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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz




The wonderful suffragettes, those magnificent liberal minded "feminazis" that changed the lives of half the population of their country for the better by getting us freedom were considered radicals and the filth of humanity, when in truth they fabulously created the freedom from total oppression for women without the firing of a bullet.


Suffragettes started as prohibitionists. So we might have to use the word "freedom" more sparingly here.
edit on 6-7-2016 by TheTory because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: ScepticScot

The assault on free speech has been going on forever. But it gets a little more worrisome when it is assaulted by those who claim to have liberal values.


What is judged to be acceptable certainly changes, a hundred years ago in the USA or Europe saying that Gay people should be allowed to be married would be met with general scorn and the consequences you mentioned. Now the position is reversed. It has nothing to do with liberal values other than the western world is now more socially liberal.

If you want to protect people right to free speech you also have protect peoples right to disagree with the what is said. That disagreement may lead to consequences for one party or another. I (along with probably most people)would choose not to buy goods or services from some one I believed to be a racist, is the economic consequence of that an assault on the free speech of the racist?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Yes, i do hear what you're saying. And i am sure you are a really nice Liberal minded guy. I also doubt you go around pushing things in peoples faces who don't believe everything you do. There are good and bad on both sides of the fence i agree.

But Then there are the Liberals who are dauntingly trying to coerce a fight in the direction of force upon anothers circle of identity. That is where i toss it in. People like that, are dangerous to the well being and freedom of society as a whole.

One one side, they've been treated horribly in the past, i absolutely agree. But on the other side of the wall, they're attempting 'not all' but a lot, to do the exact same thing that was done to them. This to me is wrong.

And eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

LMAO!
Yeah you tell yourself that, I'd hate for you to have to give female freedom fighters a boon...

edit on 6-7-2016 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: awareness10

There will always be people that push limits, it is the way society massages the direction it takes, as it progresses or regresses.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: TheTory

LMAO!
Yeah you tell yourself that, I'd hate for you to have to give female freedom fighters a boon...



Prohibition movements in the West coincided with the advent of women's suffrage, with newly empowered women as part of the political process strongly supporting policies that curbed alcohol consumption.[3][4]


Prohibition



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
So this is just another rant about SJW's and "snowflakes"?

A rant against people who rant? Complaining about people who complain?

Yet again?

Got it.

edit on 6-7-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



What is judged to be acceptable certainly changes, a hundred years ago in the USA or Europe saying that Gay people should be allowed to be married would be met with general scorn and the consequences you mentioned. Now the position is reversed. It has nothing to do with liberal values other than the western world is now more socially liberal.

If you want to protect people right to free speech you also have protect peoples right to disagree with the what is said. That disagreement may lead to consequences for one party or another. I (along with probably most people)would choose not to buy goods or services from some one I believed to be a racist, is the economic consequence of that an assault on the free speech of the racist?


I'm not going to restate the arguments of Mill or Locke in regards to free speech. Any liberal should already know them, given that they are tenants of liberal values, and the core of every human rights declaration. I wonder how many people have read "On Liberty"? I bet there are not too many.

You can purchase goods and services from where ever you please. The free-market and free association are also precious liberal values.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




So this is just another rant about SJW's and "snowflakes"?

A rant against people who rant? Complaining about people who complain?

Yet again?

Got it.


There is a difference between an unjustified and a justified complaint.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: ScepticScot



What is judged to be acceptable certainly changes, a hundred years ago in the USA or Europe saying that Gay people should be allowed to be married would be met with general scorn and the consequences you mentioned. Now the position is reversed. It has nothing to do with liberal values other than the western world is now more socially liberal.

If you want to protect people right to free speech you also have protect peoples right to disagree with the what is said. That disagreement may lead to consequences for one party or another. I (along with probably most people)would choose not to buy goods or services from some one I believed to be a racist, is the economic consequence of that an assault on the free speech of the racist?


I'm not going to restate the arguments of Mill or Locke in regards to free speech. Any liberal should already know them, given that they are tenants of liberal values, and the core of every human rights declaration. I wonder how many people have read "On Liberty"? I bet there are not too many.

You can purchase goods and services from where ever you please. The free-market and free association are also precious liberal values.


Yes they are, so the idea that we can protect people from the consequences of their free speech, including economic consequences is nonsense.

Free speech is not being able to say whatever you want without consequence. So claiming that at those consequences are an attack on free speech is clearly false.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory




There is a difference between an unjustified and a justified complaint.


There's also a difference between a liberal and a whiny foot-stomping crybaby.

But far far too many of you can't seem to comprehend that difference and instead just lazily toss around the catch-all label of "liberal".

Hence... the useless asinine pissing matches continue, ad nauseum.





posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Yes, Sargon makes a lot of sense. I wish he didn't use as much language (kid's at the wrong age for me to listen to too much of it). When you send your kid to a Christian school, the last thing you want is for him to bust out certain words ... we're already working hard to train "damn" out of him again after he picked it up at day camp.

Bit I digress.

I do agree with Sargon on the PC/SJW front. He pretty much nails it time and again.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




Yes they are, so the idea that we can protect people from the consequences of their free speech, including economic consequences is nonsense.

Free speech is not being able to say whatever you want without consequence. So claiming that at those consequences are an attack on free speech is clearly false.


No, I do not think we can protect people from the actions of others, but we can promote certain principles such as free speech, because being the basis of a free society, the principle is more important than how you or I react to what is being said.

Free speech is being able to say what you want without consequences. That's what free speech means. The arguments are explicit in all the works in favor of free speech, so I will not bother restating them here.

Principles work like morals or fundamental ideas. We hold them true of everyone, even for our enemies and those who think differently.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This is an insult created by conservatives. Calling people this is only going to put them on the defensive and spurn arguments and confrontations instead of a topic of understanding and rational thought. If you believe this term to be true then the conversation is already lost and there is no point in continuing it. It will just become a shouting match.



Maybe it is an insult (and it should be), and maybe it was created by conservatives, and it definitely is a generalization of a whole group of people--but you can't deny that there are quite a few (and seemingly, increasing-in-number) people who really do only seem to care about themselves, their beliefs, and who call themselves "liberals" or "progressives" who want the world to seemingly exist and revolve around their ideology, which often includes how government/employers/society can best support them and their needs, even at the expense of others.

And seriously, if someone can't hold a discussion, even if they get called a name, then they really are too immature to be holding a discussion on such topics. So, what you're saying is, they'll throw an tantrum if they're called out for being selfish?

I'm not saying that this moniker covers all liberals, but when properly used, it's quite accurate. Maybe they could run to their safe space before the word is spoken, and everything would be okay? (those are the people that fall under the "snowflake" category)


The problem that outsiders have that causes this misunderstanding is that they seem to perceive equality as a zero-sum game. Give more equality to a minority group and you lose some of your equality. That isn't true at all. No minority group on the planet is on equal terms with the majority group that they live among. This is a statement of fact. Even within the 1st world such as England or the US.


I think the point in discussing calls for "equality" by progressives is that many don't seem content with a law saying something that encompasses all people without group descriptions. A law--per Section one of the 14th Amendment--can not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That right there should be enough, but it's not, apparently. Therefore, everyone wants this or that group specifically spelled out in equality laws, now, and all that does is set up a foundation for the next group that wasn't included to start with to come to the legal system and complain about something and waste time and money, all the while the 14th Amendment is right there and has been for the last 138 years.


This is one of the WORST aspects of the conservative movement. Their ease of using slurs against liberals. They use them so much and without thinking that they tend to act surprised when a liberal gets offended and starts yelling at them.


I absolutely agree with that...plus, it makes them sound really unintelligent.


This is one of my biggest pet peeves with people against the Liberal movement. Pretending like defending moderate Muslims is apologizing for Muslims who happen to be terrorists. It is extremely frustrating to be accused of this and it is certainly a lie through and through.


The reality is, though, that progressive liberals (like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, etc.) let political correctness supersede intelligent decisions a LOT of the time. Take the immigration issue--it makes absolute sense to halt immigration of certain groups known to have extremists/terrorists infiltrating them until we can better vet every individual coming in. But when people scream that this is racist, then that negates the intelligence of such a decision and starts a battle of proponents of better vetting to have to now defend themselves against unfounded accusations instead of speaking intelligently about the issue.


And many liberals do the exact same thing to conservatives and other political beliefs--hell, there are people in all camps that do it. So, it can rightfully be a pet peeve, but there is some truth to the matter sometimes.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Speech, as far as the government is concerned, only pertains to the government infringing speech. It has nothing to do with social or economic consequences to your speech.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

I just love how you convey this 'sht wow.


edit on 7/6/2016 by awareness10 because: Liberals made me do it.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I tend to vote "liberal" I guess, because top-down / trickle down economic theory is a proven failure over 40 years.

I also vote liberal because I don't care what a woman (or a man) does with their own body.

I don't pay much attention to snowflake politics on either side of the spectrum. That includes right wing snowflakes who are scared of terrorists, who fetishize the constitution or who imagine there is any way the anti-gun morons might "take their guns" short of divine intervention.

Basically, I'm a bored libertarian who thinks the environment is more interesting than people.

"People" are always scarred and lash out emotionally at things they don't understand. I find the entire idea B O R I N G.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok


They make apologies for certain groups and action even though those groups stand for everything they are against (Extremist Islam).

Maybe what you're not seeing is that they stand against a concerted effort to demonize an entire people so that we can justify our means to a very ugly end. You should be proud of them for having some guts - it's not an easy position to defend

If you can't recognize this for what it is, maybe there are plenty of other things wrong with your argument? It takes a special kind of snowflake to condemn a whole group for defending the rights of others at his expense - wouldn't you say? Or, are your desires and political positions special?

There were quite a few youngsters over here in the USA that marched for civil rights and against an unjust barbaric war. You can't really believe that the youth of this world isn't looking around to see that things are coming undone?

The future belongs to the young - both the conservative young and the liberal

Let's just see if maybe they can't do a damn sight better than those that came before them


edit on 7/6/2016 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Speech, as far as the government is concerned, only pertains to the government infringing speech. It has nothing to do with social or economic consequences to your speech.


Free speech pertains to everyone who believes in human rights. It is a fundamental human right, or it isn't, one or the other.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Maybe it is an insult (and it should be), and maybe it was created by conservatives, and it definitely is a generalization of a whole group of people--but you can't deny that there are quite a few (and seemingly, increasing-in-number) people who really do only seem to care about themselves, their beliefs, and who call themselves "liberals" or "progressives" who want the world to seemingly exist and revolve around their ideology, which often includes how government/employers/society can best support them and their needs, even at the expense of others.

Not everyone is perfect. You can't expect everyone to be altruistic or have the best intentions at heart. That doesn't mean the philosophy is flawed though.


And seriously, if someone can't hold a discussion, even if they get called a name, then they really are too immature to be holding a discussion on such topics. So, what you're saying is, they'll throw an tantrum if they're called out for being selfish?

I'm saying that it is impolite to insult someone just because you disagree with their beliefs. It is common courtesy to show the opposite side of the debate argument respect so that you can eventually come to an agreement. I see in this day and age, such things have gone out the window in favor of people like you defending the idea of insulting people just because they can.

It's actually kind of funny that you are calling someone immature because he can't take an insult when it is even MORE immature to insult the person in the first place.


I'm not saying that this moniker covers all liberals, but when properly used, it's quite accurate. Maybe they could run to their safe space before the word is spoken, and everything would be okay? (those are the people that fall under the "snowflake" category)

I can think of plenty of "monikers" to call conservatives that I think would fit well. Many of which post on ATS, but I try not to do it instead opting to use reason, evidence and logic to present my points instead of immaturity.


I think the point in discussing calls for "equality" by progressives is that many don't seem content with a law saying something that encompasses all people without group descriptions. A law--per Section one of the 14th Amendment--can not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That right there should be enough, but it's not, apparently. Therefore, everyone wants this or that group specifically spelled out in equality laws, now, and all that does is set up a foundation for the next group that wasn't included to start with to come to the legal system and complain about something and waste time and money, all the while the 14th Amendment is right there and has been for the last 138 years.

Well then maybe we should consider rewriting the Amendment so that it is more encompassing? Did you ever consider that these special considerations exist because of loopholes in the Amendment?


I absolutely agree with that...plus, it makes them sound really unintelligent.

At least we agree on something.


The reality is, though, that progressive liberals (like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, etc.) let political correctness supersede intelligent decisions a LOT of the time. Take the immigration issue--it makes absolute sense to halt immigration of certain groups known to have extremists/terrorists infiltrating them until we can better vet every individual coming in. But when people scream that this is racist, then that negates the intelligence of such a decision and starts a battle of proponents of better vetting to have to now defend themselves against unfounded accusations instead of speaking intelligently about the issue.

No it doesn't. It is a violation of the first amendment. It NEVER. I repeat NEVER, makes sense to violate the first amendment. I don't care how scared you are of being attacked. We shouldn't be compromising our rights for safety. This is forefather beliefs 101. Hell Ben Franklin talked EXPLICITLY about it. Denying immigration to muslims because of terrorism is the textbook definition of tyranny.


And many liberals do the exact same thing to conservatives and other political beliefs--hell, there are people in all camps that do it. So, it can rightfully be a pet peeve, but there is some truth to the matter sometimes.

This is called a tu quoque (you too) fallacy. It's ok because someone else does it too. No it isn't. Don't excuse your behavior because others do it. Just acknowledge the problem. Deflecting blame by pointing out other guilty parties doesn't forgive the original guilt.
edit on 6-7-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join