It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The problem I see with the Liberal Movement.

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66
I just think it is a weak argument to say that just because someone is authoritarian they aren't liberal. Thus the no true scotsman fallacy label. Though that conversation in itself could be a totally new thread of discussion.


And I didn't argue (or if I did, I need to clarify) that liberals are never authoritarian.

What I did argue is that people who are not interested primarily in equality before the law (and to an extent, socially) simply don't qualify under the generic label "liberal" as that is a fundamental aspect of the definition of the word.




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think gyphon makes the better move than you, he distances himself away from groups that do no adhere to strict liberal principals, while you attempt to incorporate under the umbrella and deflect, with the not ALL arguments, gryphons arguments are therefor more principled and hold more weight.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hmmm... I think I see what you are getting at. You are using liberal as a label of action rather than a political belief in this case.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Gryphon66

I will agree with you that these groups may not in fact be liberals at all, but I will also say they spawned from the politics of liberalism and were in their infancy supported by liberalism. Though perhaps now they are nothing more than a flavor or authoritarians and thus inequality.


I think we'd need to go into a lot more detail than you or I probably want to at the moment in the clarification of distinctions between commonly conflated terms: left, liberal, progressive, etc. ... in order to really get at the meat of that issue.

However, you seem to be saying that BLM evolved from the Civil Rights Movement and RadFem from the Women's Rights movement, yes?

I would argue that both have evolved more directly from the modern culture of political exclusion ... i.e. unless you agree with me 100% on every issue, you are my enemy and I am going to work against your goals as much as I promote my own.

It is evident, particularly in American culture, that we have lost (or are losing) the ability to compromise with each other, rather than work for exclusion ("I get everything I want, you get nothing that you want.")

We need to reeducate ourselves on how to find common ground.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

Why? Because I'm willing to accept the bad along with the good? Distancing yourself from the trouble makers just idolizes your movement. Acknowledging the troublemakers says that it is a human movement that still could be improved upon.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The worst for me is the notion of class conflict, where history is always class struggle. For instance, minority vs. majority, race vs. race, rich vs. poor, or gay vs. straight. They "new age liberal" seems to like categorizing people into racial, sexual, or economic categories based on very superficial notions, without care or concern for the individuals within any of these or other groups.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hmmm... I think I see what you are getting at. You are using liberal as a label of action rather than a political belief in this case.


Not exactly, no.

Do you feel, for example, that the BLM movement is working primarily for "legal equality and individual liberty" (a thumbnail description of liberalism).

Should we define liberalism here? Is that needed?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree. Earlier in another thread I was told that Bernie is a sellout for aligning with Hillary. That is a good example of what you are talking about. Instead of throwing a tantrum (or whatever that poster though Bernie should have done), Bernie is willing to compromise some of his beliefs so as to push forward as a cohesive political movement instead of making it all about himself still. I actually admire that he still has the principles of our forefathers like that. It's a shame that others see that as a weakness... I wonder if they'd be shocked if they knew they were spitting in the faces of their forefathers when they say things like that?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TechniXcality

Why? Because I'm willing to accept the bad along with the good? Distancing yourself from the trouble makers just idolizes your movement. Acknowledging the troublemakers says that it is a human movement that still could be improved upon.


Only if "liberalism" is a uniform, heterogeneous, conforming political movement in which all members feel and act exactly the same way.

It isn't.

C'mon Krazy.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I feel like the movement has the best of intentions and that certain members of it take it too far, thus giving it a bad name.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, well I've been up all night, so going very deep maybe a challenge, I agree with both - that they stemmed from those movements, but also as you state the American climate (or perhaps western climate) of non compromising in this new age. I would not say these movements represent liberalism, and making that distinction and separating certainly adds merit to your arguments.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Absolutely agree with you on compromise.

There was a moment in which Sanders could have been Hillary's running mate ... instead ...




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So disavowing people of being liberal is going to what? Make you look better? Sorry, but I'd rather acknowledge the bad so I can fix it, instead of trying to word wrangle around trying to ignore it.
edit on 6-7-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, well I've been up all night, so going very deep maybe a challenge, I agree with both - that they stemmed from those movements, but also as you state the American climate (or perhaps western climate) of non compromising in this new age. I would not say these movements represent liberalism, and making that distinction and separating certainly adds merit to your arguments.


See! There is not necessarily a great gulf eternally spanning our two "sides."

Perhaps you need some sleep?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

So disavowing people of being liberal is going to what? Make you look better? Sorry, but I'd rather acknowledge the bad so I can fix it, instead of trying to word wrangle around trying to ignore it.


First of all, we're talking here about personal definitions fundamentally. "Being liberal" is not a coordinated movement, political party, union or club.

I'm not "excluding" anyone, nor could I (and you're very nearly creating a strawman there) ... they're excluding themselves by their actions and stated beliefs.

BLM's tenets and behaviors are not focused in any way, shape, or form on equality.

And frankly, I resent the insinuation that I'm trying to make this a "semantical exclusion."



edit on 6-7-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: crazyewok

You started this in "the Mud Pit."

Do you intend it to be a reasonable discussion of your points, or just another variation on a "liberal bash-fest"?


liberal bash-fest?.....on ATS?....nah, never, ever happens....31 republican governors, the entire congress controlled by republicans.....can't you see it's the liberals that are the real problem?...they are the only ones making all the laws, right?....the conservatives have absolutely nothing to do with any type of legislation anywhere in the U.S......all the problems are created by liberals...c'mon gryph.....you know the drill here by now....



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well seeing as how you are getting angry at me now, we'll just have to agree to disagree.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: crazyewok

You started this in "the Mud Pit."

Do you intend it to be a reasonable discussion of your points, or just another variation on a "liberal bash-fest"?


liberal bash-fest?.....on ATS?....nah, never, ever happens....31 republican governors, the entire congress controlled by republicans.....can't you see it's the liberals that are the real problem?...they are the only ones making all the laws, right?....the conservatives have absolutely nothing to do with any type of legislation anywhere in the U.S......all the problems are created by liberals...c'mon gryph.....you know the drill here by now....


Liberalism is a political philosophy, not an American political party. "New liberals" are not liberals, for they erode liberal values.
edit on 6-7-2016 by TheTory because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Liberalism is some sort of mental illness, it's like having blanket of cognitive dissonace draped over your head 24/7. Luckily the SJW culture is showing just how bat# crazy these people are.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

Liberalism is one of the most important philosophies in human history. The "SJWs" are illiberal.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join