Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:Liberalism is dead, and the Left has killed it.

No its not.

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Liberalism is dead, and the Left has killed it.

No its not.

Remember a few years ago when they were talking about how the Republican party needed to rebuild and had their huge crisis?

They didnt rebuild. THey dove deeper into their bullshit and came out on top.

God this country sucks

did you just assume my gender, racist?

They came out on top because of gerrymandering and disproportionate electoral power.

cutuphalfdead wrote:They came out on top because of gerrymandering and disproportionate electoral power.

My point still stands

there you guys go mistaking liberalism for the democratic party again.

BurtReynolds wrote:there you guys go mistaking liberalism for the democratic party again.

I think if the Democratic party embraced liberalism - things might be a bit different right now.

So, i think you are mistaken? Democratic party is dead right now but liberalism is alive and well.

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:there you guys go mistaking liberalism for the democratic party again.

I think if the Democratic party embraced liberalism - things might be a bit different right now.

So, i think you are mistaken? Democratic party is dead right now but liberalism is alive and well.

it really isn't though

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:there you guys go mistaking liberalism for the democratic party again.

I think if the Democratic party embraced liberalism - things might be a bit different right now.

So, i think you are mistaken? Democratic party is dead right now but liberalism is alive and well.

it really isn't though

Why?

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:there you guys go mistaking liberalism for the democratic party again.

I think if the Democratic party embraced liberalism - things might be a bit different right now.

So, i think you are mistaken? Democratic party is dead right now but liberalism is alive and well.

it really isn't though

Why?

Who's keeping it alive? Where?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:there you guys go mistaking liberalism for the democratic party again.

I think if the Democratic party embraced liberalism - things might be a bit different right now.

So, i think you are mistaken? Democratic party is dead right now but liberalism is alive and well.

it really isn't though

Why?

Who's keeping it alive? Where?

It is lacking a one powerful unifying voice but i dont agree that it is dead.

I guess we'll see in 2 years.

A victory by a democratic party dominated by people obsessed with illiberal and oppressive identity politics will not be a liberal victory at all.

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:A victory by a democratic party dominated by people obsessed with illiberal and oppressive identity politics will not be a liberal victory at all.

Can you elaborate on "oppressive identity politics"?

This kind of thing?

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31322/

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:A victory by a democratic party dominated by people obsessed with illiberal and oppressive identity politics will not be a liberal victory at all.

Can you elaborate on "oppressive identity politics"?

This kind of thing?

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31322/

I guess that technically, it could be argued as oppressive. But I'd be more comfortable with "annoying" or "obnoxious." As a political mechanism existing within a two-party system, I can see how identity politics are maybe not the smartest approach to passing legislation that support all Americans. But I bristle at the idea that white Americans can be oppressed by the already marginalized. Any oppression of people like me is more likely to come from corporations and their friends in the gov't.

Its about winning and stopping trump. Blame whitey for everything is not how you bring back the Obama coalition.

It's not just about the tactics democrats should use to get back in power. I'm saying that the Left in the western world is increasingly anti-liberal (that is: anti-liberty and anti-equality). Don't take this as an endorsement of the authoritarian right, which is moving completely off the scale (and couldn't care less).

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:A victory by a democratic party dominated by people obsessed with illiberal and oppressive identity politics will not be a liberal victory at all.

Can you elaborate on "oppressive identity politics"?

I could go on and on, but a few general thoughts,

- when we see feminists accusing other prominent feminists of being sexist, and endless "no true scotsman" fallacies being whipped about for even the slightest breach in their byzantine social norms, it's fair to assume that it's gone off the rails. Desire for equality and liberty take a back seat to a perverse etiquette. This is oppressive and not liberal.

- Recently, the modern progressive's relationship with free speech can be described as chilly at best (see the leftist government prosecuting a Koran burner for blasphemy, for example). And I'm talking about free speech as a value here. Many increasingly do not see free speech as important, in any context. You can believe free speech is dangerous and that it should be curbed, but this does not make that belief liberal. It just means you have an illiberal belief.

- Many on the left (social justice warriors for lack of a better name) use statistics based on broad characteristics such as sex or race (and seemingly only those few characteristics) as a convenient justification to discriminate against or judge an individual. This is not liberalism. One can of course look at statistics to make out social inequalities in a system (though it isn't enough to suppose much), but then using that to act in a blatantly racist or sexist way is reprehensible.

- Increasingly, the primary defense against this is to simply declare that only whites can be racist, which is patently absurd. Oddly enough, they fully admit that non-whites can be racially prejudiced assholes, so they apparently don't have a problem with admitting that they are racially prejudiced assholes. But they aren't racist. Of course they're racist, and anti-liberal to boot.

-Instead of fostering a unified society where people see themselves as individuals rather than a part of a particular group, the social justice movement is likely responsible for further dividing people along tribalistic lines. The ever increasing desire to place people into conveniently labelled boxes based on race, sex, etc. and bristling at any mixing between those people (with dreaded cultural appropriation, for example) is anything but liberal. None of this does anything to foster unity or understanding between people. In fact, it drives people apart and stagnates cultural development (to say nothing of the fact that it has greatly weakened the democrats).

- Anyone having their rights infringed is being oppressed. Institutionality has nothing to do with it. Of course a white person can be oppressed by marginalized people, though it's less likely. Any oppression, racism, etc. ---even against white people--- hurts everyone, especially the marginalized. Racist modes of thinking are destructive, not just specific forms of racism. We aren't going to end racism by excusing some forms of it in the interests of fairness.