Liberalism and Political Correctness Heralds the Destruction of America

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The ideology you just promoted is the definition of extremism, eradicating the competition and snuffing out their existence in favor of your own ideology and existence.

Absolutely no substance to the OP. It is a partisan, fear-mongering rant that the author simply made up.

Bump on that.

It is the pretzel logic...victimhood of the far right...

You can still say anything you like in the USA...Free Speech that challenges or refutes the rhetoric of the far right though?.. oppressive political correctness!!

For effs sake...The far right can say anything it likes....But if it hurts their feelings that not everyone agrees, perhaps they should voice their rhetoric in a "safe space", like a Tea Party Town-Hall meeting without cameras or microphones.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
First, the only way liberalism can work is under authoritarian rule.

No. The only way government policy can be enforced is through authoritarian means. Whether that's a left, right, or center policy it can only be enacted if the government has the power to do so. Weak governments are liberal governments (again, that's the negative/down direction on the scale, authoritarian is positive/up typically). The weakest governments are places like Somalia which is the most libertarian country on the planet.

If you want to collect tax revenues, have a secure military, or even functioning regulatory bodies like the FDA you have to give the government some power to enforce the laws.

Authoritarianism/liberalism go hand in hand, liberalism does not exist under a free society.

Only in the sense that typical liberal policies are big government, which in turn means the government needs the power to act. Conservative policies aren't any different for that matter, they simply give the power to act to unelected private corporations rather than publicly elected officials.

I believe in ethical capitalism, and if there are abuses that need addressed, they should be addressed; only as a last resort.

There is no such thing, ethics are a matter of personal opinion. One persons ethics may simply be to obtain a profit for their family by any means necessary. If you want a system where people can't make a profit by selling poison because it's cheaper, you're in essence arguing for bodies like the EPA and FDA which in turn brings you to where we are now.

This third point is just silly, history has shown that capitalism is better than any other system. Thanks to capitalism, we do not live in wooden shacks and defecate in outhouses. We have advanced more in that past 100 years, thanks to capitalism, than we have in 10,000 years. Other systems have been attempted, and those have resulted in mass genocide and starvation of millions; No Thank You.

I think you're confused. Capitalism has existed for nearly 700 years now, what has only existed for about 100 years is workers rights. What Capitalism gets right is that it leads to a system where an individual can work longer or harder and in turn receive a greater reward. It gets a few things wrong too though which I'll skip over going into for now.

On the fourth point, of being informed, I am not advocating that people must be Omniscient in order to vote. A basic understanding of the functions of government, and a basic knowledge of who is in office and what they have done. Also, if you aren't aware, the popular vote does not decide the leadership, a select few decide- which the serious problem with this is that it is Legal to Bribe the electoral college. Basically my requirement for informed electorate is already fulfilled, except the bribing of these people needs to be addressed immediately.

But knowing what someone has done is context specific. Without understanding the issues behind their actions you can't truly evaluate the action which then brings you to the idea that people should simply know who the incumbent is.

Also, the popular vote does decide the leadership. It decides your governor, your mayor, your city council, your state legislature, your congressional representatives. The only thing it doesn't directly decide is the President, but even then the popular vote still plays a role, since an unpopular candidate isn't going to win enough states to win the election.

Ah, so the true nature of liberalism rears it's ugly head in your fifth point. You do not want corruption to be punished, you do not want a free and open society, and you agree that America should dominate and subjugate the rest of the world.

I didn't say that. Punishing corruption is nice, but the concept that we need to find every injustice committed and throw the perpetrators in jail is ridiculous. Simply voting a person out of power is punishment enough. I take a light on crime approach. Sadly, in the case of politicians it's not always possible to just vote for the clean one, the people who get into these positions have skeletons in their closets.

As far as a free and open society goes, I like transparency in government and I like being free. However, transparency only works as a matter of public record, you can't make actions transparent in the moment because the hype around political actions gets too caught up in that moment. I would love for every government action to become public knowledge eventually, that's what FOIA and expiration dates on classified documents is for.

I don't think it's good or realistic to expect that of every action in real time though, because politicians are actors. They have public appearances to keep up, and especially with a party system they need to appear to be fighting each other and spinning things for good relations with their various bases. Behind the scenes however, they still need the freedom to come together and get things done. Secrecy allows for that while full transparency only promotes gridlock.

a reply to: Aazadan

If you want to collect tax revenues, have a secure military, or even functioning regulatory bodies like the FDA you have to give the government some power to enforce the laws.

This is true. With the power to enforce laws, however, comes the responsibility to not abuse that power. Those in the best position to verify correct use of that power are the citizens themselves. This was the Great Experiment that was America.

I say "was" because the population of America has severely declined in their ability to do so, primarily through a lack if adequate education and a lack of unity to accomplish that duty.

Only in the sense that typical liberal policies are big government, which in turn means the government needs the power to act. Conservative policies aren't any different for that matter, they simply give the power to act to unelected private corporations rather than publicly elected officials.

This is part of what I despise about labels. Conservatism when I was young meant something vastly different than it does today. Back then it meant smaller government, only as much as was required to satisfy the Constitution. Liberal meant a desire to expand the government's reach and power through wider and more complex policies.

Today it seems both want to accomplish that which was once attributed to liberals.

Capitalism gives power to corporations. That's its downfall. Unrestrained capitalism tends to stop self-correction at both ends of the financial spectrum. That's why we do need regulations on corporate monopolization and growth. Unfortunately we do not enforce such restrictions like we used to. It's also why we need some sort of welfare. Unfortunately, welfare has become less of a safety net and more of a safety hammock.

Punishing corruption is nice, but the concept that we need to find every injustice committed and throw the perpetrators in jail is ridiculous. Simply voting a person out of power is punishment enough. I take a light on crime approach.

A light on crime approach is an approach that encourages crime. Crime does not happen without a motive. Sometimes that motive can be as unsubstantial as pleasure without empathy; more often it is the motive of habit, street credibility, or want that drives crimes.

A prosperous society typically has less crime than a poverty-stricken society. People will generally not care about laws when they get hungry enough. Regular poverty-driven crime can also lead to habitual crime and street credibility crime, the latter because people who have little hope for a prosperous future tend to band together in order to act out frustrations. By this logic, a lack of profitable employment or business opportunity is a direct cause of crime.

But that is all because the punishment for crime is severe. The repercussions for criminal activity are severe enough to overcome any desire to commit the crime. Only when the rewards of criminal activity outweigh the punishment for getting caught does crime become widespread. If the punishment becomes minor, then far less poverty or hopelessness is needed to tip that balance.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: GodEmperor

The liberals have no sense of morality, they were never taught these ideals, all they care about is what is best of themselves; no matter the detriment to society as a whole it imparts.

Look at the democrat controlled inner cities, they are shambles. Detroit is a wasteland, Chicago resembles that of a third world country with its' level of violence. The left screams about how police are racist and slaughtering with impunity, ignoring the violence committed by those demographics that have embraced the left; and at the same time these same people call for the disarmament of all Americans (because those same police will protect them). What kind of logic is that?

The left will boast at how socialism is a superior system, how capitalism is so terrible. We would not be living in an age, with the level of technology and comfort, without capitalism. Socialism is the death of civilization, collapse does not occur overnight, it is the slow rot of death.

You should really make up your mind. Half the time you guys claim that democrats want wealth distribution across the population with free healthcare for all, but now you're claiming that liberals only care about themselves. Can you let me know when you figure out which way is up. Also, you do realize how many socialist governments exist in Europe right? I would suggest you rebut actual arguments instead of just building and attacking generic strawmen arguments regarding your opponents.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Have been meaning to add:

I had no idea Starship Troopers was a older novel... the first movie was one of the original DVD's I owned back when they were a mostly new thing. You get the sense of dystopian futuristic setting, but no philosophy to be found about its existence that I can recall. Heavily homogenized the movie went from the looks of it following your novel quotes (I saw the original list before they trimmed it down the citation rules and all).

All summer I've been marveling over the brilliance of the social engineers that brought us the world today, in particular regards to this Special Snowflake Generation which have this sort of innate tendency to fall in with towing the Liberal PC Extremist line. Perhaps it turns out they had just read the novel here and ran with it? Or perhaps it was already underway then and he was brilliant enough to spot it and happened to be a competent novel writer as well? What are your thoughts on this mystery?

These are interesting times, indeed. As a lifelong democrat, I turned republican when the far left PC agenda took over. They've taken over schools. They've taken over churches. They've taken over the media. I can't say anything on my own damn Facebook without offending someone. Being someone who has always had a dark and crude sense of humor, I haven't been able to feel like myself for years now. There is no humor anymore. There is no realness. It's made me incredibly depressed. For what it's worth, trump has been a breath of fresh air and he's brought people like myself out of the woodworks. I have a renewed faith in humanity because of the anti-PC movement that's now picking up speed.

a reply to: calihan_12

You just need to craft you dark humor around, er about the PC mania trend. The joke fodder is infinite, already.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't agree with this at all. The word diverse simply means a range of different things. Different races, different religions, different cultures. THAT is diversity, and that is what America has been all about. Diversity in and of itself is not bad.

But diversity alone isn't inherently good.

Without unity diversity inherently becomes divisiveness. Unless there is authoritarian / totalitarian authority to enforce a universal complacency.

I say advocate unity (of the inherent diversity we have here). Then no need for such a dark authority; to have even greaterness without it. Sum more equal than its parts cant work is the parts all end up having reactionary chemical reactions to one another, in such a diverse recipe that is "America".

a reply to: GodEmperor

More tonnes of absolute rubbish. Ignorant absolute rubbish. Please go away and educate yourself about basic facts. Look up David Lloyd George. Then look up LBJ. Then come back here and revisit your post.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Do go ahead and pull some actual quotes and debunk them;. He's given so many now for you to choose from, but for the most effects I advise pull from the OP material.

a reply to: GodEmperor

No need for the Heinlen chapter, two men can sum up the state of modern politics in two quotes.

The first comes from Douglas Adams

"There comes a point I'm afraid where you begin to suspect that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. And if it comes to a choice between spending yet another ten million years finding that out, and on the other hand just taking the money and running, then I for one could do with the exercise"

And the other comes from Darth Bane.

“Two there should be; no more, no less. One to embody the power, the other to crave it.

The latter quote is more relevant IMO-the politicians embody the power, the lobbyists crave it. It doesn't matter if you swing left or right, we all know that both sides have a quid pro quo relationship with big business.

The movie and book are almost two completely different stories.

The author has amazing insight, and I think he most likely examined social trends and took an educated guess on a possible future.

I don't see the setting as dystopian, the society is a galactic republic. The main difference is people had to serve in military before they could vote. The book has a lot of philosophical discussions on a variety of issues. One entire chapter was about the mechanized suits the MI use for battle, which the technology is quickly becoming a reality. Those suits weren't in the Starship Troopers movie, but they were described something like the suits in Age of Tomorrow.

I agree, the movie is good, but after reading the book, it's just another movie that has butchered a work of art.

When it comes to the liberal crowds, I think the social engineers of the group study authors like Edward Bernays and Saul Alinsky. Most people who supports liberalism, only do so because that is what they feel embodies their semi-religious beliefs. The term useful idiots and cognitive dissonance comes to mind, liberals want us to be more free through government mandates restricting freedom.

Liberalism is, in my opinion, an oppressive mainstream cult that has had a 100 years to achieve its' goals. There is a serious disconnect, between the purported values of liberalism and the consequences of allowing liberal policy decisions. Education is key to defeating such a dangerous and self-destructive ideology.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
Liberalism is, in my opinion, an oppressive mainstream cult that has had a 100 years to achieve its' goals.

Inside a cult chamber:

originally posted by: TheRedneck
But that is all because the punishment for crime is severe. The repercussions for criminal activity are severe enough to overcome any desire to commit the crime. Only when the rewards of criminal activity outweigh the punishment for getting caught does crime become widespread. If the punishment becomes minor, then far less poverty or hopelessness is needed to tip that balance.

TheRedneck

Repercussions for crime don't reduce crime. Look at nations that have severe penalties and intensive social conditioning to conform like North Korea. They should be crime free, yet criminality runs rampant. The same is true of the Middle East where they'll cut your hand off for stealing, or stone you for farting in public. People still commit crimes. What ends up happening though, is if the punishment for a minor crime is severe there ends up being no stronger deterrent for major crimes, so people are very willing to escalate their offenses in order to try and get away with something.

The US example of this would be, if a three strikes law means you're going to get life in prison for stealing a bicycle, then you're going to be pretty willing to kill a potential witness just to make sure you can get away with the theft. In California where that was tried, that's exactly the result they got.

On the other hand, several of the happy European nations that have prison accommodations on par with a 1 bedroom apartment, and that have prisoners spend their time in job training rather than wasting away in a cell experience far lower rates of crime, and a lower rate of repeat offenders.

The light on crime approach works. It's not a winning issue in the US politically, but real world examples show a strong correlation between lesser punishments and less crime. Not to mention, it's cheaper.

a reply to: Aazadan

EU Statistics on crime and criminal justice are collected from data providers on the national levels, based on different legal concepts, procedures and counting rules. It is therefore not advisable to compare crime statistics directly between jurisdictions as they are affected by many factors

ec.europa.eu...

If you do want to start making comparisons, Finland has more than double the total crime rate than the United States.

A lenient approach produces the same results as a harsh approach, the punishments are not properly varied based on severity of the crime. It has to be changed on all levels, but it has to start at the top, and the crimes committed by political leadership have far more damaging consequences than what any one street criminal could ever do.

The European nations have just recently adopted the liberalized version of a United States in the form of the EU. Britain has realized the long-term consequences of liberal policy and is leaving the EU, last year seeing over 30 percent increase in violent crime last year alone. The U.S. has had several more decades of how trends fair under leftist rule.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Don't disagree at all. America has been let down by its elites, sacrificed on the altar of globalism on purpose.

Cultural Marxism is a sickness, a cancer that needs to be excised.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Aazadan

EU Statistics on crime and criminal justice are collected from data providers on the national levels, based on different legal concepts, procedures and counting rules. It is therefore not advisable to compare crime statistics directly between jurisdictions as they are affected by many factors

ec.europa.eu...

If you do want to start making comparisons, Finland has more than double the total crime rate than the United States.

A lenient approach produces the same results as a harsh approach, the punishments are not properly varied based on severity of the crime. It has to be changed on all levels, but it has to start at the top, and the crimes committed by political leadership have far more damaging consequences than what any one street criminal could ever do.

The European nations have just recently adopted the liberalized version of a United States in the form of the EU. Britain has realized the long-term consequences of liberal policy and is leaving the EU, last year seeing over 30 percent increase in violent crime last year alone. The U.S. has had several more decades of how trends fair under leftist rule.

(Facepalm)
But your own source says that you can't really compare crime rates in different countries because of the way that they are reported! Here's your own cite:

European countries differ widely in the way they organise their criminal justice systems, the way they define their legal concepts, and the way they collect and present their statistics on crime and criminal justice. The lack of uniform definitions, of standardized instruments and of common methodology makes comparisons of crime data between jurisdictions difficult.
EU Statistics on crime and criminal justice are collected from data providers on the national levels, based on different legal concepts, procedures and counting rules. It is therefore not advisable to compare crime statistics directly between jurisdictions as they are affected by many factors including:
•different legal and criminal justice systems
•different recording practices (input/process/output statistics)
•different statistics counting rules
•different types of offences included in the specific offences categories.
•different reporting rates
•different criminal justice organisation and efficiency

For the above reasons, direct comparisons of crime levels in different countries should be avoided. As a general rule, comparisons should be based upon trends rather than upon levels, on the basis that the characteristics of the recording system within a country remain fairly constant over time. European Union trends have been calculated only to give an approximate indication of the change over time.

And saying that the Brexit vots was due to the UK waking up and realising that the EU is 'liberal' - no! Where did you get that rubbish from?? The Brexit vote was massively complicated and was due to a wide range of factors, including anti-immigration fears, the collapsing Labour vote, a confused 'Remain' campaign, regional variations and too many other factors to list.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I know that, and pointed that out. It was in response to Aazadan making a comparison between the U.S. and the 'happy' European countries. You missed the point, that any side can use unreliable statistics to suit their argument; like Aazadan did.

You helped make my point with the Brexit vote: open borders, destruction of their national culture, loss of sovereignty, and so on. An overbearing, liberal government such as the EU, even dictated the curliness of a cucumber to be sold. Most of the British probably aren't aware of what they were opposing liberalism, they only knew it was totalitarian in nature.

a reply to: Aazadan

When I say 'severe' I do not mean extreme. As I tried to explain, there is a balance drawn between the benefit of crime and the potential punishment for crime. If the potential for any punishment (as in it is rare to get caught) is lower than the benefit, crime will increase. If the potential for punishment is higher than the benefit, it will decrease.

In some corrupt countries, the potential for punishment may be extremely high (severe penalties) but has little change depending on whether or not a crime was committed. Therefore, executing a criminal activity does not increase the potential for punishment much. We are starting to see this in the US in a few areas, where the police are abusing their power. I do not have good statistics, but I would expect crime to increase in these areas because the potential for punishment has increased irrespective of actual individual criminal activity.

Extreme poverty or want can have a similar effect although it works the other side of the equation. A starving man is more likely to steal food, irrespective of the punishment.

Of course, everything in this analysis is relative to the individual. It depends more on the individual perception than on stark reality. Someone who thinks they are starving will react as though they are starving. Someone who believes they will be caught and severely punished will act as someone who has been caught and severely punished. Perhaps this point was not as self-evident as I assumed it was.

In the end, I am discussing a phenomenon that describes a balance based on perceptions. Such cannot be disproven without looking at both sides of the equation, nor by ignoring perception in favor of realite.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The oddity I find, is the argument for a soft approach to political corruption.

I don't see how giving a politician a light sentence, and trade schooling is going to help in that particular instance.

That was the main point Aazadan was making, then reinforcing that argument with three strike rule on someone stealing a bicycle.