Sep 2024, 9:16 pm |
Question About Patreon and Discord |
30 Jul 2024, 3:18 pm |
A simple question about being a genius |
18 Oct 2024, 9:13 pm |