[Closed] What's wrong with being 'a liberal'?

You are describing character traits that apply to all people, regardless of belief.

Anyone can be manipulated, regardless of class or status.
Our views and nature change as we are influenced by external circumstance.
That's how societies develop and are controlled.

But it's easier, cheaper and more effective to prey on baser desires, such as greed and prejudice.

We're all scared of the dark, just as we all love our children.

Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that "liberals" are happy for people to have opinions, as long as they are liberal opinions.

The World has been made ready for Trump. Social media + echo-chamber politics is so much faster than fact-checking and so much more instantly satisfying than having real bonafide scruples. The narrative is driving the narrative. The content is not even in the running. I hate to say it - but I think the net-effect (ha!) of the intertubes made us all dumberer?

Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that "liberals" are happy for people to have opinions, as long as they are liberal opinions.

@Rusty Spanner

The political compass is fundamentally flawed.

It's perfectly normal to hold two positions on two different issues which place you in very different places.

And you can't average this out, it's too simplistic because we hold some things much dearer than others.

For sure but it's likely that someone who isn't a homophobe isn't anti-abortion, a third wave feminist isn't anti-Muslim. A lot of it is about tolerance to social change or having a mindset that adapts to change. So having localised positions on general stance towards politics can be broken down in fairly simple terms. It's basically a mindset.

*pinches self* a post from jambalaya about politics I totally agree with! He's been hacked! 😉

Liberals believe that given freedom of choice the masses (and markets) will choose the best option.

This is not a definition of "liberal" that I recognise at all.

So I don't see any contradiction in this:

"liberals" are happy for people to have opinions, as long as they are liberal opinions.

e.g. to me a liberal ideal might be to treat people as equals regardless of their race - that doesn't mean they have to be "happy" about the opinions of racists.

Being described as 'Liberal' pertains to an inverse correlation with classical liberalism - pretty much the single track zeitgeist personified ..

[img] [/img]

I was called a "typical liberal hypocrite" on another forum because I thought it was bad when the police mistakenly killed innocent people, but I'd still want the police to help me if I was being attacked. IME it's used as an insult when someone has run out of sensible things to say.

Bails has the internet definition of liberal right there.
Virtue signaling is the one that really annoys me it is always deployed by right wingers and seems to imply that there is something reprehensible about doing something good or avoiding being a dick .

Bails has the internet definition of liberal right there.

At the Republican Convention yesterday one of the delegates was warned to be careful speaking to Emily Maitless (BBC Newsnight) as she was a "liberal reporter"

For sure but it's likely that someone who isn't a homophobe isn't anti-abortion,

Not sure that's true, tbh.

seems to imply that there is something reprehensible about doing something good or avoiding being a dick .

...they believe that governments are best placed to deliver the rights and freedoms of individuals

Libertarians*, in contrast, have a much better approach to delivering the rights and freedoms of individuals

* mentioned due to reference to political compass - isnt the second axis authoritarianism /libertarianism? Not liberalism....

Awful people will always look for a way to feel better about the fact that many other people aren't awful- denouncing them as do-gooders, social justice warriors, lefties, white knights, liberals. It's how they live with themselves. Once you realise you don't do good, you try and make doing good into a negative. When you see you're an extremist you denounce being liberal. It's way easier than stopping being awful.

Libertarians*, in contrast, have a much better approach to delivering the rights and freedoms of individuals

"much better?" care to define it closer than that?

But given that its you, and most of your posts seem to be a Kerouac-esque stream of consciousness, I shan't hold my breath. 😆

As you asked so nicely nick

Both believe and emphasise [b]the liberty of the individual [/b]- so far, so good

But the distinction?

Liberalism is basically about having individual freedom guaranteed by governments - ooops

Libertarianism is about having that freedom through as little government involvement as possible - "much better"

And breath out.....

Ah, "much better" in the academic sense I presume? and what sort? Anarchy is a form of Libertarianism, and has the added advantage of having no govt involvement at all...

It is indeed, hence the other axis on the political compass

I prefer the term "as little involvement as possible" rather than "no government" - an important distinction

Libertarianism is basically the belief that being free from interference from the state is more important than your right not to be murdered in the street. People who think it's better are mostly either a) lucky enough to be pretty safe from the things that the state protects people from or b) the ones the state protects people from.

an important distinction

you're just another socialist... You liberal 😆

Northwind, I think of it as a sort of Hyper Darwinism. It's adherents think that it's all about the individual, but that sort of ignores the fact that Humans don't/can't really function like that...

Nihilism for the big win.

I think some people think too deeply on this forum! 😕

How can one think "too deeply"

Are you afraid of knowledge?

Are you afraid of knowledge?

No..not at all, but trying to define what you are by what you think and giving it all various names that some people agree/disagree with as being correct/incorrect is all a bit beyond my comprehension. I have lots of ideas and beliefs, but would never pigeon hole myself like that.

Rock ape, I refer you to my earlier conclusion

teamhurtmore - Member 
yellow ties are ghastly

POSTED 2 DAYS AGO #

It's not really pigeon holing though is it. The philosophies that prop up political ideologies are well understood. and there's no compromise or compartmentalisation required to hold a spectrum of beliefs; hence one can be a socialist-libertarian

Mr Woppit - Member

Nihilism for the big win.

Nihilism? Say what you like about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an[i] ethos[/i].

Nihilism? Say what you like about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos.

@teamhurtmore - the left/right access of the political compass shows Liberalism/Conservatism, 'Liberal' is short for liberalist- also known as progressive, the opposite to conservative.