or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberal Fascism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Liberal Fascism - Page 2

post #41 of 120
The more important question is this: why on earth are y'all using the dictionary to discuss fascism?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #42 of 120
hahaha true
post #43 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR

This freedom of speech tangent is frankly nothing other than your desire to ignore the real problem in that situation.

But what is the "real" problem as you see it? I see bunch of people all exercising their rights on all sides. Albeit a bit obnoxiously (on all sides...except Mrs. Bush herself).
post #44 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

How is shouting someone down not "physical obstruction"?

Because it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

The difference is you have a point to make and your not going to let counter examples deter you. So you will make distinctions without difference, tirelessly.

And you have no point and no defensible position on this. Her rights were not infringed. Live with it.
post #45 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

But what is the "real" problem as you see it? I see bunch of people all exercising their rights on all sides. Albeit a bit obnoxiously (on all sides...except Mrs. Bush herself).

You see a bunch of people excercising their freedom of speech?

that's nice.

I see a group of hypocritical people dishonoring a soldier by putting their politics before supporting a soldier who gave his life for his country.

I also see a weak first lady who can't support a soldier due to peer pressure from a crowd assuming she would even care- and I hope she would.
post #46 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR

You see a bunch of people excercising their freedom of speech?

that's nice.

I see a group of hypocritical people dishonoring a soldier by putting their politics before supporting a soldier who gave his life for his country.

I also see a weak first lady who can't support a soldier due to peer pressure from a crowd assuming she would even care- and I hope she would.

OK. And? Sometimes it gets messy and ugly.
post #47 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

OK. And? Sometimes it gets messy and ugly.

Isn't that a shame.
post #48 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Because it isn't.

What else would it be? Mind control? Or are you going to redefine "physical" now, as well?

Quote:
And you have no point and no defensible position on this. Her rights were not infringed. Live with it.

Huh, you're right, I don't seem to have any..... oh, wait, you edited it out. Cool, I didn't know we could do that. From now on I'll just quote you as saying nothing at all and laugh hard at how inarticulate you are.

But anyway and so, again, what is the difference in keeping someone from speaking, and allowing that person to speak but rendering the speech inaudible?

And, again, it appears the difference, for you, is which example serves in what capacity vis your a priori notions of good guys and bad guys.

Certainly the outcome, preventing the speech from being heard, is the same in both instances, so it's hard to know what other criteria we would be using for discerning between "grave breach of constitutional rights" and "nothing to see here, move along".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #49 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Well, he was a socialist anyway.

So was Mussolini BTW...who was also a fascist.

Fascism is more about method than the particular ideology. It stems primarily from the I/we know what's "best" and so I/we should use the government to ensure that what's "best" happens.

This isn't true. Or rather, it's true for all forms of dictatorship, but it's not a definition of fascism.

Fascism comes with very specific notions of statehood founded on a national or an ethnic myth, really specific military and economic crossovers and it has all to do with control of a population and whatnot.

It's not just some term you can use to describe people whose politics you disagree with but a system of government defined by attributes like the production and exploitation of intense patriotism, an emphasis on national symbols (like flags, or huge buildings), surveillance of the population, state-sanctioned violence against dissidents, secret prisons, the militarisation of the civilian sphere... stuff like that.
post #50 of 120
Fascism is term far too vague to be of much use. It's generally used as a pejorative means of denigrating whatever political views one disagrees with.

Ergo, don't use it.

End of thread.
post #51 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR

Isn't that a shame.

You're upset that I didn't get upset and start throwing around the word "disgusting" a 1/2-dozen times and calling it "fucking shameful" and making comparisons to pedophiles?

Sorry.

post #52 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

What else would it be? Mind control? Or are you going to redefine "physical" now, as well?

Well, I haven't redfined anything. But I don't see how one person (or group) using their right of free speech must be quelled in deference to another person's right of free speech. I mean, what would have happened if they had all just covered their ears and the microphones and cameras were shut off? Same story. No one stoppe dher from speaking (she BTW...was interrupting the first lady's speech, so according to this reasoning she was the first to infringe upon someone's freedom of speech rights).

It just doesn't work that way. It isn't a "right to be heard". It is a right to say what you want but not to compel anyone to listen. That's silly.
post #53 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

How does "the simplest definition" "work" "fine"?

It works fine because it captures the essence of what fascism is without the baggage of specific historical implementation of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Why would an acknowledgment of such historical and ideological import be "baggage"?

Because it obscure the essence of what it is by come specific implementation which may not be present in every past, present or future example of fascism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Are you saying that my characterization of what fascism entails is false?

Because it unnecessarily narrows the definition in ways that are dangerous blinding people to the possibility that anything that does not fit the precise, narrow example is not fascism and therefore nothing to be concerned with, when, in fact, it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Here is the slightly extended citation on the same dictionary.com site, from The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and impure people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the cult of personality), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.

These three examples are interesting, especially the common belief that fascism is described as "right-wing" when, in fact, these three were all leftists. Socialists in fact (if not in word, in deed).

But more to the point, you fail to explain how leftists are immune to the core traits of fascism, even by your more detailed definitions. Unless, of course, the expanded definition include, "Well they are also right-wing". But that would tautological.

Even more importantly, as I stated before these "traits" of fascism are merely strategies or tactics that are serving the primary purpose of subjugation of the people of a nation. But they need not be limited either to these specifics or to a specific side (left vs. right) of the political spectrum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

"Fascism" does, in fact, carry connotations of militarism, nationalism (including ideas of "purity"), scapegoating of external or internal enemies, corporatism, and appeals to what are imagined to be earlier, unsullied versions of the "national character"-- a return to "greatness".

And you have failed to explain how the left is immune to using these strategies and tactics to achieve its own objectives.
post #54 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

You're upset that I didn't get upset and start throwing around the word "disgusting" a 1/2-dozen times and calling it "fucking shameful" and making comparisons to pedophiles?

Sorry.


um.... no... heh.

You're just a misguided cog in a wheel. Somewhat of a plain and uninspired person, it would seem.

However, it is a shame that "it" sometimes gets messy. That can be pretty upsetting, but hey- that is life.
post #55 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR

You're just a misguided cog in a wheel. Somewhat of a plain and uninspired person, it would seem.

And now you must turn to personal insults.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR

However, it is a shame that "it" sometimes gets messy. That can be pretty upsetting, but hey- that is life.

I agree. It is a shame. I hope that the exercise of people's rights will remain civilized and respectful. It doesn't always. Often in the heat of emotion (as you plainly demonstrated). But, yes, it is life. We have to take the good with the bad. The ugly speech with that which we adore and appreciate.
post #56 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Ummm...no. She doesn't need to be.

She has the right to express herself. She doesn't have the right to compel anyone to listen (which is basically what you are saying). It is the right to freedom of speech...not the right to force people to listen.

Certainly the shouters may have been rude. But violating her rights they were not.

Furthermore, out shouting someone does not rise to the level of physical obstruction or violence (a valid argument about infringing someone's rights).

Being loud and rude won't ever get your point across and it's just wrong. Especially in crowd form. A concept that you should be familure with. But I guess you choose to play dumb and obstinate. What a surprise!

Ps. Chris it's everyone's right to say what they feel. When an individual or group obstructs that by overwhelming the other it's violating their personal rights.

Otherwise all you have is a shouting match not an intellectual exchange. Surely you understand the difference?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #57 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

It works fine because it captures the essence of what fascism is without the baggage of specific historical implementation of it.

Please read my post above. Fascism already has a definition. It is not your definition. Yours is a new definition, and has nothing to do with the definition that everybody else in the world, historians and political historians, students and writers, for example, have used and understood for decades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Because it obscure the essence of what it is by come specific implementation which may not be present in every past, present or future example of fascism.

The accepted definition of fascism works just fine, thanks. This 'historical baggage' is absolutely vital to our understanding of what fascism is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Because it unnecessarily narrows the definition in ways that are dangerous blinding people to the possibility that anything that does not fit the precise, narrow example is not fascism and therefore nothing to be concerned with, when, in fact, it is.

Think of a new term to use other than 'fascism', then. Please, read some history. Google Mussolini. Please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

These three examples are interesting, especially the common belief that fascism is described as "right-wing" when, in fact, these three were all leftists. Socialists in fact (if not in word, in deed).

Where to start with something so utterly, totally incorrect? This statement, which is complete nonsense, either betrays a fundamental ignorance of the facts or a desire to bend those poor facts to the service of your own politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Even more importantly, as I stated before these "traits" of fascism are merely strategies or tactics that are serving the primary purpose of subjugation of the people of a nation..

This is not right. It's just... not. Fascism is not a 'strategy' at all. It's what you get when a bunch of specific things are in a place in governance of a state.

Your definition is not correct according to any text book anywhere on the planet.
post #58 of 120
No personal insult intended...

You said that despite the particulars of that situation where the mother of a deceased soldier was yelled out of a room with a political slogan, it was just the way things are. Pretty much a defeatist attitude, no?

I gave details as to why it was wrong on more than a few levels, Yet, you insisted that it was about free speech.

That is in effect a very plain outlook (be solely concerned with that crowd's free speech rights as opposed to concern for the mother and the dark underlying wrongness of her treatment) and very uninspired (that's just the way things are).

If that comes off as a personal insult, well, my man, you need to look to yourself on that. I was just observing .

Btw- please don't mistake my discourse for emotion. I find that if I round out my point with certain flair it gets a better response or debate.

What I'd like to point out, given the subject matter, you could be in a place to change the bad to a good, put your standards above "ugly speech", but instead opt that that's just the way things are. Sort of humorous, no? I mean it's almost ironic that you'd consider my observation a personal insult, but be so concerned about that crowd's free speech.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

And now you must turn to personal insults.



I agree. It is a shame. I hope that the exercise of people's rights will remain civilized and respectful. It doesn't always. Often in the heat of emotion (as you plainly demonstrated). But, yes, it is life. We have to take the good with the bad. The ugly speech with that which we adore and appreciate.
post #59 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

Show me that there's an organized Left with a strong majority among them supportive of such things, as opposed to anecdotal citations of the Right's favorite bogymen. Something that's as clear as, say, the Congressional voting record.

Until then, you're just blowing smoke. I don't need to play up mere scattered bad incidents to form an extremely low opinion of the Right, nor to have good reason to fear its fascist tendencies.

You're kidding, right? Incidents like this have been widespread. By "like this" I mean the physical disruption of conservative speech. Furthermore, can you seriously be denying that institutions of higher learning are often centers of extreme liberalism?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #60 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpcMs

Well, I read here that the protest was because of Tancredo's recent remarks suggesting the U.S. consider bombing Muslim holy sites.
http://www.5280.com/blog/?p=1030
Something worth protesting against, wouldn't you say SDW?

Of course, the article you linked failed to mention this. Actually, the article apparently is little more than a word-for-word reprint of an email written by Tancredo himself.

Wait...you're dismissing the source and linking to a blog at the same time? Are you kidding? Secondly, you're missing the point. They can protest whatever they want. Good for them. What they cannot and should not do is disrupt the speech and/or try to silence the person with whom they disagree. It's not very "progressive" of them. In fact, it's not very American of them, now is it?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #61 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Furthermore, can you seriously be denying that institutions of higher learning are often centers of extreme liberalism?

Yes. Universities are full of students. Students are like that. They grow out of it.
post #62 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

In fact, it's not very American of them, now is it?

No: not unless they're shouting down a bereaved mother.

Four more years! Four more years!
post #63 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR

You said that despite the particulars of that situation where the mother of a deceased soldier was yelled out of a room with a political slogan, it was just the way things are. Pretty much a defeatist attitude, no?

Well, maybe, maybe not. I agree that discourse in our nation is often uncivilized and that people are treated often rudely. I don't like it. But I realize it as a reality.

Quote:
"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters." -- Frederick Douglass

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR

I gave details as to why it was wrong on more than a few levels, Yet, you insisted that it was about free speech.

Fine it is wrong...even despicable. But so what? What should we (you, me, someone else) do about it exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR

That is in effect a very plain outlook (be solely concerned with that crowd's free speech rights as opposed to concern for the mother and the dark underlying wrongness of her treatment) and very uninspired (that's just the way things are).

Who says I am unconcerned about her feelings? This thread started with a discussion about some small group trying to disrupt (using physical violence and aggression) the (speech) rights of another. You posted a counter example. I did not interpret the thread to be about anyone's particular feelings about unsavory speech...but the direct actions taken by one group against another for expressing their (perhaps unsavory) thoughts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR

What I'd like to point out, given the subject matter, you could be in a place to change the bad to a good, put your standards above "ugly speech", but instead opt that that's just the way things are.

You are assuming a lot here.

What makes you think that I am in a position to change the bad to good? For/with whom? Where? When? I have control over myself. I have influence over a handful of people in my family and my circle of friends and aquaintences (none of whom exercise their freedoms in ways that are rude or offensive anyway, so not much bad to change to good there.) What should I do that would satisfy you? What have you done (other than rant off about it)?

I agree that both the chanting crowd behaved in rude fasion, as did the women who interrupted the speech by shouting at Mrs. Bush in the first place.

I would love for people to exercise themselves in more polite and dignified manners...but this is one of the prices of liberty...I have to tolerate other people exercising their liberty (except where they seek to perpetrate force or violence aganist me, my property or someone else) in ways that I don't care for (or even find despicable). There are plenty of expressions of liberty that I find despicable and shameful. But I have to tolerate this...all the while trying to influence people I interact with to exercise their liberty in responsible, respectful and honorable ways.
post #64 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Fascism already has a definition. It is not your definition. Yours is a new definition

"My" defintion comes from two different dictionaries. Take it up with them.

Quote:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. -- American Heritage Dictionary

Quote:
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition -- Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
post #65 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

"My" defintion comes from two different dictionaries. Take it up with them.

No, actually, we need to take it up with you.

You want to claim that "liberal fascism" is a coherent concept, beyond just sort of "liberals are capable of evil", or something.

To do so requires one take the measure of fascism, which is a complex political and social phenomena far beyond the reach of a single line dictionary definition.

Taking that measure quickly puts your formulation into the weeds, which is why you don't want to go there.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #66 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

"My" defintion comes from two different dictionaries. Take it up with them.

But... these definitions support everything I just wrote.

So, yeah, I'm glad you concede that fascism is a system of governance and not a strategy and that Hitler, Mussolini, Franco weren't 'leftists', I suppose.

It is very frustrating arguing with you.
post #67 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Yes. Universities are full of students. Students are like that. They grow out of it.

I'm not talking about the students.

Quote:
No: not unless they're shouting down a bereaved mother.

Four more years! Four more years!

If that's a Sheehan jab, then you've really made it too easy for me. No one, to my knowledge has said Cindy Sheehan doesn't have a right to say what she says. Some just think she's being exploited by opponents of the President. Has she been physically assaulted by the other side? (and don't try and post some photo of her being arrested either...that's crap and you know it).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #68 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

No, actually, we need to take it up with you.

You want to claim that "liberal fascism" is a coherent concept, beyond just sort of "liberals are capable of evil", or something.

To do so requires one take the measure of fascism, which is a complex political and social phenomena far beyond the reach of a single line dictionary definition.

Taking that measure quickly puts your formulation into the weeds, which is why you don't want to go there.

You know what I think we should do? I think we should focus on the technical and semantical meaning of the thread title....instead of dicussing the actual concept of liberals surpressing free speech when it's speech they dislike!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #69 of 120
I don't have any problem calling people who shout down or attack legitimate speakers assholes, or fascists, or whatever other bad name you want. I'm sure liberals and conservatives do it both, but it seems like liberals, especially on campuses, do it too often, and they should cut it out.
post #70 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Wait...you're dismissing the source and linking to a blog at the same time? Are you kidding? Secondly, you're missing the point. They can protest whatever they want. Good for them. What they cannot and should not do is disrupt the speech and/or try to silence the person with whom they disagree. It's not very "progressive" of them. In fact, it's not very American of them, now is it?

Let's say both sources are at least equally dubious. And not silencing the person with whom they disagree? Apparently when said person is a mother who's son died in Iraq silencing is a-ok, when it's a guy who suggests to bomb holy sites, well... not so much...
(just to be clear, I don't think violence is acceptable in any case)
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #71 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

You know what I think we should do? I think we should focus on the technical and semantical meaning of the thread title....instead of dicussing the actual concept of liberals surpressing free speech when it's speech they dislike!

You started a thread entitled "Liberal Fascism". Talking about what fascism actually is in such a thread is hardly "technical" or "semantical". If you just wanted to talk about liberals "suppressing free speech when it's speech they dislike" perhaps you should try a less histrionic thread title, like "liberals are dreadful hypocrites".

How 'bout I start a thread entitled "All conservatives are just like Stalin", and then get pissy when people insist on talking about how that idea doesn't really hold water, because I expected them to understand I just meant "conservatives can be somewhat authoritarian"? You would lose your fucking mind.

So either respond to the ample demonstrations of why "fascism" is an entirely inappropriate word for characterizing the American left, withdraw the thread title, or STFU.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #72 of 120
Well alright, Chris.

This is the exact kind of thinking I was hoping you'd work out with yourself.


I retract my earlier statement based on your response.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla


What makes you think that I am in a position to change the bad to good? For/with whom? Where? When? I have control over myself. I have influence over a handful of people in my family and my circle of friends and aquaintences (none of whom exercise their freedoms in ways that are rude or offensive anyway, so not much bad to change to good there.) What should I do that would satisfy you? What have you done (other than rant off about it)?

I agree that both the chanting crowd behaved in rude fasion, as did the women who interrupted the speech by shouting at Mrs. Bush in the first place.

I would love for people to exercise themselves in more polite and dignified manners...but this is one of the prices of liberty...I have to tolerate other people exercising their liberty (except where they seek to perpetrate force or violence aganist me, my property or someone else) in ways that I don't care for (or even find despicable). There are plenty of expressions of liberty that I find despicable and shameful. But I have to tolerate this...all the while trying to influence people I interact with to exercise their liberty in responsible, respectful and honorable ways.
post #73 of 120


Why did you start this thread again? heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

You know what I think we should do? I think we should focus on the technical and semantical meaning of the thread title....instead of dicussing the actual concept of liberals surpressing free speech when it's speech they dislike!
post #74 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

You're kidding, right? Incidents like this have been widespread. By "like this" I mean the physical disruption of conservative speech. Furthermore, can you seriously be denying that institutions of higher learning are often centers of extreme liberalism?

No they're just people who know how to think. They don't fall for the stuff that's been coming out of the whitehouse lately.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

No they're just people who know how to think. They don't fall for the stuff that's been coming out of the whitehouse lately.

Right on.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #76 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

O'Reilly calls them 'secular progressives" actually.

"White guilt" is psychological mumbo-jumbo that *may* have certain applications elsewhere. But as far as the motivations for enacting liberal social and economic policies, I don't think it's even on the radar. Wouldn't you think that deep-seated notions of fairness or justice would drive those policies? You're not giving those considerations a fair shake, when you know, they are kinda obviously the answer.

Well, at least everyone knows that I'm not quoting O'Reilly because I listen to his show all the time (I don't). But his usage of "secular progressive" seems to embody what SDW is trying to illustrate.

When considering modern liberal trends, you have to look back at the sources: the new deal and then 60's milieu. While the New Deal obviously had nothing to do with white guilt, it seems to be the economic archetype for modern liberalism. But what other than something as irrational as white guilt can explain the modern liberal's vehement distaste for the traditional value system of white america? I could accept that it's just not a value system they appreciate, but it's extremely ridiculous for a society that prides itself on tolerance of all sorts to be so caustic to it's own progenitor. It confounds conservatives (and me too) that there are liberal americans who in public seem to hold conservative american values in lower esteem than arab muslim values, which in reality are 1000 times less compatible with their world view than any american value system has been since the salem witch trials.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #77 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel

But what other than something as irrational as white guilt can explain the modern liberal's vehement distaste for the traditional value system of white america?

I'll ask you again:

Wouldn't you think that deep-seated notions of fairness or justice would drive those policies?

I'm not sure why you can't accept that (namely because you don't address it in thread after thread... yes I've brought this up before with you.) I think if you *do* accept it, you risk legitimizing the liberal range of worldviews as deriving from something other than *your* irrational explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel

I could accept that it's just not a value system they appreciate, but it's extremely ridiculous for a society that prides itself on tolerance of all sorts to be so caustic to it's own progenitor.

Liberals don't see their policies as "caustic to their own progenitors."
post #78 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel

Well, at least everyone knows that I'm not quoting O'Reilly because I listen to his show all the time (I don't). But his usage of "secular progressive" seems to embody what SDW is trying to illustrate.

When considering modern liberal trends, you have to look back at the sources: the new deal and then 60's milieu. While the New Deal obviously had nothing to do with white guilt, it seems to be the economic archetype for modern liberalism. But what other than something as irrational as white guilt can explain the modern liberal's vehement distaste for the traditional value system of white america? I could accept that it's just not a value system they appreciate, but it's extremely ridiculous for a society that prides itself on tolerance of all sorts to be so caustic to it's own progenitor. It confounds conservatives (and me too) that there are liberal americans who in public seem to hold conservative american values in lower esteem than arab muslim values, which in reality are 1000 times less compatible with their world view than any american value system has been since the salem witch trials.

Yes, it's the 60s! Every liberal is a dirty hippy, didn't you get the memo? And just like a dirty hippy every liberal hates God and heterosexuality and stable, two parent homes and simple decency and respect for ones elders and America and hard work and honesty and prudence and the smell of freshly cut grass on a summer's day.

They say so all the time at dirtyhippy.com, where the liberals post position papers detailing their utter contempt for traditional white values.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #79 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Yes, it's the 60s! Every liberal is a dirty hippy, didn't you get the memo? And just like a dirty hippy every liberal hates God and heterosexuality and stable, two parent homes and simple decency and respect for ones elders and America and hard work and honesty and prudence and the smell of freshly cut grass on a summer's day.

They say so all the time at dirtyhippy.com, where the liberals post position papers detailing their utter contempt for traditional white values.

I don't know about you, Addabox, but the other night my wife and I were having a nice dinner with some other liberal married couples and we just couldn't stop talking about how we hated traditional family values.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #80 of 120
This thread is really dumb. I doubt almost any of you understand the fine points of freedom of speech and opinion.

Let me point out that just because someone is the mother of a soldier that died, that in no way allows their opinion to stop all traffic and demand to be listened to. And I am an anti-war, far left liberal.

When two sides debate an issue, like say what to do about drunk driving, there will be opposing ideas. I think your way won't work and you think my way won't work. And no one has the right to scream "You people that disagree with me are all just killers.". Because if one side can scream it, then the other side can just scream it. And just because you are the parent of someone who dies because of a drunk driver, that doesn't somehow instantly make your opinion on the subject wiser or smarter. You can't then forcefully disrupt other's opinions, get loud and nasty, call the other side stupid, and then demand a free pass from criticism just because you have more of a connection to the subject.

I myself somewhat feel that George Bush is a killer and a vile person, but more because he keeps the war going when it has failed, rather than for starting it. But even though I think he's scum, I still don't think anyone gets a free pass to push their opinion.

If you want to start a fight and force an unpopular position on people, like "George Bush is a killer.", or "Your religion is just an excuse for bigotry", that's fine. It's OK to push something through sometimes. But you have to expect the payback for pushing the idea.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberal Fascism