Red Mosquito

Most people just don't know what the fuck they are talking about even when defining their own beliefs.

A classical liberal value he holds that's relevant here is that of protecting civil liberties, thus his clash with compelled speech law.

run2death wrote:Most people just don't know what the fuck they are talking about even when defining their own beliefs.

very true

Mickey wrote:I don't think alt-right and classical liberal mean the same thing. But they are both right-wing positions.

I think this is mostly true, although it depends on issues you're discussing. A liberal and classical liberal/libertarian should get along on social issues quite well. In fact, the classical liberal is often more liberal on these issues than the liberal.
On economic issues, they obviously favor freer markets which is on the right economically.

So while I don't think they fit on a left/right spectrum so much, I would absolutely agree that most "classical liberals" in the U.S. come to that position from a right-wing starting point, therefore it ends up as more right-wing position. Additionally, the ardent anti-collectivist nature emphasizes the economic axis more than the social one, further reinforcing the right-wing nature.

And there are a lot of the fake classical liberals as Chud mentioned that voted for Trump/Republicans, again reinforcing the right-wing position.

But if you examine the ideology itself, I think a left/right distinction is mostly meaningless in this case.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:They are all shitheads who deserve to be exterminated, so what’s the difference

This is a position that can only lead to a reasonable exchange of ideas.

LOL

cutuphalfdead wrote: I've just noticed, mostly through working on conservative AM radio, that people who are clearly alt right in their views paint themselves in terminology that makes you think they're more classical liberal or traditional center right. And I think that leads to people like LV thinking the two are closer in ideology than they really are.

Good lord man, how do you do that? Yeesh.

Okay now we're on the same page. I agree with you.

4/5 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote: I've just noticed, mostly through working on conservative AM radio, that people who are clearly alt right in their views paint themselves in terminology that makes you think they're more classical liberal or traditional center right. And I think that leads to people like LV thinking the two are closer in ideology than they really are.

Good lord man, how do you do that? Yeesh.

Okay now we're on the same page. I agree with you.

To be fair, most of my work done these days is on the news side of things, not the talk side. We're actually not a traditional conservative am news/talker that has hannity in the afternoon. We do news all day until 8pm and we do a good job keeping ideological slants out of that. But then 8-midnight we have the guy who pretty much got Scott Brown elected in Massachusetts doing his talk show.

4/5 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:They are all shitheads who deserve to be exterminated, so what’s the difference

This is a position that can only lead to a reasonable exchange of ideas.

lol like this is ever possible when it comes to contemporary american politics

What politics does Peterson ever even espouse, other than his common sense clash with compelled speech and SJWs, and how does any of it make him necessarily conservative and why does it matter?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

4/5 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote: I've just noticed, mostly through working on conservative AM radio, that people who are clearly alt right in their views paint themselves in terminology that makes you think they're more classical liberal or traditional center right. And I think that leads to people like LV thinking the two are closer in ideology than they really are.

Good lord man, how do you do that? Yeesh.

Okay now we're on the same page. I agree with you.

To be fair, most of my work done these days is on the news side of things, not the talk side. We're actually not a traditional conservative am news/talker that has hannity in the afternoon. We do news all day until 8pm and we do a good job keeping ideological slants out of that. But then 8-midnight we have the guy who pretty much got Scott Brown elected in Massachusetts doing his talk show.

Gotcha. I knew you were in radio, I don't think I knew it was in that AM conservative talk radio world where rational thought goes to die. I'm glad that it sounds like you're not fully in that world. I can't imagine that'd be very fun.

tree_ wrote:What politics does Peterson ever even espouse, other than his common sense clash with compelled speech and SJWs, and how does any of it make him necessarily conservative and why does it matter?

Do go there with this crew.

Something good Peterson discusses worth noting: He observes personality traits inherent in particular political affiliations, meant to make you aware of your own potential biases, "a source of insight and understanding, which could cause you to step back from your own convictions and be more receptive to arguments on both sides", as Pinker put it. Peterson talks about how liberal and conservative types both need each other, are necessary, and mutually benefit when communicating. Somebody has to maintain systems (conservative) and somebody has to expand them (liberal).

Stole it from Team America

4/5 wrote:

Mickey wrote:I don't think alt-right and classical liberal mean the same thing. But they are both right-wing positions.

I think this is mostly true, although it depends on issues you're discussing. A liberal and classical liberal/libertarian should get along on social issues quite well. In fact, the classical liberal is often more liberal on these issues than the liberal.
On economic issues, they obviously favor freer markets which is on the right economically.

So while I don't think they fit on a left/right spectrum so much, I would absolutely agree that most "classical liberals" in the U.S. come to that position from a right-wing starting point, therefore it ends up as more right-wing position. Additionally, the ardent anti-collectivist nature emphasizes the economic axis more than the social one, further reinforcing the right-wing nature.

And there are a lot of the fake classical liberals as Chud mentioned that voted for Trump/Republicans, again reinforcing the right-wing position.

But if you examine the ideology itself, I think a left/right distinction is mostly meaningless in this case.

I mentioned this already but these days I see the political spectrum as between at least 3 separate polls, not the two we are accustomed to arguing over.

Would people consider the Weinsteins (not the famous, rapey one and his brother) to be conservative? They are basically social democrats.

Classical liberalism is a somewhat broad set of beliefs with proponents across the spectrum, but I don't know how anyone could consider it a strictly right wing position except through ignorance.

It seems that both the modern right and modern left have moved wildly from their positions a decade ago (and away from each other.)

Classical liberalism largely fills in the gap left over, which is probably why both sides hate them and can't see them as anything other than alt-right or cucks. It's all they can see.

BurtReynolds wrote:Would people consider the Weinsteins (not the famous, rapey one and his brother) to be conservative? They are basically social democrats.

Classical liberalism is a somewhat broad set of beliefs with proponents across the spectrum, but I don't know how anyone could consider it a strictly right wing position except through ignorance.

It seems that both the modern right and modern left have moved wildly from their positions a decade ago (and away from each other.)

Classical liberalism largely fills in the gap left over, which is probably why both sides hate them and can't see them as anything other than alt-right or cucks. It's all they can see.

"I'm half and half, half Hobbes, half Rousseau, that's why I'm not an ideologue. Because I don't think that people are good or evil, I think they're both, I don't think that culture is security or tyranny, it's both, and I don't think that nature is benevolence or catastrophe, I think it's both. And that's why I'm not an ideologue."

What ever happened to the silent majority?

I guess they all got smartphones.

I've been watching and listening to JP for some time now. The first time was when he was on the Sam Harris podcast where they argued for 4 hours on what the definition of Truth.

It's been interesting to see his rise and the subsequent backlash to it. The NYT hit piece was embarrassing, as was the Vice interview edit.

JP is not Christ, and he's not the boogeyman. He's a sober, thoughtful, tolerant guy who i don't always agree with, but makes me think. I guess that's dangerous to a certain segment of people.