Impending shitstorm
Tilt LITT LE ENGINE WHOSE PARENTS
DID FOR lah
DID FOR lah
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
64 comments displayed.
#17 to #16
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
Liberalism is tolerant.
By definition, it's about leaving people to be free to do what they like.
By definition, it's about leaving people to be free to do what they like.
#21 to #18
-
internetexplain (12/04/2015) [-] it's because they switched sides , in America at least.
In capitalist America, conservative means liberal
In capitalist America, conservative means liberal
#27 to #21
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
Nah, people who get labeled conservatives are still social conservatives, and aren't liberals.
And "libruls" aren't conservatives, but tend to be progressives.
And "libruls" aren't conservatives, but tend to be progressives.
#25 to #18
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
See, you start off fine, and then you say something stupid because you're not checking yourself.
Liberalism, by definition, is about personal liberty.
If this doesn't line up with parts of the political left, it doesn't mean you redefine liberal, it means liberals aren't leftists.
And hey, that's true.
It's also true that political views tend to be more complex than simple left/right spectra, or the more informative grid. Liberalism is neither politically left nor right. Liberals (people who believe in liberalism) tend to sit in the centre-left, though.
Liberalism, by definition, is about personal liberty.
If this doesn't line up with parts of the political left, it doesn't mean you redefine liberal, it means liberals aren't leftists.
And hey, that's true.
It's also true that political views tend to be more complex than simple left/right spectra, or the more informative grid. Liberalism is neither politically left nor right. Liberals (people who believe in liberalism) tend to sit in the centre-left, though.
#28 to #25
-
adhlas (12/04/2015) [-]
I suppose i'm not being entirely clear as to whether I'm talking about actual liberalism or how people define it. I actually agree with you for the most part, so let me try again.
Actual Liberalism, by definition, is, as you say, about personal liberty and is of course not adherent to a simple left-right definition of political views
On the other hand, people who call themselves liberal and the socially accepted idea of liberalism (this is a generalization, of course, there a plenty of real liberals, but many politicians in the "liberal" democratic party, for example, are who i mean here) does in fact favor a lot more control and a lot less personal liberty, and is seen as being to the political left, whether it is in reality or not.
Essentially, there are liberals who believe in personal freedoms and there are the everyday people and politicians who say they're liberals but want more regulation.
Actual Liberalism, by definition, is, as you say, about personal liberty and is of course not adherent to a simple left-right definition of political views
On the other hand, people who call themselves liberal and the socially accepted idea of liberalism (this is a generalization, of course, there a plenty of real liberals, but many politicians in the "liberal" democratic party, for example, are who i mean here) does in fact favor a lot more control and a lot less personal liberty, and is seen as being to the political left, whether it is in reality or not.
Essentially, there are liberals who believe in personal freedoms and there are the everyday people and politicians who say they're liberals but want more regulation.
#29 to #28
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
I've never met anyone on the political left who called themselves a liberal and wasn't one.
Many people I know on the left dislike liberals for believing in liberalism, because they are authoritarians.
> the socially accepted idea of liberalism
No, this is the ridiculous bit. You can ask people to define liberalism and they can do that okay, it's using the right word that so many Americans seem to struggle with.
"librul" is a word I only hear used incorrectly by the political right.
Many people I know on the left dislike liberals for believing in liberalism, because they are authoritarians.
> the socially accepted idea of liberalism
No, this is the ridiculous bit. You can ask people to define liberalism and they can do that okay, it's using the right word that so many Americans seem to struggle with.
"librul" is a word I only hear used incorrectly by the political right.
#32 to #29
-
adhlas (12/04/2015) [-]
Liberalism is about personal freedoms
Many people calling themselves liberals are not liberals
The average person today thinks left = liberal, right = conservative, and will label anyone on the left a "liberal", including themselves if they are leftists.
Semantically you could argue that the definition of the word hasn't changed, but the way people use it has
Many people calling themselves liberals are not liberals
The average person today thinks left = liberal, right = conservative, and will label anyone on the left a "liberal", including themselves if they are leftists.
Semantically you could argue that the definition of the word hasn't changed, but the way people use it has
#33 to #32
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
>Many people calling themselves liberals are not liberals
Find me these people, because I have never seen one.
Find me these people, because I have never seen one.
#35 to #33
-
adhlas (12/04/2015) [-]
Here's an example: Unions
Unions are, currently, heavily supported by the left. People say unions are liberal, or something liberals would agree with
While they have their place and have done tons of good for workers' rights in the past, today they severely limit what their members can and cannot do, and rarely make concessions to their original rules, no matter how the circumstances have changed. They are rigid and controlling, often governed by rules rather than common sense.
Unions are, currently, heavily supported by the left. People say unions are liberal, or something liberals would agree with
While they have their place and have done tons of good for workers' rights in the past, today they severely limit what their members can and cannot do, and rarely make concessions to their original rules, no matter how the circumstances have changed. They are rigid and controlling, often governed by rules rather than common sense.
#38 to #35
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
>People say unions are liberal, or something liberals would agree with
And there's no real reason why they would or wouldn't, unless the union membership was mandatory.
Liberalism is more of a social political view than an economic one.
And, of course
>People say unions are liberal, or something liberals would agree with
Who?
Who are these mystical people who say these things that agree with you?
And there's no real reason why they would or wouldn't, unless the union membership was mandatory.
Liberalism is more of a social political view than an economic one.
And, of course
>People say unions are liberal, or something liberals would agree with
Who?
Who are these mystical people who say these things that agree with you?
#43 to #38
-
adhlas (12/04/2015) [-]
you want sauce that liberalism and leftism are, by today's definitions, synonyms:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Americas
an excerpt:
" In North America, unlike in Europe, the word liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism in contemporary politics. The dominant Canadian and American parties, the Liberal Party and the Democratic Party, "
ergo, the democratic party is a liberal party
democrats, in general, support higher taxes (especially on the rich), gun control, zero tolerance policies, unions, environmental regulation...
democrats created the ethnicity/gender requirements for schools and workplaces (affirmative action), the no child left behind act...
say what you will, good or bad, about any of these things, but whether they are beneficial or not, they all impose more control over corporations, institutions, and the individual.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Americas
an excerpt:
" In North America, unlike in Europe, the word liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism in contemporary politics. The dominant Canadian and American parties, the Liberal Party and the Democratic Party, "
ergo, the democratic party is a liberal party
democrats, in general, support higher taxes (especially on the rich), gun control, zero tolerance policies, unions, environmental regulation...
democrats created the ethnicity/gender requirements for schools and workplaces (affirmative action), the no child left behind act...
say what you will, good or bad, about any of these things, but whether they are beneficial or not, they all impose more control over corporations, institutions, and the individual.
#45 to #43
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
"The dominant Canadian and American parties, the Liberal Party and the Democratic Party, are frequently identified as being modern liberal or centre-left organisations in the academic literature."
Democrats are a extremely varied party, same as the Republicans, and they may contain liberals, progressives, socialists, etc. and those groups may overlap.
Because of the two-party system, there is no liberal party in America.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Liberal Party supports marijuana legalisation, greater voting representation in government, and gay marriage.
But it is also part of a strong two-party system, so I am unwilling to say that it represents only liberal views either.
Democrats are a extremely varied party, same as the Republicans, and they may contain liberals, progressives, socialists, etc. and those groups may overlap.
Because of the two-party system, there is no liberal party in America.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Liberal Party supports marijuana legalisation, greater voting representation in government, and gay marriage.
But it is also part of a strong two-party system, so I am unwilling to say that it represents only liberal views either.
#47 to #46
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
The key word is OR.
The Democrat party is not exclusively liberal, it has liberals in it, and its candidates can push liberal values.
But the Democrat party is neither cohesive nor consistent. Saying it's a liberal party despite some of its members not being liberals is completely pointless.
This is why it's easier to analyse individual people and their viewpoints.
The Democrat party is not exclusively liberal, it has liberals in it, and its candidates can push liberal values.
But the Democrat party is neither cohesive nor consistent. Saying it's a liberal party despite some of its members not being liberals is completely pointless.
This is why it's easier to analyse individual people and their viewpoints.
#26 to #24
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
I don't see your point.
Feminism is a broad ideology that's been constantly developing alongside society for the last century, but very little of its core beliefs have changed in that timespan. Feminist media has adapted to the current social climate and its issues.
Besides, liberalism as a political ideology is a lot more clear-cut.
When people say "librul", they are typically talking about leftists, or more specifically, neoprogressives, particularly those among them who tend to be reactionaries.
They aren't necessarily liberals, though parts of the left can be.
Feminism is a broad ideology that's been constantly developing alongside society for the last century, but very little of its core beliefs have changed in that timespan. Feminist media has adapted to the current social climate and its issues.
Besides, liberalism as a political ideology is a lot more clear-cut.
When people say "librul", they are typically talking about leftists, or more specifically, neoprogressives, particularly those among them who tend to be reactionaries.
They aren't necessarily liberals, though parts of the left can be.
#30 to #26
-
saintlich (12/04/2015) [-]
Times change, definitions change. Words change, ain't an argument it's a fact. For FJ everyone knows that feminism movement has changed to the extent that the words meaning has changed. For political parties this is very common, many people would say that X person was with X party but would be today, this is due to the development. Liberal's are of no exception, liberal's have changed from freedom to reimbursement for past faults. Their motive of freedom is non-existent in current day liberalism. Of course local appropriation should be taken into account. But is common to assume everyone is American. I say this despite being Irish.
#31 to #30
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
But these words haven't changed.
Plenty of people are still using them correctly, particularly in the rest of the Anglosphere that isn't Burgerstan.
Only Americans, and only some part of the American right-wing, and only that part that isn't ever asked to give an official political opinion (because they don't use the commonly accepted definitions for political terms) seem to get this particular thing wrong.
There is a word for what you're thinking of, and it is "progressive", or "neoprogressive" if you wanted to be specific. It is not liberal. It has never been liberal. It is not even becoming liberal, because nobody will sit through the idiocy of redefining a word just because a slice of America can't learn how to use it correctly.
It's moronic that my political discourse has to be tainted by people who can't be bothered to get into the common language and communicate properly.
Plenty of people are still using them correctly, particularly in the rest of the Anglosphere that isn't Burgerstan.
Only Americans, and only some part of the American right-wing, and only that part that isn't ever asked to give an official political opinion (because they don't use the commonly accepted definitions for political terms) seem to get this particular thing wrong.
There is a word for what you're thinking of, and it is "progressive", or "neoprogressive" if you wanted to be specific. It is not liberal. It has never been liberal. It is not even becoming liberal, because nobody will sit through the idiocy of redefining a word just because a slice of America can't learn how to use it correctly.
It's moronic that my political discourse has to be tainted by people who can't be bothered to get into the common language and communicate properly.
#64 to #31
-
saintlich (12/05/2015) [-]
As much as i understand your position I do want to reinforce that words change, that alone is not up for debate, very little research into the bastard child that is the English language will reveal that. Now while i may feel that the liberal movement is changing and not just in America that is up for debate and at the very least nothing will change for a good while. But i do see the Liberal movement in the past as something i would support but as of current in Europe and America it has changed focus in my opinion. I could be wrong about that, it could just be the small chunks of horrid crap that i see, but i would find it easier to separate from them that trying to stop them from calling them self liberals.
#37 to #31
-
anon (12/04/2015) [-]
so theyre no true liberals? and yet liberals vote for them and support their policies?
Only Americans are wrong? wow, looks like we got another pinko cuck here boys, success breeds jealousy. how dare americans see us for what we are, cowards, frauds and parasites. enjoy your safe spaces and knife bans you prick.
"But thyre not liberal" they call themselves liberal or progressive, AND THEY ARE GETTING WHAT THEY WANT and you get **** on. They are the true liberals, and you are useful idiots that will have your useful lives destroyed by their hatred for nonconformists and people that have money that they could spend.
Only Americans are wrong? wow, looks like we got another pinko cuck here boys, success breeds jealousy. how dare americans see us for what we are, cowards, frauds and parasites. enjoy your safe spaces and knife bans you prick.
"But thyre not liberal" they call themselves liberal or progressive, AND THEY ARE GETTING WHAT THEY WANT and you get **** on. They are the true liberals, and you are useful idiots that will have your useful lives destroyed by their hatred for nonconformists and people that have money that they could spend.
#39 to #37
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
>and yet liberals vote for them and support their policies?
Who are you even talking about at this point?
These are blanket statements that are overly encompassing so many disparate groups with different ideologies that I'm struggling to even understand who you're trying to stereotype.
>they call themselves liberal
But they don't.
Who are you even talking about at this point?
These are blanket statements that are overly encompassing so many disparate groups with different ideologies that I'm struggling to even understand who you're trying to stereotype.
>they call themselves liberal
But they don't.
#36 to #17
-
phenact (12/04/2015) [-] many liberals have made a name for themselves as being intolerant to others opinions, or being blindly tolerant to the point of endangering our culture.
This is why I prefer the libertarianism. Imo as long as people dont severely endanger themselves (meth, life ruining drugs) or their peers (drunk driving, mentally deranged people owning firearms), I couldn't give less of a **** what you do
This is why I prefer the libertarianism. Imo as long as people dont severely endanger themselves (meth, life ruining drugs) or their peers (drunk driving, mentally deranged people owning firearms), I couldn't give less of a **** what you do
#40 to #36
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
But they aren't liberals if they aren't tolerant. If they don't tolerate personal liberty, they aren't liberals.
Libertarians are a subset of liberals.
And you aren't a libertarian if you care about other people doing drugs.
Libertarians are a subset of liberals.
And you aren't a libertarian if you care about other people doing drugs.
#42 to #41
-
comicironic (12/04/2015) [-]
>that means most "liberals" ive talked too/read about arent liberals. cool
Did they ever call themselves liberals?
>I think stopping them from destroying themselves and if enough people do it, their country is fair game
Nope, that's interventionism, it's against libertarian philosophy.
The government isn't allowed to act against people's wishes unless they're a criminal, and the only crimes occur when one person harms another person.
A person harming themselves is not a crime, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Did they ever call themselves liberals?
>I think stopping them from destroying themselves and if enough people do it, their country is fair game
Nope, that's interventionism, it's against libertarian philosophy.
The government isn't allowed to act against people's wishes unless they're a criminal, and the only crimes occur when one person harms another person.
A person harming themselves is not a crime, and there's nothing you can do about it.
#44 to #42
-
phenact (12/04/2015) [-] 1. Yes they did. Also, most democrats are liberals.
2. I never said they should be treated as criminals. If I were in charge, Id create programs to help them, not just throw them in jail. If I didnt do **** , Id have to deal with other people (other countries, the UN, etc.) calling me out on not not giving a **** whether my citizens live or die.
Also, If I were in charge, I'd better educate myself so I can do my best for the american people
2. I never said they should be treated as criminals. If I were in charge, Id create programs to help them, not just throw them in jail. If I didnt do **** , Id have to deal with other people (other countries, the UN, etc.) calling me out on not not giving a **** whether my citizens live or die.
Also, If I were in charge, I'd better educate myself so I can do my best for the american people
#62 to #61
-
comicironic (12/05/2015) [-]
Progressives are not necessarily liberals.
Please don't conflate the two.
Please don't conflate the two.
#59 to #16
-
haroldsaxon ONLINE (12/05/2015) [-] It's supposed to be, but they hijacked it and deformed it. You might call it liberalism, but it's not.
#8 to #6
-
sircool (12/04/2015) [-] everything but the "Proud of liberalism/tolerance" i'm actually ok with. Those two things i've seen become an undoing of any normality for something that is going against what they originally say. But other than that, my generation is actually not as bad as originally thought.
#63 to #6
-
allidoisfapfapfap (12/05/2015) [-] Jeez.... Most people use CNN for their news source. No wonder we have so many whiny liberal bitches. BBC Isn't even on the list of internet sources and they're the most objective.
#3 to #2
-
stoatsmcgoats ONLINE (12/04/2015) [-] Yeah, but that doesn't give them or generation x a pass.
#5 to #4
-
stoatsmcgoats ONLINE (12/04/2015) [-] If you can't read it, maybe mommy can do it for you
#15
-
FrankReal (12/04/2015) [-] Spot the young adult who just realized how cool it is to hate kids because "we're so not like them!"
#13
-
addurn (12/04/2015) [-] I recommend listening to this podcast that Cracked did about Millennials. It's around an hour long, but is worth listening to because it makes a distant observation of millennials and the logic behind why some people dislike them:
soundcloud.com/crackedpod/millennial-panic
soundcloud.com/crackedpod/millennial-panic
#54 to #50
-
addurn (12/05/2015) [-]
The podcast doesn't complain about millennials. It even defends them to a small degree. Also Cracked isn't the super SJW mindless site your think it is, that is BuzzFeed. A lot of their stuff is actually pretty neutral and takes into account all sides from a distance. I honestly think you have the wrong idea about them.
#55 to #34
-
addurn (12/05/2015) [-]
I have a feeling that Cracked is often confused with other junk clickbait sites. Like BuzzFeed. Sure they have those clickbaity titles but if you look inside they actually have content that is interesting to think about. Also there also seems to be the misconception that they're on the hyper SJW side, they aren't.
#9
-
scootabot ONLINE (12/04/2015) [-] I was raised in the Millennial era.
It's all fine and dandy to completely over generalize with a very broad brush, but please know that individuals have their chances of moving forward and breaking the mold, while the collective can be shown as this, exactly.
The individual can be a genius, though the collective is quite dumb.
It's all fine and dandy to completely over generalize with a very broad brush, but please know that individuals have their chances of moving forward and breaking the mold, while the collective can be shown as this, exactly.
The individual can be a genius, though the collective is quite dumb.
